Section 3.1: When should a Safeguarding Case Management Group (SCMG) be established?

Guidance

Safeguarding Case Management Groups (SCMGs) play a key role in the management of safeguarding concerns or allegations1  involving Church Officers. Their main focus is the management of risk, but SCMGs need to not lose sight that at the centre of all their decisions is a complainant who has suffered harm, and therefore there are considerations about support for that individual as well as the safeguarding of others that need to be made.  An SCMG should be convened in all cases involving Church Officers that are not employees. For employees, the relevant HR policies and procedures should be followed. Some HR policies and procedures may stipulate the formation of a panel which is to all intents and purposes an SCMG, and the functions and operation of that panel should be outlined in the HR policy / procedure.  For the avoidance of doubt, where the matter relates to a member of the clergy who is also employed (whether employed by the Church of England or not), please see section 4A. The key in these situations is to ensure that the processes are as streamlined as possible and avoid unnecessary duplication.

With the exception of any external partners, such social services or police, each member of the SCMG will be a relevant person on the basis they will be a person who works in a diocese and whose work to any extent relates to safeguarding children and vulnerable adults (s5A(2)(n) Safeguarding and Clergy Discipline Measure 2016).

Functions of SCMGs and decision-making

The key function of the Safeguarding Case Management Group (SCMG) is to support the Safeguarding Officer in both diocese and cathedrals in the delivery of the following functions:

• to determine if there is sufficient information or evidence of risk to either the complainant or others, namely to children, young people and vulnerable adults, and manage any identified risks within the Church context;
• to consider the impact on the complainant, respondent and their immediate families or dependants, and to enable them to access appropriate support; and
• to consider the impact on the wider Church community and put in place appropriate measures to address any negative impacts and mitigate risks

The SCMG is not responsible for establishing the guilt of the respondent.

Good safeguarding responses build on contextual information, bring together a variety of perspectives, allow for appropriate challenge and ensure coordinated approaches across all the relevant parties, departments and Church Bodies. They are about having the right discussions, with the right people, at the right time.

By bringing together an SCMG to support the Safeguarding Officer in the management of an allegation, Church Bodies ensure that:

• different professionals are able to share their perspectives and bring together different pieces of information, in order to reach comprehensive and nuanced conclusions;
• responses to allegations are coordinated, ensuring that actions sit at the right level and are delivered by the right professionals, rather than being seen as the responsibility of the Safeguarding Officer or the Safeguarding Team alone; and
• a structure for checks-and-balances exists and different proposals for how to respond are effectively challenged, providing an added layer of safeguards against individual biases.

The SCMG has both decision-making and consultative functions, in that some decisions will need to be made by the SCMG, whilst others will sit with the Safeguarding Officer alone or outside of the Group. The latter will require SCMG members to make recommendations to, or engage with, professionals outside of the Group members.

The decisions that will be required from the Safeguarding Officer will be those linked to recommending risk assessments and risk management, which are set out in the Diocesan Safeguarding Officer Regulations 2024 and the Safeguarding (Clergy Risk Assessment) Regulations 2025 including:

• whether and what referrals to statutory services may be needed;
• whether and what short-term mitigations of risk may be put in place following an allegation being raised, for example suspension or interim Church Safety Plan;
• what safeguarding enquiries may need to be undertaken;
• whether those enquiries led to risk being substantiated or unsubstantiated, and whether and what risks were identified as a result;
• whether a risk assessment is required and whether it should be independent;
• whether any relevant disciplinary procedures should be triggered, and at which point;
• how any identified risks should be managed in the long-term.

However, when reaching these decisions, the Safeguarding Officer should utilise the SCMG as a forum for testing the strength of the rationale and underpinning evidence for any decision reached, allowing the members to challenge any aspect of it and taking on board their advice. In practice, although decisions in these areas will most commonly sit with a Safeguarding Officer, the Safeguarding Officer should seek to reach consensus as far as possible, amongst all other SCMG members before proceeding. Any dissenting views or opinions should be recorded in the case notes.

The SCMG as a group will need to make decisions in those areas linked to communications and the support that is put in place for the complainant, the respondent, their immediate families/dependants, and the wider Church community. This will ensure a coordinated Church response to the allegation.

It is also important that it is clear at the start of the SCMG process which decisions require escalation to other boards or professionals. Ensuring that those escalation routes are clear from the start can avoid confusion and delays further along in the process. Similarly, whilst the Safeguarding Officer may reach decisions on whether suspension and/or disciplinary proceedings are needed in certain cases, some of these decisions will need to be raised as recommendations to the relevant person or body.  For example, the Safeguarding Officer would need to make a recommendation to the bishop for a respondent who is a member of clergy to be suspended. Such areas are often role-specific and are mapped in the Section 4 Pathways of this Code.

• 1The requirements and guidance in this Code refer both to safeguarding concerns and to safeguarding allegations. However, for ease of reading, the term allegations is used throughout, and must be taken to include safeguarding concerns.