This pathway only applies to “relevant persons (including clergy)” as defined in section 5A of the Safeguarding Clergy and Discipline Measure 2016.
- Section 1: Triage and Referrals
- Section 2: Initial Contact
- Section 3: Safeguarding Case Management Group
- Section 4F: Failure to Follow Safeguarding Requirements
- 4F.1-4F.4 Initial Enquiries
- 4F.5-4F.10 The Initial Safeguarding Code of Practice Meeting
- 4F.11-4F.15 Further Code of Practice Meeting
- 4F.16-4F.19 Safeguarding Development Plan
- 4F.20 Closure
- 4F.21 Record-keeping
- Section 5: Risk Assessment
- Section 6: Outcomes, Closure and Long-term risk management
Introduction
This pathway only applies to “relevant persons” as defined in section 5A of the Safeguarding Clergy and Discipline Measure 2016. Any reference to “safeguarding requirements” in this Code means the requirements (those in the blue boxes) included in the Safeguarding Codes of Practice.
Getting safeguarding right is part of a developmental journey and, despite the best intentions, individuals will make mistakes. This is why the initial approach to allegations regarding a failure to meet safeguarding requirements should be focused on competence and capability, rather than punishment. This pathway also offers a proportionate response where there is no actual complainant.
Everyone must be able to recognise when they make mistakes and be ready to learn from, and where possible, remedy them. Positive engagement with the process and signs of self-reflexivity are usually indications of a lower degree of risk and merit a proportionate approach. However, if a respondent does not positively engage with the process or if the result of a failure to meet safeguarding requirements is such that the impact on someone’s life is significant, then a competence or capability process is unlikely to be appropriate and the relevant Pathway under this Code must be followed. This is a decision for the Safeguarding Officer and others involved in overseeing the development of a respondent.
This section introduces a new pathway which can more appropriately deal with a “failure to follow a safeguarding requirement”, as long as this has not resulted in any direct harm. For example, this may be when someone has not carried out all the Safer Recruitment checks on a new appointment, or has not appropriately convened a SCMG.
This pathway applies to anyone who is a relevant person and who demonstrates a genuine desire to learn from any mistakes made and avoid them in the future. Escalation routes for more serious “failure to follow” cases which have resulted in direct harm, and in cases in which a respondent is not engaging with the process or continues to fail to meet requirements, are included.