Section 1: Overview | The Church of England

1.1 The reflective organisation

Human organisations are complex systems working to achieve certain goals. Because they are complex, comprising a range of knowns and unknowns, predictable and unpredictable moving parts, things will inevitably go wrong at times or not achieve the desired goals and standards.

A healthy and effective organisation will be aware of this, and will know that it needs to be constantly reflecting on, and challenging, what it does and how it does it. This is how the organisation learns, both at an individual level and whole-organisation level. It is not just about learning from what goes wrong; a reflective organisation will be able to identify what is working well and build on that.

This “business as usual” approach to reflective learning by Church bodies in respect of safeguarding can take different forms. For example, in one-to-one reflective supervision sessions for safeguarding professionals such as Diocesan Safeguarding Advisors (DSAs)1 and Cathedral Safeguarding Advisors (CSAs), or group reflection by the core group2 during and at the end of work together on a case. Appendix A contains examples of other forms of reflective exercise.

When a situation demands a more formal approach with an independent dimension, a SPR will be commissioned. It is expected these cases will be in the minority.

1.2 What a Safeguarding Practice Review is and what it is not

The main features of an SPR are that:

It is a planned process of reflective learning by a Church body designed to improve the quality and impact of that Church’s body’s safeguarding activity.
The aim is to identify a limited number of key themes which, if implemented, will result in improved outcomes for victim(s)/survivor(s) and respondent(s).
The Reviewer is a safeguarding expert who is independent of the case/situation in question and not directly employed by the Church body – this is explained further in Section 4.
The SPR is governed by Terms of Reference – this is explained in Section 4.2.

It therefore follows that an SPR is not:

An ‘investigation’ or ‘inquiry’ into an individual, the Church body or the NST, or focussed on the practice of any one individual
A legal or disciplinary process in relation to personal and professional conduct that seeks to establish blame or guilt and/or recommend sanctions – this is further explained in Section 1.6
A redress process that seeks to recommend restorative actions that should be taken in respect of specific individuals.

It is important to distinguish the purposes of the different processes that exist in respect of safeguarding in the Church context, so that people are clear what to expect from each.

First, there is the process for responding to, assessing and managing safeguarding concerns about Church officers. This process is about the identification and management of risk through the core group process.
Secondly, there are the processes which focus on responsibility and accountability for actions, including the establishment of guilt. These processes include criminal investigation and prosecution, disciplinary processes for those with contracts of employment, and complaints under the Clergy Discipline Measure (CDM) for those who are ordained.
The third process, “learning lessons”, is about taking a step back to try to understand why the events happened in the way they did, and what were any underlying organisational and contextual issues which contributed to them. Answering the “why” question enables an organisation to learn and make improvements that will keep people safe in the future. Without these underlying issues being identified and addressed, there remains a risk that unsafe practice and organisational factors continue.

These distinctions are crucial. Safeguarding Practice Reviews are not judicial processes designed to establish guilt. If people think they are, they will inevitably be disappointed and frustrated, therefore it is important to prevent that by providing absolute clarity about their purpose.

The approach taken in this Code reflects good practice in the statutory sector, in particular, Child Safeguarding Practice Reviews commissioned by Local Safeguarding Children Partnerships as set out in the government guidance, Working Together to Safeguard Children, and Safeguarding Adults Reviews commissioned by Safeguarding Adults Boards, as set out in the Care Act 2014. It is important for the Church to mirror what is recognised as good practice standards for prevention and practice improvement in the wider safeguarding sector.

For victims and survivors of abuse, because the SPR’s focus is on learning and improvement and not the establishment of guilt, the SPR might not deliver some of the answers and outcomes they are looking for in response to the abuse experienced. This is why it is important to be clear about the parameters of a SPR. Most of the answers and outcomes victims and survivors are looking will need to come from the two other safeguarding processes described above. In addition, victims and survivors must receive the support they need and are entitled to, which is set out in Responding Well to Victims and Survivors of Abuse. This includes the option to apply to the Interim Support Scheme and, in time, the Redress Scheme.

This is especially pertinent when the case involves abuse which happened some time ago. Policies, processes and personnel will have changed in the intervening time, and whilst the allegation must still be responded to as if it were current3 , i.e., the victim(s)/survivors(s) must be responded to and supported appropriately, the remaining risk assessed through the managing allegations process and any criminal investigations initiated, the learning outcomes of a SPR may be more limited. They are, however, none the less valid.

1.3 The outcomes of SPRs

SPRs should seek to achieve the following outcomes:

The identification of systemic and organisational factors or failings which impacted on what happened. This should include any issues of organisational culture, the nature and quality of human relationships, resourcing and governance, and any inappropriate use of power within the Church body.
An evaluation of the quality of decision-making and actions by Church Officers and their impact, highlighting both poor and positive practice.
The identification of any strengths, good practice and what has worked well.
An evaluation of how well victims and survivors were heard with their concerns taken seriously, responded to, and supported throughout the process from the point of initial disclosure, including the impact of that response and support on victims and survivors.
An evaluation of how well respondents were treated throughout the process of the case, including the provision of pastoral support, and how well risk was managed.
An evaluation of interagency working with statutory services (where necessary).
A set of priority, Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, Time-bound (SMART), evidence-based recommendations designed to improve safeguarding arrangements, practice and outcomes in respect of the Church body concerned and at whole Church level, specifically focussing on what these recommendations will achieve.

1.4 Timing and timescales for a SPR

The central objective of a SPR is the identification of learning to improve safeguarding practice and this should inform the timing of when Church bodies or the National Safeguarding Team (NST) commission them. The Church of England is committed to learning and improving practice. This means that the decision to hold a SPR should be made as soon as is practicable so that Church bodies can ensure that learning is current and can be quickly adopted in practice.

The general expectation is that in the majority of cases, the SPR process should aim to be completed in six months. This commences once the planning and data protection considerations have been completed and ends at the point at which the report is signed off (rather than published). It is appreciated that the representation and publication processes may take some time; however, the learning will be available once the report is complete. There may be exceptional circumstances where the timescale needs to be longer. However, this needs to be balanced against the risk that extending the timescale for a longer period increases the chance that the Church body loses focus on the issues and the impetus for change is reduced as the organisation reverts to its previous ways of working. In addition, review processes can be stressful for all concerned and shorter timescales will serve to reduce peoples’ stress. Where delays or extensions occur, this must be communicated to the victim, survivor and respondent in good time along with a reason and the expected revised timescale.

1.5 Victims’, survivors’ and respondents’ engagement

SPRs occur against the background of many inquiry findings about denial and cover up of abuse by clergy and others in Church-related roles. While the Church has expressed a desire to change, victims and survivors have experienced failings in the Church’s responses when clergy abuse is disclosed. This has created mistrust about Church safeguarding processes and the commitment to safe practice. Furthermore, the subjects of SPRs will usually be alive and the re-opening of the circumstances of their abuse can re-traumatise and re-abuse them. The Review process should seek to minimise these harms through a trauma-informed approach. This means placing victim and survivors’ needs at the centre of the process, ensuring that they are fully supported, and involved at key SPR decision-points.

To this end, there is no separate “Victim/Survivor Engagement” section in this Code. Rather this is the “Golden Thread” that runs throughout the process, and sections contain a separate grey box outlining the key considerations and means by which victims and survivors should be involved in each part of the process, where this is in addition to the blue box Requirements both in this Code and the Responding Well to Victims and Survivors of Abuse Guidance.

It is also important that respondents are able to engage fully in the process and given the necessary support to be able to do so. This includes ensuring they are treated with the same dignity and respect throughout the Review and that their personal data is subject to the same legal protections as others.

1.6 Relationship to other processes

The Review is not a disciplinary investigation and cannot recommend sanctions in respect of individuals. The Review should, however, identify where there are concerns about the safeguarding practice or behaviour of individuals, including their responses to victims or survivors. The Terms of Reference should clarify how, to whom, and when the Reviewer should report their concerns about individuals to the Review Group. The Chair of the Review Group should refer these concerns onto the person who is best placed to assess them for potential further action. This could be the line manager in respect of employees or the archdeacon for clergy. How this will happen needs to be included as part of the Information Sharing Agreement (ISA) for the review.

It may be that a SPR identifies elements of an individual Church Officer’s practice which, whilst not at the level of serious misconduct, nevertheless fall short of a reasonable standard of practice or behaviour. In ideal circumstances, these elements will have been identified by the Church Officer themselves through an iterative process of reflection and discussion. However, it is part of the Reviewer’s role to help bring those individuals to this place during the process, it should not need to wait until the report is published. Where the Reviewer identifies evidence of poor practice, behaviour, and especially of any misconduct or any breach of House of Bishops’ safeguarding guidance or Safeguarding Code, they must notify the Review Group at the earliest opportunity. This should not wait until the Review is published. The decision regarding further investigation of professional capability or disciplinary issues rests with the appropriate senior officer in the Church body involved.

In some instances, a safeguarding incident may lead to criminal investigations, legal proceedings or it may trigger a review by statutory agencies. In these situations, the Church body should discuss with statutory partners its intention to conduct a SPR and document their advice. If it is advised by statutory services that the SPR should wait until the completion of these parallel process, then the Church body should consider this. However, the Church body can also decide that there are ways to conduct the SPR which will not adversely impact on these processes, and that the benefits of a speedy SPR outweigh the disadvantages of waiting. In addition, as outlined in Appendix A, there are other mechanisms which can be used in quick time to ensure that the opportunity to learn and to develop is not lost. The planning stage of the process needs to evaluate the capacity for the victims and survivors and respondents to participate in the Review within the suggested timescale, especially if statutory processes will run alongside.