Requirements
2.1 A SPR must be undertaken if serious harm has been caused to a child or vulnerable adult and one or more of the following factors are present:
2.1.1 There is evidence of systemic failures and/or vulnerabilities.
2.1.2 There is cause for concern as to the way in which Church Officers and/or different Church bodies, have worked together to safeguard children and/or vulnerable adults or treated victims and survivors.
2.1.3 There are challenging or complex factors present, for example, an indication that organised or multiple abuse may have taken place.
2.1.4 Initial assessment indicates that there is likely to be significant learning from the case, for example, that the case highlights the need for a significant change in diocesan or national safeguarding policy or practice.
2.1.5 The case is (or appears to be) high profile and has the potential to cause widespread loss of confidence in the Church’s safeguarding practice.
Good Practice Advice
Each case is unique and different, but for a case to meet the threshold for an SPR it must meet criteria that can be summarised as relating to harm, complexity, learning and profile. This does not mean that the harm caused is greater than for other cases, but that there is more likelihood for learning to be achieved. Determining what constitutes “serious harm” is always going to be a professional judgement call, and it is accepted that for every victim and survivor, the harm they have suffered is serious and significant. This definition does not seek to minimise their harm, but to ensure that SPRs are reserved for the highest category of harm. A sound starting point might be if the harm would constitute a crime, for example, coercive and controlling behaviour, or physical, emotional or sexual assault.
Even if it does not meet the threshold for a SPR, another form of reflective process should nonetheless be carried out, and victims, survivors, respondents and other Church officers should be asked for their feedback on the management of the case. See Appendix A for further details.
It may be the situation that a non-recent case does meet all the criteria for a SPR. However, it is likely that learning from these cases may be more limited due to the passage of time. It is therefore important to acknowledge this fact and scope the Terms of Reference proportionately.
There is no hard and fast definition of “complex factors” in a church context, but examples of these include:
- Abuse by multiple perpetrators/suggestion of organised abuse.
- Perpetrators who work in various roles across a number of bodies and are therefore subject to different regulations/supervision etc.
- Multiple victims and survivors across multiple Church bodies.
- Continued reluctance from the victims, survivors or respondents to engage with the case.
- The magnitude and type or risk presented and how well or badly this was managed.
- Previous involvement or lack of engagement of statutory services.
In cases which come to light after the respondent has died, there can still be benefit in carrying out an SPR in order to determine if any learning can be elicited. This will, however, depend to a degree on how long ago the incidents took place. The SPR process to be followed needs to be proportionate and needs to account for the fact that the respondent’s perspective, and the organisational and contextual situation which existed at the time, will be harder to capture. The revised Responding to, assessing and managing concerns and allegations against church officers guidance will provide guidance on how cases involving deceased respondents should be handled, including any criminal or HR procedures to be followed.
One final consideration is around thematic SPRs. This may be, for example, where a number of allegations around safer recruitment have come to light, which in and of themselves do not meet the threshold criteria, but due to the volume and emerging pattern, a case can be made that this is an area which requires further examination.