Section 4.2 Setting the Terms of Reference (ToR) for the Safeguarding Practice Review

6 minutes read
Last updated: 20 October 2025
Requirements

4.2.1 The Review Group is responsible for setting the ToR for the SPR, which must be completed before the Reviewer is appointed. Once finalised, the ToR should be published, appropriately anonymised, unless there is compelling reason not to.

4.2.2 The ToR must include:

  • Key Lines of Enquiry (KLOE).
  • Timescales for the SPR.
  • Governance arrangements for the SPR.
  • The specific tasks that the Reviewer must undertake as part of the SPR.
  • The Reviewer’s responsibility for ensuring anonymity and preventing jigsaw identification of all victims and survivors and overseeing the representation process.
  • The necessity for outcome-based recommendations.
  • The proposed methodology for conducting the SPR.
  • Who will be responsible for providing pastoral support to all those involved who may request it.
  • Who will carry out any necessary representation process.
  • The appropriate Information Sharing Agreements and Privacy Notices. This applies to all personal data used during the course of the Review. All interviews and evidence-gathering sessions must be carried out within the terms of this Privacy Notice.

4.2.3 Victims and survivors must be given the opportunity to suggest questions and areas of concentration that are personally important to them, the answers to which may contribute to their recovery. If these suggestions are not accepted, the reason must be given.

4.2.4 Respondents must be given the opportunity to suggest specific questions and areas of concentration that are personally important to them. If their suggestions are not accepted, the reason must be given.

4.2.5 The views of statutory partners on the ToR must also be sought if the Review Group believes this will assist the SPR.

Good Practice Advice

A template checklist for producing the Terms of Reference is available at Appendix B.

The ToR set out how the Review will be conducted and will start with the Key Lines of Enquiry (KLOE).  Defining the KLOE helps to ensure that the Review is focussed. Exactly what the KLOE will be will vary from case to case and will be based on the initial areas of concern that have been identified by the core group. For example, the quality of relationships between people, organisational culture, adequacy of resources, arrangements for oversight of safeguarding activity. One important KLOE, although not applicable in all cases, will be the extent to which learning from previous Lessons Learnt Case Reviews, including Past Case Reviews (PCR and PCR2), has been implemented or not, as the case maybe. Where these exist, the Reviewer must be given access to them.  Additional KLOE might emerge in the course of the Review process.

The Review Group will set specific and clear timescales by which the Church Body must provide the relevant documentation which is required for the Review.

There will be specific tasks which the Review Group requires the Reviewer to undertake.  For example, a review of recent research relevant to the case in question, reference to any further documents, whether the Reviewer will be required to periodically meet the Review Group and/or any other performance indicators, and whether the Reviewer is responsible for contacting victims and survivors, respondents, other Church officers or the police and other statutory partners as part of the SPR.

The ToR will also inform the Data Processing Agreement (DPA)  which is the instruction to the Reviewer about what processing activities they must undertake, if the Reviewer is a data processor.  If the Reviewer is a data controller in their own right, then a joint data controller agreement should be put in place with the Review Group, and the responsible church body. There will be a number of different actions/responsibilities for the reviewer, therefore it needs to be made clear this may not be simply a data processing agreement.

The views of victims and survivors on the ToR

Listening to the perspectives and experiences of victims and survivors and in some cases their families is essential to maximising the organisational learning from an SPR. It is the foundation of all safeguarding work in the Church of England that survivors of abuse have a vital and unique perspective. They are the only ones who can see the situation in which they were abused from their viewpoint.

Determining how victim/survivor-centred the response of the Church body and Church Officers was might involve including:

  • Was the disclosure treated seriously?
  • Was the disclosure treated with empathy and compassion?
  • What attempts were made to establish the validity of the disclosure?
  • What support was provided to victims and survivors and how effective was it?
  • How involved were victims and survivors in the management of the case and how could this have been enhanced?
  • What options for reconciliation, restoration and restitution were explored with the victims/survivors and how effective were they?

The consultation with victims and survivors about the ToR and any follow up communication and explanation relating to the final version of the ToR can be done by a member of the Review Group, providing the required information sharing agreements are in place.

Structure of the report

Whilst every Review will be unique, and the report is not the main product of the process, nonetheless, there are some key themes which should be addressed. These include:

  • A section outlining the independence and qualification of the Reviewer
  • A chronology of the case
  • Consideration of previous reviews/repeat learning and current research
  • Reporting on the KLOE will form the central body of the report. This needs to be not just a description but an analysis of what happened in respect of each KLOE – providing the “why” answer in respect of the “what” description. For example, what descriptions might include:
  1. How victim/survivor-centred the responses of the Church and Church Officers were from disclosure onwards;
  2. Whether Church safeguarding guidance at the time of the events in question was followed;
  3. The quality of safeguarding arrangements and practice – both strengths and deficits.

Why answers might include:

  • Whether any ‘contextual factors’ impacted on the case and in what way, for example:
  1. Availability of adequate guidance.
  2. Resourcing of safeguarding/workloads/staffing levels.
  3. Training/supervision/support for relevant Church Officers.
  4. Organisational culture and relationships.
  5. Personal constraints (e.g. excessive or onerous responsibilities).
  • The Reviewer’s conclusions: what are the key lessons and changes required of specific Church Bodies and/or the whole Church system?

The Reviewer’s recommendations:

  • These should be focussed on a small number of high priority, outcome focussed, SMART recommendations, normally between six and ten in number. The aim is to have a smaller number of achievable, impactive recommendations, rather than a large number of recommendations which are not impactive.
  • Recommendations need to be aligned to the National Safeguarding Standards:
  1. Prevention
  2. Culture, Leadership and Capacity
  3. Recognising, Assessing and Managing Risk
  4. Victims and Survivors

  5. Learning, Supervision and Support

     

  • Within this, recommendations should be grouped under the following headings:
  1. Strategic: Recommendations relevant to the whole Church system.

  2. Local/operational: Recommendations relevant to the specific Church Bodies involved in the case. This must include whether further action is needed to manage on-going risk, and whether consideration of further investigatory action should be undertaken by Church Bodies within their capability and disciplinary frameworks (These latter would not be published.)

     

  • In making recommendations, Reviews must:
  1. focus on the most pressing and priority issues, rather than presenting a high number of minor points.
  2. state the outcome each recommendation is intended to achieve.
  3. provide an evidence base for why and how the recommendation will achieve the outcome required.
  4. address issues of organisational culture and relationships as well as process.