Improving relationships between survivors and safeguarding staff

An online discussion took place to address the important issues of survivor and professional relationships. The aim was to facilitate  an in depth discussion of the issues that could be presented to a future Panel meeting. This followed an earlier discussion at the National Safeguarding Panel’s meeting on survivor engagement. Details can be found here https://chairnsp.org/2023/05/22/survivor-engagement/

Four questions were used to guide the discussion.

1. Which aspects of the relationship between survivors and safeguarding professionals need improving?
2. What additional skills do safeguarding professionals require to enhance the trust and confidence survivors have in the staff members that provide that service?
3. Using your own experiences or professional insights, what options do the Panel have to address the issues between professionals and survivors?
4. How should the options for mediation be taken forward so that no one is marginalised, and everyone feels valued?

Note: The opinions below are a reflection of the conversation and not the agreed view of the National Safeguarding Panel.

Aspects affecting the relationships

There is a loss of trust between survivors and “the Church” including the Archbishops’ Council, the National Safeguarding Team (NST) and the Independent Safeguarding Board (ISB). Too often relationships become adversarial – like a battle. At times anger (which is understandable and appropriate) can inappropriately be identified as abuse.

Sometimes there is a lack of clarity about roles, this can be confusing for survivors. This is also not helped by a lack of information for survivors – no leaflet explaining what will happen. (It was noted that current work on the “Responding well” policy should address this, a video has been made and a leaflet is being produced.)

One person said that they feel the response of the Church to victims and survivors is not about safeguarding it’s about managing risk and that there is a high threshold for that risk.

Members shared experiences: poor ones where victims and survivors were not met with compassion and humanity and good ones where there has been openness, good listening and engagement. Keeping in touch is seen as important as is full disclosure of information and transparency. This is empowering and enables victims and survivors to decide what action they need to take.

Lack of accountability is a big issue. The Clergy Discipline Measure (CDM) process is not fit for purpose in relation to safeguarding complaints. Although this is being tackled through a new Clergy Conduct Measure, the length of time taking to bring this in, does not help. When there is a lack of action in relation to bishops, justice is not served. It was recognised that there is often a huge gap in the different perceptions of a situation and that addressing the gap and finding a way to share perspectives needs to be found. As the gap is huge, this is not easy.

It was recognised that there are a small number of occasions when those working in safeguarding in the Church are on the receipt of abusive communication which goes beyond legitimate and appropriate anger. This is a challenge but should be addressed. Staff should not be expected to be on the receiving end of such communication.

The impact of structural issues

There was a recognition that the institutional structure and processes can impede good relationships.

There is an issue of the stance of safeguarding staff employed within the Church. Individuals may not be able to change the processes within the Church, nonetheless victims and survivors expect staff to be on their side and not neutral – neutrality can come across as personally defensive and defending the institution.

A specific issue is that the legal advice for safeguarding professionals considering CDM processes comes from within the institution. Some people think that the legal advice should be independent. This would ensure that the advice was not coloured by the interests of the church as an institution and also avoid such a perception. It was also recognised that the governance arrangements of the Church are confusing and difficult to navigate.

Survivors reference group (SRG)

As discussed at the Panel’s meeting earlier in the year, it was noted that there has been an unsatisfactory process in relation to the group. Survivors valued the group as it acted as a collective voice. It has struggled to function without the funded advocacy provided by the Social Care Institute for Excellence (SCIE). Although engagement with survivors by the National Safeguarding Team has improved enormously, there is still a sense that it is fragmented. The empowerment experienced by members of the SRG is not there when individuals are engaged in disparate projects. The imbalance in power needs to be recognised and ways found to address it.

There needs to be a resolution soon to this issue as it is impacting on a wider group of survivors and their views of the Church.

Skills

There is a clear need for an appropriate response to victims and survivors coming forward. This needs to include belief, empathy and support and a commitment to continue that support. All staff need to have the appropriate skills including working with people who have experienced trauma. Training should be provided to improve and develop these skills. There needs to be a recognition where anger is a block to progress and skills developed to address it.

There was a discussion about mediation and whether that is the correct term. Mediation implies compromise whereas conflict resolution may be a better approach.

There are already a range of materials to improve the understanding of survivor perspectives. These include videos prepared training events and NSP good practice webinars. These aim to influence the approach of staff.

It was noted that there is also a lack of resource particularly in some dioceses that means staff struggle to provide the level of support and engagement needed.

Conclusions and ways forward

The conversation highlighted a number of different aspects underlying the loss of trust and difficult relationships. This suggests that there needs to a number of different responses from the NSP.

• Structural issues could be addressed through scrutiny processes or online policy discussions. Issues to cover include the Clergy Discipline Measure process and the new Clergy Conduct Measure; independent legal advice, responding well, identification of safeguarding concerns beyond risk management.
• Communication – we identified a need for greater clarity around roles, and the need for accessible information for victims and survivors regarding processes. Some work is in train but the NSP could usefully pull together examples of good practice possibly in a good practice webinar later this year.
• Individual skills – the importance of safeguarding staff having the appropriate skills was identified. The NSP has scrutinised the training programme for clergy and volunteers in the Church but has not previously considered the needs of staff. This could be an issue for a scrutiny session.
• Learning together – we identified the potential benefits of safe and compassionate spaces  for survivors and staff to learn together. There is the possibility of holding an event in the autumn.
• Conflict resolution – we identified that there is a need for assistance in this area both where there are difficulties between case workers and individual survivors but also where a case might be stuck. This is a complex area and it requires further consideration.