Meeting of the National Safeguarding Panel, January 2024

The scrutiny topic for this meeting was the implementation of the Responding Well to Survivors policy. The Panel were joined by NST staff, a Diocesan Safeguarding Adviser and a Parish Safeguarding Officer. The policy was published in November 2021 and a national implementation group which included safeguarding staff and survivor members, have supported its implementation.

Survivor engagement

A survey was undertaken in 2022 which highlighted 16 Dioceses did not have a Survivor Strategy and the PCR2 national report highlighted significant deficiencies in approaches to survivors in many dioceses. The Panel asked how this was being addressed and were informed that the policy provided a good base to allow dioceses to scope any additional requirements and develop more local, nuanced approaches. Other options will be considered to support dioceses which do not have a strategy. Examples of good practice were shared which included a dedicated advocate in one diocese who worked directly with survivors.

Healthy cultures

The Panel enquired about the challenges with assessing the safeguarding culture in the church, and how survivors were involved in improving culture. They were informed that work has been undertaken on this through training with a strong focus on Senior Leadership Training. In addition, a symposium was developed last year exclusively with survivors to identify what healthy culture looks like and there were six questions identified that addressed what good looks like. Alongside this there was a suite of videos for structured learning and self-reflection created for dioceses. The aim was to ensure that survivors feel involved, heard and part of the safeguarding within the church and that there was a process of improvement.

Policy implementation - Diocesan/Parish perspectives

The Panel asked how the new diocesan quality assurance framework, safeguarding standards, and the independent audit process were being applied to the Responding Well policy. They were advised that much of this work will sit within the IICSA 1&8 project which is currently being trialled. Three safeguarding leads provide professional supervision and assurance to the dioceses and cathedrals involved and also engage with survivors. This model will be reviewed at the end of March when a decision about national roll out will be considered. The audits conducted by INEQE will provide further evidence in terms of service delivery. NST are also working with DSAPs to achieve greater consistency of practice.

Therapeutic support

In response to an enquiry about how dioceses help survivors to access appropriate therapeutic support, Panel were advised that the guidance provides clarity that therapeutic support should be available to all, and responsive to each individual’s needs. More guidance was produced to mitigate any inequality of access. There is a need for more work to ensure greater consistency on the length of the programme and the closure point. The Panel noted that the interdependencies of the Responding Well Policy, Interim Support Scheme and Redress need to be carefully managed and monitored.

Communication

The Panel asked how the Responding Well guidance has been understood and embedded at a local level and ensuring survivors are aware of the support they are entitled to. As this was the first consideration of the implementation group, they ensured that information was provided through the website, videos, a survivor newsletter, training and an e-manual. There was also training for Support Persons and the policy has been shared at the DS Adviser’s day. A challenge for PSOs was ensuring that the Responding Well policy also met the unforeseen needs of those not necessarily considered in the policy development to date.

Apology

The Panel noted the policy gave clear guidance about what constituted an effective apology, and asked how its implementation was being evaluated. As no evaluation has been undertaken on apologies so far, the Panel suggested that apologies were significant in terms of offering potential closure for survivors and also potentially contributing to the avoidance of litigation, and questioned if not evaluating the process was appropriate. It was noted that the standards are being audited and that information on apologies will be collated from the audit process, and apologies feature in training case studies, and will be part of the Redress Scheme.

Policy development

There will be a further revision of the policy and it will carry a duty of compliance. Panel was advised that compliance will be monitored via the Quality Assurance framework and audits which will provide regular performance measurements and insights.

Learning and development

The Panel asked about the slow take up of the Support Person training and were advised that there were a number of reasons for this namely, dioceses still working out how they want to approach this, the location of Support Persons to access national training, the retention of Support Persons and sustainability. The regional model may offer opportunities to better manage the issue. The commitment is currently to deliver training nationally to ensure consistency and include survivor involvement.

Panel recommendations

The Panel made 12 recommendations which covered areas such as sharing future developments and good practice in this area with the Panel and others, using quantitative data and qualitative impact and outcomes to support roll out of guidance, information on how the DSAP quality assurance and safeguarding standards tools are being used to support greater consistency in the application of safeguarding policies and practice in parishes, how NST will manage the interface between the different schemes, evaluating the implementation of apologies, and how the role of the Support Person will be supported to meet a wider need.

***

See the 2023 annual report of the National Safeguarding Panel.