MOST bishops and safeguarding professionals within the C of E oppose the outsourcing of church safeguarding work to an independent body, in accordance with the outcomes of a survey commissioned this spring.
The Church Times has obtained the unpublished results of a survey on the longer term of church safeguarding, which was commissioned in March (News, 25 March).
The 2003 responses show that — while there is powerful support for the creation of a body that might provide independent scrutiny of safeguarding — Professor Alexis Jay’s chief suggestion, outlined in her report (News, 21 February), that day-to-day safeguarding work ought to be completely handed over to a different independent body, has not found widespread support.
The survey, organised by the Response Group which was created after the February meeting of the General Synod (News, 15 March), separates out different categories of respondents: survivors and survivor advocates; safeguarding professionals (each inside and outdoors of the C of E); people involved in governance; “senior clergy”, including bishops (25 of whom responded), deans, and archdeacons; and “local church”, including parish clergy, parish safeguarding officers, and churchwardens.
Only three bishops who responded said that they backed a latest, independent organisation to tackle the Church’s safeguarding temporary; two-thirds said that they disagreed; and the remaining reported that they were unsure.
There was the same lack of support from safeguarding professionals, of whom only 21 per cent were in favour; and from the “Church Governance and Operations” group, 24 per cent.
Support was stronger among the many survivor and the “local church” groups, but was still removed from universal, at 60 per cent and 65 per cent respectively.
Within the survivor and survivor-advocate group, advocates seemed less enthusiastic than those for whom they advocate: 48 per cent of the advocates supported the move to independent management (32 per cent said that they weren’t sure); amongst survivors themselves, 71 per cent favoured a move to operationally independent safeguarding.
In contrast to those figures, the proposal that “oversight and scrutiny” be transferred to an independent body was supported by 79 per cent of respondents overall, including 80 per cent of each senior clergy and survivors, and greater than 70 per cent of safeguarding professionals.
THE immediate response to Professor Jay’s report was mixed. Although some urged the C of E to adopt all of its recommendations (News, 23 February), immediately, diocesan safeguarding staff expressed concern in regards to the suggestion to contract out operationally safeguarding to an independent organisation.
The General Synod met just three days after the report was published in February, and members opted for a consultation period somewhat than immediate implementation (News, 24 February).
In the Synod debate, objections to the suggestion for outsourcing safeguarding work were heard from several bishops, including the Bishop of Bath & Wells, Dr Michael Beasley, who cited the objections from diocesan safeguarding staff.
The Bishop of Newcastle, Dr Helen-Ann Hartley, took a distinct view, telling the Church Times that she thought it was “disgraceful” that the Church was not immediately moving to implement the proposals, describing the chosen approach as “delay and obfuscation” (News, 26 February).
In the talk, the Bishop of Blackburn, the Rt Revd Philip North, said that he was concerned that adopting a statutory definition of safeguarding, as Professor Jay beneficial, might hamper the Church’s safeguarding work, as it might not have the ability to research cases of abuse which may fall out of the scope of the definition.
For the identical reason, he also urged caution in accepting Professor Jay’s suggestion to remove “spiritual abuse” as a term utilized in safeguarding guidance and training.
On each questions, respondents to the Response Group’s survey were split.
Overall, 53 per cent welcomed the suggestion to adopt a statutory definition based on acts of Parliament; 24 per cent were against, and 24 per cent were undecided.
The proposal to stop using the term “spiritual abuse” attracted support in just one third even in probably the most supportive group, the local church. Within that group, the move was welcomed by 38 per cent of parish safeguarding officers or PCC members, but was opposed by the identical percentage.
There was seemingly little appetite for the term’s removal amongst survivors and their advocates: only one quarter said that they were in favour. Among church officers, only 14 per cent supported the proposed change.
Reasons cited within the responses for keeping the term are that it captures a particular type of abuse which will not be covered by terms akin to “psychological” or “emotional” abuse, and that to discount it might be to undermine those that discover themselves of victims of spiritual abuse.
The final suggestion considered within the survey related to the introduction of mandatory reporting for abuse, imposing a legal duty to report disclosures.
Overall, 72 per cent of respondents agreed with the suggestion, and only ten per cent disagreed. Among reasons given for backing the move were that it might bring greater clarity and accountability to safeguarding processes.
However, “significant concerns” were noted about how mandatory reporting might intersect with duties of confidentiality, specifically the seal of the confession. Catholic groups have argued that confession ought to be exempt from any mandatory reporting, (News, 16 August 2023).
Mandatory reporting was certainly one of the important thing recommendations in the ultimate report of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse last 12 months, which Professor Jay also chaired (News, 21 October 2022).
