The Revd Sharon Grenham-Thompson, Rector of Rattlesden with Thorpe Morieux, Brettenham, and Hitcham, Suffolk
I AM Rector of a benefice comprising 4 rural parishes in mid-Suffolk, with congregational numbers starting from 40 to a median of eight. The demographic is generally aged 65-plus. Each of my parishes is proudly independent, with no real appetite for cross-benefice work, as yet. For a transient blissful moment in 2024, we had 4 parish safeguarding officers (PSOs) in post, but it surely has at all times felt precarious. The volume and complexity of policy and administrative work required of PSOs is daunting, as is the necessity for digital confidence. The safeguarding “dashboard” which monitors our progress as an organisation seems to have levels of requirement added almost weekly, which increases the sense of at all times being on the back foot.
My PSOs care deeply about attempting to make our churches as secure as is humanly possible. As a survivor of (non-church-related) abuse, so do I. We have good relationships with our congregations and in our villages. Safeguarding Sunday was marked in all our churches, and safeguarding is an agenda item at every meeting we hold. We do our level best to comply with all that’s asked of us, and have made referrals where now we have a priority. Yet, it could feel as if we’re expected to supply an expert level of scrutiny and repair at local level that’s beyond the abilities, time, and scope of the great folk who volunteer. It can even feel scary at times — what if we miss something, what if we make a mistake, what if we don’t fill in an internet form, what if a policy just isn’t approved? Now that the highlight is shining even brighter (and I completely understand why) that fear can also be amplified.
Our DSA is responsive and helpful. But, inevitably, the recent revelations of the Makin report, and the criticism it incorporates of “the hierarchy”, has dented the boldness of many within the pews, in addition to my very own PSOs. I even have, unfortunately, received the resignation of one in every of my PSOs previously fortnight, and, although I’m saddened by that, I also understand.
Ordinary church members are offended — offended at abuse visited upon innocent people, needless to say; but in addition offended at what they perceive as hypocrisy. Numerous bewildered parishioners have said to me: “They [church hierarchy] expect a lot of us — training, policies, awareness — and yet have a look at what are they doing. Or relatively, not doing.”
The Revd Jonathan Bish, Priest-in-Charge of Batley, Leeds
JONATHAN BISHThe Revd Jonathan Bish
I WOULD summarise morale locally as “We imagine in doing our duty, but it surely doesn’t stop us occasionally grumbling about it!” We’ve done a good amount of labor around safeguarding on this team. There is a really capable safeguarding officer in one in every of our parishes who’s incredibly committed. She has worked with our two other safeguarding officers to attempt to bring all 4 churches as much as the identical standard when it comes to training, risk assessments, and policies. We have also talked rather a lot about creating the fitting culture across the benefice. This has generally been fairly well-received by our PCCs, but there may be also a sense from some congregation members that safeguarding procedures are an imposition from outside that provides already stretched volunteers more bureaucratic tasks to finish. Many feel that “we’d know to do the fitting thing anyway,” and would report abuse without safeguarding procedures needing to be in place. However, I feel most congregation members also take seriously the undeniable fact that now we have a responsibility to those that have been hurt by the Church previously to do things higher.
My most proactive safeguarding officer says that we still must work on our culture around safeguarding, and she or he’s probably right: I still encounter the attitude that “it could’t occur here,” and that policies don’t make a difference, regardless that there was a serious case of kid abuse carried out by a vicar of a neighbouring parish only a number of years ago. That said, I feel Makin has shifted people’s attitudes. There is more of a sense that we should always speak about these forms of things more, and that past mistakes cannot just be airbrushed away, in addition to perhaps the sense that the local church has to take responsibility for what’s passed to the diocese or other agencies to be certain things occur.
VIRGINIA KNIGHTVirginia Knight
Virginia Knight, safeguarding officer, Christ Church, Bath
I HAVE been safeguarding officer here for nearly 4 years. We typically have about 60 in church on a Sunday morning. I even have been actively advocating for a social event for local safeguarding officers, each to combat the sense of isolation and as an indication of appreciation for what we do, and I’m pleased to say that the diocese of Bath & Wells will probably be holding some receptions for us in 2025.
I even have noticed my workload increasing hugely while I’ve been safeguarding officer — not when it comes to cases requiring attention (though there have been some), but other related duties. For example, DBS checks now must be repeated every three years, not every five. And the requirement for church officers and volunteers to finish safeguarding “pathways”, and for me to document this, has been enforced. I estimate that ours have to finish about 70 pathways between them.
I even have also noticed one other subtle change lately. My predecessor understood the aim of the role to be protecting all who come into our church or who’re ministered to in its name. But it now includes training the congregation to discover individuals who is likely to be being abused elsewhere (resembling victims of recent slavery and domestic abuse). While it is a worthy aim in itself, it adds to my workload, because it increases the variety of pathways that church members are required to do. Perhaps cynically, I even have found myself wondering whether this transformation is an try to distract attention away from the chance that abuse can occur inside the church itself.
I hope that the Makin review might make it easier to recruit more assistance for me with this role. I even have talked to several other local PSOs, and all of us feel overworked, particularly those of us who’re aren’t retired. Perhaps the budget is likely to be found to issue a duplicate of the Parish Safeguarding Handbook (News, 23 March 2018)to each church. I also hope that it would cause a refocusing of safeguarding work on the core requirements: to stop abuse happening, and to take appropriate motion when past abuse is reported to us.
The Revd James Mather, Rector of Downham Market and Stradsett, Norfolk
JAMES MATHERThe Revd James Mather
WE HAVE a each day Mass; so within the week of the Archbishop’s resignation, I used to be capable of conduct straw polls of the faithful; a variety of responses to all of it, none positive. Sympathy for victims, disappointment, resignation, anger on the hierarchy’s lack of responsibility, especially in light of the increasing burden of safeguarding training and administration imposed on the local church.
They also expressed a sympathy for parish clergy, knowing that if it got here out that I had kept quiet about significant safeguarding knowledge, my feet wouldn’t touch the bottom. They wondered why members of the hierarchy needs to be held to a unique standard.
Locally, morale about safeguarding was already pretty low, due to amount of coaching required by anyone doing anything within the name of the Church. Inability to seek out volunteers generally holds us back, but it surely also loads those that care with guilt and the sensation of being failures.
When it involves safeguarding, the ever-increasing volume and intricacy have turn out to be an intolerable burden. At our last PCC meeting, our PSO, and PCC members, despaired at PCCs now being asked to record the number of individuals coming to every session of, say, a church knitting club, ages, gender, what they did, multiplied for each group and subdivision of church life, after which having to enter that as a statistic on a hub.
For six years after PSOs were introduced as mandatory, we needed to roughly stop children’s work, because we couldn’t find anyone to be PSO and supervise and administer our safeguarding and training. Six years of self-conscious badgering by me, and we did eventually find someone, but having lost all, any momentum with children’s work not delivered personally by me.
Increasing administration just isn’t the trail to safeguarding nirvana. I’m reminded of that quotation from Chaucer in regards to the Sergeant of Law, “he semed bisier than he was”. Endless admin occupies much time, but it surely doesn’t necessarily promote the aim on the sharp end. To make safeguarding more workable and achievable, the Church of England must discover a safeguarding golden rule: a memorable and deliverable effective simplification, not ever-increasing circles of complication. Establishing a culture starts at the highest.
Steve Pond, churchwarden and member of the Junior Church team at St Mary the Virgin, East Grinstead, Sussex
STEVE PONDSteve Pond
AT THE local level, as regards our parish, I even have not seen any impact among the many congregation. Among those of us involved with safeguarding, though, there was a good little bit of upset at how we’re being tarnished with the assorted public pronouncements made by bishops regarding the well-founded safeguarding concerns inside the corporate body of the Church. We work hard regards safeguarding, and it feels as if our work is being publicly undermined, as no thought appears to be given to us and all those across the church on the coalface doing their highest close to safeguarding every week of the 12 months.
At parish level, now we have endeavoured over time to create a community of safeguarding with everybody as very best understanding that we’re all accountable for this task. I feel supported by my priest, and I in turn support him, as he and I are of 1 mind regarding safeguarding. We endeavour to be certain this support is felt by the parish safeguarding officer and anybody else involved with safeguarding. The diocese of Chichester has training and knowledge portal, plus personal advice is on the market as required.
I feel deeply sad and offended that those in leadership must have so abdicated their responsibility regarding safeguarding that the matter of independent scrutiny or operational independence — versus regular invited outside audits by skilled bodies — needs to be raised. I’d relatively it wasn’t a thing that needed to occur, but, if it does as a matter of necessity, then it needs to be reviewed often after a set time to see if it remains to be required. It is a really sad indictment of the Church.
A laywoman at a conservative Evangelical church
I HAVE been really impressed with how our clergy have addressed Makin. They’ve each taken the time to rigorously read through the entire report and suggestions. They then sent a letter to the church explaining that the PCC could be discussing these recommendations. Their focus has been: “We can’t be conceited and think this is able to never occur to us. We need to be certain we’re all held to account as leaders.”
We’ve been preaching through 1 Timothy, and, by God’s windfall, we were on 1 Timothy 5.17-25 [“those elders who are sinning you are to reprove before everyone, so that the others may take warning”] on Safeguarding Sunday, right after Makin got here out. Our curate preached a robust sermon on abusive leaders and specifically discussed Makin. Our clergy see that this really must be talked about theologically: what do we expect of power, of leadership? Smyth used Hebrews 12. You must speak about how the Bible has been misused, in response to this.
Our prayers included those for the victims and survivors, and for the Church as an entire. I also know our PCC will probably be discussing the recommendations, and that our church is taking a look at undertaking an independent culture audit. The general feel at our church is an actual desire to be a spot of refuge and safety for victims, survivors, the vulnerable; so there may be a continuing try to arrange safeguarding and the power to lift concerns, nevertheless minor, in as secure and accessible a way as possible.
The Revd Angela Rayner, Vicar of Upper Tooting, south London
ANGELA RAYNERThe Revd Angela Rayner
I EMAILED and wrote to each of my churches in regards to the publication of the Makin review, the damage to victims, and the seriousness of the safeguarding failures, and suggested that congregation members might read the recommendations within the report, although just one person mentioned that they planned to read it intimately.
At one church, we made time each in the course of the notices and at coffee to offer time for the congregation to precise their reactions. At the opposite church, we considered the report under our safeguarding agenda item during a PCC meeting. Church members had very mixed and contrasting views in regards to the resignation of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the intervention of the Bishop of Newcastle, but it surely was clear that individuals were aware of the report, and were offended and upset to listen to of the degree of violence inflicted on others, and particularly that it was exported to Zimbabwe and South Africa. One frustration was that it wasn’t clear what, moreover, at parish level, might find a way to be put in place on account of the Makin report. In the diocese of Southwark, we still await the implementation of the safeguarding dashboard, which can’t be adopted at parish level without diocesan agreement.
The diocese of Southwark told the Church Times that it was in search of assurance around the protection of any personal data but that it hoped that, once this was resolved, it could move to adoption of dashboards in 2025. In the interim, it’s preparing to launch a parish safeguarding audit for January.
Advice from the National Safeguarding Team (NST)
THE post of the parish safeguarding officer in each parish is central to its day-to-day safeguarding work and well-being, day-after-day of the 12 months. These volunteers are the safeguarding backbone of the Church, and so they tirelessly give their time to do that necessary work and make the Church a safer place. We are aware of the increased give attention to safeguarding because the Makin review, and are working closely with our experienced safeguarding colleagues to fulfill the needs of the communities we serve, and we’ll proceed to maintain this under review.
When you’ll be able to’t recruit a PSO
A PSO is recruited to finish safeguarding work on behalf of the PCC; so, within the absence of a PSO, it’s a collective PCC responsibility to be certain that the work is complete. Dioceses will often support parishes with vacant PSO positions to look toward a shared PSO with a neighbouring parish or benefice.
The NST recommends that the PSO needs to be a lay person with good pastoral and organisational skills, and experience of working with children/young people or vulnerable adults, although not at all times currently involved in such work within the parish. It just isn’t good practice for the incumbent or their partner to be the PSO, however the NST understands that, given recruitment and retention challenges, there are occasions when there isn’t any other option. In these cases, the PCC should be informed of the explanation why a member of the clergy holds this post, and what plans are in place to recruit to the PSO position. It needs to be made very clear how people can contact the diocesan safeguarding adviser directly, in the event that they don’t feel comfortable taking a safeguarding concern to the clergy member.
The NST has been leading a PSO working group over the past 12 months to develop resources including a recent job description, induction programme, and videos. It has also ensured that the parish safeguarding dashboard includes information in regards to the National Safeguarding Standards.
