INDEPENDENT audits of church safeguarding have repeatedly found that the capability of diocesan safeguarding teams is being stretched unsustainably.
Over the past ten months, the INEQE safeguarding group has published reports based on its audits of nine dioceses. To various extents, each audit has found that the capability of the diocesan safeguarding team (DST) needed addressing to be sure that current levels of safeguarding provision were sustainable, and that capability was in a position to grow as and when the necessity arose.
In a generally positive report on the diocese of Worcester, as an illustration, the auditors say that the DST “work beyond their agreed hours to make sure they’re delivering supportive and timely responses. This is commendable but not sustainable.”
When contacted by the Church Times, a diocesan safeguarding adviser (DSA) from a special diocese said: “I don’t know a DSA who has got a great work-life balance.” She said that she often worked until midnight.
The issue of safeguarding staff working beyond their contracted hours is identified in a document published in 2024 by the National Safeguarding Team (NST), analysing current staffing levels in diocesan and cathedral safeguarding teams.
The paper warns that, provided that “many safeguarding officers reported already working beyond their contracted hours,” any resourcing model must avoid reinforcing reliance on staff working extra time.
The trend is identified within the audit of the diocese of Exeter. On the topic of capability, the report says that, “whatever the team’s undeniable strengths, it doesn’t have the capability to satisfy the ambition of the church to grow, nor within the opinion of the Audit, a capability to administer long-term extraction [staff absences] or diversion of resources.”
DSTs are funded by the diocese reasonably than by the Church Commissioners or from other central funds. As a result, the financial constraints of a diocese will affect what level of investment it puts into its safeguarding team.
The INEQE audit programme, nevertheless, has been paid for by central funds. The most up-to-date report published pertains to the diocese of Chichester, where, again, capability issues were identified. The “current workload isn’t sustainable”, the report says. The DST, which it praises, is “overburdened with a high volume of cases, leaving little bandwidth to administer critical incidents or unexpected extractions” (News, 24 January).
The diocese of Oxford has certainly one of the most important DSTs within the country: ten members of staff are listed on the safeguarding page of the diocese’s website. Despite the resources dedicated to safeguarding, INEQE found that capability issues arose occasionally, particularly when it got here to the delivery of coaching.
Safeguarding training is a big a part of the expectation of diocesan teams, and it could possibly be difficult to be sure that this work is finished inside current staff capability, a DSA had told the Church Times.
He said that the NST could have “unrealistic expectations” that safeguarding teams were unable to fulfil without the chance of compromising casework — something, he said, that no safeguarding skilled could be willing to do. “In any tug of war, casework all the time wins.”
The Bristol audit praises the diocesan safeguarding officer for applying an “artificially low threshold” for the team taking up cases from parishes. This, the audit finds, “increases the work of the DST but minimises the chance that a case will probably be missed. In the context of the present environment, this is nice practice.”
While commending the safeguarding team, the audit finds that “resilience must be considered,” and recommends the employment of a director of safeguarding to “provide the capability to oversee the implementation of national standards, to drive and coordinate improvement and be the conduit by which a transition to any recent system is managed”.
The advice that a recent post of director of safeguarding be created, along with a diocesan safeguarding adviser or diocesan safeguarding officer, has been a feature of each INEQE audit, starting with the primary accomplished report on the diocese of Salisbury.
Several benefits of the brand new post are given: that it might increase capability, especially on the strategic and managerial level, ensuring that these elements were prioritised alongside casework; and that it might put safeguarding at the guts of the diocese’s senior leadership team.
In Salisbury, INEQE’s advice has been met with the creation of a recent position of Head of Safeguarding, and the employment of an additional member of staff focused on casework.
Another diocese that’s scaling up its DST in response to its audit is Newcastle. INEQE reported that Newcastle’s DST “suffers from a critical lack of capability”, and that this had the potential to undermine the “positive trajectory” of the diocese’s safeguarding provision.
The then DSA in Newcastle, Carol Butler, “works exceptionally long hours and is stretched between strategic responsibilities, the supply of coaching, the oversight of operational delivery and case work”, the audit says. the chair of the diocesan safeguarding advisory panel acknowledged that “capability issues within the DST have created some tensions and frustrations.”
The INEQE audit also highlighted the diocese’s use of external consultants to extend the capability of the NST. While this was helpful to satisfy demand, “as a part of a long-term strategy [it] has the potential to affect upon resilience, hinder proper succession planning and as such, undermine the great work that [Ms Butler] has led.”
Shortly after the INEQE audit, Ms Butler left her position. The diocese is currently searching for a full-time “Safeguarding Director & Designated Safeguarding Officer”, and a spokesman for the diocese told the Church Times that the diocese was also recruiting a chosen caseworker, a member of staff to oversee training, and an administrator, which would scale back the necessity for external consultants.
“Swift motion has been taken to reshape our safeguarding infrastructure to further enhance capability and resilience,” the spokesman said. This involved the DST’s being “fully refreshed”.
In an article in The Daily Telegraph in December, the journalist Charles Moore wrote that Ms Butler had left under a non-disclosure agreement. The diocesan spokesman told the Church Times that former employees “are legally sure by the standard confidentiality clauses contained inside any settlement agreement, which is common practice in any organisation”.
The audit of the diocese of Truro, which was published last summer (News, 5 July 2024), says that “capability for safeguarding is a problem and that this will impact on spans of control and the blurring of roles and responsibilities for some.
“Looking ahead, it is usually clear that across society there may be a growing number of individuals in need, demand for safeguarding services and support are more likely to increase, and there may be potential for significant change to the Church’s safeguarding arrangements.”
