SURVIVORS of church-based abuse who were awaiting reviews by the Independent Safeguarding Board (ISB) have said that little progress has been made because it was suddenly disbanded a yr ago.
The group, referred to as the “ISB 11”, have remained involved with each other. At a recent meeting, one member said that waiting for motion to be taken in his case was like “banging my head against the wall, and it fucking hurts”.
Last September, Kevin Crompton was appointed “interim commissioner of independent reviews”, charged with taking forward reviews of those that were already within the system (News, 22 September 2023).
Nine months on, substantial steps towards a review have been taken within the case of only one among the survivors who was within the ISB’s system — and she or he stays further back in the method than she was at the purpose when the ISB members Steve Reeves and Dame Jasvinder Sanghera were sacked (News, 23 June 2023). The latter was appointed a Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire within the King’s Birthday Honours list last Friday.
The survivor in query, Jane Chevous, said last week that there have been issues in agreeing an independent reviewer, and in putting data-sharing agreements in place. At the time of going to press, it remained unclear whether her review can be going ahead.
An announcement from Mr Crompton’s office last week said that he had “been in conversation with quite a few survivors regarding a case review. Issues of knowledge protection arose from those conversations, which needed to be resolved before survivors would consider their case review going forward.”
Mr Crompton also acknowledged that there have been concerns about how independently he was capable of operate. “The initial arrangements that were put in place needed to be strengthened,” the statement said. “This required the drafting of an amendment to the contractual arrangements giving the Commissioner the fitting to independently commission reviews whilst using Archbishops’ Council monies.”
Some of the members of the ISB 11 have chosen not to interact with Mr Crompton, because they’ve concerns about his independence. They say that they’ve been told that there aren’t any alternatives: if their review is to be progressed, it needs to be through him.
Others have engaged, but have been unhappy with the range of reviewers on offer. They were originally limited to diocesan safeguarding-panel chairs (who’re independent contractors), or, if the abuse occurred during childhood, people from the NSPCC as potential reviewers. After pressure from survivors and their advocates, this has been broadened to incorporate the safeguarding charity Thirtyone:eight.
Ms Chevous emphasised that the review being planned was not of the abuse itself, but of the best way that it was handled by the Church. “The way that we’ve been re-abused by the Church in the best way they’ve handled, or not handled, our abuse, is the problem,” she said.
Before it was disbanded, the ISB oversaw a case-review for a survivor referred to as Mr X. He said on the meeting that having his review finished was a “moment of hope after such a protracted time”. This has been undermined, though, by inaction on the recommendations included in his review, he said.
His review, which was prepared by Mr Reeves, makes quite a few recommendations, including changes to be made to case-management practices, and to the C of E’s Interim Support Scheme.
The scheme, Mr Reeves wrote, was “not fit for purpose”, and members of the ISB 11 said last week that the assistance they were being offered was inadequate. One said that each one he had received recently was a £20 token in order that he could purchase a self-help book.
The Church’s response to Mr X’s review was criticised in Dr Sarah Wilkinson’s report on the demise of the ISB (News, 15 December 2023). She wrote: “The absence of any mechanism or agreed process for ISB case-review recommendations to be implemented has caused significant distress to Mr X, and has impeded agreement over the successor case-review procedures, because there was no ISB policy stating what complainants could expect by means of outcomes from their reviews.”
The lack of certainty about whether recommendations can be acted upon undermined the sense of closure that they hoped to attain in having their cases reviewed, the survivors suggested on the meeting.
Some within the group were offended at the best way that they felt they’d been treated. One described the treatment of survivors as “perverted, godless, and evil”. Another complained that communications from the National Safeguarding Team were sometimes “cursory and callous”.
A 3rd said: “The Church desires to punish individuals who raise any concerns. They don’t want people to be safeguarded. They don’t like anyone who speaks out. They persecute.”
A report by the clinical psychologist David Glasgow, published in January, said that the disbanding of the ISB had “serious and hostile consequences” for the survivors who had been interacting with the board (News, 19 January 2024).
“In most cases the impact reached a threshold of great harm,” he wrote, and noted that the trust built up by Mr Reeves and Dame Jasvinder had “once more been replaced by disappointment, distress, doubt, and mistrust” of church safeguarding.
A standard criticism among the many ISB 11 was that they weren’t being heard, and suffered from a “power imbalance” with the Church’s safeguarding staff.
One, whose grievance pertains to a safeguarding case which he describes as being “weaponised” against him, said that the system left him with “no technique to break through the barrier and put facts on the table”.
