On Wednesday 21st February Professor Alexis Jay CBE published her report on the Future of Church Safeguarding in the Church of England.
The report follows the conclusion of the Future of Church Safeguarding Programme which was set up to help Professor Alexis Jay CBE recommend how to ensure that there is fully independent safeguarding within the Church of England.
Professor Jay has concluded that safeguarding in the Church falls below the standards expected and set in secular organisations, with weaknesses including an inconsistent approach to guidance and supervision, poor data collection, inequity in funding and lack of a uniform complaints system.
Report Recommendations
The report contains 13 recommendations which include the establishment of two separate bodies independent of the Church:
- Organisation A - Responsible for delivering all Church safeguarding activities.
- Organisation B - Responsible for providing scrutiny and oversight of safeguarding.
Both bodies would be registered charities to receive charitable funding from the Church for their activities. Both bodies would be separate from the Church with their relationship underpinned by legally binding collaboration agreements.
Thirtyone:eight Response
As the UK’s leading independent Christian safeguarding charity, we are pleased that this work has been undertaken. The report has highlighted again how the Church of England has fallen short in its safeguarding responsibilities and has failed victims and survivors of abuse on too many occasions.
We would urge the Church of England to consider the report thoroughly ensuring victims' involvement in implementing recommendations and seeking external expertise.
On creating external oversight and scrutiny:
We wholeheartedly support the recommendation of an external, independent body to scrutinise safeguarding in the Church of England, ensuring accountability for any failings. This recommendation has been advocated by us and others before, including in our evidence to the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse.
Support
While identifying shortcomings and ensuring accountability is essential, it is also important to embed a process of support to address inadequacies and ensure safety. While this aspect seems overlooked in the report, we're hopeful it will be addressed within Organisation B's mandate. Mention of models like OFSTED is made but viewing it solely as an inspectorate risk limited engagement and impact. Support for change is essential.
Thirtyone:eight’s Joint-CEO, Justin Humphreys says,
“We believe that scrutiny and accountability work best where there is also support. It is not adequate to only identify what is not working, there also needs to be wisdom and support in rectifying any areas that are inadequate or unsafe.”
On removing operational safeguarding from the Church of England:
Safeguarding is everyone’s responsibility
At Thirtyone:eight we believe that safeguarding is everyone’s responsibility, not just the responsibility of those appointed into safeguarding roles. Therefore, we are concerned to read the recommendation that operational responsibility for safeguarding should be removed from the Church.
Justin continues,
“We believe that removing operational safeguarding from the Church risks a belief that safeguarding is no longer their responsibility. This may lead to unintended consequences due to gaps in ownership, understanding, and practice. If responsibility for safeguarding is perceived to lie elsewhere, it could weaken efforts to foster safe, healthy church cultures.”
Cultural Challenges
The complex structure of the Church makes operational safeguarding a significant challenge.
The report makes it clear there is already resistance to safeguarding policy and practice in the Church, with some people reporting that it ‘gets in the way’ of ministerial duties, and others reporting it is widely misused. We welcome clarity on how an external body would be able to address these internal issues on a day-to-day basis, at all levels. Vital to success in this area would be to dispel the idea that safeguarding hinders the church's mission. If current structures prevent this, they would need to be reframed so that safeguarding is understood as essential for safe and effective ministry. It’s also important to consider the practical relationship between Organisation A and the individual dioceses, as there is a risk of a ‘us and them’ culture developing.
Timing
Creating an external body knowledgeable about Church structure and culture, yet expert in safeguarding, will be time-consuming. Achieving true independence while retaining an understanding of the church's context will prove challenging. We are concerned about the practicality and length of administration required to do this, risking more safeguarding gaps and lapses.
Further delays to effective safeguarding practices also risk re-traumatising those already harmed.
On existing and on-going reviews:
The dismantling of the ISB has caused delays for victims and survivors awaiting case reviews. We would welcome clarity on how these matters are to be dealt with in a way that reduces any further delay and provides victims and survivors with the confidence and trust that they deserve. Clarity is needed on whether this falls into the remit of Organisation A or B, and reassurance given that these reviews have not been forgotten
On the removal of the guidance on ‘Spiritual Abuse’:
The report states that,
“Organisations A and B should use the guidance relating to emotional and psychological abuse pertaining to vulnerable adults and children rather than spiritual abuse in all guidance and training and to determine cases referred under the measure in (1) above.”
We were disappointed to read in the report that sections of the Church cannot support the use of the term ‘Spiritual Abuse’, and that this has been supported by Professor Jay. While we understand that it is a complex issue, we believe that spiritual abuse is distinct from other forms of abuse and is a valid term to use.
The differences between spiritual and other forms of abuse are the religious context in which it occurs and the specific ways in which people are controlled through the misuse and abuse of Scripture, spiritual authority and God. Removing this context undermines the reality of this type of abuse and how it uniquely affects victims.
The Church of England’s existing guidance was developed over many years by a working group comprising some of the most knowledgeable voices on the subject. It included reference to this widely accepted definition:
“Spiritual abuse is a form of emotional and psychological abuse. It is characterised by a systematic pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour in a religious context. Spiritual abuse can have a deeply damaging impact on those who experience it.
This abuse may include manipulation and exploitation, enforced accountability, censorship of decision-making, requirements for secrecy and silence, coercion to conform, control through the use of sacred texts or teaching, requirement of obedience to the abuser, the suggestion the abuser has a ‘divine’ position, isolation as a means of punishment and superiority and elitism.” (Oakley, 2018)
It remains our position that the Church of England should continue to recognise spiritual abuse as a unique form of abuse and as a distinct expression of emotional and psychological abuse. To not recognise the religious context in which it happens fails to acknowledge the trauma and harm already experienced.
Justin says,
“It would be erroneous to remove guidance simply because it is not yet fully understood or accepted. Such an approach would have stunted the necessary development of safeguarding practice in many different areas in recent times. Our understanding must evolve and be based upon the lived experience of the many whose lives have already been adversely affected.”
Conclusions
We are pleased that this significant piece of work has been completed and that survivors have been included in the process.
We welcome the joint statement by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York today who have acknowledged this as ‘a constructive challenge’ and one that needs to be taken ‘very seriously’. We would encourage the Church of England to give very careful consideration to all the recommendations made. We also believe it would be appropriate for the church to issue an apology to those who have received harsh treatment from the Church after making similar suggestions in the past.
As independent safeguarding experts, we have worked across the spectrum of church traditions and expressions (including providing independent support to many dioceses and parishes) for almost half a century and remain at the service of the Church of England, wider church and other communities of faith to help create safer places for all.
