STRONG leadership, an open culture, and good partnerships with statutory bodies are among the key findings of a new audit of safeguarding in the diocese of Bristol.
Person-centred support of victims and survivors in the diocese, however, could be improved, the audit says: five individuals reported that they had not felt empowered by the way in which their cases had been handled.
The Independent Safeguarding Audit was carried out earlier this year by the INEQE Safeguarding Group, which has been commissioned by the Archbishops’ Council to audit all dioceses and cathedrals (News, 4 August 2023).
Four have so far been audited by INEQE: Truro (News, 5 July), Salisbury (News, 12 April), Gloucester, and Bristol.
The Bristol audit, published on Monday, is based on analysis of 302 documents, and one-to-one discussions, focus groups, online surveys, and confidential contacts with 457 individuals, including victims and survivors, children and young people, as well as those worshipping or working within the parishes, cathedral, and diocese.
Like many other dioceses, Bristol had already undergone two previous independent audits: by SCIE and PCR2 (second past-cases review), which, together, made 55 local recommendations.
Most of these, the new audit says, had been acted on. It lists 40 of its own recommendations for the diocese and 25 for Bristol Cathedral.
Survivors reported a mix of experiences, it says. While there were examples of being “heard, understood, respected, taken seriously, genuinely cared for, and met with belief”, five individuals showed “significantly less confidence in how their individual cases had been managed. None had felt empowered to report their concerns, none believed they had received effective support, none believed their safety had been prioritised and there were concerns that the reputation of the Church had taken precedence over safeguarding.
“This feedback, uncomfortable as it is, reinforces the need for the DBF [Diocesan Board of Finance] to maintain engagement and person-centred support whenever and wherever possible. It also reflects the need to continually reflect on the sufficiency of practice and the processes in place to quality assure it.”
The diocese is generally commended for its safeguarding practices, including for its strong relationships with statutory partners. The cathedral safeguarding team, clergy, and music department are praised for their support of cathedral choristers.
Most choristers were positive about their experiences, the audit says, although parents wanted clearer communication about the supervision of and responsibility for choristers, for example, during services. The public should be asked, in a variety of languages, to refrain from videoing choristers, it says.
Governance and oversight across the DBF, Diocesan Safeguarding Steering Group (DSSG), and the cathedral has improved, the audit says, including an increased openness to scrutiny and independent challenge.
A skills audit of the Chapter and DSSG is recommended to ensure sufficient safeguarding expertise, and diversification of members is suggested.
“Stubborn challenges” remained with culture, leadership, and capacity, but on the whole, the leadership of the diocese is praised: “It was clear that the Bishop has put the needs of victims before what some people class as the needs of the Church.”
The Bishop and Dean are described as “a formidable team. . . committed to doing whatever is necessary to create a safer, more open and welcoming Church.”
The Bishop, the Rt Revd Vivienne Faull, is also praised for raising awareness of safeguarding, including the publication of an opinion piece on modern slavery in the Church Times (Comment, 8 March).
The diocese had, however, had some negative feedback from survivors through the audit, and a more structured feedback system for ongoing cases is recommended. “Rebuilding trust will take time and the hurt caused to many in the past cannot be undone. That said, the Audit saw no evidence in any contemporary sense of covering up or excusing the inexcusable.”
Other recommendations include a range of specific training modules, consolidating safeguarding staff across the diocese and cathedral; that the DBF request that Trinity College undergo a full independent safeguarding review; that a commitment to safeguarding is clear in all job adverts; to update its risk register; and to raise awareness of its digital safeguarding policy.
A clearer record of outcomes, including rationale for closed cases, should be logged under the diocesan “My Concerns” system.
Bishop Faull said on Monday: “We are pleased to have participated early in this thorough process. The audit highlights the robustness of our safeguarding practices and demonstrates the strong commitment from our senior clergy and leaders to creating a safer Church. It is a privilege to see our efforts recognised and appreciated.”
The Gloucester audit, published in April, made 33 recommendations to the diocese, and 24 to the cathedral. Progress had been made since the previous SCIE and PCR2 audits, owing largely to consistent leadership, with a bishop and dean who, it says, “lead by example”.
Capacity, it concludes, is the key issue. A director of safeguarding should be appointed to work across the diocese and cathedral, it recommends, in compliment to additional staff resources and the creation of local partnership.
“There are significant capacity issues. This does not mean that cases requiring immediate attention are not addressed. It does, however, reflect that the demand placed on such a small team means they are largely reactive and vulnerable if faced with an unforeseen reduction in their strength.”
Similarly, the cathedral, it says, should have “a more defined Cathedral Safeguarding Advisor” to provide “greater insights” and build relationships with its neighbours, as well as elect a scrutiny body with an independent chair.
Other recommendations include redesigning both the diocesan and cathedral safeguarding pages.