*** DEBUG START ***
*** DEBUG END ***

Safeguarding and the Church: ‘What ifs’ come to the table around parishes

06 December 2024

In the wake of the Makin review, and Archbishop Welby’s resignation, Madeleine Davies asked clergy and laity about the impact locally and how they would describe morale about safeguarding

SHARON GRENHAM-THOMPSON

The Revd Sharon Grenham-Thompson

The Revd Sharon Grenham-Thompson

The Revd Sharon Grenham-Thompson, Rector of Rattlesden with Thorpe Morieux, Brettenham, and Hitcham, Suffolk

I AM Rector of a benefice comprising four rural parishes in mid-Suffolk, with congregational numbers ranging from 40 to an average of eight. The demographic is mostly aged 65-plus. Each of my parishes is proudly independent, with no real appetite for cross-benefice work, as yet. For a brief blissful moment in 2024, we had four parish safeguarding officers (PSOs) in post, but it has always felt precarious. The volume and complexity of policy and administrative work required of PSOs is daunting, as is the need 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 always being on the back foot.

My PSOs care deeply about trying to make our churches as safe 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 is asked of us, and have made referrals where we have a concern. Yet, it can feel as if we are expected to provide a professional level of scrutiny and service at local level that is beyond the skills, time, and scope of the good folk who volunteer. It can also feel scary at times — what if we miss something, what if we make a mistake, what if we don’t fill in an online form, what if a policy is not approved? Now that the spotlight is shining even brighter (and I completely understand why) that fear is also amplified.

Our DSA is responsive and helpful. But, inevitably, the recent revelations of the Makin report, and the criticism it contains of “the hierarchy”, has dented the confidence of many in the pews, as well as my own PSOs. I have, unfortunately, received the resignation of one of my PSOs in the past fortnight, and, although I am saddened by that, I also understand.

Ordinary church members are angry — angry at abuse visited upon innocent people, for sure; but also angry at what they perceive as hypocrisy. Numerous bewildered parishioners have said to me: “They [church hierarchy] expect so much of us — training, policies, awareness — and yet look at what are they doing. Or rather, not doing.”


The Revd Jonathan Bish, Priest-in-Charge of Batley, Leeds

JONATHAN BISHThe Revd Jonathan Bish

I WOULD summarise morale locally as “We believe in doing our duty, but it doesn’t stop us occasionally grumbling about it!” We’ve done a fair amount of work around safeguarding in this team. There is a very capable safeguarding officer in one of our parishes who is incredibly committed. She has worked with our two other safeguarding officers to try to bring all four churches up to the same standard in terms of training, risk assessments, and policies. We have also talked a lot about creating the right culture across the benefice. This has generally been fairly well-received by our PCCs, but there is also a feeling from some congregation members that safeguarding procedures are an imposition from outside that gives already stretched volunteers more bureaucratic tasks to complete. Many feel that “we’d know to do the right thing anyway,” and would report abuse without safeguarding procedures needing to be in place. However, I think most congregation members also take seriously the fact that we have a responsibility to those who have been hurt by the Church in the past to do things better.

My most proactive safeguarding officer says that we still need to work on our culture around safeguarding, and she’s probably right: I still encounter the attitude that “it can’t happen here,” and that policies don’t make a difference, even though there was a serious case of child abuse carried out by a vicar of a neighbouring parish only a few years ago. That said, I think Makin has shifted people’s attitudes. There is more of a feeling that we should talk about these sorts of things more, and that past mistakes cannot just be airbrushed away, as well as perhaps the sense that the local church has to take responsibility for what is passed to the diocese or other agencies to make sure things happen.

VIRGINIA KNIGHTVirginia Knight

Virginia Knight, safeguarding officer, Christ Church, Bath

I HAVE been safeguarding officer here for nearly four years. We typically have about 60 in church on a Sunday morning. I have been actively advocating for a social event for local safeguarding officers, both to combat the sense of isolation and as a sign of appreciation for what we do, and I’m pleased to say that the diocese of Bath & Wells will be holding some receptions for us in 2025.

I have noticed my workload increasing hugely while I’ve been safeguarding officer — not in terms of cases requiring attention (though there have been some), but other related duties. For example, DBS checks now have to be repeated every three years, not every five. And the requirement for church officers and volunteers to complete safeguarding “pathways”, and for me to document this, has been enforced. I estimate that ours have to complete about 70 pathways between them.

I have also noticed another subtle change in recent years. My predecessor understood the purpose of the role to be protecting all who come into our church or who are ministered to in its name. But it now includes training the congregation to identify people who might be being abused elsewhere (such as victims of modern slavery and domestic abuse). While this is a worthy aim in itself, it adds to my workload, since it increases the number of pathways that church members are required to do. Perhaps cynically, I have found myself wondering whether this change is an attempt to distract attention away from the possibility that abuse can occur within the church itself.

I hope that the Makin review might make it easier to recruit more assistance for me with this role. I have talked to several other local PSOs, and all of us feel overworked, particularly those of us who are aren’t retired. Perhaps the budget might be found to issue a copy of the Parish Safeguarding Handbook (News, 23 March 2018)to every church. I also hope that it might cause a refocusing of safeguarding work on the core requirements: to prevent abuse happening, and to take appropriate action 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 daily Mass; so in the week of the Archbishop’s resignation, I was able to conduct straw polls of the faithful; a range of responses to it all, none positive. Sympathy for victims, disappointment, resignation, anger at 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 came out that I had kept quiet about significant safeguarding knowledge, my feet wouldn’t touch the ground. They wondered why members of the hierarchy should be held to a different standard.

Locally, morale about safeguarding was already pretty low, because of the amount of training required by anyone doing anything in the name of the Church. Inability to find volunteers generally holds us back, but it also loads those who care with guilt and the feeling of being failures.

When it comes to safeguarding, the ever-increasing volume and intricacy have become an intolerable burden. At our last PCC meeting, our PSO, and PCC members, despaired at PCCs now being asked to record the number of people coming to each session of, say, a church knitting club, ages, gender, what they did, multiplied for every group and subdivision of church life, and then having to enter that as a statistic on a hub.

For six years after PSOs were introduced as mandatory, we had to more or less stop children’s work, because we could not 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 is not the path to safeguarding nirvana. I am reminded of that quotation from Chaucer about the Sergeant of Law, “he semed bisier than he was”. Endless admin occupies much time, but it doesn’t necessarily promote the purpose at the sharp end. To make safeguarding more workable and achievable, the Church of England must find a safeguarding golden rule: a memorable and deliverable effective simplification, not ever-increasing circles of complication. Establishing a culture starts at the top.


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 have not seen any impact among the congregation. Among those of us involved with safeguarding, though, there has been a fair bit of upset at how we are being tarnished with the various public pronouncements made by bishops regarding the well-founded safeguarding concerns within 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 seems to be given to us and all those across the church at the coalface doing their very best with regards to safeguarding every week of the year.

At parish level, we have endeavoured over time to create a community of safeguarding with everybody as best possible understanding that we are all responsible for this task. I feel supported by my priest, and I in turn support him, as he and I are of one mind regarding safeguarding. We endeavour to make sure this support is felt by the parish safeguarding officer and anybody else involved with safeguarding. The diocese of Chichester has a good training and information portal, plus personal advice is available as required.

I feel deeply sad and angry that those in leadership should have so abdicated their responsibility regarding safeguarding that the matter of independent scrutiny or operational independence — as opposed to regular invited outside audits by professional bodies — should be raised. I’d rather it wasn’t a thing that had to occur, but, if it does as a matter of necessity, then it should be reviewed regularly after a set time to see if it is still required. It is a very 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 carefully read through the whole report and recommendations. They then sent a letter to the church explaining that the PCC would be discussing these recommendations. Their focus has been: “We can’t be arrogant and think this would never happen to us. We want to make sure we are all held to account as leaders.”

We’ve been preaching through 1 Timothy, and, by God’s providence, 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 came out. Our curate preached a powerful sermon on abusive leaders and specifically discussed Makin. Our clergy see that this really needs to be talked about theologically: what do we think of power, of leadership? Smyth used Hebrews 12. You have to talk 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 a whole. I also know our PCC will be discussing the recommendations, and that our church is looking at undertaking an independent culture audit. The general feel at our church is a real desire to be a place of refuge and safety for victims, survivors, the vulnerable; so there is a constant attempt to set up safeguarding and the ability to raise concerns, however minor, in as safe 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 both of my churches about 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 in the report, although only one person mentioned that they planned to read it in detail.

At one church, we made time both during the notices and at coffee to give time for the congregation to express their reactions. At the other church, we considered the report under our safeguarding agenda item during a PCC meeting. Church members had very mixed and contrasting views concerning the resignation of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the intervention of the Bishop of Newcastle, but it was clear that people were aware of the report, and were angry and upset to hear of the degree of violence inflicted on others, and especially that it was exported to Zimbabwe and South Africa. One frustration was that it wasn’t clear what, additionally, at parish level, might be able 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 cannot be adopted at parish level without diocesan agreement.

The diocese of Southwark told the Church Times that it was seeking assurance around the safety 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 is 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, every day of the year. These volunteers are the safeguarding backbone of the Church, and they tirelessly give their time to do this important work and make the Church a safer place. We are aware of the increased focus on safeguarding since the Makin review, and are working closely with our experienced safeguarding colleagues to meet the needs of the communities we serve, and we will continue to keep this under review.

When you can’t recruit a PSO

A PSO is recruited to complete safeguarding work on behalf of the PCC; so, in the absence of a PSO, it is a collective PCC responsibility to ensure 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 should be a lay person with good pastoral and organisational skills, and experience of working with children/young people or vulnerable adults, although not always currently involved in such work in the parish. It is not good practice for the incumbent or their partner to be the PSO, but the NST understands that, given recruitment and retention challenges, there are times when there is no other option. In these cases, the PCC must be informed of the reason why a member of the clergy holds this post, and what plans are in place to recruit to the PSO position. It should be made very clear how people can contact the diocesan safeguarding adviser directly, if they do not feel comfortable taking a safeguarding concern to the clergy member.

The NST has been leading a PSO working group over the past year to develop resources including a new job description, induction programme, and videos. It has also ensured that the parish safeguarding dashboard includes information about the National Safeguarding Standards.

Browse Church and Charity jobs on the Church Times jobsite

Forthcoming Events

Women Mystics: Female Theologians through Christian History

13 January - 19 May 2025

An online evening lecture series, run jointly by Sarum College and The Church Times

tickets available

 

Festival of Faith and Literature

28 February - 2 March 2025

tickets available

 

Visit our Events page for upcoming and past events 

Welcome to the Church Times

 

To explore the Church Times website fully, please sign in or subscribe.

Non-subscribers can read four articles for free each month. (You will need to register.)