AMBITIOUS plans to grow the number of children and young people in the Church of England come with “unique safeguarding risks”, a new audit of the National Safeguarding Team (NST) suggests. The audit says that a specialist children and youth safeguarding function should be established at national level.
The recommendation is one of 66 made in the INEQE audit, published on Tuesday, which makes a raft of suggestions to expand national safeguarding. Others include establishing a dedicated secretariat, overseen by a chief of staff; a Virtual Church of England Safeguarding College; and “specialist HR capacity” to advise on “ensuring conduct issues are clearly separated from safeguarding processes”.
The audit, led by the INEQE Safeguarding Group, was commissioned by the Archbishops’ Council as part of a broader programme of audits running from 2023 to 2028 across all dioceses and cathedrals.
The audit has been conducted in parallel with work to establish, with the General Synod’s backing, a new independent safeguarding authority into which the NST’s functions will be subsumed (News, 24 April). This evolution is one that INEQE “fully supports”, the audit says.
“The primary function of this new governance body must be to hold those operationally responsible for the delivery of safeguarding to account.”
Against this backdrop, a number of the audit’s recommendations are designed to deliver “immediate improvements as an interim measure under current structures”. These include a restructure to establish a secretariat, including a compliance unit; a “specialist safeguarding legal advisor to navigate the Church’s complex safeguarding landscape”; and an expanded data analysis, research, and evaluation unit (DARE). “Victim and survivor participation and engagement” would become a “dedicated service area”.
No costing or calculations on staffing are included.
The NST was originally designed to centralise the management of complex cases involving senior clergy; it has undergone rapid growth in recent years. At one time, a single employee worked in national safeguarding, shared with the Methodist Church.
The Archbishops’ Council’s 2024 budget contained provision for 55 full-time NST employees. About £30 million has been allocated to safeguarding for the current triennium, including £5.5 million for transition to the new structure.
The perception that the NST is “bloated” is inaccurate, the audit says. However, “a formal restructure is now essential to future-proof the system.” While “appropriate capacity requirements” are difficult to establish ahead of the scoping work, the audit’s recommendations will result in an increase in headcount, it says. “This is necessary to ensure the NST is fit for purpose and equipped for the challenges it will face as it transitions into its next iteration.”
The audit finds much to praise at the NST, describing a department “capable of managing complex, high-profile casework and driving national standards. The overarching narrative is one of commitment, professionalisation, and a genuine appetite for systemic improvement across the Church of England.”
Also praised is the National Director of Safeguarding (NDS), Alexander Kubeyinje, a former director of social work. The audit found “clear evidence of his ability to speak truth to power and take authoritative decisions”.
A challenge identified is the Church’s “decentralised arrangements”, which “often rely on influence and persuasion rather than direct authority”. A “critical systemic constraint” is that “neither the NST nor the NDS holds formal authority to direct or enforce safeguarding decisions within dioceses or cathedrals”.
Among the recommendations made is that a “charter of operational independence” should be issued by the Archbishops’ Council, “acknowledging the NDS as the final authority on all operational safeguarding matters”.
The Archbishops’ Council should also “agree and define specific circumstances when the National Director of Safeguarding can launch investigations into such safeguarding concerns or adjudicate upon cases escalated from individual dioceses”, it says.
Several of the recommendations pertain to the challenge of collecting data. They include the establishment of a “centralised safeguarding learning repository” for all completed lessons learned reviews and safeguarding practice reviews.
Among the methods used by the audit was a survey that collected 222 anonymous responses from victims and survivors who had engaged with the Interim Support Scheme, NST casework team, and/or survivor participation opportunities, as well as those working within the NST and the wider diocesan and cathedral workforces.
External feedback about the NST was “highly polarised”, it says. “While many diocesan and cathedral staff describe the NST as ‘supportive’ and ‘respectful’, praising specific individuals as ‘brilliant,’ others characterise the culture as ‘demanding’ and ‘disorganised’. Reports indicate that criticisms are often met with a defensive tone, which has the potential to hinder true collaboration.”
Inconsistency was a persistent theme. “The quality of support and response varies drastically depending on the specific individual NST member engaged,” the report says.
Echoing the review of safeguarding carried out by Professor Alexis Jay (News, 23 February 2024), the audit reports that “the lines between HR and safeguarding are sometimes unclear.”
A “persistent operational challenge” reported by the NST was the volume of referrals about non-safeguarding cases, often relating to conduct or disciplinary issues. The audit warns of the impact of this on capacity, and recommends the establishment of specialist HR support to provide expert advice, tailored specifically to the Church of England context, including dioceses and cathedrals.
The goal to double the number of children and young people in the Church by 2030 has been described by the Archbishops’ Council as the “priority of priorities”. But the INEQE audit expresses concern that those seeking grants for work in this area are required to provide “very little detail” about their safeguarding arrangements and refers to “over-stretched” diocesan safeguarding teams.
It states: “While recognising the value of these ambitions to grow a younger Church, the Audit maintains that the unique safeguarding risks inherent in this area necessitate a concerted, collaborative, and robust response. At present there are currently significant challenges, gaps, and opportunities within children and youth ministry across the Church.”
It calls on the Archbishops’ Council to establish both a national safeguarding strategy for Children and Youth Ministries and a specialist children and youth safeguarding function embedded within the existing NST structure.
The audit identifies a “gap in confidence” among those on the safeguarding frontline concerning offender behaviour. “Staff at parish, diocesan and national levels reported limited confidence in recognising the ways individuals who have sexually harmed others and who pose a risk may minimise, self-justify or manipulate within Church contexts.”
Diocesan teams said that “youth-facing adults do not always recognise indicators such as minimisation, grooming, boundary testing or patterns of manipulation.”
Among the recommendations are that the NST should develop a national framework for addressing risk assessments and safety plans.
Looking forward, the audit says that “any reform programme that does not fully take account of the Audit’s conclusions and recommendations or limits the NST’s involvement in shaping system-wide change, risks weakening coherence, accountability, and the overall credibility of future safeguarding arrangements.”
Responding to the audit, Mr Kubeyinje thanked diocesan, cathedral, and parish safeguarding officers, and victims and survivors. He expressed particular gratitude to those who had been willing to work with us and share their lived experiences. “Their honesty, challenge and support continue to shape real change in our culture and practice, and they are truly appreciated,” he said.