Over the past few days, I have found myself reflecting further on the mechanics of safeguarding as practised by the Church of England. I noted that so-called core groups possess a potential conflict of purpose. What are they really supposed to accomplish? How do they operate within what we have suggested is a somewhat dysfunctional safeguarding industry within the church?
When we try to find out what is the official scope and function of these groups, we may look at an official statement set out in a House of Bishops document from 2017. This is entitled Practice Guidance: Responding to, assessing and managing safeguarding concerns or allegations against church officers. Some key words from this document are as follows. ‘The purpose of the core group is to oversee and manage the response to a safeguarding concern or allegation …….ensuring that the rights of the victim/survivor and the respondent to a fair and thorough investigation can be preserved.’ The task of responsibility towards a victim is also expressed in the words: ‘Ensuring how the victim/survivor and/or their family can best be supported by advising the DSA’. This understanding of the working of core groups is very close to the model adopted in social work practice. In that context, as it relates to the care of a child or vulnerable adult, a team of individuals, each with a professional interest in the case, would come together to discuss it. In many cases, when appropriate, the parent of the child or even the child him/herself would be invited to take part in the process. This incorporation of a practice from the world of social care is to be expected as most of the first generation of safeguarding officers on the national team in 2015 seem to have shared this professional background.
Some serious flaws in the functioning of the core groups within the church seem to have begun early on. A first problem was the fact that these groups were convened and met in secret. Gilo has told me that, although there was a church core group convened to discuss his particular case, he was told nothing about it for 18 months. Even when he heard about it, he was not informed of the identity of the members. I am also told by a John Smyth/Iwerne survivor that the NST (National Safeguarding Team) informed him that the John Smyth core group was disbanded on his death. In addition, the survivor was never allowed to know who had been in that core group. This again shows a complete lack of interest in the well-being and support of the Smyth survivors. It is almost as if a corporate sigh of relief was uttered now that the perpetrator was off the scene. One of the issues about the Smyth scandal is the way the episode implicates senior churchmen within the Anglican establishment. Any excuse to shut down investigations and discussion would no doubt have been welcome by those who had been close to Smyth in the past. The speed of closure illustrates clearly the core group’s preoccupation with perpetrators and the damage they could have caused to the wider church. Support of survivors does not seem to appear anywhere on their agenda.
One professional outsider who was allowed to attend a core group meeting was Ian Elliott, the author of the Elliott report. His reflections on what he observed were shared with the IICSA hearing last July. His testimony focused on the way that the core meeting model that he was familiar with in his professional life, sharply diverged with the way the meeting was conducted in the church setting. He testified: ‘I was initially expecting that the core group meeting would be similar to a case conference model, which I would be familiar with, but essentially would be a meeting whereby all those who were providing care and support would come together… I did not think that that was happening at that meeting. I felt that it was very much a business meeting that it didn’t have a focus specifically on the case and the welfare of A4. I was quite shocked by that. A4 was not in attendance; no one was there as such representing him…… I spent some time talking at length to members of NST to establish exactly what was the purpose of a core group meeting, as such.‘
Ian was then asked by a member of the IICSA panel for the answer that he had received from this questioning. Ian’s answer was telling and chimes in with the impression given to survivors who have asked the same questions of others involved in safeguarding work. ‘It was essentially a business meeting, but the focus, I think, was more to do with the protection of the institution, the protection of the church as opposed to the care and welfare of A4.‘
These words in many ways sum up what seems to have happened everywhere with core groups since the Church of England first adopted them as part of its practice. Instead of psychologists, psychotherapists and others on the group who would be anxious to promote the pastoral needs of victims, we find the safeguarding professionals supported by lawyers, communications experts and representatives of insurance companies. The cynic in me would ask: Is it any surprise that core groups have been conducted in an atmosphere of secrecy and concealment, when there is so much that needs to be hidden from sight? Ian commented further in a interview on the Radio 4 Sunday programme. ‘In my experience, affording the subject of the meeting, the survivor, the opportunity to contribute to it, makes for much better outcomes. … (The meeting) is rooted in attitudes to survivors which are totally misguided, misplaced and unacceptable.‘ Phil Johnson, the chair of MACSAS, the survivors’ group and also interviewed on the same programme, added his assessment: ‘These core groups demonstrate the extent to which the church is more interested in financial considerations than the well-being and care for victims.‘
After reading Ian Elliot’s professional assessment of what was going on at the core group he attended, we find ourselves understanding the House of Bishops’ guidance in a different way. They spoke about ‘managing the response to a safeguarding concern or allegation’. It would appear that ‘management’ in this context is in fact about settlements, protecting the church’s reputation and generally avoiding bad publicity as far as possible. The second part of the management process, ‘ensuring how the victim/survivor and/or their family can best be supported’ seems to be absent. Although we would expect the church to have a system for protecting its reputation, it is bizarre that anyone should conceive of doing such protection while at the same time pretending to be caring about the interests of survivors. These two aims, as I and others have pointed out before, are extremely hard to fulfil at the same time. In the end, to judge by the individuals chosen to be members of the core groups that we know about, the church has decided to lean firmly in the direction of ‘managing’ the interests of the institution rather the care of survivors. Secrecy and indeed confusion about what are the true purposes of safeguarding generally are still a feature of much of what goes on in this world. Sometimes we hear the expression ‘lessons learned’ in connection with safeguarding reviews that are conducted from time to time. I cannot be the only individual who wonders whether the church is really learning lessons. Recently a Dean of a major cathedral was suspended and then re-instated over a safeguarding issue. The details of the case have never been published or shared with the wider public. How can anyone learn anything if important safeguarding information is not shared?
This brief look at the issue of core groups in the church has a final footnote which leaves us feeling that things are not going to change soon. Back in 2012/13 the publicity machine of the Church of England received a shake-up when the full horror of past abuse cases in the church was beginning to become apparent. Around that time, a new appointee to the post of Director of Communications for the Archbishop’s Council was a former communications officer/priest/lawyer, one Arun Arora. Although the appointment attracted some negative publicity, there was one positive thing to give us hope. Those looking for a new culture of openness in the C/E noted that Arora had stated, in an article, his support for the principle of institutions/professions not being allowed to ‘mark their homework’. He had written: ‘the rights of any profession to both represent and regulate its members are outmoded, outdated and outweighed by the need for consumer protection and confidence’. And yet, disappointingly, during Arora’s time working for the church, nothing of a new way of dealing with past murkiness appeared. The culture of secrecy, suppression of scandal and injustices towards survivors has continued. In this process, in spite of the affirmations of the House of Bishops, the core groups, that have come into being, have become part of the problem. Affirming justice and revealing truth about the past are honourable aims but the church is slow and unwilling to make these its priorities. The critique by Ian Elliott and others over the work of core groups has never been answered. The C/E has to be more open in its dealings with survivors as well as its own past. The core groups, which have been evolving since around 2015, have, apparently, become a method to contain scandal rather than one for promoting the cause of truth and justice. Do the rest of us have to regard them as weapons of defence for the church rather than instruments of justice and compassion for those who have suffered?
Rosie Harper and I raised manor questions about the operation I of these groups in our book “To heal and not to Hurt last year. For whose benefit do they operate? How do they help if they are based on partial and incomplete information and the only person in the room who deals in information is Employed as an image manager? What is their competence for forensic investigation? Above all, where does pastoral care for the survivor / complainant figure within them, often entirely up represented as they are by anyone with personal knowledge of their experience or sufficient clout to be heard? Who manages the interface between the professional disciplines of Social Work, formed in a statutory framework with a duty to implement policy, and those of a voluntary organisation with very wavy and in distinct lines of accountability and a long established culture of deference and “eyes wide shut”? Then where does the small and overworked And closely collegial corps of ecclesiastical lawyers fit in? I hope your helpful review of their unsatisfactory operation helps open an honest debate about all these questions and more….
Thank you Stephen for this piece. And thank you Alan Wilson for your comment – and for yours and Rosie Harper’s work of advocacy for survivors over so many years. I know that your book is the summation of dialogue with nearly 80 survivors – which is remarkable. I doubt that any other senior church figures have given that much energy to finding out how the structures (both diocesan and national) have responded to us.
I’d like to add to the piece informationally. I was horrified to discover that those present at these core groups included the Berrymans Lace & Mawer lawyer (acting for Ecclesiastical) who had led the settlement only weeks before the first of these two core groups. Others present included Stephen Slack who had initially closed down pastoral contact and support in my case, and presumably in many others. Slack was the church’s senior lawyer until retirement last year – and was the figure responsible for the infamous HB(07)29C document – seen by The Telegraph in 2016 and confirmed as genuine, which advised bishops in 2007 to use “careful drafting” to “effectively apologise” without enabling victims to get compensation.
It’s worth reading Slack’s own words slowly to grasp the culture and mindset present in Church House at that time, and prevalent when many reported up to a decade later:
‘While accepting that they might “understandably want to express their regret”, it adds: “Because of the possibility that statements of regret might have the unintended effect of accepting legal liability for the abuse it is important that they are approved in advance by lawyers, as well as by diocesan communications officers (and, if relevant, insurers).
“With careful drafting it should be possible to express them in terms which effectively apologise for what has happened whilst at the same time avoiding any concession of legal liability for it.”
Others present apparently included Andrew Nunn, Lambeth Palace correspondent clerk – who shooed away survivors who reached up to that place for help. When I say ‘shooed away’ – I mean through silence or via meaningless message of ‘the Archbishop will hold you in his prayers when he hears that you have written again.” Nunn later received a Lambeth Palace award despite complaints from survivors about his grossly inept response to cases. He apparently told one survivor, “Well you weren’t exactly a child!”
Those core groups were held by Graham Tilby, former National Advisor. I cannot understand how a professional would regard those core groups and the culture they engendered as being an ethical way to proceed. But I think the last five years of CofE safeguarding response at national level has been a shambolic and unethical disgace. Led by shadowy forces that control the NST as a puppet.
No-one will be held acountable. But the current lead bishops and new-improved NST will have a task to rebuild confidence from the mess they inherit. We are dealing with broken culture at senior…
‘New improved NST’!!!! Not sure who you are talking to Gilo but clearly not the same people as me I actually miss Tilby, Caslake operates by silence and from her social care background she knows that core groups with their complete failure to adhere to the maxim ‘nothing about me without me’ are massively outdated and malevolent.
If core groups were held in social care settings without the client being present all hell would break loose but senior social workers transfer to the church and suddenly think it’s alright to do something they would never have condoned in a previous role. Bizarre! The NST should have been disbanded when Tilby and Reid left and a better way forward found.
I would be really interested to hear your perspective on this Trish, in confidence. My email is andrew.graystone1@btinternet.com. Andrew
No need for it to be in confidence Andrew. Having worked in social care at grass roots level for the past 30 years I have seen many changes in how clients are involved in their care, beginning with no involvement to as fully integrated as possible. This document from NICE highlights the changes that all organizations should be making to decrease fragmentation of response by 2023, the church being a charity should be being guided by it.
https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/strategic-direction-sexual-assault-and-abuse-services.pdf
All individuals with a background in social care should be aware of this document and strving to implement it in accordance with their accrediting body.
From my experience, or the survivors that I support, I do not consider that the NST, past or present, works to the best of their ability within the NICE guidelines. I have offered to ask professionals with current working practice of trauma to voluntarily advise on response to survivors, it has been turned down. The NST currently seem to have the voice of a few survivors which they make sound like the voice of the many. This in itself is a serious contravention of the guidelines which NICE recommend.
I think that document should be read by everyone who is involved in or who cares about these issues. Some of the case studies are reassuring; others tragic, showing insensitivity and even ineptitude in the responses to the victims.
The last time I had any direct involvement in such things was ‘a case conference’ (which I can date as before the 1997 local government reorganisation) at which perhaps a dozen people sat round a table discussing the fate of a teenager who, it was alleged, was being abused by his foster-carer. A social worker from elsewhere travelled more than 200 miles as their sole advocate. She perceived no conflict of interests as she was 100% satisfied that the allegations (made by third parties) were groundless and malicious.
I attended this meeting as the Social Services ‘lawyer’ without any relevant background or experience. I was simply told to attend as our specialist in-house childcare solicitors (admittedly always busy and over-worked) could not make it – but in itself a shameful admission. With a forensic background, my instincts told me that the allegations were groundless. All I was able to do was report back to HQ what had factually happened at the meeting, but being my usual self (perhaps improperly) added that I shared the opinion of the long-distance visiting social worker.
The meeting was adjourned, and I never heard a further word. Does that sound a familiar scenario from the past, Trish?
Now, as an elderly layman, I am simply baffled by the different layers of ‘child protection’ in the C of E.
I think there might have been some slightly muddled thinking in what I have just said above. The visiting social worker was, of course, the advocate for the child in care, although she spoke strongly in defence of the foster-carer (and produced some convincing evidence). Also, of course. I didn’t mean to confine my confusion about the various C of E procedures solely to child protection cases.
Yes very familiar Rowland and a time that I am sure neither you or I would wish to return to with the advances in understanding client centred working. That is why I am always baffled by how senior social workers are employed by the church but then almost instantly seem to be willing to revert to a way of working that thankfully no longer exists in social care. I am afraid I can only conclude it is the very good salary that is the ‘hook’.
Arun Arora’s role as Cof E Head of Communications from 2012-2017 and in the establishment of core groups is the subject of an unflattering item of ‘Church News’ in the current issue of Private Eye (No. 1520, 24 April-7 May 2020, page 40.) It includes the quote from his article (in a Fabian Society pamphlet) cited by Stephen Parsons in his post.
Thanks David. I would have said more about the PE article but PE is notoriously hard to check up on. I thought I would to use the one bit that appears to be in a document and leave the rest. Obviously there is a tale to be told but it is better done by someone who knows at depth what is going on. Quoting PE is a dangerous activity I understand.
I am so sad and angry to read about some of the poor experiences survivors have had with the core group process. When you take the incredibly hard step of reporting, what you need is a circle of support, and a process that facilitates justice and healing.
I think there are chinks of light now. My own current case, with a core group chaired nationally, has been a vast improvement on my first experience of reporting 18 years ago.
For example, my caseworker has read a statement out from me to the core group, and has updated me on the progress of the investigation, sharing what information she is allowed to. I was able to get a copy of the core group minutes, albeit by making a DPA request. They have facilitated me to obtain the support of an advocate and continue regular therapy, while the investigation takes place. I have felt heard, at least, and generally cared for
I am sharing this not to negate anyone else’s experience, but to offer the hope that with good people committed to survivor care, change is happening already, at least in small ways, and can continue. And there is good practice guidance, like the excellent NHS document Trish shared (thank you) to support further change.
Of course there are major systemic issues, as Stephen and everyone have highlighted. The current core group process is perpetrator centred, as it focuses on risk management. The inclusion of communication and legal advisors adds the focus of managing the risk to the church s reputation. This does need to happen, but it is not safeguarding.
I think there is a real identity confusion here. Is it risk management, safeguarding, disciplinary, complaints, justice? Well to the key stakeholders (victims and abusers, and church as employer) it is all of these. Perhaps that is too much for one group to manage?
There is also the need to differentiate between current cases and non recent ones. The role of the core group in current cases is to contribute to the safeguarding process led by statutory services. It’s not their role to investigate. Whereas with non recent cases, particularly where the age of the perpetrator’s, and the fact they are no longer in active ministry, or are frail, may mean there is no longer any risk, and no statutory investigation.
The core group then does have an investigatory role; and survivors want to be fully involved in what to us is more like a complaints process. Some of us are also looking for a restorative thing route, which doesn’t even exist any more.
Then there is the DPA, which is perpetuating a culture of secrecy around core groups, by preventing transparency and information sharing with survivors. I could go on, but running out of characters.
My brief communications with Melissa Caslake, I have found that she is aware of these issues, and working for change, including ensuring there is better engagement with a wider group of survivors. In my Survivors Voices role I will be working to enable that to happen.
(See next…
Oops apologies for autocorrects I missed; it should say some of us want a restorative justice route, which doesn’t even exist yet.
What I would be really interested to hear, is what others think a reformed process should look like, especially for non recent cases, which is often the focus here.
For example, while I understand there may be a need for professional meetings that management risk and undertake disciplinary action, these could be separate from the core group. That should be more like a ‘team around the child’, with the survivor present (if they wish) and with skilled advocacy support.
Information should be openly shared, and survivors should be offered advocacy and support/counselling from the start.
What changes would others like to see?
And how should they happen?
I agree with Trish that trauma-informed training would be an important first step, and I am offering the services of Survivors Voices to assist with that, as we deliver survivor designed and led training on that and related topics.
What else needs to happen?
If anyone wants to develop this conversation outside of this blog, I am happy to be contacted jane@survivorsvoices.org. Especially keen to hear from anyone who wants to work together on this.
Really interested to read this Jane thank you. I am wondering if because you say your core group is chaired nationally that makes a difference in terms of how you have been responded to. I have found Melissa Caslake to be defensive and ‘silent’ but my case is chaired at diocesan level and she really has very little option to either complain about the diocese or go along with them. I most certainly don’t feel cared for, the NST have added to my distress tenfold by their collusion with the diocese even though two separate social workers have tried to call the diocese to account. I am also aware that in other posts you have said that you have been told no further action can be taken because of the death of the perpetrator and that does not feel like good care to me.
I am very impressed by how Survivor’s Voices works collaboratively with all survivors who want to take part and wish you well in this venture but am also aware that many survivors do not like support groups because they come with their own hierarchies and problems and am concerned that the church takes the initiative to reach as many survivors as possible regardless of their belonging to any group.
This award winning people participation group, which I have active connections to was something I was trying to get the NST to think about modelling on but Melissa Caslake couldn’t have been less interested if she tried probably because of the huge finacial outlay required!
https://www.elft.nhs.uk/Get-Involved/People-Participation
Just to say also that the absolutely appalling complaints procedure remains in place for the NST as far as I can see, so any improvement has not included rewording this policy with its ‘vexatious and persistent’and not allowing anonymous complaints. It is incredibly difficult when some survivors seem to have received far better responses than others which is why complete independence is so desperately needed so favouritism can play no part.