I found myself this morning reading material that I had written six months ago about Core Groups and the work of the National Safeguarding Team. This was a way of trying to grasp some of the implications of the resignation of Melissa Caslake as head of the National Safeguarding Team. To say that this resignation is likely to cause problems, is an understatement. Anyone who has followed the work of the NST since its foundation in 2015 will know that it has been beset by problems. The first NST under the leadership of Graham Tilby, I shall call NST1. NST1, as I complained in this blog, brought together, to judge from its appointees, social workers and those skilled in managing process. There was not a single person whose primary qualification was pastoral or psychotherapeutic. Any survivor/victims who got close the workings of the old NST structure seemed likely to be burnt by the experience. They found there nothing in the way of understanding and pastoral sensitivity. Everything I heard about its workings, suggested that NST1 was almost totally geared to the preservation of church reputation and limiting financial liability by the central Church of England.
The IICSA process took a long look at NST1 and all the other efforts by the Church to manage its safeguarding processes. For reasons that I am not knowledgeable enough to spell out in detail, the House of Bishops and the other leaders operating out of Church House decided to reform the old NST and appoint a new head. This followed a brief interim period under Sir Roger Singleton. Effectively the Team became a new body as, under the leadership of Melissa Caslake, all the old employees of NST1 moved on. In the 15 months since her appointment the new body that we shall call NST2 has appeared. To say that this body has had teething problems is probably an understatement. I do not claim inside knowledge but there were from the start two glaring problems which show no sign of having been resolved. Let us consider each in turn.
The first problem for Caslake was the massive change of culture that she was entering into. The Church is not like any other organisation that she would have been used to, like a local authority operating child protection procedures. The Church before 2015 was, relatively speaking, in the dark ages over safeguarding. It seemed to be making up many of its rules as it went along. This provisionality about processes seems to have continued to this day. This would likely have caused massive frustration for a new head like Caslake, as she tried to stamp the new NST2 with fresh professional standards of behaviour and practice. It was not just that the Church is not like a local authority in terms of practice. Caslake would also have had to cope with numerous ‘Spanish customs’. The structures of power in the Church seem, even at a distance, immensely complex and confusing. Caslake’s past would not have prepared her for all the political shenanigans operating in Church House and elsewhere. Can you imagine an exam question for an undergraduate which goes something like this? At the heart of the Church of England are three centres of power. Which commands the greatest influence? The civil servants at Church House, the Archbishops’ Council or General Synod? The rogue answer might point out that the Communications Department and the firms of Church lawyers and reputation managers were actually the ones in charge!
A second problem for Caslake has been the difficulty of building up a team with background knowledge of all the cases from the past, combined with appropriate skills. A full collection of background papers would use up several acres of woodland. To find people who are even slightly acquainted with all this material is fairly remote. Working on the NS2 team without such knowledge will need a solid six months of reading files to put right. The existing experts on all this material are, of course, the survivors. They have all been living with this material for years. On a practical level, this fact is why survivors should always be included in future inquiries and investigations. They have detailed understanding of the history, the psychology and the politics of each of these cases.
Melissa Caslake’s resignation is a serious blow for the new NST2 which she has helped to build up since her appointment in August of last year. She has given the impression of being a strong decisive leader. With her departure, there will be a void and possibly a collapse of morale among those who have been working with her as part of the team. There are numerous ongoing cases and active core group processes. It is hard to see how they will be kept going effectively after her departure. We wish her well, but we can guess from the hints that have been given, that she was trying to do an impossible job. To say that working for the Church is hard, is a massive understatement.
I cannot claim that I have seen all the implications of this story. One thing I discern is that there seems to be a lack of good communication between the bishops and those working in Church House. The left hand does not seem to know what the right is doing. One good outcome might be if the Church authorities (whoever they are!) saw this resignation as implying there is an urgent need for safeguarding to be taken right out of Church influence and control. It needs to be placed firmly into the hands of an independent body. I suspect that, at the heart of the problem, there are personalities, power struggles and internal church politics which have, between them, made this resignation inevitable. The fact that there is, at the time of writing, no official press release on the topic suggests that the authorities at Church House were not expecting this blow. It is still not too late for the Church to go in a new direction in this area of activity. Meanwhile Surviving Church sends to Melissa very best wishes for the future and, based on what we know or surmise, say simply: ‘We understand’.
It’s probably one of those jobs impossible to do. I don’t mean that some won’t just sit there, take the money, shuffle virtual papers around the desktop and maintain the status quo, I mean impossible to succeed at making definitive change.
In such a case, moving on as soon as this is apparent is the ethical thing to do, and if so, fair play to her.
This is a serious setback, IMHO. Does anyone know what happened to the advertised post of Development Manager for the redress scheme? I think applications closed on 12 October, and presumably this post is critical to delivering on the promises that a proper redress scheme would be up and running very soon.
Godfred Boahen is the policy and Development lead for survivors, I dont know if has the lead on the redress scheme but must have involvement with it. He has a Twitter page, if you are interested, and would appear to be well grounded and well qualified.
I think Rowland’s observation that Melissa is going to work in Devon is important in not allowing us to jump to conclusions. For all of us life changes and remote working has changed the future so maybe she is simply moving. That said the fact that they are not going to immediately advertise for a replacement would indicate that the role had problems with keeping someone engaged long term.
Thanks Trish. The job title Godfred has doesn’t suggest to me that he is the person appointed to lead on the redress scheme, though.
Thinking about it Helen if the application only closed on October 12th it may not be that someone takes up the post until nearly the Spring of next year as notice periods are very long in most jobs, mine is 3 months and my daughter who is a head nurse has to give 5 months, the more senior the role the longer the notice period. The church only ever make announcements nearer the time as a lot can happen in the interim. ‘Very soon’ in church speak means absolutely nothing and please try not to get your hopes up too much about a redress scheme, clinging onto something that may turn out to be more trouble and abusive than it’s worth would be a bitter blow.
We don’t really know enough about this to comment with any certainty, but it’s reasonable to assume that Melissa Caslake didn’t resign from her C of E role until the Devon appointment had been confirmed.
There are, undoubtedly, major challenges to be faced in the Devon job but, as Stephen points out, that will be in a structure with which she is already familiar and has experience.
Unlike the C of E role, she will be heading up a department with statutory powers and a clearly-defined staff structure. Also she should be able to expect support from Devon’s elected Cabinet member assigned to childcare matters.
A short follow-up. The full details are now available on the ‘Thinking Anglicans’ website.
Thinking Anglicans, quoting from the ‘Telegraph’ state that Melissa Caslake “will take up a role as Director of Children’s Services with a local authority in the New Year.” They go on to add, from the Church Times, that the authority is Devon County Counci.
Thank you for your thoughts Stephen which make me feel less alone in my wrestle with the NST.
You make a good case for independence in safeguarding ; only an independent body would believe victims and face up to abusive DSAs.
An incisive article, and one that leaves the reader in little doubt that the CofE is at a major fork in the road here. Trying to replace Melissa is going to be hard. I’d go further and say it’s not what is needed. NST 3 would make a decent PR coup for CofE comms for about a day, but the trouble is that all the systemic problems Stephen’s article so elegantly sketches remain in place. The trinity is: a concentration of ecclesiastical civil service power; comms, PR and a prioritisation of reputational management; episcopal power that retains command and control, who in turn are dominated by only a very tiny number of law firms and legal advisors. The system cannot avoid its inherent and consistent conflicts of interest, and to be frank, they are so multiple it is hard to find a single case the NST deals with that successfully surfaces, let alone manages, such COI.
It does not really matter where you drill in to the NST. Once you get through the thin veneer, it’s cheap chipboard. Take Core Groups. Nobody has any mandatory training to be on one. You might be lucky and have someone on it with legal expertise. Odds on, alas, it will be a church lawyer, with more of an eye for any reputational damage limitation. The predictable Comms person from the diocese or NCI will just be doing their jobs, and you can hardly blame for that. But why PR gets priority over victims or the accused is a question no one answers. There is no training in confirmation bias. No training on sifting evidence, or on distinguishing between facts and interpretation.
Survivors and those falsely accused – who have had their lives wrecked and their own reputations trashed – wait patiently in the wings for signs of justice and pastoral hope. I no longer believe the CofE can deliver either.
The cost of running a proper in-house scheme would be eye watering for the CofE. It does not have the imagination, intelligence or financial resources to manage this. The honourable, honest, decent and humble thing to do now is to admit its failures, make some attempt to confess its egregious sins in this arena, and set money aside for an independently run body that has the same kind of clout as the GMC for doctors, or the SRA for Solicitors. The CofE could set aside money to compensate victims.
The CofE is a small, dwindling sect, in which nearly everyone employed or in ministry will have some kind if connection to an alleged victim, alleged perpetrator, or even a member or two on a Core Group. The law firms that trade in this market all know each other, and can be numbered on the fingers of one hand. Under such conditions, its not possible to find a neutral jury or judge.
That’s why independence is the way forward. Melissa Caslake was the CofEs first full time Director of Safeguarding. She made a good fist of it. But after 18 months, I hope and pray she is also the last full-time Director of Safeguarding. Archbishops’ Council: get a grip, and do the right thing.
Would “Anon” be prepared to comment on what ‘command and control’ looks like from the bishops for example?
I’ve just seen a piece in the “Church Times” where Essex have axed a swathe of paid incumbencies, the diocese itself having had its own funding cut equally drastically. Who is calling the shots? The bishops or the “Sir Humphreys” or A N Other?
With such cuts in staff funding, it’s hard to imagine any funds being available for redress. It would be good to hear from “Anon” if she’s still available for comment.
I’m sad to see Melissa go, as my dealings with her were helpful and she has brought in some significant changes in a relatively short time. I wish her well.
It’s not appropriate to speculate on why, but I am very worried about the implications of her leaving and the fact Nye announced they are not recruiting yet but putting in interim leadership. If we are to see the rapid implementation of the IICSA recommendations promised at Synod, strong leadership is needed now. Those of us who care about safeguarding would do well to petition for an urgent recruitment.
There is still so much to do. The biggest problem is the reform of the core group process, which no-one is talking about. I have not yet come across any survivor who is happy with the outcome of their core group. Mine has nearly killed me. We can’t wait another 18 months for change to happen.