by Janet Fife
There may be problems with some of the links in the glossary. If a link does not work, you can do a cut and paste and place the link in the search box. Apologies from the Editor whose technical savvy is limited.
Survivors and others who encounter the world of Church safeguarding find themselves in a maze of acronyms and organisations. Here’s my attempt to clarify the confusion (not least my own!), with particular reference to the Church of England. Readers are welcome to suggest additions and corrections in the comments below. Information on other denominations would be especially useful.
Authorised Listener
Some dioceses have an Authorised Listener scheme. An AL may be either a trained volunteer or a professional, and will listen supportively for a limited number of appointments.
Carlile Review
Lord Carlile’s review into the Church’s handling of a CSA complaint against George Bell, Bishop of Chichester 1929-58. Published in December 2017. https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2017-12/Bishop%20George%20Bell%20-%20The%20Independent%20Review.pdf
Carter Review
Richard Carter was commissioned by Birmingham Diocese to review its handling of allegations against the Ven. Tom Walker. Completed in 2018 but never published; the survivor allowed to see a heavily redacted version only after signing an NDA.
CCPAS – Churches Child Protection Advisory Service
Now called Thirtyone:eight. See entry below.
CDM – Clergy Discipline Measure (Church of England)
- A legal Measure passed by the General Synod in 2003, under which clergy can be disciplined for serious misconduct. For the terms of the Measure: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukcm/2003/3/contents
- Procedure for making a complaint against a member of the clergy: https://www.churchofengland.org/about/leadership-and-governance/legal-service/clergy-discipline Revision of the CDM is under way.
Chichester Reports
A series of reports into the management of abuse cases in Chichester Diocese: https://safeguarding.chichester.anglican.org/documents/category/reports/
Core Group
A multi-disciplinary group set up to consider a safeguarding allegation.
CSA – Child Sexual Abuse
DBS – Disclosure and Barring Service (formerly CRB)
A check of police records and government lists to ensure a person is not barred from working with children or at-risk adults,
DNSA – Deputy National Safeguarding Adviser
DSA – Diocesan Safeguarding Adviser.
The member of staff in each diocese who advises the bishop and clergy on safeguarding matters.
DSO – Diocesan Safeguarding Officer.
IICSA recommended that DSAs be given the power to overrule bishops, rather than merely advisory, and the job title be changed to DSO. Not yet implemented.
Gibb Report – An Abuse of Faith, The Independent Peter Ball Review
In 2016 Dame Moira Gibb was commissioned by the CofE to review its handling of allegations against Bishop Peter Ball. The report was published in 2017. https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2017-11/report-of-the-peter-ball-review-210617.pdf
Elliott Review
A 2015 review into the CofE’s handling of CSA allegations made against two prominent clergy. The Church commissioned CCPAS who appointed Ian Elliott to carry it out. https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2017-11/Elliot%20Review%20Findings.pdf
IICSA – Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (in England and Wales)
A statutory Inquiry opened in 2015 to discover how institutions in England and Wales managed their duty of care to protect children from abuse. There have been 15 investigations, some still ongoing, and a series of hearings, which have now concluded. It also runs the Truth Project. Information on IICSA: https://www.iicsa.org.uk
Reports into the Peter Ball case, Chichester Diocese, and the CofE: https://www.iicsa.org.uk/investigations/investigation-into-failings-by-the-anglican-church
Report into the Catholic Church: https://www.iicsa.org.uk/publications/investigation/roman-catholic-church
IPSS – Interim Pilot Support Scheme
A trial project for the planned redress scheme, to give practical support to survivors in ‘seriously distressed’ circumstances. Led by Jonathan Gibbs, the lead Bishop for Safeguarding. https://www.churchofengland.org/safeguarding/overview/news-and-views/unanimous-support-archbishops-council-safeguarding-proposals
ISVA – Independent Sexual Violence Advisor.
Some dioceses and many charities working with survivors have one or more ISVAs whose job it is to support the survivors. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-role-of-the-independent-sexual-violence-adviser-isva.
John Smyth Review – see Makin Review
LADO – Local Authority Designated Officer.
The person who manages safeguarding allegations made against those working with children, and advises on safeguarding matters.
MACSAS – Minister and Clergy Sexual Abuse Survivors
A support service run by survivors, for those who have been sexually abused as children or adults by members of the clergy. https://www.macsas.org.uk
Makin Review – the John Smyth Review
Investigation into the Church’s handling of allegations against John Smyth, being carried out by Keith Makin and Sarah Lawrence. Due to report in 2021. https://www.churchofengland.org/safeguarding/overview/reviews-and-reports/john-smyth-review for the terms of the review
and http://survivingchurch.org/2019/09/18/keith-makin-and-the-smyth-review/ for comment.
NSA – National Safeguarding Adviser
NAPAC – National Association of People Abused in Childhood
Offers support to adult survivors of all kinds of childhood abuse and training for those who support survivors. https://napac.org.uk/what-napac-does/
NCI – National Church Institutions
The collective name for seven of the C of E’s central bodies. They are separate legal entities, so if submitting an SAR it’s necessary to know which one/s might have data on you. A separate SAR would be required for each.
Archbishops’ Council;
Bishopthorpe Palace;
Lambeth Palace;
Church Commissioners;
Central Services (HR, Finance & Resources, IT, Legal, Communications, Record Centre);
Pensions Board;
National Society for Promoting Religious Education.
NDA – Non Disclosure Agreement
Sometimes imposed on survivors as part of the terms of a settlement, or before they are allowed to read a review into their case. Not regarded as good practice, and now being phased out.
NSP – National Safeguarding Panel. Advises the CofE on safeguarding policy and strategy, and assess implementation. Panel members include an independent chair, representatives from the Methodist and Roman Catholic Churches, and three survivors.
Advises the CoE on safeguarding policy and strategy, and assesses how they are implemented. Works with the Methodist Church. The Panel has two survivor representatives.
NSSG – National Safeguarding Steering Group
Oversees the CofE’s national safeguarding, including the work of the NST; considers the advice of the NSP; considers reports of internal and external Reviews before publication, and monitors how recommendations are implemented; oversees the Church’s response to IICSA; reviews diocesan safeguarding audits and returns. Members are appointed by the Archbishops. https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2017-11/NSSG%20Terms%20of%20Reference%20and%20Membership%20Nov%202017.pdf
NST – National Safeguarding Team
Develops and implements national policy; handles complex and high profile cases; commissions reviews; does national survivor support and engagement, co-ordinates independent diocesan safeguarding audits. https://www.churchofengland.org/safeguarding/promoting-safer-church
NSWG – National Safeguarding Working Group
Provides administrative support for the NSSG.
PCR – Past Cases Review (Safeguarding)
The PCR was commissioned in 2007 and released its results in 2010, listing only 13 outstanding safeguarding cases nationally. The Singleton Review of the PCR was published in 2018. https://www.churchofengland.org/news-and-media/news-and-statements/report-handling-past-cases-review
PCR2 – Past Cases Review version 2
A second review of past cases, with wider terms, is currently underway. https://www.churchofengland.org/safeguarding/reviews-and-reports/past-cases-review-2/past-cases-review-2-faq
Policy and Practice Guidelines – see https://www.churchofengland.org/safeguarding/policy-and-practice-guidance
PSA – Provincial Safeguarding Adviser (Lambeth)
Based in London, at the archbishop of Canterbury’s offices. Deals with the southern dioceses of the C of E.
PSA – Provincial Safeguarding Adviser (Bishopthorpe)
Based in York, at the Archbishop of York’s offices. Deals with the northern dioceses of the C of E.
PSO – Parish Safeguarding Officer
The person who leads safeguarding in a particular parish.
Review
Investigation and report into how a safeguarding case, or cases, has been handled. Sometimes called a Lessons Learned Review. For distinction between internal and independent reviews see here: https://thirtyoneeight.org/news-and-events/publications/together-magazine/2020-winter/winter-2020/internal-or-independent/
Safe Spaces
A free and independent support service for survivors of any kind of abuse, run by Victim Support on behalf of the Church of England, the Church in Wales, and the Catholic Church of England and Wales. Launched September 2020. https://www.safespacesenglandandwales.org.uk
SAR – Subject Access Request
Under UK law we have a right to know what personal data organisations store. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) website gives advice on how to file an SAR. https://ico.org.uk/your-data-matters/your-right-to-get-copies-of-your-data/
SCIE – Social Care Institute for Excellence
A charity specialising in safeguarding, which works with churches and other bodies to conduct surveys and carry out reviews. https://www.scie.org.uk/safeguarding
Shemmings Report
A report of the review by David and Yvonne Shemmings into safeguarding failures in Chichester Diocese. https://safeguarding.chichester.anglican.org/documents/shemmings-report/
Singleton Report
Sir Roger Singleton’s review of the Past Cases Review, published 2018. https://www.churchofengland.org/news-and-media/news-and-statements/report-handling-past-cases-review
SRG – Survivors Reference Group
Organise safeguarding presentations to General Synod, contribute to policy, and have input into some appointments.
Survivors Voices
Works to engage the skills and expertise of survivors to improve the response to abuse. Run by and for survivors and their supporters. https://survivorsvoices.org
Thirtyone:eight – formerly CCPAS
An independent Christian safeguarding charity providing a range of support to churches and organisations, including training, reviews, and DBS service. https://thirtyoneeight.org
Truth Project
IICSA project n which survivors of CSA are invited to share their experiences and be listened to respectfully. It concludes in 2021. https://www.truthproject.org.uk/i-will-be-heard
Whitsey Review – A Betrayal of Trust
Review by David Pearl and Kate Wood into Chester Diocese’s handling of CSA allegations against Victor Whitsey, Bishop of Chester 1974-81. Published in October 2020 but withdrawn in November due to a legal issue. It will be re-issued in due course. https://www.churchofengland.org/news-and-media/news-and-statements/review-bishop-whitsey
Masterly, Janet. Thanks. It reminds me of the letters after my name – WMBH (well-meaning but hopeless).
I understand that some of the URLs don’t work as live links. You may have to cut and paste them into your search bar.
Thank you for all the work put in. I wonder if I am correct in my interpretation of the link to 31/8 and the difference between independent and internal reviews. Am I correct in thinking that if a diocese hires 31/8 to review a case the resulting review cannot be called independent?
It was actually Justin Humphreys, CEO of Thirtyone:eight, who pointed me to the article by sharing it approvingly on Twitter.
The point you raise indicates the complexity of ‘independence’. Someone has to pay a reviewer, and the only candidate is the body wanting the review. At least Thirtyone:eight isn’t in-house, and isn’t solely dependent on payments from the C of E for its survival. But it has a fine line to tread. It has a good reputation, and as far as I’m aware has never been accused of a conflict of interest.
The independence in such cases is not baaed on who pays as much as who has the control in the process. Someone always has to pay and this is unlikely to be an organisation other than the one to be focused upon. All the reviews undertaken by thirtyone:eight are therefore independent. For further information about how thirtyone:eight considers its independence, you might find the following link helpful: https://thirtyoneeight.org/about-us/who-we-are/independent-and-christian/
This is an interesting comment Justin but as a survivor from Southwark diocese (not JF) I can confirm that who pays for the review is very much the focus of the diocesan secretary. I have been told that because the diocese paid for my review it belongs to them, I cannot share it with anyone, not even for support. The review was conducted by an independent reviewer who has done work for 31:8, and was very good, but had to strictly adhere to the wishes of the diocese.
Southwark diocese strongly upholds its right to autonomy from the NST meaning that survivors have little opportunity for redress because all matters are greeted with ‘it’s a diocesan matter.’
Any review is only as good as the actions that follow and Southwark have consistently said (in line with HoB policy) that learning reviews are not judgmental but provide the basis for better safeguarding practice in the future. All very well unless you are a survivor still awaitng justice. If an LLR uncovers negligence or an indication that there has been systemic safeguarding failures in the diocese, which are likely to have impacted on other cases, and no action is taken as a result, that is simply another layer of abuse.
Though 31:8 states that it may refer concerns to statutory agencies the most likely overriding concern is the continued cover up by the diocese and wider church and most contracted reviewers, like Moira Gibb, have to agree that once the report is published they will have no further control over how it is actioned.
LLR’s could be very good but sadly in the church they can often add to the experience of re-abuse to survivors be they independent or internal.
Southwark Diocese has a terrible safeguarding reputation. It has recently acquired a new DSA who may improve things, but of course decisions about releasing reviews will not be up to him.
Trish, are you bound by an NDA or other confidentiality agreement? If so, you might let the Archbishop of Canterbury’s office know about it – or Justin directly, if you can. However, he has little power over bishops and dioceses who are determined to continue in bad practice. I hope you have managed to obtain good support despite Southwark’s cruel treatment of you.
Thank you Trish. As you say a review carried out with integrity can be and sometimes is, misused by he who pays the piper. The reviewer then has inadvertently collaborated in a cover up without knowing it and with absolutely no blame attached to the reviewer. However once the reviewer becomes aware this is happening what then?
The Granville Gibbons Review, conducted by Dr. Stephanie Gibson on behalf of Durham Diocese, has been published today. The review was completed in 2017 and has not been updated before publication. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ToB8PTSrsO4meIVqNhAoN7y2eJNjF3oT/view
Sorry, the reviewer was Dr. Stephanie Hill, not Gibson.
“…not been updated before publication.”
Yes, and not least because it refers on several occasions to John Habgood as still being alive, though too frail to be interviewed.
This report is a significant blow to Habgood’s reputation. Like Eric Kemp, he ignored the claims (even when confronted by them) and considered them to be mischief-making.
The new biography of Habgood deals with his relationship with the Ball brothers, and appears to be candid, but the timing of its publication is unfortunate in the light of this news: https://spckpublishing.co.uk/just-john-473
Evidently, arrogant clericalism was not only the monopoly of the most ‘traditional’ of diocesans in the 1970s and 1980s, but also of one of the the leading ‘white knights’ of liberal Anglicanism.
In the light of the stains to George Carey’s reputation following the Ball/IICSA revelations, it seems that in 1990 Margaret Thatcher was presumably presented by something of a Hobson’s choice, at least from a safeguarding perspective.
The drip-drip of dismal and corrosive news continues. The one crumb of comfort is the praise directed towards the current bishop of Durham for his handling of the complaints.
This is brilliant, Janet, I will circulate a link to all our church/faith-based activists!
Trish I am so sad and disgusted about your situation, as always. I wish we could do more to help.
It perfectly demonstrates the desperate need for an appeals process. It is accepted practice for lessons leant/case reviews to be about drawing lessons for the future, rather than addressing problematic decisions/practice. The advantage of this approach is a move from apportioning blame to critical inquiry proves to enable more people to whistleblow The standard best practice in this is actually the air & marine industry – see https://www.chirp.co.uk/
The bigger gap at the moment in the CofE is a lack of complaints/appeal procedure. I have tried to put in a complaint about my core group, and the NCI HR department have rejected it, saying it doesn’t fit their complaints procedure. Interesting that their complaints process allows them to decide what is a legitimate complaint! The wording in their policy doesn’t exactly say that, so I am challenging that. It will be interesting to see what they come up with!
A proper appeals procedure is needed, with a standard staged move from local resolution, to independent investigation, to independent appeal (ombudsman). This is on my post-IICSA activism list too!
A slightly more positive update to this. I have now heard that my representation about my complaint (I complained about it not being accepted as a complaint) has been escalated (seeking clarification about what that means) AND they have agreed that the current complaints process ‘is not fit for purpose’ (that is something of a breakthrough I feel). Apparently it will be addressed as part of the work on the new independent safeguarding structure (as per IICSA recommendations).
What that means for my complaint is unclear, but it will make it possible for anyone to complain in future.
Well done Jane. These and other breakthroughs only come about through the persistence of comlainants. It is so hard when the people who should be listening are recalcitrant but every time we persist and make a breakthrough means a slightly easier time for others. Hope you yourself will be properly listened to now.
Thank you Mary. I don’t take any credit, but it’s good to hear them commit to a reform, as that is something we can make sure happens!
Jane, I’m so glad you have at least something positive at last, and in time for Christmas.
Thank you Janet. I am struggling to be positive, to be honest. I have been waiting a month for a response to first order questions and understood it had been drafted. Despite 3 requests for it to be signed off in time for my advocate to relate it to me on her last working day before Christmas, it did not arrive. (I am too fragile at the moment to communicate directly with my case worker).
It relates to their understanding of rape and consent, and of the credibility given to my testimony and the denial and lies of my abuser, so is critical . I wish there was a Christmas break from all this for me. But as you know, when something this big is hanging over you, it can dominate your thoughts and feelings, every day.
Trying not to let that diminish the positive about the complaints process. But its hard to shut it away.
Anyway sorry to be negative. Wishing a peaceful Christmas to everyone reading this, and with thankfulness for the support and community we find here.
I’m so sorry to hear it. You don’t need to apologise for being negative, you have a lot to be negative about.
I hope you manage to have a peaceful – and healthy! – Christmas.
So sorry to hear you are struggling to get timely and respectful responses Jane. In my learning review these delays were described by the reviewer as being ‘built in’ which rather suggests they are intentional. Designed perhaps to encourage you to give up. I used to get very worn out with these delays because as you say they use up all your head space but then I started seeing them as a challenge that I wasn’t going to let the bastards win with. So just when they thought they had worn me down up I would pop up, ever so politely, asking how it was all going. They were so cross it was most satisfying.
The most incredible thing about your success with the complaints process is that you are able to challenge the church while still keeping engaged with them about survivor involvement. That is a rare thing. You are a gifted and kind person . If you are being negative please dont be negative about yourself you are worth so much more than that.