In the safeguarding world, certain words get used over and over again. One of these words is independence. Independence is something that is required particularly when institutions and their members are challenged for poor behaviour. Someone from outside the organisation under scrutiny is needed to determine the guilt of otherwise of those caught up in a particular incident. Possibly the institution as a whole has been corrupted by guilt. There is a general common-sense assumption that only an outside body, one that does not contain members who owe loyalty of any kind to the organisation under scrutiny, can expect to get close to the truth. The independent group is in a good position to be able to apportion, when needed, blame and responsibility.
A good example of independence uncovering truth in the recent history of this country is found in the Independent Inquiry of Child Sexual Abuse, referred to as IICSA. This came into being because the British Government wanted to reveal the existence and extent of child sexual abuse in some of our national institutions. The organisation to do this work needed to be, as the first letter of the acronym IICSA suggests, independent. Its hearings were completed in 2021 but its final findings have yet to be published. As readers of this blog will know, a considerable amount of time was given to the role and failings of the churches in this area. The Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church in England were both put under scrutiny. Both can be said to be still processing a seemingly endless series of poorly handled cases which IICSA examined in detail. IICSA represents a positive example of what can happen when an outside body is able to scrutinise the inner workings of an institution without fear or favour. Organisations find it difficult, without independent help, properly to assess whether they are applying their own protocols and regulations to effectively protect the vulnerable.
Institutions like the churches can and do look to independent bodies to scrutinise their work in safeguarding and other matters of governance. The chief guarantee that such organisations are doing a good job in this area is found by looking to see, over a period, whether that body continues to maintain its reputation for integrity and competence. In Britain one organisation that has good reputation with the churches and survivors alike is the consultancy group called 31:8. It has recently produced reports on the Jonathan Fletcher affair and the Sheffield group, known as Crowded House. Both of these 31:8 reports were examined on this blog. It can be justly claimed that 31:8 has proved itself to be an independent group of the highest calibre. Not only are the opinions expressed measured and careful, but the depth of relevant specialist knowledge to provide the tools of analysis in each situation is remarkable.
The possibility of sound independence being maintained in safeguarding matters is provided by these two reports. No doubt there are others. One has less confidence in a process when a church, or indeed, any organisation, takes control over an ‘independent’ inquiry to examine something that has gone wrong internally. How can one guarantee that a report will be truly independent when the body commissioning it is paying for it? Does calling something independent necessarily make it so? Is it ever possible for independence to be fully preserved when the personnel and the money for the independent committee, come from the same place? When reputable independent reports are presented to the church, like the Elliot report examining the case of ‘Joe’, there also seems to be a tendency to bury the challenges contained in them and hope that people will quickly forget what was said. The new initiative, House of Survivors, will make, as Fiona Gardner puts it, this ‘collective amnesia’ in the Church harder to maintain.
In the safeguarding echelons of the Church of England we have an organisation called the Independent Safeguarding Board (ISB). Two problems exist for this group. One is that it is entirely funded by the Church of England. That fact alone makes it hard to trust it completely since the paymaster can always subtly compromise the work of an organisation that it is paying for. The ISB has also not been around long enough for it to have gained a reputation for rugged independence. There is yet another problem facing the ISB. The Chairman of the Board, Maggie Atkinson, is only able to give a small amount of time to the role. It is hard to see that anyone not full-time in such a role will ever obtain the ‘narrative-wisdom’ that is needed really to understand the range of historical and other material that exists. If the Church of England wishes the independent voice to be really heard, then it must invest much more by appointing a high-flyer, as Maggie Atkinson undoubtedly is, to give expertise, resources and adequate time to accomplish this role.
Before we offer further thoughts on what might be the way forward for building into the Church’s structures something that is truly independent, I want to give some thought to the word itself. I always find it helpful to examine individual words and see whether there are nuances of meaning can be extracted that I and others may have missed. The word independent has two parts. The second part of the word, ‘dependent’ is formed from the Latin word to hang. The simplest example of this would be in the word pendant. From the idea of simply hanging, we come to the idea of one thing firmly attached to another, like a child holding on the mother in the process of feeding. As the Psalmist puts it, as a child, he ‘hanged yet upon my mother’s breasts’ in order to survive. This picture of the child at the breast is the ultimate symbol of what we mean by the word ‘dependent’. There are obviously numerous other examples we can think of to denote dependency within the context of human relationships. Beyond that context, we can think of a factory manufacturing a product which needs raw materials to do its work. It thus depends on an uninterrupted supply of these materials. We can all think of numerous other examples of this kind of dependency. But here our main interest in the word is in the way that every human being is caught up in relationships that involve dependency, at least some of the time. This is a rich area of discussion and discovery. Sometimes dependency is life-giving and appropriate. At the same we know how dependency can sometimes be emotionally crushing and destructive. An entire blog post could easily be spent on this discussion. Here I want us to think of dependency as simply being the situation when individuals look to others to provide for their survival/physical/emotional needs.
The addition of the prefix ‘in’ to the word indicates that an individual is attempting to operate alone without any of this dependency. Independence as a word is applied to the young adult leaving home and a country shaking off colonial rule. If we are right to note the emotional, relational aspect of the word dependent, we may be correct in suspecting that many examples of ‘independent’ may also have a strong emotional flavour. There is this hint of proud maturity in the one using the word. We, the independent ones, no longer look to mother in order to survive and flourish.
One of the major issues in the safeguarding world is that the one searching for justice following abuse is still likely to be caught up in a maelstrom of emotions about what happened. He/she wants or needs a number of maybe conflicting things. The survivor above all wants to be heard. The need for compassion and independence on the part of the one listening is also of crucial importance to the survivor. Any sense that this independence is compromised in any way will damage the potential for healing in the relationship. I want to articulate in bullet points what true independence might look like from the perspective of a survivor.
- Independence requires that a listener, who is interacting with a survivor, can remain free of all outside agendas. Even if the listener is a member of a church that is somewhere involved in the case, for the purposes of the conversation, that fact should be placed to one side. The listening should be done by someone with no other concern except to hear and learn from the experience of another human being. The humanity of the listener is here the main requirement needed to be a listener and the survivor needs to feel that humanity.
- Every listener to survivors’ stories should have the skills of imagination to anticipate the survivors’ needs. Outbursts of anger, grief and shame may all enter into the interaction, but the independent listener should have the professional and personal skill to be able to handle these and not allow them to label any survivor as ‘difficult’. Those with the right skills should be able to gain the trust and respect of both sides, the church and the survivor, without compromising the need to be independent.
- The independent helper will be able to marshal not only considerable pastoral skill and expertise, but also have a proper immersion in the literature of abuse. Because safeguarding is a new profession, those entering it inevitably come from backgrounds which routinely have little insight into the history of the church and the variety of cases it has been involved in. Recently I have heard of highly paid safeguarding individuals who are not familiar with the IICSA material, let alone the dozens of individual reports and accounts that have appeared even in the past ten+ years. This process of familiarisation should be alleviated by a familiarity with material presented by the House of Survivors website
- Independence requires that, when necessary, the investigator should be able to offer a challenging critique of those who are abusing or have abused power. Confidence in the Church of England’s own ISB has been lessened because only once have we heard a challenging remark coming from its chair, Maggie Atkinson, about CofE structures. That was at the February 2022 General Synod. This comment, apparently aimed at the NST, was later, apparently, modified by her in a subsequent clarification. Exactly what was happening in this exchange is unclear, but the confusion has not created confidence in the true independence of the ISB. One suggestion that I have heard, is that the ISB is laying the groundwork for another organisation in the future able to provide independent scrutiny over the CofE. Survivors and those that support them want to see real evidence that the meaning of independence is understood within the Church of England and among its leaders. The evidence for that has yet to be revealed.
That the Church could produce the ISB which neither appears completely independent, nor particularly effective, is very disappointing, but not very surprising. If we are right in saying the Church of England is institutionally narcissistic, this result is to be expected.
If you have lived with a severe narcissist, you will have experienced the disconcerting phenomenon of not really having an independent existence from them. This is certainly marked if you move away from significant contact and are unable to fulfill their narcissistic demands. You don’t exist, other than insofar as you related to them, for them. Your opinions, feelings, views, appearance even, are only what they can accept in their own mind, not what you actually are. You don’t really exist.
Extrapolating from individual to corporation is possible and has been done regularly in the House of Survivors literature and elsewhere. I hesitated to use the word “Organisation” for the Church, because it often appears disorganised and dysfunctional.
One of the big problems with narcissism as an individual or institutional “defence” against the terrible anxieties at the core, is the inability to take in external data which might threaten its own adored image. Views are expressed outwards, but blocked from others coming from outside. It won’t hear you.
The narcissist won’t truly understand independence because it doesn’t recognise the other, it can’t. If you ever leave it, you’ll simply fall off the grid.
Neither can the narcissistic institution muster the bullet pointed skills listed above, like listening or imagination for another’s experience. Self critique is anathema to a narcissist. Learning expertise from outside organisations would just not occur to them.
It’s shocking to hear the DSA hadn’t read Gilo’s book, but then on reflection, it wasn’t surprising at all.
An individual narcissist does have a heart. The institution doesn’t. I’m coming to the conclusion after studying this subject for years, that it can never be changed from within. Of course I’d be delighted to be wrong or corrected if any of the above is erroneous and can be expressed more accurately and in simple English.
So far I believe the IICSA has been relatively effective because it was convened completely from outside the Church and also pretty well run. I believe only externally driven initiatives can possibly be effective.
Watched the most recent Synod again yesterday, and was struck by the Gavin Drake/Simon Butler portion of proceedings.
https://youtu.be/8yY5-SGcpto 2:15:40 ff
Drake raised questions about the ISB remit and the workings of the NST. It was clear that his motion needed further information and preparation for debate by a Synod whose many members are very new.
But the canon from Battersea shot down Drake’s motion in flames and effectively killed it off for the remainder of this term. Butler was keen to sell Synod the picture of a rosy NST glowing with full health. “My experience of the NST is the most reflective learning culture in the whole of the Church of England.” The experience of many, both complainants and respondents, would lead them to an altogether different assessment. Wasn’t this the driving point of the Micah 6:8 initiative?
https://houseofsurvivors.org/category/survivor-initiatives/micah-68-petition/
I gathered later that both Archbishops opposed the truncation of full debate and voted against Simon Butler’s motion. They presumably hoped to see Gavin Drake’s motion adjourned but debated within the 5 year term of this Synod. During the brief debate several voices spoke for adjournment but the process seemed out of their hands.
Were strings operated from the shadows to kill Drake’s motion before it had a chance to take root? It struck me that perhaps this was an example of the operational methods of those who control Synod. A Chair, witty and buoyant, seemed nevertheless out of her depth and reliant on direction from a bewigged lawyer on her left. Watching closely, it seems the lawyer was keen to move Synod on procedurally to ‘next business’ which killed off the Drake.
Wouldn’t adjournment have been the best solution? I’m not a committee animal, and Synod seems to me a curious jabberwocky with hidden power-play at each corner of its circle. I’m at a loss to understand why something as simple as adjournment was not possible. Would an experienced Chair have deftly steered Drake into July and so kept the debate open for exploration?
I raise a glass to all in Synod who navigate its procedural circus to fight our corner. Anyone spot the gentleman on the far right at the back of the platform? He reminded me of Monty Burns from The Simpsons.
We are probably all familiar with the Law of Unintended Consequences. However what we are talking about here may well be the result of the Law of Intended Consequences: ‘Every system is perfectly designed to get the results it gets.’ (variously attributed to Deming, Batalden and Jones)
The safeguarding system crushes complainants and protects and empowers the senior hierarchy; the CDM system crushes rank-and-file clergy and protects and empowers the senior hierarchy; the Synod procedure crushes discussion and protects and empowers the senior hierarchy.
It is had to resist the conclusion that this is the system operating as it was designed.
Oh I’m sure the consequences are exactly what was intended. Looking at the Synod, I’m aware many are overawed by its solemnity, glaring positional hierarchy and sense of occasion. To others we find the deliberate obfuscation irritating to the point of triggering. All organisations have some elements of pageant and theatricality in their diaries but effective decisions are made behind closed doors not in these committees. Constitutionally these places rubber stamp. The inexperience of newcomers aids the process.
Thank you Gilo for pointing us to the exact place so we can listen to Gavin Drake’s speech again. You summarise it well. The problem for the listener is that it is read at speed and refers to other pieces of church legislation which the new members of Synod and non-members will find it hard to follow. The ‘Kenneth’ case showed up well one part of the current failings. I am hoping that House of Survivors might even transliterate parts of Gavin’s speech as it is a cause of shame that so reasonable a proposal never got a decent airing.
One of the problems of Synod is that folk prepare 5 minute speeches but get nervous they will be cut off before reaching the end, so they read too quickly. Once I got up at 4 am to hone my speech – you could not get more concentrated argument in that time – it took ages. Then just before I was called the Chair reduced the limit to 3 minutes. I had to throw it away and “ free wheel” . Luckily as a former professional advocate I could control my nerves but it’s very hard for the less confident.
Best advice ? Make big points first, identify opponents weak points next. Explain last – that way they can only cut off the least effective points.
I totally agree. They are actually encouraging facile brevity, a bit like a radio phone-in, where one is constantly in fear of the chop. How awful given that the best thinkers will naturally take longer to make their well argued presentations. I hope there is some facility for directing hearers to some longer presentation online.
To find out whether a body is independent ask three questions:
1) who appointed you?
2) who pays you?
3) what sanctions can you exercise on the body you are responsible for?
In the case of the church of England is independent safeguarding board I’m afraid the answers are
1) the church.
2) the church.
3) none.
I hope that somebody from the church or the ISB will prove me wrong.
And we can add to that: who set your terms of reference or remit?
The answer, again, is almost always ‘the church’.
I really wanted 31:8 to assess my case against my Diocese but they wouldnt.
They said they would only do so if the church asked them and paid them.
So i find independance coupled with inaction ; what use is that ?
Nobody mentioned SCIE and their “independant” safeguarding audits ; paid for by the church and told not to talk to victims.
So my safeguarding team get a glowing report to cover up their failure.
Chris, I am sorry to hear you were so badly short changed. It is time auditors and reviewers stopped auditing and reviewing Dioceses without contacting survivors. At present they are providing glowing reports when survivors could show otherwise. By doing so I believe they are shoring up Dioceses and essentially permitting them to get away with safeguarding failures. This should stop. I think that auditors and reviewers should also stop taking on work when they are restricted from acting in individual cases. That would put an end to the church saying we have taken comments on board … lessons learned etc … and then doing nothing about it. I ask those involved in undertaking such reviews to stop giving the church such get out clauses. You only add insult to injury to survivors with reviews which are used to cover up and whitewash safeguarding failures.
I have been informed that my Diocese boasted about their wonderful report too. Do we know who is giving these glowing reviews? I wonder how many Dioceses have received them and whether any Diocese received a review saying there have been failures. Given the high number of Bishops known to have ignored safeguarding complaints surely some Diocese have received reviews reflecting this disturbing misconduct. For instance we know the former Bishop of Lincoln was suspended for allegedly ignoring a complaint. It would be good to know if they had a review and what it said. I haven’t seen the report on the review into Lambeth Palace yet. As I know what my evidence consists of and they also reviewed Kenneth’s case, it will be interesting to see what the report says.
To fill you in Mary,
The review of all the Dioceses was undertaken by the SCIE.
There was a bit of a stink about survivors not being considered so they hurriedly put together a survivor survey (part 2).
I felt this part 2 was a masterpiece but my diocese wouldnt put it on their website.
You can find the main report part 1 & 2 on the new website House of survivors.
Thank you very much. I cannot understand how anyone can conduct a thorough review without involving all concerned. Who would give credence to a review of say, a restaurant if only the chefs were consulted. The idea is so ludicrous. And are survivors expected to constantly monitor the website of a Diocese in order to know when a review is being carried out? Many of us would not know that these reviews are carried out nor that they would be listed somewhere on a Diocesan website. I for one did not know that these reviews took place let alone that reviewers expected me to scour a website constantly . I did not know about the Lambeth Palace review until Kenneth posted about it here. I have been given more notice of a new road being built some distance away and consulted about it to boot in case I wanted my voice heard. One way of ensuring the voice of survivors remains unheard is to take steps which lessen their chances of knowing a review is taking place. The safeguarding industry should make it a point of honour to consult with all survivors who wish to take part, before giving out glowing reports. For instance it was only because someone advised me to make a subject access request that I found out my case had been reviewed for past cases review 2. I was not told about the review, my opinion was not sought, and this enabled a person who has played a significant part in my case to “independently” review it as satisfactory. Previously when I d complained about his role which included abusive behaviour, writing to tell me I should forgive and forget because it was a church matter, and writing to say it must be understood that those with restrictions may forget about them and accidentally breach them, Melissa Carslake marked my case high priority. Having dealt with matters to the satisfaction of my Diocese, he was then employed in national safeguarding where he abused his position to review my case in an attempt to bury the evidence for good. I still have his emails to substantiate these and other horrors, such as not being permitted to report incidents whilst on going discussion went ahead to decide to whom I would be permitted to disclose. No wonder nobody wants to tell us about reviews. How could the church get away with so much so often unless the voice of survivors was restricted? Apparently that the website of an organisation conducting safeguarding reviews says that doing so protects vulnerable persons. I should imagine they would all claim that. So why don’t they ensure we are properly consulted and our voices heard? Perhaps they care more about their pay than about protecting us.
After all this justified frustration which we all share , you have to face up to the fact that those in power in the Dioceses dont give a toss about other people.
The Bishops who have too much power are not christians at all , but just selfish and egotistic portfolio seekers.
If the church was run by decent people there would be no need for safeguarding departments.
Things are umproving slowly , thanks to some good people who get little reward for their goodness.
Andrew Graystone’s test number 2, payment, needs some analysis. I spent many years as an auditor, and in private practice we were paid by the client. We weren’t truly independent therefore and I spent many hours reflecting on this and on the validity of our work. Our profession put safeguards in place, such as not accepting work with fees likely to exceed a certain percentage of the practice’s total, and restrictions on us, for example on accepting gifts from the client. Behind a lot of what we did was risk assessment. If you miss something, or get something wrong, and it came to light, our professional reputation was at risk. This could jeopardise our livelihood and and for the partners, their houses. If we were dishonest, theoretically prison beckoned. The mix was carefully managed to ensure negative outcomes for us were avoided, which won’t surprise you.
But if you want full time expertise someone does have to pay for it. Practitioners tend to want to be paid more if they are giving opinion on higher risk matters, because of what they themselves put at risk, as well as the risk of getting it wrong and obviously the difficulty of the work.
Higher up the food chain, there have been many scandals where the public has asked: “where were the auditors?” Independence (or the lack of it) sits at the core of the answer to this question. The auditing profession is regulated (arguably heavily) and has been for many years, and still there are problems.
Independent safeguarding scrutiny by contrast, is a relatively new endeavour, and it won’t be easy to get this right.
There is going to be an independent review which includes whether safeguarding disclosures can be safely made in my Diocese. I have contacted the reviewer as clearly making police charges in regard to reporting breaches and a court trial for writing to national safeguarding and my pso has not made it safe for me to disclose. Just waiting to see if the review turns out to be truly independent. Will update when I know.
Thank you Mary , i dont know if you know but the SCIE gave a churchwide report in 2 parts.The 2nd part was an afterthought under pressure , and was a survivor survey.
Their findings were quite impressive and could have led to radical reforms if it gad been listened to.
The various diocese were too busy gloating over their gold medals for part 1 , and part 2 got kicked into the long grass.
The next SCIE Safeguarding review will have to include survivor input from the start ; i am ready to talk to them about the failures in Derby !
Thanks Chris for the information, which I didn’t know. I have just found that my Diocese too have been gloating over their review and well they might as they managed once again to cover up significant failures. I do hope your input is listened to. What I want to ask the reviewers is why they felt able to listen to one side of the story and then give out golden awards. It is all right for the agencies conducting the reviews, they may well envisage a future of regular reviews ensuring their jobs and pay packets are protected. They and the Diocese do well out of the arrangement as long as nobody takes notice of the likes of you and I. It is time a real safeguarding industry grew, one that speaks to all parties concerned and takes action when failures are found. Doing anything else is worse then pointless as safeguarding issues are not addressed, survivors still await justice and their abuse to be addressed, and Dioceses boast how impressive their review was. We should not need to tell the safeguarding industry that safeguarding is about protecting survivors and trying to ensure fewer failures occur, but it seems we must. If the agencies carry on like this, perhaps we should do as Petra (I think it was Petra or Trish) suggest and refuse to co-operate with the whitewash which passes for a review. At least that would make it clear out stories were being able ignored so the review could not be trusted. Anyway good luck and I hope your story will not be ignored this time.
That’s what Matthew Ineson did – he could see the Devamanikkam Review wasn’t going to be independent, so he refused to give it any credibility by co-operating.