What makes someone a “safeguarding risk”?

This week the Church of England announced the next stage in their response to the Makin Report. Having completed their risk assessments to determine whether, “there is any immediate safeguarding risk in light of criticisms made of individuals...”, they will now move on to determining, "whether complaints under the Clergy Discipline Measure 2003 should be brought" against those named in the Report.

A panel of safeguarding experts and lawyers has been brought together to review Makin's evidence in the light of "the relevant safeguarding policies and guidance which were in force at the time." The panel intend to publish a short report which will include any notifications of intended proceedings, possibly before February's General Synod.

The Panel will certainly face a number of issues, raised by Makin himself regarding "whether the findings of failures to report knowledge of abuse, as demonstrated throughout this report, constitute a disciplinary matter, or not," and the need for clarity around the the responsibilities of clergy who are also victims of abuse. One example given was an "unresolved issue" about how to deal with a situation where there were "discrepancies in the Church officer’s account relating to his experience of abuse" (Smyth Review p212).

It is unclear whether they will have the authority to consider the wider questions raised by the lead safeguarding bishop Joanne Grenfell and national safeguarding director Alexander Kubeyinje, in response to the review into Mike Pilavachi and Soul Survivor,

"Neither the behaviour described in the Mike Pilavachi investigation, nor the culture that permitted it to take place and continue, is acceptable in a church setting. We all need to take responsibility for creating a healthy culture where abuse is seen and prevented, and where power is held with humility and accountability. If our disciplinary processes are not robust enough to hold to account those who harm others, then they must change, in order to signal to the wider world that abuse in any form will not be tolerated."

More than half the recommendations of five recent 'lessons learned' reviews [1] relate to the cultural context in which the abuser operated or the lack of external accountability, which made it easier for survivor's complaints to be dismissed. Until these risks are taken seriously it will be almost impossible to prevent abuse taking place, because abusers don't just groom their victims, they look for cultures where they can hide in plain sight and then groom the system in which they are operating. While the abuser is responsible for their actions, time and again the reviewers make clear that others enabled the abuse to continue. As Makin said,

"This misuse of power and the minimisation of the effects of abuse is also seen in more recent cases that have been reviewed by the Church and other institutions. While speaking with many people during the Review, it has been apparent that many of them do not have a good understanding of the process of grooming and the power imbalance between the abuser and the abused." (Smyth Review p 232)

We are told that Jonathan Fletcher operated in a wider "culture of fear" (Fletcher Review p11) , in which "leadership on a pedestal was prized and the culture of ECW and the wider community in some ways enabled the behaviours to occur without accountability or scrutiny. It also facilitated a context in which disclosures could be minimised with rationales of protecting the gospel, protecting JF, protecting Iwerne, protecting the wider constituency and protecting the successes that had been achieved." (Fletcher Review p63)

In the case of Mike Pilavachi, the reviewers pointed to the, "notion of spiritual celebrity and the anointed leader, the blurring of boundaries within the Soul Survivor organisations, inadequate performance management and oversight from the trustees and the Church of England, and a failure to take action when matters became known. Overarching all this is the view we have taken that, when an organisation is seen as successful, people do not look carefully enough about what the price may be for such success." (Pilavachi Review p7)

But these issues do not just arise in evangelical churches.

William Farrell was found guilty of abusing children when he was Assistant Director of Music at two different cathedrals. There the reviewers were struck by, "the elevated status WSF was given within the Church community. In this case that status also appears to have crossed into education with WSF and his position having a significant impact on how professionals, families and children viewed him." (Farrell Review p27)

In Farrell's case this status allowed him to play "a primary role" in the appointment of a close friend to a role at the cathedral, who was later arrested for sexual offenses.

Fletcher was described as, "a 'king maker’ who could determine whether individuals would be selected for roles," [Fletcher Review p59] which left people "unable to speak out because of the possible consequences for your future". Similarly, "People certainly considered that their employment and future depended upon their relationship with Mr Pilavachi and not others." (Pilavachi Review p57)

This kind of relational power continues on after appointments are made, as the Pliavachi Review states:

"... the paucity of formal recruitment procedures and the entanglement of personal, professional, social and religious bonds were bound to create difficulties and tension without clear lines of accountability and transparency."

In such circumstances the need for effective external accountability is vital and it is another reccuring theme of the recommendations from these reviews.

It is not news that the Church of England's record of handling of safeguarding complaints and related clergy discipline (CDM) is poor. The review into child sex abuse by the Rev Devamanikkam, a middle of the road parish priest, catalogues the failures of senior clergy and diocesan officials to act on the information they received. The reviewer found that some senior clergy "prioritised their own involvement in CDM complaints over those that related to matters of safeguarding," and expressed surprise that where CDMs had been dismissed inappropriately, "There were no consequences for those involved."

Similarly warped priorities were identified by other reviews "It is apparent from the information provided to this review that senior clergy seem to have considered the ‘reputation’ of religious establishments or individuals on a par or perhaps of even greater importance than safeguarding children." (Farell Review p24)

However, concerns are also raised in these reviews about church leaders who avoid, or undermine, external accountability or promote the impression of faux-accountability to those who have no responsibility for discipline.

The Fletcher Review exposed churches which consider themselves "somewhat independent of the Diocese," as "a major factor in what we deem to be the lack of effective response to the disclosures and other concerns regarding the behaviour of JF/other safeguarding issues that were raised during JF’s incumbency." (Fletcher Review p)

It also pointed to the need for absolute clarity about how clergy discipline operates when a Provincial Episcopal Visitor provides additional episcopal oversight and questioned the view that clergy can be accountable to their Church Wardens.

"It is reported that JF mentioned that he had Church Wardens ’to hold me to account’ in his sermons. This perception of accountability meant that people were less likely to question or challenge as it was assumed that JF had accountability, which the evidence suggests, did not reflect the reality at ECW." (Fletcher Review p69)

Similar issues were seen at Soul Survivor, which even the Diocese of St Albans described as a “privately operated mission initiative,” (Pilavachi Review p13) and the problems caused by this lack of external accountability led to the reviewer recommending,

"Those who wish to be in communion or part of the Church of England should recognise that this comes with rights, but also responsibilities. There cannot be a view that you can have the “badge” but do not require the requisite governance and oversight structures to create a safe church." (Pilavachi Review p97)

This is true for individuals, as well as churches, particularly when they have a number of different roles, or are employed by a parachurch organisation. The Smyth Review promotes "The principle of ‘never not clergy’" (Smyth Review p239) to clarify the accountability of clergy to their bishops, even when they are operating in another sphere.

Identifying those who are a safeguarding risk because of their inactivity or the culture they support in their churches and networks is not easy, but it "a necessary part of a demonstrable commitment towards a safer, healthier culture." (Fletcher Review p11)

The panel meeting to determine whether those identified in the Makin Report should face disciplinary proceedings have a very specific job to do but it is vital that that the work does not end there. Having reflected on the recommendations of these reviews this blog offers ten questions that need to be asked about the behaviour of those identified in other reviews in order to assess whether they are in fact a 'safeguarding risk'.

If, as Bishop Jane Grenfell said, the Church of England's disciplinary processes will need to change for formal action to be taken, this will take time. However, in the meantime these questions could be used by churches and individuals as they consider the risk of offering roles or responsibilities, platforms, pulpits or publishing deals to any particular individual.

• Do they deny, or dismiss, the social, positional, economic and spiritual power they have?

• Does their reputation, prominence or power protect them from complaints or make it more difficult to challenge their poor behaviour?

• Is their behaviour excused because that's just the way they are?

• Do others avoid upsetting them for fear of losing roles, reputation or opportunities?

• Have they allowed appointments to be made without open, transparent and competitive processes?

• Have they allowed the appointment of family members, or old friends, within their church or network?

• Do they minimise the reality of abuse or the impact of abuse on themselves or others?

• Do they dismiss those who raise concerns about abuse as having their own agendas or harming the work of the gospel?

• Do they promote loyalty to a church, organisation, mission or individual over transparency and support for victims of abuse?

• Do they claim to be accountable to those who cannot discipline them or undermine the authority of those who can?

[1] Reviews referred to in this blog

Fletcher - March 2021 : Independent Lessons Learned Review (incorporating an Audit of Safeguarding Arrangements) Concerning Jonathan Fletcher and Emmanuel Church Wimbledon - by thirtyone:eight

Rev Jonathan Fletcher served in a conservative evangelical proprietary chapel.

Farrell - May 2022: Independent Overview Report WSF – Lessons Learned by Chris Robson

William Scott Farrell (WSF) served as the Assistant Director of Music in three cathedrals.

Devamanikkam - May 2023: Independent Learning Lessons Review - Late Trevor Devamanikkam by Jane Humphrys

Rev Devamanikkam was the vicar of a 'middle of the road' Anglican parish

Pilavachi - September 2024: Independent Review into Soul Survivor by Fiona Scolding KC and Ben Fullbrook

Rev Mike Pilavachi led the charismatic evangelical Soul Survivor network and led a church plant under a Bishop's Mission Order.

Smyth - October 2024 - Independent Learning Lessons Review - John Smyth QC by Keith Makin

John Smyth QC was a layman who served at his local evangelical church and Iwerne Camps.