The Church of England – A Safeguarding Crisis
In this article, SSS Learning authors Sam Preston and Sara Spinks examine the current safeguarding crisis within the Church of England and explore if lessons could be learnt from the best practice of UK educational settings.
The Church of England continues to face an unprecedented crisis of trust and integrity, stemming from its persistent failures in safeguarding. For decades, allegations of abuse and institutional cover-ups have plagued the Church, exposing deep flaws in its approach to protecting vulnerable individuals.
The resignation of Archbishop Justin Welby in November 2024, following criticism of his response to the John Smyth abuse scandal marked a turning point in this long-running issue. However, Welby’s departure was not the solution, rather it was an admission of systemic problems deeply embedded within the Church’s governance and safeguarding practices.
Concerns About Safeguarding
Despite the appointment of Archbishop Stephen Cottrell to replace Welby, the concerns about safeguarding have remained. Cottrell has also faced scrutiny over his handling of abuse cases, particularly regarding Reverend David Tudor. Tudor had previously been placed under safeguarding measures due to allegations against him. However, during Cottrell’s tenure as Bishop of Chelmsford, he remained in ministry and was even appointed as an honorary canon. This revelation fuelled calls for Cottrell’s resignation, with critics arguing that his actions demonstrated the Church’s continued reluctance to implement genuine safeguarding reform.
These incidents highlight the fundamental institutional weaknesses in the Church’s safeguarding structures. The complex, hierarchical nature of the Church often leads to decentralised decision-making, inconsistencies in safeguarding policies, and, ultimately, a failure to protect the vulnerable. The autonomy of individual dioceses enables safeguarding standards to vary widely, creating gaps in both accountability and enforcement.
This stands in stark contrast to the UK’s education system, which operates under a stringent, centralised safeguarding framework designed to prioritise child protection above all else.
As stated, the most significant obstacles to safeguarding reform in the Church of England is its deeply entrenched hierarchical structure. Unlike schools, which are subject to national safeguarding laws and external regulatory bodies, the Church operates through 42 autonomous dioceses, each with its own leadership and safeguarding teams. This decentralisation creates inconsistencies, allowing for different interpretations and implementations of safeguarding policies.
Concern Over the Power Vested in Bishops
A particularly conflicting aspect of the Church’s safeguarding system is the power vested in bishops. Bishops hold significant authority over safeguarding decisions, often acting as both pastoral leaders and adjudicators in abuse cases. This dual role creates an inherent conflict of interest, where institutional loyalty and reputation management can take precedence over the duty to protect victims. In many cases, safeguarding concerns have been handled internally rather than being referred to external agencies, mirroring the failings seen in past abuse scandals.
In comparison, schools have clear and externally enforced safeguarding procedures. No headteacher or governor has unchecked control over safeguarding decisions. Instead, schools operate within a national framework, with external bodies such as Ofsted, the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO), and safeguarding leads; ensuring that all concerns are addressed appropriately and transparently. This level of external oversight is sorely lacking in the Church, making reform difficult and leaving survivors without the assurances they deserve.
Safeguarding Lessons from the Education Sector
The education sector provides a robust model for effective safeguarding, a model which the Church could learn from. Schools are legally required to follow legislation, in England Keeping Children Safe in Education (KCSIE), in Wales Keeping Learners Safe, in Scotland the National Guidance for Child Protection in Scotland and in Northern Ireland Safeguarding and Child Protection in Schools: A Guide for Schools in Northern Ireland. This adherence to national legislation ensures a consistent and importantly a legally enforceable approach to safeguarding. If the Church of England hopes to rebuild trust and provide real protection for those at risk, it must adopt similar principles.
In order to do this, consideration should be given to:
-
Establishing an Independent Safeguarding Authority
Despite recent decisions to the contrary, the Church must move away from self-regulation and create a fully independent safeguarding body. Just as Ofsted inspects schools in England, Estyn in Wales, Education Scotland in Scotland and the Education and Training Inspectorate (ETI) in Northern Ireland; an external authority should oversee the Church’s safeguarding practices to ensure compliance, investigate failures, and impose consequences where necessary. Internal safeguarding reviews within the Church have repeatedly failed to deliver meaningful change, the time for independent oversight is long overdue.
-
Standardise Safeguarding Policies Across All Dioceses
One of the most glaring weaknesses in the Church’s approach is the lack of a uniform safeguarding policy across dioceses. Schools operate under a single, legally binding safeguarding framework, ensuring consistency across each country in the UK. The Church must implement a national safeguarding code that applies uniformly to every diocese, preventing the regional discrepancies that have allowed failures to persist.
-
Remove Bishops from Safeguarding Decision-Making
In schools, safeguarding concerns are handled by trained safeguarding leads and external agencies, rather than headteachers or governors. The Church should follow this model by removing bishops from safeguarding decisions and placing responsibility in the hands of trained safeguarding professionals. This would eliminate conflicts of interest and ensure that decisions are made in the best interests of victims, rather than the institution.
-
Make Safeguarding Training Mandatory for All Clergy and Staff
Schools require all staff, regardless of role, to undergo regular safeguarding training. The Church must implement a similar approach, ensuring that all clergy, volunteers, and lay staff receive comprehensive and regularly updated safeguarding training. Specialist training should also be undertaken for all those undertaking Designated Safeguarding Lead roles. Currently, training standards vary significantly between dioceses, and in some cases, clergy have been allowed to operate without sufficient safeguarding awareness.
-
Implement a Clear, Victim-Centred Approach
In schools, safeguarding policies prioritise the welfare of children above all else, with immediate interventions and trauma-informed support in place. The Church must shift focus towards a survivor-led approach, ensuring that trauma and adverse childhood experiences are recognised. Rather than being subjected to drawn-out and often retraumatising processes, victims should receive immediate pastoral and financial support. In essence, a culture shift is needed—one that places victim support above institutional self-preservation.
-
Introduce External Inspections and Compliance Audits
In the UK education system, safeguarding audits and external inspections are mandatory, ensuring schools meet and comply with strict safeguarding standards. These inspections hold schools accountable and enforce compliance, preventing systemic failures. The Church of England must implement a similar system of regular, independent safeguarding audits across all dioceses. Without a process of rigorous external scrutiny, sub-standard practice will not be identified, allowing safeguarding failures to continue and leaving victims vulnerable to further harm.
Independent Safeguarding Board (ISB)
The Church has historically struggled to establish an effective independent safeguarding system. In 2021, it created the Independent Safeguarding Board (ISB) to provide oversight and accountability. Despite initial intentions, the ISB quickly faced significant governance challenges, including internal conflicts, unclear authority, and allegations of data breaches. By June 2023, these problems led to the ISB being disbanded, further damaging trust in the Church’s ability to manage safeguarding independently.
Sarah Wilkinson
Following the collapse of the ISB, the Archbishops' Council commissioned barrister Sarah Wilkinson to conduct an independent review of the situation. Her findings, published in late 2023, highlighted fundamental design flaws in the ISB, exacerbated by time pressures and governance restrictions imposed by Church leadership. These structural weaknesses, Wilkinson concluded, contributed directly to the breakdown of the ISB and further eroded confidence among survivors and safeguarding experts.
Professor Alexis Jay
Recognising the urgent need for reform, the Archbishops of Canterbury and York appointed Professor Alexis Jay in July 2023 to develop a truly independent safeguarding system. Professor Jay, known for her leadership of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA), delivered her recommendations in February 2024. Her report identified severe inconsistencies in safeguarding practices across dioceses, a lack of external accountability, and a structural failure to protect victims from conflicts of interest.
To address these systemic issues, Professor Jay proposed the creation of two fully independent safeguarding bodies:
- An Independent Safeguarding Operations Body – Responsible for overseeing all safeguarding activities within the Church, ensuring that policies are implemented consistently and without clerical interference.
- An Independent Scrutiny and Oversight Body – Tasked with evaluating the safeguarding operations body, conducting regular audits, and holding the Church accountable for failures.
Her recommendations stressed the absolute necessity of external safeguarding audits, arguing that safeguarding decisions must be legally binding rather than advisory. This would prevent clergy from overriding safeguarding recommendations, a problem that has historically enabled abuse cases to be mishandled.
Synod Vote to Move Most National Safeguarding Staff
In February 2025, while the Synod voted to move most national safeguarding staff to an independent organisation, removing them from direct Church oversight, it postponed similar reforms for local dioceses, opting for further review instead. This decision was met with criticism from survivors, safeguarding experts, and campaigners, who argue that local safeguarding teams must also be independent to prevent conflicts of interest within dioceses.
Concerns the Church Is Resisting External Accountability
The delay in implementing full independence raises concerns that the Church is still resisting external accountability. Survivors argue that without mandatory, independent safeguarding audits, meaningful reform cannot happen. The resignation of Archbishop Justin Welby and calls for Archbishop Stephen Cottrell to step down, highlights the need for urgent action.
A Pivotal Moment for Church Safeguarding Reform
Professor Jay’s recommendations represent a pivotal moment for Church safeguarding reform. Without independent oversight, external inspections, and legally enforceable safeguarding policies, the Church of England risks repeating past failures. If it truly seeks to restore trust, it must fully embrace external safeguarding audits, ensuring that no diocese operates without transparent and consistent safeguarding standards.
The Church of England’s safeguarding failures have caused irreparable harm to survivors and have severely damaged its credibility as a moral institution. The time for internal inquiries and policy tweaks has long passed. If the Church is to genuinely protect the vulnerable and rebuild trust, it must embrace radical reform.
This means dismantling the structures that enable secrecy and inaction, prioritising victim welfare over clerical loyalty, and embedding independent oversight into every level of its safeguarding framework. Schools have demonstrated that robust safeguarding is possible when clear policies, external accountability, and a victim-centred approach are prioritised. The Church of England must follow this example, because anything less would be a betrayal of those it claims to serve.
Sam Preston (Safeguarding Director) & Sara Spinks (SSS Author and Former Headteacher)
10 March 2025
