There are two press releases about this. The first one, copied immediately below, is on the Safeguarding pages. The second, much longer one, is on the general news pages, National report on Church of England’s second past cases review published.
I have put the additional text into a PDF file, available here.
And there are separate press releases relating to the National Safeguarding Team, Lambeth Palace, Bishopthorpe Palace, and each diocese (follow the links below).
Press Release from Safeguarding pages:
Past Cases Review 2
The Past Cases Review 2 (PCR2) was run in all Church of England dioceses between 2019 – 2022.
Past Cases Review 1 (PCR1) was commissioned because of several Church of England clergy and church officers being charged with sexual offences against children. PCR1 was conducted between 2007 and 2009. In May 2016 concerns were raised regarding the judgements presented from PCR1. An Independent Scrutiny Team concluded that whilst the review was well motivated and thoughtfully planned, limitations existed in relation to its execution. As a result, Past Cases Review 2 (PCR2) was commissioned by the Archbishops’ Council in 2019 as part of the overall commitment to improving the way in which the Church responds to allegations and concerns.
The National Report was published in October 2022.
Read the National Report
Published in October 2022 by the National Safeguarding Steering Group
Other reports
Diocesan reports
The reports of findings in Dioceses are published on local diocesan safeguarding pages.
Key Documents
Please see our FAQs section for more information on PCR2.
PCR2 follows a report in 2018 into the original PCR (2007-2009) which revealed shortcomings both in the process and final result.
For many survivors this will seem like another C of E ‘whitewash’ exercise designed to gather dust for the next 20 years. NST told me that the following were all valid reasons for reports by survivors to be excluded from PCR2 (and these were only the reasons for the few cases I was aware of, tried to raise but all of which were rejected): Reports about Bishops were excluded Reports about anyone now dead are excluded (specifically even a detailed claim with supporting physical evidence and witnesses, but about a dead person, could not even be logged as an outstanding… Read more »
Lacking from the main PCR2 report is a table of cases by diocese, which would be highly revealing. Maybe another commentator on here has the time to visit all 42 diocesan websites and compile one?
May be a wait before anyone can do that, The PCR2 FAQ includes “Dioceses will decide on a timescale and format for publishing local findings. Many have advised they are intending to do so at the same time as the publication of the national report, but this is a local decision.”
It must be acknowledged that the C of E has made major improvements in many areas of safeguarding over the past 7 years. An enormous amount of really effective work has been done locally, ‘at the coal face’ as it were. Enormous gratitude is due to literally thousands of churchwardens, diocesan and cathedral staff and others, usually in the most humble positions, and it is regrettable that these people do not receive the thanks they deserve. However the treatment of whistleblowers and survivors by those at the ‘top of’ the Church remains deeply unsatisfactory. Helen King, GS member, has demonstrated… Read more »
Thank you, Adrian. I read all the IICSA hearing transcripts for the C of E and I am amazed when people at GS or in senior roles express surprise at that. It’s our duty. Simple. On and on goes the rhetoric of being on a journey, apologies, regrets… but there is not enough action. Like you, I identify a key problem as the independence of dioceses/diocesans, seen in other areas too (application of Issues in Human Sexuality, for one). The local/national distinction and its application needs serious theological work.
The Church of England should not behave as a secular organisation. We are supposed to Love our God and Love our Neighbour. In its treatment of survivors over the last 30 years, and now in 2022, the Church Leadership has utterly failed to do either. Where is the theological reflection or even self-awareness? It is as though it’s fine to mutter pious thoughts on state occasions and on Sundays, while continuing to abuse and re-abuse people the rest of the time. Being on a journey for the last 30 years wears a bit thin when we appear to be further… Read more »
I agree Adrian. I have little confidence in a system that is flawed, controlled by people who have been all too willing to protect the institution rather than the people who are being abused and re abused by it or who whistle blow at great personal cost. I wonder how many more of these reports there will be, how many more ‘lessons learned’ statements and how many more coverups exposed. Sadly I suspect there will be more to come.
https://shared-conversations.com/2022/10/05/extending-our-search-for-the-truth-reviewing-past-cases-review-2/
Nothing yet visible on Winchester’s website https://www.winchester.anglican.org/safeguarding/past-cases-review-2/
Yes it is galling that Winchester and its Diocesan appear to have said nothing when the Diocesan used to be Deputy Lead Safeguarding Bishop. Similarly for Bristol with no acknowledgement on the Diocese or Diocesan Twitter feed or on the Diocese news part of its website despite the fact that the Diocesan is currently Deputy Lead Safeguarding Bishop and Co-chair of APPG on Safeguarding in Faith settings, I believe.
Mote and beam come to mind.
It is now! (Today – 7th October 2022) https://www.winchester.anglican.org/comprehensive-safeguarding-review-published/
And so is Sheffield now
https://www.sheffield.anglican.org/UserFiles/File//Diocese-of-Sheffield-Exec-Summary-2022.pdf
I believe the Diocese of Chichester is the Diocese with the worst safeguarding record in the C of E, though I am happy to be corrected. The IICSA inquiry into Chichester Diocese was just embarrassing beyond belief. Its Diocesan made multiple attempts to convince a sceptical world that it had turned a new leaf and the 2 suffragans are both relatively new and both post-IICSA. It is therefore a concern that its response to PCR2 appears so derisory, both on an absolute basis and when compared to other Dioceses. There is no mention on either the Twitter feed of the… Read more »
It is not clear to me whether PCR2 considered Church of England mission agencies within its remit. The text refers eg to cathedrals, theological colleges and religious communities but does not specifically mention mission agencies – I am referring to organisations like CMS, USPG, SAMS, CrossLinks etc. On the basis of my own personal knowledge I have to say that it is intrinsically likely that on occasion abuse by the missionaries and personnel of such agencies did occur. It is an area where I think the C of E needs to be proactive. Whatever the exact legal status of such… Read more »
Very interesting to read this. Many dioceses affected .Interesting to note that Peter Forster who ordained many women and promoted his former colleague at Beverley Minster to be first woman Bishop in C of E ….is now to be ordained as RC priest.
There’s integrity in the amount of work that went into this and I trust that of the national survivor rep. Some key issues are there, like culture. Overall it presents a picture of a concerning inconsistency in whether existing policy is being followed.
A lot of new cases which is worrying.
The fact that only 65 survivors contributed is a failure of engagement. This needs urgent action.
I’ve read a few of the local executive summaries. Some come across as open & honest. Some say nothing!
Left with very mixed feelings.
‘Now the real work begins’. Bishop Rose provides the most enlightened response to PCR2 that I am aware of but I hope there are even better examples out there?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6WY_EmOn8s
You can read the full report from the Diocese of London here: https://www.london.anglican.org/articles/past-cases-review-2-publication-of-independent-report-and-diocesan-response/
The picture in St Albans seems positive, although no diocese can afford to relax for a nanosecond. 1,848 files reviewed (clergy, Readers, diocesan and parish employees), together with a further 99 cases examined which were included on a Known Cases List. No way of measuring this number. There was a 100% response from parishes, with a small number of files flagged for further action. All were dealt with to a satisfactory conclusion. The review noted that the diocese has no Human Resources department, with the result that some enquiries get sent to the DSA’s team for want of any other… Read more »
“with a satisfactory conclusion” – to whom? I think we have to take care about suggesting that unsatisfactory circumstances (whether abuse or unwelcome attention or false accusations) have led to a satisfactory outcome. Almost inevitably there will be someone who is unsatisfied. Another question would be whether the conclusion has adequately addressed any power imbalances involved. What we should be thinking about is the extent to which there has been closure for those most closely involved (unlikely to be complete in serious cases – and challenging to get close in the most serious) and whether present and future risks have… Read more »
Indeed. A lady spent very many days trawling through old PCC minutes to discover there were no allegations of abuse. So, if Vicar was abusing anybody, he omitted to inform the PCC.
This is a very good point. Indeed, given that there is so much in all this about power dynamics in the Church throughout its different levels, any suspicions at the time might not have got anywhere near to being recorded in the PCC minutes. A very pertinent pause for thought. Do we know for certain that each parish was as systematic as they might have been? Your acquaintance sounds very diligent in the exercise which they undertook, but I suspect that other parishes might have taken more of a ‘not in our memory’ approach, especially if records had already been… Read more »
Since return from holiday (with a heavy Moroccan cold) I’ve had a chance to gather a few comments together. Not the right ones, or only ones, just my own reflections. Disappointed but not greatly surprised to see that one diocese I undertook PCR2 consultancy for, has ignored all my recommendations. Same recommendations were sent to PCR2 Central. But to no avail. Accurate diocesan count for genuine transparency. The particular diocese made none available *Qualitative* output as well as quantitative. The diocese offered neither. Qualitative output might have included in another diocese a reference to a note in diocesan files “We… Read more »
The Church repeats the mantra “journey of change” but I perceive a journey of managed embarrassment with ongoing concealment of considerable data. Who knows the combined DCR numbers? I know it was 50 on York’s DCR list some five plus years ago. But PCR2 was determined to exclude DCR material despite the challenge to this faulty remit by many survivors. And seemed determined to resist many other obvious recommendations from the natural experts – survivors. Through it all I perceive the fingerprint of that part of Archbishops’ Council that other members of the Council do not seem to know how… Read more »
I’ve had a look at some of the Dioceses’ comments and behind the complacency and ‘whitewash’ to use Adrian’s phrase there are some very serious matters which are pushed down so that the the dioceses can say ‘Didn’t we do well!’ All’s OK here. Choosing one diocese at random – Manchester – The diocesan report on their website says: the needs of any known victims/survivors have been considered, and sources of support identified and offered where this is appropriate. all identified risks have been assessed and mitigated as far as reasonably possible. But wait! Look at the report itself which… Read more »
n Southwark diocese I have fought for 18 months with the diocese, national PCR2 management team and NST because the lead reviewer was not manifestly independent. The lead reviewer had only left the NST six months prior to their PCR2 commission and had worked at the NST with the person who was acting as the interim DSA for Southwark throughout the majority of PCR2. I have been told that this is independent -how? Unsuprisingly the executive summary is quite glowing and praises the diocese on the way they use survivor input to improve safeguarding. This is the diocese that brought… Read more »
The Diocese of Leicester appears to have been more open than many, and permitted greater survivor input than most, for which it should be commended. Inevitably this means that it reveals the truly shocking state of Safeguarding at a National level. https://d3hgrlq6yacptf.cloudfront.net/5f3ffd8a9f6aa/content/pages/documents/pcr2-participant-account.docx This case is truly shocking in its own right, but in the real world we all know it is only the tip of the iceberg, Meanwhile, back on Planet General Synod, 99% of members/‘leaders’ will carry on wilfully ignoring all the evidence put before them (remember ‘we asked for bread, you gave us stones’ anyone?). I think survivors… Read more »
Chester Diocese: ‘utterly awful behaviour going right to the top of the diocese’ according to the Bishop of Chester. 70 years of abuse revealed. The C of E will pretend that Chester is an outlier, whereas it seems likely to be the opposite. It is clear that loads of other Dioceses have not turned over all the stones, have produced whitewash summary reports. Chester hope that PCR2 publicity will encourage others to come forwards. On the basis of what I’ve seen I would imagine that the reports from perhaps half a dozen dioceses might encourage survivors to come forwards, whereas… Read more »
“to mark its own homework…”
It’s certainly thought-provoking to me, having taught for 25 years and experienced five school inspections in that time, that schools don’t get to mark their own homework. They face the scrutiny and reports of external inspectors.
If that is important for schools, then there must be a case for a similar system when it comes to safeguarding, with inspectors from outside the Church of England producing these diocesan reports.
(Advisory: I stand to be corrected on this, as it’s not my area of expertise.)