Decision

Birmingham Diocesan Trust

Published 3 September 2019

This decision was withdrawn on 18 January 2022

This Inquiry report has been archived as it is over 2 years old.

The charity

Birmingham Diocesan Trust (‘the charity’) was registered on 14 October 1966. It is governed by a Declaration of Trust dated 3 July 1931 as amended on 22 September 2017 and 26 January 2018.

The charity’s entry can be found on the register of charities.

The charity’s objects are focused on the advancement or maintenance of the Roman Catholic religion in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Birmingham.

Background

On 21 December 2018 the Commission opened a statutory inquiry into the charity under section 46 of the Charities Act 2011 (‘the Act’). The inquiry closed on 3 September 2019 with the publication of this report.

In May 2016 the charity became aware that the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) had selected it as a case study. In preparation for the charity’s inquiry hearing in November 2018 the charity commissioned several reviews of its safeguarding procedures, including an audit by the Social Care Institute for Excellence (SCIE), which reported in October 2018. The reviews highlighted serious concerns with the charity’s safeguarding policies, procedures and governance. Following the November 2018 IICSA hearing, IICSA published its report on the charity on 20 June 2019.

The SCIE audit report in October 2018 identified a number of concerns relating to safeguarding policies and procedures and managing live risks. The report referred to some safeguarding policies being “very outdated” and to “some local procedures and guidance that was almost apologetic about safeguarding.” The audit findings went onto say that safeguarding record keeping was inadequate and there was no case management system. It found that the documentation supporting Safeguarding Agreements (a mechanism to support offenders who wish to attend church to do so safely) was inadequate. In addition there was no strategic training plan for staff, clergy or volunteers. In conclusion the audit found that there was a lack of strategic direction, independent oversight and scrutiny of safeguarding.

Following receipt of the SCIE report the trustees appointed an interim Head of Safeguarding Transformation in November 2018 and set up a Safeguarding Response Group to make recommendations to trustees on improvements required. The Commission engaged with the charity and its advisers to obtain further information on safeguarding governance issues and was concerned about the time it took to respond to the Commission’s questions and concerns.

A report by the charity’s interim Head of Safeguarding Transformation dated 6 December 2018 added to the Commission’s regulatory concerns. The report stated:

“There are 43 safeguarding agreements in a filing cabinet with varying degrees of compliance. Some files consist only of an unsigned agreement and no sense of what the conviction may be….. none of these seem to have been reviewed. To be clear; these are mostly adults who have been convicted of a sexual crime against a child or adult. They are likely to be on the Sex Offenders Register. These are people we know who should be subject to restrictions but may have been forgotten. All of these need urgent review.”

The report found paper records were stored in a ‘haphazard’ fashion, and the recording of cases was ‘chaotic’.

After making further enquiries, the Commission was told that as a result of the serious safeguarding concerns raised by the interim Head of Safeguarding Transformation, the charity did take some action, for example letters were written to parish priests in relation to the 43 safeguarding agreements to establish whether the individuals were known. However, the trustees were unable to provide the Commission with sufficient assurance that all live risks were being managed as promptly and robustly as should be expected.

The Commission had serious concerns regarding safeguarding governance and whether the trustees had sufficient grip of the required remedial actions and were addressing these in a timely way. Safeguarding training was insufficient and a lack of appropriate steps were being taken to identify and manage risk. It was unclear whether sufficient resource was being deployed to ensure the trustees were discharging their legal duty of care and acting in the charity’s best interests by protecting its people to whom it had a duty of care, including beneficiaries.

As a result an inquiry was opened on 21 December 2018 and an urgent meeting with the charity set up.

The scope of the inquiry was to look at the charity’s governance, management, policies and practices with regard to safeguarding and people protection issues, particularly in relation to the charity’s:

• risk management procedures and handling of incidents reported post 2016
• responsibility to provide a safe environment for its beneficiaries, staff and other charity workers
• vetting and following of DBS procedures in relation to its employees, volunteers and other charity workers
• response to and actions on the internal audit report
• consideration and responsible management of reputational damage and/or damage to public trust and confidence in the charity and charities more generally from its actions and/or lack of actions

Findings

The inquiry was concerned that the trustees did not appear to appreciate the inadequacy of the charity’s safeguarding governance and/or had taken insufficient steps with sufficient pace and resource to address this. There was a lack of urgency in the charity’s review of its safeguarding practices, including a delay of over a year and a half between IICSA advising the charity it had been chosen as a case study for its inquiry and therefore should begin to review its safeguarding practices and the charity starting to do so. The trustees explained this was due to consideration being given as to whether a review would pre-empt any findings from IICSA. In the inquiry’s view the charity should have prioritised reviewing its safeguarding policies, procedures and governance and had previously reminded all charities to do so. The Commission had issued an alert to charities in December 2017 reminding them of the importance of providing a safe and trusted environment which safeguards anyone who comes into contact with it including beneficiaries, staff and volunteers. The public alert also advised charities to ensure that they undertake a thorough review of their safeguarding governance and management arrangements and performance if one has not been recently conducted within the last 12 months as well as contact the Commission about safeguarding issues, or serious safeguarding incidents, complaints or allegations which have not previously been disclosed to the charity regulator. It was of concern that the charity had not done so in light of the nature of its activities, the safeguarding issues it was dealing with and the public spotlight on the charity’s safeguarding history as a result of IICSA.

The inquiry found the lack of safeguarding skills and experience on the trustee board meant that the governance oversight has not been sufficiently robust. Shortcomings in safeguarding governance have placed the charity’s beneficiaries, others coming into contact with the charity and its reputation at undue risk.

In January 2019 the inquiry urgently met with the trustees of the charity and the interim Head of Safeguarding Transformation who was appointed in November 2018. It separately met with other external consultants brought on board by the interim Head of Safeguarding Transformation to review and update safeguarding agreements. Safeguarding agreements, also called Agreements Concerning Worship, are a key mechanism to support offenders who wish to attend church, to do so safely. Safeguarding Agreements should be underpinned by a risk assessment that details the risks posed by a worshipper and the measures in place to manage those risks. The SCIE report had looked at ten safeguarding agreements and found that the quality of recording in relation to Safeguarding Agreements was not adequate, most files had no risk assessment setting out why a person was subject to a Safeguarding Agreement and the Safeguarding Agreements were not reviewed with sufficient frequency. The role of the consultants was to review and bring up to date all the Safeguarding Agreements.

The inquiry confirmed that some safeguarding files were in very poor order; there was no filing system and documents were in no particular order in hanging files. There were no electronic safeguarding records; records were handwritten. It was unclear what some records contained and therefore there was a potential risk that they contained unmanaged safeguarding concerns. There was no central entry point for correspondence into the Diocese. Correspondence was going directly to individuals who filed and dealt with the correspondence themselves, meaning that files could potentially contain safeguarding concerns that had not been recognised as such.

In response to the SCIE report, the trustees compiled an action plan to improve safeguarding governance based on the findings and other internal reports and provided the inquiry with regular updates based on the action plan indicating that progress was being made. During the inquiry the highest risk areas were effectively progressed, for example the consultants completed their review of all Safeguarding Agreements with the appropriate statutory agencies engaged and arrangements are in place to ensure that regular reviews of the Safeguarding Agreements are carried out. In addition all the hard copy cases files were reviewed and actioned where appropriate either by or under the supervision of the interim Head of Safeguarding Transformation. A new case management system has been purchased with the intention of its being fully operational with all old cases transferred onto it by mid-September 2019. In the inquiry’s view there is significant progress still to be made on some of the longer term changes required, including the development of a strategic training programme, and making changes to the culture of the charity.

The trustees co-operated with the inquiry by providing timely information and regular updates. The charity showed that steps had been taken to improve safeguarding governance, in particular by making good progress in addressing the areas of highest risk. The inquiry was satisfied that the charity’s staff had taken significant steps to improve safeguarding governance and manage the safeguarding risks to beneficiaries and those people that come into contact with the charity. All safeguarding agreements had been reviewed and steps were being taken to manage the risks arising from them, and other cases had been or were in the process of being reviewed. Additional personnel had been or were in the process of being recruited. In the inquiry’s view the personnel brought on board by the trustees and in turn by the interim Head of Safeguarding Transformation appeared to have the necessary skills and experience to improve the way that safeguarding was being managed.

The inquiry liaised with other statutory agencies and authorities to ensure that the relevant bodies were aware of the situation, including the risks, and were given the opportunities to manage them.

The Commission needs to be assured on behalf of the public that the trustees will continue to make timely progress on all identified risks as a result of poor safeguarding governance, including on areas that may be more difficult to address such as improving the culture of the organisation. Due to the assurance from the steps taken and progress made as a result of and during the Commission’s inquiry and the trustees’ co-operation with the inquiry, the Commission closed the inquiry with the use of its powers, namely issuing an Order under section 84 of the Act directing the trustees to complete the remaining actions necessary to address ongoing concerns with safeguarding governance.

The Order requires the trustees to continue to improve the charity’s safeguarding governance in the following areas:

Quality Assurance

This includes the trustees ensuring that Catholic Safeguarding Advisory Service (CSAS) policies and procedures are being followed, and that quality assurance processes are implemented.

Organisational and Structural Change

This includes the trustees providing the Commission with evidence of progress towards the full implementation of a new safeguarding management system, and of changes to the organisational structure and management and reporting arrangements relating to safeguarding.

Cultural Change

This includes the trustees improving the delivery of safeguarding training, support to parishes, leadership and its responses to future allegations and incidents.

Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) Checks

This includes the trustees improving systems and procedures relating to DBS checks.

Conclusions

The Commission concluded that there was serious misconduct and/or mismanagement in the administration of the charity in relation to its safeguarding oversight and governance. As a result of the inadequate safeguarding governance and oversight, the trustees failed in their duties to protect those individuals that come into contact with their charity. The trustees appeared to be either insufficiently aware of the seriousness of the shortcomings in the charity’s safeguarding governance that they should have known about and acted on, alternatively, where they were sighted on problems, they did not adequately or fully address them in the pace or way expected. The trustees’ failure to take appropriate prompt action with regards to safeguarding exposed the charity, beneficiaries and others coming into contact with the charity to undue risk. This impacted on public trust in the charity and its leadership and the reputation of the charity and charity more generally.

The charity’s culture fell short of the culture and environment expected of a charity of this nature. Whilst safeguarding was not ignored, it was not sufficiently prioritised by the trustees in terms of their oversight of the practice and procedures and their seeking assurance that these were fit for purpose. Safeguarding risks were not adequately managed. The trustees did not ensure that the robust oversight and priority that safeguarding should be given was made a reality or ensure that the standards the public would expect a charity of this nature to adhere to given its work and activities were met.

Significant action has now been taken to improve safeguarding governance at the charity. This includes, for example, the appointment of an interim Head of Safeguarding Transformation, the independent review of safeguarding agreements and cases and the awarding of a contract for the provision of external Quality Assurance and professional supervision of safeguarding staff. Whilst the highest risk areas resulting from poor governance have been addressed, the Commission is concerned to ensure that the current momentum in progress and improvements is maintained in the longer term. As a result the trustees have been issued with an Order under Section 84, directing the trustees to take further action necessary to address ongoing concerns with safeguarding governance.

Regulatory action taken

On 23 April 2019 the inquiry issued an Order under Section 84 of the Act requiring the trustees to undertake action expedient in the interests of the charity. A formal report documenting and evidencing progress on each of the 19 points in the Order was produced by the trustees and submitted to the inquiry on 22 July 2019. The Commission will monitor progress, and return to the charity to assess the trustees’ compliance with the Order. The Commission may open a further statutory inquiry into the charity in future if it is not satisfied that the trustees have fully complied with the actions required.

The inquiry provided regulatory advice and guidance to the charity regarding safeguarding governance and the importance of creating the correct culture and a trusted environment.

Issues for the wider sector

In the context of safeguarding issues and safeguarding governance matters, the Commission has a regulatory role which is focused on the conduct of trustees and the steps they take to protect beneficiaries and others who come into contact with a charity through its work. Trustee duties include taking reasonable steps to protect people who come into contact with their charity from harm. This includes people who benefit or come into contact with their charity through its work, staff and volunteers. It is important that all charities take reasonable steps to protect the people they come into contact with, including those for whom they have a specific duty of care. The Commission’s role is to hold charities to account for the steps that they take.

Effective trustee boards lead by example, setting and owning the charity’s values, setting the standard and modelling behaviours that reflect those values, and requiring anyone representing the charity to reflect its values positively. In every charity there should be a culture and environment that meets public, regulatory and its own people’s expectations that it is an environment and culture which everyone knows and has confidence will:

• prioritise safeguarding at all levels
• be trusted, by its own people and others the charity comes into contact with, to encourage those concerned about safeguarding issues and/or governance to come forward to report incidents and concerns
• listen to and support those coming forward with concerns and deal with concerns sensitively

An effective culture of keeping people safe identifies, deters and tackles behaviours which minimise or ignore harm to people and cover up or downplay failures. Failures to protect people from harm should be identified and lessons learned and there should be full and frank disclosure, including to regulators.

Trustees need to make a report to the Commission if a serious safeguarding risk materialises. As well as reporting to the Commission, trustees should also notify the police, local authority and/or relevant statutory agency responsible for dealing with these incidents. The Commission cannot investigate or deal with incidents of abuse or mistreatment, but it will need to make contact with the other agencies or regulators and follow up on their investigations. The Commission’s role is to ensure the trustees are handling the incident responsibly and going forward where necessary improved governance and controls are put in place by trustees in order to protect the charity and its beneficiaries from further harm.

Dealing properly with incidents of harm to people, reporting them, and ensuring lessons are learned and acted on will protect the reputation of a charity in the long term; it means that donors, stakeholders and the wider public can be confident that the charity operates with integrity and delivers on its charitable purpose. Focusing on avoiding negative or critical media coverage when incidents have happened will not fulfil the trustees’ duty to protect a charity’s reputation, nor serve the shared responsibility to uphold the reputation of charity as a whole.

Charities must never lose sight of why they exist and must demonstrate how their charitable purpose drives everything they do, and most especially how they respond when things go wrong.