Review Fatigue: How Many More Warnings Does the Church Need?

Independent safeguarding reviews have become one of the Church's favourite forms of institutional theatre: commission a report, express concern, promise change, and carry on much as before. After reading enough of them, scepticism isn't cynicism. It's a rational response to an institution that has become far better at reviewing failure than confronting it.

That scepticism isn't directed at those who carry out these reviews. Quite the opposite. It comes from watching thoughtful, evidence-based reports disappear into the machinery of the Church of England. They are welcomed, thanked, debated, and absorbed into yet another implementation plan, working group or governance programme. Then, a few years later, another independent review arrives identifying many of the same failures.

That is why INEQE's latest Annual Report, and the Church Times headline that safeguarding progress is being "resisted at high level", caught my attention. Not because the findings were surprising, but because they were so painfully familiar. I didn't just recognise the pattern. I lived it.

Alexis Jay reached similar conclusions about the need for fundamental reform.

The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) reached similar conclusions.

The Church itself accepted that its safeguarding arrangements lacked genuine independence when it created the Independent Safeguarding Board (ISB). It recognised that confidence could not be rebuilt while the Church continued to mark its own homework.

Instead, the ISB became a lesson in just how difficult genuine independence proved to be. Whatever view people take of the individuals involved, one fact is difficult to escape: one of the Church's flagship safeguarding reforms collapsed amid disputes about governance, accountability and independence itself. Rather than restoring confidence, it raised an even more uncomfortable question. Did the Church really want independent scrutiny, or only independent scrutiny that remained comfortably within its control?

Now INEQE has reached much the same conclusion. As the Church Times reported, safeguarding progress continues to be resisted at senior levels.

What struck me most, however, was Jim Gamble's accompanying statement. While recognising genuine progress, he warned that "the last thing the wider Church now needs is drift."

He is absolutely right.

The Church of England does not lack evidence. It has spent years commissioning independent experts to examine the same underlying problems, and they have repeatedly pointed to leadership, governance, accountability, culture and independence. The problem is no longer identifying what needs to change. The problem is finding leaders willing to change it.

As a former Diocesan Safeguarding Adviser, I never believed the Church's greatest safeguarding risk was the parish volunteer who had forgotten to renew their safeguarding training, or the vicar whose DBS renewal had lapsed because of processing backlogs.

The most significant risks were almost always failures of leadership, management, governance, and accountability. Policies rarely fail on paper. Institutions fail when those with authority lack the backbone to confront uncomfortable truths and hold themselves to the same standards they expect of everyone else.

That is why I remain sceptical of the Church's dependence on reviews. Reviews are valuable, but only if they lead to decisions. If every independent body reaches broadly the same conclusions, commissioning another review stops looking like accountability and starts looking like institutional procrastination.

There is a saying, often misattributed to Albert Einstein, that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results. Whether Einstein ever said it or not, the Church's approach to safeguarding increasingly risks proving the point. Every few years another independent review is commissioned. Every few years another respected body identifies broadly the same problems. Every few years another programme promises to deliver the reform that the last programme never quite achieved.

The Church of England has enough evidence.

Alexis Jay provided it.

IICSA reinforced it.

The ISB demonstrated that creating independent scrutiny is one thing; accepting genuinely independent challenge is quite another.

Now INEQE has added to the pile.

The Church of England does not need another independent review.

It needs leaders prepared to read the ones they have already commissioned, accept what they say, and have the courage to act on them, instead of commissioning another

in the hope of getting a different answer.

~ Michelle Burns

Guarding the Flock

Writing this blog takes time, care, and a lot of tea. If it’s been helpful to you, you’re very welcome to buy me a cuppa as a small way of supporting it. No pressure at all – I’m just glad you’re here - Michelle