This can be an emotive topic as well as one that sometimes leaves you questioning what the best option is - The balance between wanting to removing and individual from your organisation or moving them to a role that has reduced risk.
It may seem pretty straight forward, allegations are investigated and, if proven, they lead to dismissal.
But what if there isn’t clear evidence or in the case in the Church of England the allegations aren’t properly and thoroughly investigated? In that case the independent review highlighted systemic issues and a shocking lack of curiosity and inaction when people tried to warn the CoE about what was happening. Smyth’s position within the church gave him a veneer of trustworthiness that opened doors for him to abuse and most probably contributed to the lack of anyone challenging him.
Why you need to have a rigorous process in place to manage concerns
The ‘if proven’ element, which is required to dismiss someone, is redundant if the organisation are not willing to investigate the concerns rigorously and discover if there is clear evidence or not. We assume in most cases this is done to protect the wider brand and reputation of the organisation involved. What we then see happen, as in this case, is the individual is moved elsewhere. What is concerning is moving the individual merely moves the abuse, if it’s true, and allows it to continue and risks more people being harmed.
Under no circumstances should anyone be putting the protection of their reputation ahead of the protection of those in their care.
Without the rigor of a proper investigation to determine whether the concern is legitimate or not, looking for a quick and quiet resolution will always only be a (perceived) short term benefit. This shows a shocking, blinkered future foresight of the negative consequences when it is discovered the claims were legitimate. Even if the case re-emerges and a thorough investigation shows no harm occurred, your reputation can still be damaged as the lack professional safeguarding processes will still emerge.
Equally, 'Settlement agreements' (where a person agrees to resign and the employer agrees not to pursue disciplinary action) must not be used in cases of alleged abuse.
We can’t say how often this occurs, the very nature of quietly moving someone and paying lip service to the process removes the ability to measure it. What we can say is a quick quiet resolution will be significantly outweighed by the far more damaging impact if harm is uncovered later on.
What if there has been a thorough investigation but there are still concerns?
They could be genuinely innocent and there is a particular behaviour that is causing the concern that needs to be addressed. There could be behaviours that are close overstepping the mark but have yet to transcend into an incident. Or there simply isn’t the evidence to prove the genuine concern. In these instances, transferring the individual to a new role where there is no risk is an option to consider but only if a rigorous investigation has occurred. This should be openly discussed with the individual as it could make someone who is innocent feel like that is an admission of guilty. Equally those raising the concern should be informed of the outcome of the investigation and potential options to ensure everyone is happy. So what other options are there?
Alternative options to transferring an individual?
If it is a serious allegation and the local authority have been involved in the case management process, they will advise on other appropriate pathways to follow. However, there are some other things you can do though:
Address concerns with the individual
If the incident doesn't meet the threshold for risk of harm, you can address any conduct or behaviour issues with the individual. A specific behaviour that might be causing the concern can be addressed and actions take to mitigate any continuation or contact with the individual at risk of harm.
Further Training
Ensure the individual is provided with rigorous safeguarding training so they learn what behaviours could cause concerns and improve their knowledge of what is acceptable.
Increased Supervision
If resource permits, other team members can provide support by supervising them directly. Ensuring that any access to those at risk is with another member of staff present. This reduces the risk of harm as well as the opportunity to spot the potential concerning behaving to be able to provide feedback.
There isn’t always and obvious or simple solution and it’s an emotive subject of balancing safety of those at risk as a priority and then fairness to an individual who may potentially been falsely accused. The priority is to instigate a rigorous safeguarding process for reporting and then managing concerns. The outcome of that then determines the next steps.
What does the correct process for managing allegations look like?
Patronus Safeguarding provide excellent safeguarding reporting software that even includes AI to help you complete the correct forms. This helps ensure you follow the correct process and escalate where appropriate
The NSPCC also provide a very useful step by step guide on what the correct process should be, which we’ve also summarised below.
Responding to concerns
The general process to follow is:
Raise Alert >> Case Management Group >> Referral to Authorities >> Investigation >> Outcome
Take any concerns raised about staff or volunteers seriously, regardless of who the person is, how long they've been involved. Gather the facts, keep written records but do not attempt to investigate yourself.
If an allegation is made that involves any of the following you must immediate report this to the relevant authorities (for example the NSPCC Helpline on 0808 800 5000 or help@nspcc.org.uk, your local child protection services or the police):
Note, the NSPCC Helpline can help when you're not sure if a situation needs a safeguarding response.
You can also liaise with your local protection services and the police to ensure that you are responding appropriately. If the allegation is against someone you do not employ directly, then the organisation they work or volunteer for should be involved in the investigation.
Confidentiality and support
You should make every effort to maintain the confidentiality of all parties while a concern is being investigated, which includes everyone involved understanding this.
Consider how best to support the individual at risk, their parents or carers, and the individual who the concern is raised against. This includes:
When to make a referral to the DBS or Disclosure Scotland
It’s important to follow your organisation’s protection and disciplinary procedures to establish facts and gather evidence before making any referral.
Regardless of whether the person was dismissed, moved roles, or left of their own accord, a referral should be made to the relevant disclosure and barring agency if evidence has been found that they:
This is referred to as ‘relevant conduct’ by the DBS.
A referral can be made if none of this conduct has taken place but it is still believed that a person may harm someone, or put them at risk of harm. This is referred to as the ‘harm test’ (DBS, 2017).
With the information provided, the DBS or Disclosure Scotland will decide if the person should be added to their barred list to prevent them from working in a regulated activity or work with children again in the future.
Even if there has been no police involvement, or the decision has been made not to take criminal proceedings further, a referral can still be made to the DBS or Disclosure Scotland.
What your referral should include
When making a referral, it’s important to provide as much supporting evidence as possible to enable them to make their decision. It’s important to include:
There is plenty of support available to help you navigate the process of when a concern is raised. Equally the same support will help you navigate the outcomes and the best options available to ensure the individual at risk is prioritised and their safety assured.
What we cannot continue to allow is the priority being placed on the brand reputation. A brand that evidences a robust safeguarding reporting process, even if they find an individual who has caused harm is the goal we should not be afraid of achieving. This enhances your brand, not diminishes it.
Feel like you’ve got this topic cracked? Why not try our simple quiz
It may seem pretty straight forward, allegations are investigated and, if proven, they lead to dismissal.
But what if there isn’t clear evidence or in the case in the Church of England the allegations aren’t properly and thoroughly investigated? In that case the independent review highlighted systemic issues and a shocking lack of curiosity and inaction when people tried to warn the CoE about what was happening. Smyth’s position within the church gave him a veneer of trustworthiness that opened doors for him to abuse and most probably contributed to the lack of anyone challenging him.
Why you need to have a rigorous process in place to manage concerns
The ‘if proven’ element, which is required to dismiss someone, is redundant if the organisation are not willing to investigate the concerns rigorously and discover if there is clear evidence or not. We assume in most cases this is done to protect the wider brand and reputation of the organisation involved. What we then see happen, as in this case, is the individual is moved elsewhere. What is concerning is moving the individual merely moves the abuse, if it’s true, and allows it to continue and risks more people being harmed.
Under no circumstances should anyone be putting the protection of their reputation ahead of the protection of those in their care.
Without the rigor of a proper investigation to determine whether the concern is legitimate or not, looking for a quick and quiet resolution will always only be a (perceived) short term benefit. This shows a shocking, blinkered future foresight of the negative consequences when it is discovered the claims were legitimate. Even if the case re-emerges and a thorough investigation shows no harm occurred, your reputation can still be damaged as the lack professional safeguarding processes will still emerge.
Equally, 'Settlement agreements' (where a person agrees to resign and the employer agrees not to pursue disciplinary action) must not be used in cases of alleged abuse.
We can’t say how often this occurs, the very nature of quietly moving someone and paying lip service to the process removes the ability to measure it. What we can say is a quick quiet resolution will be significantly outweighed by the far more damaging impact if harm is uncovered later on.
What if there has been a thorough investigation but there are still concerns?
They could be genuinely innocent and there is a particular behaviour that is causing the concern that needs to be addressed. There could be behaviours that are close overstepping the mark but have yet to transcend into an incident. Or there simply isn’t the evidence to prove the genuine concern. In these instances, transferring the individual to a new role where there is no risk is an option to consider but only if a rigorous investigation has occurred. This should be openly discussed with the individual as it could make someone who is innocent feel like that is an admission of guilty. Equally those raising the concern should be informed of the outcome of the investigation and potential options to ensure everyone is happy. So what other options are there?
Alternative options to transferring an individual?
If it is a serious allegation and the local authority have been involved in the case management process, they will advise on other appropriate pathways to follow. However, there are some other things you can do though:
Address concerns with the individual
If the incident doesn't meet the threshold for risk of harm, you can address any conduct or behaviour issues with the individual. A specific behaviour that might be causing the concern can be addressed and actions take to mitigate any continuation or contact with the individual at risk of harm.
Further Training
Ensure the individual is provided with rigorous safeguarding training so they learn what behaviours could cause concerns and improve their knowledge of what is acceptable.
Increased Supervision
If resource permits, other team members can provide support by supervising them directly. Ensuring that any access to those at risk is with another member of staff present. This reduces the risk of harm as well as the opportunity to spot the potential concerning behaving to be able to provide feedback.
There isn’t always and obvious or simple solution and it’s an emotive subject of balancing safety of those at risk as a priority and then fairness to an individual who may potentially been falsely accused. The priority is to instigate a rigorous safeguarding process for reporting and then managing concerns. The outcome of that then determines the next steps.
What does the correct process for managing allegations look like?
Patronus Safeguarding provide excellent safeguarding reporting software that even includes AI to help you complete the correct forms. This helps ensure you follow the correct process and escalate where appropriate
The NSPCC also provide a very useful step by step guide on what the correct process should be, which we’ve also summarised below.
Responding to concerns
The general process to follow is:
Raise Alert >> Case Management Group >> Referral to Authorities >> Investigation >> Outcome
Take any concerns raised about staff or volunteers seriously, regardless of who the person is, how long they've been involved. Gather the facts, keep written records but do not attempt to investigate yourself.
If an allegation is made that involves any of the following you must immediate report this to the relevant authorities (for example the NSPCC Helpline on 0808 800 5000 or help@nspcc.org.uk, your local child protection services or the police):
- behaved in a way that has harmed, or may have harmed an individual
- possibly committed a criminal offence against, or related to, an individual
- behaved towards a child or adult at risk in a way that indicates they may pose a risk of harm
- behaved in a way that indicates they may not be suitable to work with children or adults at risk
Note, the NSPCC Helpline can help when you're not sure if a situation needs a safeguarding response.
You can also liaise with your local protection services and the police to ensure that you are responding appropriately. If the allegation is against someone you do not employ directly, then the organisation they work or volunteer for should be involved in the investigation.
Confidentiality and support
You should make every effort to maintain the confidentiality of all parties while a concern is being investigated, which includes everyone involved understanding this.
Consider how best to support the individual at risk, their parents or carers, and the individual who the concern is raised against. This includes:
- Telling all those mentioned above about the allegation as soon as possible (as long as this does not place anyone at further risk of harm)
- Telling them how you are going to manage the allegation
- Keeping everyone informed about the progress and outcomes of the case.
When to make a referral to the DBS or Disclosure Scotland
It’s important to follow your organisation’s protection and disciplinary procedures to establish facts and gather evidence before making any referral.
Regardless of whether the person was dismissed, moved roles, or left of their own accord, a referral should be made to the relevant disclosure and barring agency if evidence has been found that they:
- harmed an individual
- pose a risk of harm to an individual
- accessed or have been in possession of sexual abuse material relating to children
- accessed or have been in possession of sexually explicit images depicting violence against someone
- sexually abused an individual
- or have received a caution or conviction for a relevant offence.
This is referred to as ‘relevant conduct’ by the DBS.
A referral can be made if none of this conduct has taken place but it is still believed that a person may harm someone, or put them at risk of harm. This is referred to as the ‘harm test’ (DBS, 2017).
With the information provided, the DBS or Disclosure Scotland will decide if the person should be added to their barred list to prevent them from working in a regulated activity or work with children again in the future.
Even if there has been no police involvement, or the decision has been made not to take criminal proceedings further, a referral can still be made to the DBS or Disclosure Scotland.
What your referral should include
When making a referral, it’s important to provide as much supporting evidence as possible to enable them to make their decision. It’s important to include:
- details of any external investigations carried out by the police or other agencies
- details of any other internal disciplinary actions, or complaints about the person’s conduct
- training and supervision records that are accurate and include dates
- signed and dated witness statements
- an impact statement from the individual who has been affected, if appropriate
- a chronology and detail of events from the initial notification of inappropriate conduct to the final outcome of any investigations
- other appropriate evidence to support harmful or potentially harmful conduct, such as taped or videoed interviews.
There is plenty of support available to help you navigate the process of when a concern is raised. Equally the same support will help you navigate the outcomes and the best options available to ensure the individual at risk is prioritised and their safety assured.
What we cannot continue to allow is the priority being placed on the brand reputation. A brand that evidences a robust safeguarding reporting process, even if they find an individual who has caused harm is the goal we should not be afraid of achieving. This enhances your brand, not diminishes it.
Feel like you’ve got this topic cracked? Why not try our simple quiz