Safeguarding, in practice

Holding both with care: supporting victims and respondents

Good practice and compliance when a safeguarding concern touches two lives at once.

Safeguarding asks us to hold two truths at the same time. Someone who reports having been harmed must be received with belief, compassion and care. At the same time, someone who is the subject of an allegation is entitled to fairness, dignity and due process. Doing both well, and lawfully, is the mark of a mature safeguarding culture.

Caring for those who have been harmed

When someone discloses abuse, the first response matters more than almost anything that follows. My Survivor Care and Support framework, aligned to CSSA Standard 3 in religious settings and to the Ofsted inspection framework and Keeping Children Safe in Education in education settings, is built to be trauma-informed and survivor-led, which means the person who has been harmed sets the pace, the scope and the form of support they want. Nothing is imposed, and the right to decline any element of support is retained at all times. In practice, that looks like:

• Listening first, believing, and responding with an unreserved apology where abuse has occurred.
• Making contact safe and predictable: an initial response within 24 hours, a listening meeting in a place of the survivor's choosing, and a tailored support plan co-produced with them.
• Keeping support genuinely independent of any investigation. A survivor's engagement with support is never conditional on cooperating with a process, and an independent supporter can be offered where the safeguarding lead also manages the case.
• Sustaining contact for as long as the survivor wishes, with the right to re-open it at any time, and capturing anonymised learning at the close.

Confidentiality is central. Information is shared only with the survivor's consent, unless the law or a protection duty requires otherwise, and records are held securely for the long term in line with retention requirements.

Supporting respondents fairly

Fairness to a respondent is not in tension with protecting the vulnerable; it is part of the same discipline. My Respondent Support framework, aligned to CSSA Standard 5 in religious settings and to the fair-process expectations of the Ofsted framework and Keeping Children Safe in Education in education settings, starts from the presumption of innocence and the principle that the safety of any child or adult at risk takes priority while matters are looked into. Crucially, precautionary measures are exactly that: precautionary, not punitive. Good practice for the respondent includes:

• A prompt, factual explanation of the concern in general terms, the process to follow, the support available, and any restrictions, with timing agreed alongside police or the local authority where relevant.
• A named Pastoral Support Contact who is independent of the investigation and the decision-making, offering emotional and spiritual accompaniment without discussing case detail.
• Clear signposting to independent legal advice, and access to mental health and medical support.
• Risk-management measures that are proportionate, recorded, and reviewed at a set cadence rather than left open-ended.
• A fair conclusion, whether the allegation is unfounded, substantiated or inconclusive, with restrictions lifted and a restorative path offered where an allegation is not upheld.

What compliance looks like in practice

Care and fairness sit on a foundation of legal and regulatory duties. The themes I keep front of mind, and check in every audit, include:

• Mapping practice to the right framework for the setting: the CSSA National Safeguarding Standards in religious congregations, and the Ofsted inspection framework, with Keeping Children Safe in Education, in schools, colleges and training providers.
• Timely statutory referral: notifying the LADO (or Council Social Work in Scotland) within one working day of an allegation against someone in a position of trust, and contacting the police on 999 where anyone is in immediate danger.
• Notifying the Religious Life Safeguarding Service within one working day of member-related allegations, and drawing on their independent advice.
• Working within the statutory framework, including the Care Act 2014, the Children Acts and Working Together to Safeguard Children 2023, position-of-trust provisions under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, and fair-process duties under the Human Rights Act (Articles 6 and 8) and the ACAS Code.
• Sharing information on a need-to-know basis with a lawful basis, and keeping clear, contemporaneous records retained for 75 years.

Compliance is not the enemy of compassion. Done well, it is what makes compassion trustworthy, because everyone can see that decisions are fair, proportionate and properly recorded.

From the casebook: two short illustrations

The following are illustrative, entirely hypothetical scenarios. They contain no real people or cases, and are offered only to prompt reflection. Throughout, I use neutral descriptors rather than names.

Illustration one: a historic disclosure

An adult contacts a congregation to say they were harmed many years ago by someone connected to its ministry. They are unsure whether they want anything to happen, and simply needed to tell someone.

Good practice here is to slow down and follow the individual's lead. Believe them, thank them for their trust, and make clear that support is available whether or not they ever wish to make a formal report. Offer an independent supporter, signpost specialist services, and never imply that help depends on them pursuing a complaint. The instinct to fix can become its own kind of pressure; survivor-led care resists it.

For discussion: where is the line between proactive support and unintentional pressure? Who in your setting would the individual meet first, and is that person independent of any investigation?

Illustration two: an allegation against someone in ministry

A concern is raised that a person in a role involving contact with young people may have behaved inappropriately. The facts are unclear and contested.

Good practice is to risk-assess immediately, notify the LADO within one working day, and put proportionate, precautionary measures in place while matters are examined, all recorded with reasons. The individual is told what is happening in factual terms, offered a named independent Pastoral Support Contact, and signposted to legal advice. The aim is to protect the vulnerable and treat the respondent fairly, holding both at once.

For discussion: how do you keep precautionary measures from feeling punitive? How will you communicate with the wider community in a way that is minimal, factual and authorised?

Where to go for advice

No one should carry these situations alone. The following organisations are trusted sources of specialist support for those affected. Please confirm current contact details before relying on them.

For organisations, the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) and the Religious Life Safeguarding Service are key sources of statutory and ecclesial advice, and the police should be contacted on 999 in an emergency or 101 for non-urgent matters.

Barbara Veeramallay-Permaul Founder, Safeguarding Assured by BVPSkills

Welcome to Safeguarding Assured

Thank you for visiting. I started Safeguarding Assured by BVPSkills to help religious congregations and education settings move from good intention to clear, confident, auditable practice, and to make safeguarding feel like something that is lived day to day, not something that sits in a folder.

This is where I will share regular updates: reflections on practice, plain-language summaries of changes to the CSSA Standards and the Ofsted framework, lessons from audit and inspection preparation, and practical ideas you can use in your own setting. My aim is for each piece to leave you a little more prepared, supported and assured.

If there is a safeguarding topic you would like me to cover, I would be glad to hear from you.

Barbara Veeramallay-Permaul, Founder