INEQE Safeguarding Group has today released its 2025 Annual Report on the Independent Safeguarding Audits of Church of England Dioceses and Cathedrals, alongside two companion reports focusing on Chorister Safeguarding and Victim and Survivor Engagement.
The comprehensive report reveals a clear and positive trajectory in safeguarding improvements across the Church. However, it issues a stark warning that this progress is currently being undermined by structural resistance from a small group of senior officers and a dangerous period of institutional “drift” regarding future safeguarding structures.
The 2025 audit represents an unprecedented level of engagement, with 10,348 total contributors participating in Year 2 alone. This robust data pool includes 9,153 anonymous survey responses and over 500 direct engagement sessions. Cumulatively, across the audit programme to date, 21,352 engagements have been recorded. Crucially, engagement with victims and survivors grew by 38% compared to the previous year, ensuring that their lived experiences remain at the centre of the Church’s learning and future strategies.
The audit highlights significant and tangible improvements on the ground. Across the majority of staff and worshipping communities, safeguarding is increasingly understood as a “gospel and theological imperative” rather than a mere administrative requirement. The report notes a growing strength in the confidence of individuals to raise concerns without fear of reprisal, driven by visible and accountable leadership. Furthermore, distinct progress has been made in areas such as safer recruitment and chorister wellbeing, where historical models prioritising musical performance above all else have been replaced by thoughtful, child-centred decision-making.
Despite the dedication of frontline teams, the report identifies critical inhibitors to change. These obstacles do not generally stem from senior clergy, but rather from a “small group of influential senior officers at the diocesan level and certain individuals within the national Church”. The audit criticises a readiness among these individuals to “hide behind exceptionalism, Canon Law, tradition, and procedural defensiveness” to resist operationally independent safeguarding structures, such as the establishment of the Director of Safeguarding role.
Furthermore, the report highlights the delay of vital recommendations. Where previously action was stalled pending the Future of Church Safeguarding report, auditors are now encountering excuses that bodies are waiting for the outcome of the Safeguarding Structures Programme. The audit explicitly warns that “ignoring evidence-based recommendations invites risk”.