ANALYSIS

Would your church hire an Ian Huntley?

• AS the Bichard Inquiry into the Soham murders closed, DAVID PEARSON looked at the lessons that the Church could learn from the tragedy
  

The failures of Ian Huntley's former employers to carry out adequate checks echoed with the results of recent research by CCPAS.

Ian Huntley did complete an application form for his Soham job, but somewhat alarmingly only four out of 10 churches follow this procedure. Tragically, the headteacher of Soham Village College did not check Huntley's references before appointing him, even though the caretaker's predecessor had been dismissed for having an inappropriate relationship with a student.

CCPAS findings show that the average church is likely to have made the same mistake, as only a third bother to check references. At least Ian Huntley was interviewed, which would only have happened in about two-fifths of churches, with Baptists, Methodists and The Salvation Army being more likely to do so than other churches.

Sadly the headteacher did not explore any child protection issues beyond asking how a candidate would react if a student developed a crush on them. Would your church have fared any better? When it came to voluntary disclosure forms for declaring offences and cautions, churches did rather better, with two-thirds requiring these. Larger churches were three times more likely to follow this procedure than smaller ones.

However, that would not have told us much in regard to someone like Ian Huntley because he had not been cautioned or convicted. He therefore had nothing to declare even though a police report in 1999 suggested he was a 'serial sex attacker'. When it came to investigating the criminal records checks that had been made on Huntley, we know there were serious failings because this information ('soft' intelligence) had not been kept by the police, and it was this that triggered the Bichard Inquiry.

Nearly nine out of 10 churches responding to the survey use criminal records checks for new workers and some three-quarters were undertaking retrospective checks on existing workers.

We know from our own disclosure service that churches have benefited from police information revealed in criminal records checks, and children in churches have been protected as a result. Some 87% of churches use criminal records checks for new children's workers, and 73% check existing workers. However, these checks, essential as they are, are no panacea because we know that most offenders are not caught and therefore other aspects of the recruitment process are, if anything, more important. Research by Cawson et al found that only a quarter of people who had experienced sexual abuse as a child told anyone at the time; another quarter told later; but 31% had not informed anyone by early adulthood.

One of the key findings from our research is that 96% of church leaders are aware of their denomination's child protection policy. Church organisations take child protection very seriously. All the major denominations have well-established policies regarding safe selection and recruitment of workers in line with the Home Office "Safe from Harm" guidelines published more than 10 years ago. So why is it that only a third of churches are putting these recommendations into operation?

Churches are different from many other places of employment in that often the people being recruited are members of the congregation, who are going to be well known to those employing them. Alan Elson, ministerial development administrator for the Baptist Union, commenting on the findings, stated: "Churches traditionally function on trust. To say to them to move out of a culture of trust is very hard. It changes a lot of the assumptions you make in church life."

It is important to obtain information about a potential worker's background. A detailed application form, personal references, information from previous churches and organisations, and the interview, together with a criminal records check, all have a part to play in the assessment of a candidate's suitability for the post. The fact that someone has been known for many years does not obviate the need for such checks.

It is the experience of the CCPAS disclosure service that criminal records checks which have raised serious concerns about a worker's past have all been about people who have been part of a church for many years. Not to follow laid-down procedures flies in the face of all Government advice, the expectations of the Charity Commission and the church's insurance policy. Though you cannot guarantee to weed out all unsuitable people and prevent any possibility of a crime being committed against a child, you have no excuse if you have not tried. Most abuse that happens is, in CCPAS' experience, preventable.

In calls to CCPAS, the two most common reasons given for not following a safe recruitment policy are "we know our people" and "it's too much bureaucracy, frightening away potential volunteers". The Huntley case, CCPAS survey results and our helpline all emphasise the need for careful recruitment methods to prevent people who pose a danger to children slipping through the net.

• The CCPAS research referred to in this article is contained in a booklet: Churches, children and child protection. It is available from CCPAS (£1.30 including p&p) at PO Box 133, Swanley, Kent, BR8 7UQ (0845 120 45 50) www.ccpas.co.uk
  
  
• David Pearson is executive director of Churches' Child Protection Advisory Service

© Christian Family Network
is run by CPO, supported by
Care for the Family, Marriage Resource, Positive Parenting,
Care, Women Alive, Christian Herald and many others.