Lessons from institutional safeguarding failures in 2024: the further back you look the farther forward you can see

Looking back on 2024, there was a worrying trend of safeguarding and duty of care breaches that came to prominence. Almost every sector, whether public or private, had questions to answer, and if public opinion is any sort of gauge, none appear to have answered them effectively.
So why is safeguarding and duty of care such a problematic area for organisations of all sizes to get right, and why are so many still failing both their employees and those that work with them?
A glance at some of the headlines of 2024 makes it clear that the issue is prevalent across multiple sectors:
- Why is no one talking about safeguarding anymore? – Bond (3 January 2024)
- Tuesday briefing: How the NHS ‘culture of concealment and denial’ hurts patients – The Guardian (19 March 2024)
- Met police accused of failing to address toxic culture in firearms unit – The Guardian (16 June 2024)
- The BBC’s toxic culture: a list of the corporation’s worst scandals - The Standard (2 August 2024)
- Fire service workplace culture deemed 'inadequate' – BBC News (8 October 2024)
- Exclusive: Report reveals Church of England ‘cover up’ of abuse from barrister John Smyth - Channel 4 News (7 November 2024)
- Children in uniform: A decade of abuse at the Army Foundation College - Child Rights International Network (15 November 2024)
- The Gregg Wallace scandal exposes the BBC’s neurosis about class - The Telegraph (4 December 2024)
Common themes across sectors
While the sectors are different and the issues detailed vary, there are distinct similarities (or underlying themes) between all of these reported ‘scandals’.
Many perceive that these similarities are proof of an institutional unwillingness to effectively address the topic through adequate resources, training, vetting or leadership. Others may consider that this reflects a failed institutional culture that provides opportunities for perpetrators in a position of power to operate, sometimes in plain sight, while facilitated by personal connections due their public, professional standing. The perceived focus of management in such instances appears to have been first and foremost to protect the ‘star value’ and organisation from brand or reputational damage.
Creating a robust, safe environment and protecting those who either come into contact with such organisations or who come forward to report abuse - whether at home or abroad – seems, by reference to many of the headlines in 2024, to be a lesser priority than getting out of the intense glare of media and public attention.
It is fair to say that there may be an element of truth here. However, what if the answer is far simpler than that? What if the leaders and managers of these organisations don’t recognise the early signs of potentially harmful practices or know what to do if they become aware of incidents of unacceptable behaviour, whether it attracts media or authority attention?
Many organisations in the public glare over 2024 have considerable resources at their disposal and have spent considerable sums on developing glossy, detailed safeguarding and/or HR policies and procedures. However, as with numerous instances of safeguarding and workplace failures, when such policies are put to the test, these tend to be more aspirational in substance and bear no reflection of the actual culture and underlying problem within the organisation concerned. Alternatively, where effective policies do exist, at crucial times, they aren’t properly followed and/or understood by all.
Recognising early signs and taking action
Quite often, an institutional or workplace policy of this kind is often mistaken as the existence of an established safeguarding culture. However, such policies exist to reflect the underlying culture, values and ethos of an institution, an internal aide and reminder of what the organisation stands for, what it does not and will not tolerate, and how everyone can play their part in helping to enforce their workplace culture and keep people safe.
Maintaining a policy which provides a false or aspirational projection of a working culture is, in effect, no more than a ‘paper tiger’ which, if not formulated and reviewed properly with the evolving landscape of risk, serves to facilitate, or even perpetuate harmful practices and toxicity to embed itself. This is an avoidable disaster waiting to happen with far-reaching and potentially damaging ramifications for the organisation involved.
When processes are outdated or ineffective, and the working environment doesn’t support a culture of integrity, the organisation is in a perilous position. While addressing the issue has its complexities from an institutional perspective, these are rarely tolerated by the courts or public opinion and the trust within the organisation becomes adversely affected both publicly and internally, undermining staff morale, productivity, retention, reputation and ultimately the bottom line.
When things go wrong as they often do, supporting those who come forward and listening to alleged victims is of paramount importance, but so too is the fairness, integrity and thoroughness of any investigation. Ensuring cooperation with any investigation (whether internal or external) to enable a swift, thorough and fair process is just as important as the commitment to act on the findings and learn from them to improve and develop internal policies and practices, regardless of the outcome.
No organisation I have ever worked with, private or public, sets out to intentionally cause harm to its customers, beneficiaries, employees or anyone that comes into contact with them. In fact, their intention is exactly the opposite. So how is that ethos and intention protected and how are any of these issues avoided?
Building trust within the organisation
Sadly, the reality is that incidents of this kind will always occur, but how can the risks of these incidents be minimalised to ensure such behaviour isn’t tolerated and dealt with proactively and correctively at an early stage?
An overriding similarity in the highlighted issues from 2024, is the ‘culture’ that the behaviour had been allowed to thrive in. Promoting effective safeguarding and duty of care starts with the culture an organisation creates and cultivates. This must be the foundation for what is expected, acceptable and not tolerated from anyone, regardless of their position or profile. It needs to be clear and transparent from the moment an employee is onboarded.
In my experience, there is a lot of misunderstanding around the term ‘culture’, which often carries negative connotations in various media streams. Terms such as ‘woke’ and ‘cancel culture’ get thrown around in order to resist evolving to a more inclusive and welcoming environment. However, this perception is far from the truth.
Creating a safe culture focuses on trust: people feeling that they can raise issues confidentially in good faith – either during an appraisal or through a workplace whistleblowing procedure - safe in the knowledge that they will be properly heard and treated fairly. Such confidence and trust must be prevalent throughout the organisation, irrespective of department or position. If personnel don’t have the confidence to raise their concerns in this way or trust the internal processes due to the fear of reprisals or career damage, valuable early warning signs or flags can’t be flagged, the system is flawed and the opportunity to tackle harmful, toxic behaviour at an early stage will be lost.
The power of effective training
Trust and confidence need not only apply to the environment people are operating in but also to the processes and procedures that support the operational structure. Due to the perceived ramifications of safeguarding and duty of care breaches, there is a distinct veil of fear surrounding reporting and/or how to deal with such issues correctly.
The allegations made against Gregg Wallace towards the latter part of 2024 suggest that inappropriate behaviour was allowed to persist, largely unchecked, for over 10 years. Some of the reported rationale included an imbalance of power, with the alleged perpetrator holding the more influential position, as well as concerns about financial repercussions and brand damage. These preconceived notions are largely unfounded.
The personal cost to the alleged victims is unquantifiable and the cost of not effectively addressing such behaviour immediately causes extensive business damage, particularly from a brand and financial point of view, than addressing it properly when it was first reported. There is no need for there to be a veil of fear around the issue of safeguarding or duty of care, and this needs to be understood across all sectors. Doing the right thing does not have to be, nor should it be, daunting for anyone within an organisation.
Having the correct, organisation-specific training available to all employees is a good place to begin to remove this perceived veil. The training must be available and required for all; ignorance can never be an excuse.
One of the mitigating circumstances raised in relation to the articles raised earlier is that people were ‘unaware’ that the behaviour would cause offence. Effective training not only galvanises people with their decision-making but also helps individuals recognise troubling behaviour in themselves or in others. Training, however, isn’t a binary concept; it must be dynamic and it must evolve. Practices change, climates change and to remain valid, an organisation must continuously evolve and stay current.
Managing significant breaches
Effective training feeds into a protective, trusting culture and provides the foundation for processes and procedures that can be implemented without fear or repercussions, maintaining integrity and enabling a safe environment to thrive. Any responsible organisation with an effective operational culture at its core will know that if you genuinely place the interests of your people and those who come into contact with your organisation first, your own reputation, along with the confidence and trust of your own staff or volunteers as well as the general public at large, will follow and flourish.
Just as training needs to be a live, evolving system, so too must processes and procedures. They must evolve, be tested and be fit for purpose. Designing these to fit the organisation and support individuals in making informed decisions is integral to an effective, trusted safeguarding and duty of care environment.
Too often, individuals claim that they didn’t have access to the correct training, processes or procedures. This excuse was used as recently as last month in the media. With this new year, there will be no appetite for further excuses. The public (and the courts) are very unsympathetic to those organisations who fail to provide and follow the correct processes or procedures, especially where they have the resources to seek expert advice and assistance to help keep people safe.
If an organisation experiences a significant breach despite having a supportive and educated workforce, and is doing all they can to ensure a safe environment, effectively managing the situation is crucial.
In this instance, it is essential to protect the victims, support the wider workforce and maintain transparency. Being clear that there is an issue and that it is being addressed, without shying away from the truth, will help maintain the organisation's integrity and preserve trust.
Consulting experts, especially when involving authorities is necessary, is a sage and arguably business-critical decision. Maintaining integrity, business transparency, and trust is a priority, and enlisting the help of specialists during critical times will enable a swift resolution that keeps the victims’ wellbeing at the heart of the process.
Looking ahead to 2025
The safeguarding landscape of 2024 was one where the integrity of recognised, trusted institutions - the military, the church, the emergency services - was significantly called into question. This year, there will undoubtedly be new allegations of a historic nature that come to light with more institutions who are accused of failing vulnerable people. With this and the searching questions that follow, there will be very little, if any, tolerance for current lapses in integrity within any organisation. Any cover-ups are usually considered to be far worse than the acts complained of. It doesn’t have to be this way.
Fortunately, resources are readily available to assist any organisation of any size. Specialist safeguarding and duty of care consultancies, like HL Safeguarding, can guide organisations through every step, from training design and delivery to procedural implementation and crisis management. Looking after employees, beneficiaries and associates has always been a priority for organisations. Failing to do so effectively to the standards that now exist, will undoubtedly cost organisations more dearly.