DRAFT – Victims & Survivors Engagement Strategy

1. Purpose of this Strategy

1.1 Why this document exists

This Engagement Strategy explains how the Inquiry will deliver, in practice, the public commitments set out in the Victims & Survivors Charter.

It exists to:

• translate Charter commitments into clear, operational engagement routes;
• provide transparency about what engagement involves and what it does not;
• set out how the Inquiry will balance inclusion, safety, fairness and proportionality; and
• ensure engagement is credible, trauma‑informed and defensible within the Inquiry’s statutory remit.

1.2 Relationship to the Victims & Survivors Charter

The Charter is a short, public‑facing document setting out what victims and survivors can expect.

This Engagement Strategy contains the detailed explanation of:

• engagement routes;
• safeguarding arrangements;
• how information will be used;
• how risks and demand are managed; and
• how learning from engagement informs the Inquiry over time.

The Strategy can evolve without reopening the Inquiry’s core public commitments, while maintaining consistency with the Charter.

2. Who this Strategy applies to

2.1 Victims and survivors

This Strategy applies to all victims and survivors of grooming gangs, whether or not they:

• live in a Local Area Investigation (LAI) area;
• choose to engage directly with the Inquiry; or
• come forward at any stage.

Victims and survivors are not a single group. Engagement will recognise different experiences, backgrounds, needs and vulnerabilities.

2.2 Victims and survivors who do not engage with the Inquiry

The Inquiry explicitly recognises that many victims and survivors may never wish to engage. However, the Inquiry’s work is still for them.

The Inquiry explicitly recognises that many victims and survivors may never wish to engage. However, the Inquiry’s work is still for them.

The Strategy therefore sets out how the Inquiry will reflect experiences through:

• existing research and evidence;
• analysis of previous inquiries and reviews;
• third‑sector insight; and
• aggregated and anonymised themes.

3. Principles underpinning all engagement

These principles apply across all engagement routes with Victims and Survivors and underpin every interaction.

3.1 Voluntary participation

• Engagement is entirely voluntary.
• People choose whether, how, when and how much they engage.
• Choosing not to engage, or to withdraw, does not disadvantage anyone.

3.2 Choice, control and boundaries

• People can pause, step back or stop engagement at any time.
• Different routes serve different purposes.
• Engagement does not require reporting to the police.

3.3 Trauma‑informed practice

• Engagement is designed on the assumption that contact may be distressing.

• The Inquiry therefore, prioritises:
  
  • safety;
  • predictability;
  • clear communication;
  • and the avoidance of unnecessary re traumatisation.

• Trauma‑informed practice does not mean:
  • providing therapy;
  • lowering evidential standards; or
  • avoiding difficult issues where they are necessary.

3.4 Safeguarding and duty of care

• Your safety and wellbeing are a priority in all engagement with the Inquiry.
• In most cases, what you share with us will be treated confidentially.

• In rare situations, we may need to act if there is an immediate and serious risk of harm, for example:
  • risk of significant harm to a child or vulnerable person;
  • risk to life or immediate safety;
  • evidence of ongoing or imminent abuse or exploitation.

• If this happens, we will explain this clearly and carefully, including what it means, what may happen next, and what support is available.
• We will always be as open as we can about how information may be used, and will not take action without explaining it to you unless there is an immediate and serious risk of harm.
• Safeguarding arrangements are applied proportionately across all engagement, and will be explained in a clear and transparent way.

3.5 Honesty and managing expectations

• The Inquiry will be clear about:
  • what it can and cannot do;
  • how information is used;
  • what engagement does not guarantee (e.g. investigations, hearings, meetings).

4. Ways victims and survivors can engage with the Inquiry

Victims and survivors can choose to engage in one way, several ways, or not at all.

4.1. Sharing your experience and views

Sharing your experience, views or insights helps the Inquiry understand what happened, the impact on victims and survivors, and how systems and institutions responded.

This type of engagement is an important part of the Inquiry’s work. It helps us:

• understand patterns and common experiences;
• identify where systems failed;
• reflect lived experience in our findings and recommendations; and
• shape how the Inquiry works with victims and survivors.

This is different from formal evidence used in investigations or hearings. It is not used to determine findings about specific individuals or cases, but it plays a vital role in building the overall picture of what happened.

Table Caption

How can you engage	What this involves	What it is used for	What it does not mean
1. Share your experience in writing	You can write about your experience, in your own words. This can be anonymous and you choose how much to share.	Helps the Inquiry understand lived experience, identify patterns, and shape its work.	This does not trigger an investigation or formal case process.
2. Take part in engagement or consultation activities	You can join workshops, discussions or group sessions on specific topics.	Helps test ideas and shape how the Inquiry works, including its approach and recommendations.	You are not representing others and this does not give decision‑making power.
3. Structured ‘story‑sharing’ approaches	You may be invited to share your experience in a supported and structured way (e.g. facilitated sessions).	Helps the Inquiry understand experiences in depth, while minimising distress and repetition.	This does not automatically lead to investigations or hearings.
4. Contribute through a trusted organisation	You can share your views through a survivor‑led or support organisation you trust.	Helps reach people who prefer not to engage directly and ensures a wider range of voices are heard.	You do not need to engage directly with the Inquiry if you don’t want to.
5. Informing the Inquiry without direct engagement	The Inquiry uses existing research, previous reports, and insights from organisations.	Ensures experiences are reflected even if people never come forward.	You do not need to take part or be visible for your experience to be included.
6. Submit formal evidence securely	You can provide documents, records or other material through secure channels.	Supports investigations, hearings and findings.	You will not be required to give evidence in person unless this is discussed with you and you agree.
7. Give evidence to the Inquiry	You may be asked to give evidence (written or oral), in public or private. Support and protective measures will be in place.	Helps establish facts and accountability.	You are not required to do this. Giving evidence does not guarantee a particular outcome.

4.2. Giving formal evidence to the Inquiry

Some people may choose to provide information to the Inquiry as formal evidence. This can support investigations, hearings and findings about what happened. There is no expectation that anyone must take part in this way – you can choose how, when and if you engage.
 


Providing information in writing does not automatically mean you will be asked to give evidence in person. Any further involvement will be discussed with you, and you will have a choice about whether to take part. Giving evidence can help the Inquiry understand what happened in detail, establish facts, and support accountability.

5. What happens when you share your experience

5.1 What we do with the information you share

The Charter and this Strategy apply to all victims and survivors, regardless of where they live or whether their local area is subject to a Local Area Investigation. Information shared with the Inquiry will always contribute to its overall work. This includes both national analysis and, in some cases, more detailed work in specific areas.

5.2 What this does – and does not – lead to

Table Caption

Where the information relates to	How the Inquiry uses the information	What this means in practice
Local Area Investigation (LAI) areas	Information may be used to inform local investigations and hearings, as well as national analysis and findings.	The Inquiry may look in detail at what happened in that area, including how local agencies and systems responded to abuse and where failures occurred.
Non‑LAI areas	Information contributes to the Inquiry’s national understanding of patterns, systemic issues and institutional failure, and helps shape findings and recommendations.	Your experience still matters and informs the Inquiry’s work, but sharing information does not automatically mean your area will be selected for a Local Area Investigation.
Outside England and Wales	Information may help inform the Inquiry’s broader understanding and context	The Inquiry cannot carry out investigations outside its legal scope, but information can still help build a fuller picture of the issues.

5.3 How information is used in different situations

We explain this clearly so that:

• you understand what sharing your experience may lead to;
• expectations are clear from the outset; and
• information is used fairly and consistently across all areas.

Decisions about which areas are selected for Local Area Investigations are made by the Chair and Panel based on evidence and published criteria.

5.4. How this relates to police investigations

The Inquiry operates alongside — but is distinct from — Operation Beaconport, the national policing operation into group-based child sexual exploitation and abuse.

Operation Beaconport:

• is a national law enforcement operation, led by the National Crime Agency;
• focuses on reviewing and reinvestigating criminal cases, including cases that were previously closed without further action; and
• is responsible for identifying cases that may be suitable for prosecution or further criminal investigation.

The roles of the Inquiry and Operation Beaconport are complementary but different:

Table Caption

Inquiry (IIGG)	Operation Beaconport
Examines systemic and institutional failures	Investigates criminal offences and perpetrators
Focuses on accountability, learning and recommendations	Focuses on evidence, prosecution and justice outcomes
Uses information to understand patterns, causes and failures	Uses information to support reinvestigation and potential charges

The Inquiry does not:

• determine criminal guilt or liability; or
• carry out criminal investigations.

However:

• where the Inquiry identifies information suggesting criminal conduct, this may be shared with law enforcement, including Operation Beaconport, in line with legal and safeguarding obligations; and
• the Inquiry works in close coordination with Operation Beaconport to ensure that:
  * victims and survivors are not asked to repeat their experiences unnecessarily; and
  * appropriate information flows to support both justice and learning.

This means that engaging with the Inquiry does not automatically trigger a criminal investigation, but information shared may contribute to wider efforts to identify offences, support reinvestigations, and bring perpetrators to justice.

6. Trauma‑informed practice in delivery

6.1 What we mean by trauma-informed practice

The Inquiry recognises that many victims and survivors of grooming gang abuse:

• have experienced severe and sustained trauma, including sexual violence, coercion and control;
• may live with ongoing impacts such as distress, mistrust, fear, or difficulty recounting experiences; and
• may also have experienced secondary harm from institutions, including not being believed, being blamed, or being let down by systems intended to protect them

A trauma-informed approach therefore requires the Inquiry to:

• Realise the widespread impact of trauma
• Recognise how trauma may affect behaviour, communication and engagement
• Respond by adapting processes to meet those needs
• Resist re-traumatisation by avoiding practices that could cause further harm

At its core, trauma-informed practice is about ensuring that the way the Inquiry works is as important as the outcomes it produces.

6.2 What this means in the context of this Inquiry

The Inquiry recognises that public inquiries can unintentionally cause harm if they:

• require people to repeat traumatic experiences multiple times;
• are unclear, unpredictable or process-driven rather than person-centred;
• create false expectations or fail to follow up;
• appear bureaucratic, impersonal or dismissive; or
• fail to acknowledge the history of institutional betrayal experienced by victims and survivors

The Inquiry therefore commits to actively reducing these risks by embedding trauma-informed principles across all activity.

6.3 Principles underpinning trauma-informed delivery

All engagement and Inquiry processes are designed around the following principles:

• Safety – creating physical, emotional and psychological safety
• Trust and transparency – being clear, consistent and honest
• Choice and control – enabling individuals to decide how, when and if they engage
• Collaboration – working with victims and survivors, not on them
• Support – ensuring appropriate emotional support is available
• Cultural awareness and humility – recognising different backgrounds, experiences and needs

6.4 Trauma‑informed principles and what they mean in practice

Table Caption

Principle	What this means in practice for this Inquiry
Safety	We design all engagement to feel physically, emotionally and psychologically safe. This includes clearly explaining what will happen in advance, providing opportunities to pause or stop, offering breaks, and ensuring support is available before, during and after engagement.
Trust and Transparency	We are open, clear and consistent about what the Inquiry can and cannot do. We explain how information will be used, who will see it, and what happens next. We follow through on what we say we will do and avoid over‑promising.
Choice and Control	People can choose how, when and whether to engage. We offer different ways to take part, share information in advance, and ensure individuals can set boundaries, including stopping or changing their level of engagement at any time.
Collaboration	We work with victims and survivors, not on them. This includes meaningful involvement in shaping engagement approaches, listening to feedback, and recognising lived experience as a valuable source of insight.
Support	We ensure appropriate emotional and practical support is available. This includes signposting to support services, planning for distress, and recognising the impact engagement may have both during and after contact with the Inquiry.
Cultural Awareness and Humility	We recognise that people’s experiences of trauma are shaped by culture, identity and wider experiences of disadvantage or discrimination. We adapt our approach to meet different needs and avoid “one‑size‑fits‑all” engagement.

6.5 Why this matters

Applying a trauma-informed approach is essential to:

• Reduce the risk of further harm to victims and survivors
• Enable people to feel heard, respected and safe to engage
• Improve the quality and reliability of information shared
• Support the Inquiry to deliver credible, fair and meaningful outcomes

6.6 Accountability

• Breaches of trauma-informed commitments can be raised through the complaints process
• Delivery is supported by safeguarding and psychological oversight arrangements, set out in the Safeguarding Policy

7. Safeguarding and support model

7.1 Core approach

The Inquiry adopts a tiered safeguarding and support model, designed to ensure that:

• all engagement with victims and survivors is safe, proportionate and trauma‑informed;
• safeguarding responses are consistent across engagement routes; and
• additional support is provided where risk, vulnerability or distress indicates.

Safeguarding applies to all forms of engagement, including written submissions, private meetings, engagement activities, evidence provision, hearings, and indirect engagement.

The Inquiry recognises that:

• different engagement routes carry different levels of inherent risk;
• individuals may present varying levels of vulnerability; and
• safeguarding needs may change over time or during engagement.

7.2 Tiered approach

Here is a clear, concise and accessible table version of your tiered safeguarding model, aligned with your other tables and suitable for the Strategy:

Table Caption

Safeguarding level	When it applies	What support is provided	Key points
Silver – default position	Used for all standard engagement with victims and survivors	– Clear pre-engagement information and preparation – Safeguarding oversight from the Duty Safeguarding Officer (DSO) – Presence of trained staff for emotional support – Appropriate follow-up and signposting	– Default level across the Inquiry – Provides a proportionate, trauma-informed baseline – Reflects survivor expectations and need for consistency
Gold – enhanced support (risk-based)	Used where there is increased risk, vulnerability or complexity, including: – heightened emotional distress – safeguarding concerns or disclosures – higher-risk activities (e.g. hearings, complex 1:1 engagement)	– Input from the Duty Safeguarding Officer (DSO) – Emotional support staff – Access to specialist psychological advice – Structured follow-up or additional safeguarding planning	– Triggered by risk and professional judgement, not profile or demand – Applied flexibly before, during or after engagement – Provides enhanced protection where needed
Bronze – minimum safeguards	Used only in low-risk, non-interactive contexts (e.g. passive information provision)	– Basic safeguarding measures – Information and signposting only	– Not used for live or interpersonal engagement – Avoids minimal or purely reactive safeguarding – Ensures all direct engagement meets at least Silver (trauma-informed) standard

7.3 Application in practice

 a. How safeguarding decisions are made

Table Caption

Key point	What this means in practice
Safeguarding is risk-based (not route-based)	The type of engagement (e.g. written, meeting, hearing) helps inform decisions — but does not determine them.
Decisions are based on multiple factors	We take account of: – individual circumstances – what is shared or disclosed – signs of distress or vulnerability – professional judgement, supported by safeguarding expertise
Safeguarding can change over time	Safeguarding levels can be: – set in advance (e.g. planning a session) – adjusted during engagement (e.g. if distress arises) – increased after the engagement (if concerns emerge), including putting in place additional support or taking action to protect someone from harm

b. How safeguarding fits into the Inquiry model

What happens in practice

Table Caption

Stage	What happens
1. Single “front door”	All participants come through the Inquiry’s website or contact routes.
2. Triage and safeguarding assessment	We assess: – vulnerability and risk – demand and capacity
3. Routing and support	Based on this, individuals are: – directed to appropriate engagement routes – supported at Silver or Gold level, depending on risk – offered alternatives where needed (e.g. written instead of 1:1 engagement)
4. Managing demand	Where demand exceeds capacity: – engagement is phased or prioritised, not closed – safeguarding remains consistent and proportionate

Single front door → Triage → Route + Safeguarding level → Engagement → Follow-up / additional support or action (if needed)

c. Role of support and specialist input

Table Caption

Role	What this means in practice
Emotional Support Staff (ESS)	– Used where risk, vulnerability or intensity indicates – Provide time-limited, trauma-informed support during engagement – Do not make safeguarding decisions (these remain with the DSO)
Specialist psychological input	– Informs how engagement and safeguarding are designed – Supports decision-making in more complex cases – Contributes to training and quality assurance
How this fits the model	– These roles are embedded within the tiered safeguarding approach (particularly Gold) – Coordinated centrally to ensure consistency and safety

d. Safeguarding thresholds and referrals

Table Caption

Key point	What this means in practice
Tiers do not change thresholds	The level of safeguarding (Bronze/Silver/Gold) does not affect when action must be taken.
When the Inquiry must take action to protect someone from harm	Action must be taken where there is: – risk of significant harm to a child – risk of serious harm to an adult
What happens when thresholds are met	– Concerns are referred to the Duty Safeguarding Officer (DSO) – Referrals are made to police or local authorities where required
Applies in all cases	– Regardless of how information is received – Across all engagement routes

7.4 Central oversight and governance

Safeguarding is centrally coordinated across the Inquiry to ensure:

• consistency in decision-making and application of thresholds;
• quality assurance across different teams and engagement routes;
• clear lines of accountability; and
• effective monitoring of risk, issues and learning.

Key roles include:

• Duty Safeguarding Officer (DSO)
  • provides professional advice on safeguarding thresholds and referrals
  • supports staff in assessing and escalating concerns
  • ensures appropriate referral to police or local authorities where required

• Executive Senior Management Team (ESMT)
  • oversees safeguarding performance and risk
  • ensures safeguarding is embedded across Inquiry activity

• Operational teams (including engagement teams)
  • ensure safeguarding is built into the design and delivery of engagement
  • work with safeguarding specialists to apply the model consistently

Safeguarding is everyone’s responsibility, and all staff are required to understand how to recognise and escalate concerns

7.5 Relationship to the Safeguarding Policy

This Strategy sets out:

• the overall safeguarding model and approach; and
• how safeguarding operates within engagement delivery.

Detailed operational guidance — including: 

•  thresholds for intervention;
• referral processes;
• information sharing; and
• recording requirements

– is set out in the Safeguarding Policy.

8. Managing demand fairly and ethically

8.1 Approach

The Inquiry is designed to enable open and inclusive engagement, and most engagement routes (for example, written experience-sharing, evidence submission, and indirect engagement) are not capacity-limited.

However, some forms of engagement — particularly:

• participation in hearings; and
• certain structured engagement activities are inherently limited by capacity, timing and safeguarding considerations. In these cases, the Inquiry may need to manage demand in a way that is fair, transparent and proportionate.

8.2 How demand is managed where needed

Where demand exceeds capacity for these specific routes, the Inquiry may:

• use phased or time-limited engagement windows;
• prioritise based on risk, vulnerability and relevance to the Inquiry’s work; and
• offer alternative ways to engage (for example, written or indirect routes).

This ensures:

• fair access;
• appropriate safeguarding; and
• effective use of Inquiry resources.

8.3 What the Inquiry will not do

The Inquiry will not:

• arbitrarily close engagement routes that are designed to be open;
• operate “first come, first served” approaches that advantage some voices over others; or
• prioritise engagement based on profile, visibility or public attention.

9. Complaints, concerns and accountability

9.1 Core principle

The Inquiry recognises that:

• trust must be earned through behaviour, not assumed; and
• accountability is essential, particularly given the history of institutional failure experienced by victims and survivors.

As set out in the Charter, if individuals feel the Inquiry has not met its commitments there will be a clear and accessible way to raise concerns, and the Inquiry will respond properly, fairly and transparently.

The complaints process is therefore a key part of ensuring:

• safety and fairness in engagement; and
• continuous improvement in how the Inquiry operates.

9.2 Scope of complaints

A dedicated complaints process will cover concerns relating to:

• engagement and treatment (e.g. communication, conduct, accessibility);
• application of trauma-informed principles; and
• safeguarding concerns or decisions.

Recognising the specific context of this work:

• victims and survivors will have a distinct and appropriate route for complaints, separate from general Inquiry correspondence; and
• complaints relating to safeguarding will be aligned with the Safeguarding Policy, including escalation where necessary.

9.3 How complaints are handled (high-level approach)

The Inquiry will operate a tiered and proportionate complaints process, designed to be:

• accessible (clear routes, plain English, low barriers);
• trauma-informed (sensitive to the impact of prior experiences and institutional harm); and
• robust and fair (with clear escalation and decision-making processes).

In practice, this means:

Table Caption

Stage	What happens
1. Raise a concern	Individuals can raise concerns through a clear and accessible route.
2. Initial review / triage	Complaints are assessed to understand the nature of the issue, including whether there are safeguarding implications.
3. Investigation / response	Complaints are considered on a case-by-case basis, with input from relevant teams (e.g. engagement, safeguarding, legal).
4. Further review (if needed)	More complex or serious concerns are reviewed at a more senior level within the Inquiry.
5. Outcome and learning	The Inquiry provides a clear response and uses learning to improve processes and practice.

Where complaints raise safeguarding risks, these will be:

• managed in line with the Safeguarding Policy; and
• passed to the Duty Safeguarding Officer (DSO) for assessment and appropriate action.

9.4 Trauma-informed approach to complaints

The complaints process will be designed to:

• avoid re-traumatisation or unnecessary repetition;
• ensure individuals feel heard, respected and taken seriously;
• provide clear and timely communication; and
• recognise that raising concerns may be difficult or distressing.

This includes:

• explaining what will happen after a complaint is made;
• avoiding defensive or dismissive responses; and
• ensuring complaints are not treated as a procedural exercise, but as part of the Inquiry’s commitment to accountability and learning.

9.5 Relationship to safeguarding and governance

The complaints process is integrated with:

• the Safeguarding Policy, particularly where concerns relate to harm or risk;
• wider Inquiry governance and oversight arrangements; and
• the Inquiry’s trauma-informed and engagement frameworks.

Where appropriate:

• safeguarding thresholds and escalation routes will apply; and
• complaints will inform ongoing monitoring, assurance and improvement.

9.6 Relationship to the Charter

The Charter acts as a public accountability framework, setting out:

• how the Inquiry will behave; and
• what victims and survivors can expect.

The complaints process supports this by:

• providing a mechanism to challenge where commitments are not met; and
• ensuring the Charter is a live and evolving tool, informed by feedback and experience.

9.7 Further detail

Detailed procedures, thresholds and escalation routes are set out in the Complaints Policy, which will:

• align with the Safeguarding Policy;
• incorporate specialist safeguarding and psychological input; and
• be developed alongside the Inquiry’s wider engagement and support model.

Raising a concern will not affect how an individual is treated or whether they can continue to engage with the Inquiry

ANNEX 1. Consulting victims and survivors on the Charter and Strategy

1.1 Purpose and rationale

The Inquiry has adopted a layered consultation approach to ensure that the Victims & Survivors Charter and Engagement Strategy are:

• grounded in lived experience;
• trauma-informed and safe;
• credible and trusted by victims and survivors; and
• deliverable within the Inquiry’s timeline and remit.

This approach reflects:

• learning from previous inquiries, including the risks of tokenistic or unsafe consultation;
• consultation feedback emphasising trust, safety and clarity; and
• the recognition that victims and survivors are not a single or homogenous group.

No single consultation method would meet these needs. In particular:

• relying only on open consultation risks:
  • superficial engagement;
  • unsafe or unsupported participation;
  • over-representation of a limited group

• relying only on a small number of participants risks:
  • narrow or unrepresentative insight;
  • reduced credibility

The Inquiry has therefore adopted a blended model, combining:

• depth and safety (through facilitated, trusted engagement) with
• breadth and inclusivity (through open access routes)

1.2 Layered consultation approach

The Inquiry’s consultation model comprises three complementary elements:

a. Targeted survivor feedback groups

The Inquiry will engage with a small number of carefully selected survivor-led or survivor-anchored organisations.

These organisations are selected against clear criteria, including:

• survivor leadership or strong survivor involvement;
• local relevance to areas affected by grooming gang abuse;
• established and trusted survivor networks; and
• the ability to facilitate trauma-informed discussions safely and independently.

This approach enables:

• deeper, more reflective discussion;
• engagement within trusted environments; and
• meaningful exploration of complex and sensitive issues.

b. Wider written and anonymous feedback 

A fully open and accessible route will be provided via the Inquiry’s website, enabling individuals to:

• provide feedback in writing;
• remain anonymous if they choose; and
• engage without participating in structured or facilitated processes.

This ensures:

• broad access and inclusivity;
• participation from individuals who may not wish to engage directly; and
• flexibility in how experiences and views are shared.

c. Limited advisory sense-check 

A small number of organisations and experienced contributors will provide:

• expert and practical feedback on feasibility and delivery;
• challenge on whether the Charter and Strategy are credible; and
• input on safeguarding and engagement design.

This element is not intended to be representative consultation, but to:

• test assumptions;
• strengthen delivery design; and
• ensure alignment with best practice.

1.3 Why this approach has been adopted

This approach has been designed to:

• maximise participation and safety, particularly for those who may find engagement difficult;

• ensure insight is both:
  • deep (facilitated, qualitative engagement), andbroad (open and accessible input);

• allow the Inquiry to triangulate feedback, rather than rely on a single source; and
• deliver a proportionate, credible consultation model within the Inquiry’s timeframes.

It reflects a key principle of the Charter:

engagement must be meaningful, bounded and safe, rather than symbolic or performative.

1.4 Closing the loop

The Inquiry will clearly explain:

• how feedback has shaped the final Charter and Strategy; and
• where views have not been reflected, with appropriate explanation.

This is critical to:

• demonstrating transparency;
• avoiding tokenistic engagement; and
• building trust with victims and survivors.

ANNEX 2. Governance, review and learning

2.1 Overall approach

The Victims & Survivors Engagement Strategy is not a static document. It is designed to:

• evolve over time;
• respond to learning from engagement and safeguarding; and
• support continuous improvement in how the Inquiry works with victims and survivors.

This reflects the Inquiry’s commitment to:

• trauma-informed practice;
• accountability and transparency; and
• learning from experience, rather than repeating institutional failures.

The Charter:

• sets out the Inquiry’s public commitments to victims and survivors;
• explains what individuals can expect in clear, plain language; and
• acts as a visible framework for accountability.

The Engagement Strategy:

• explains how those commitments are delivered in practice; and
• provides operational clarity for Inquiry teams.

Governance arrangements ensure that:

• delivery remains aligned with the Charter; and
• where improvements are needed, they are identified and acted upon.

2.2 Supporting policies and frameworks

The Strategy sits alongside key Inquiry policies, each of which performs a distinct role.

a. Safeguarding Policy

The Safeguarding Policy provides the core framework for:

• preventing harm;
• responding to safeguarding concerns; and
• ensuring consistent and accountable decision-making.

It sets out:

• safeguarding principles and legal context;
• thresholds for taking action and making referrals;
• roles and responsibilities (including the Duty Safeguarding Officer); and
• procedures for managing risk.

The policy:

• applies across all engagement routes;
• operationalises the Inquiry’s trauma-informed approach; and
• embeds the tiered safeguarding model (Silver as default, Gold where risk thresholds are met).

It also explains how safeguarding is delivered:

• directly by the Inquiry; and
• through partners, including emotional support provision and specialist advice.

This is a priority policy, as safeguarding underpins all engagement activity.

b. Complaints Policy

The Complaints Policy provides a clear and accessible route for:

• raising concerns about engagement, treatment or safeguarding; and
• holding the Inquiry accountable where it does not meet its commitments.

It is:

• aligned with the Safeguarding Policy, particularly where complaints relate to harm or risk;
• designed to be trauma-informed; and
• structured as a tiered process, with clear routes for further review and decision-making.

Victims and survivors will have a distinct complaints route, recognising the specific context of their engagement.

The policy will:

• include a clear, accessible process (supported by a flow diagram);
• incorporate safeguarding and psychological expertise; and
• ensure complaints are assessed on a case-by-case basis and used to inform improvement.

c. Core Participant Strategy and Protocol

The Core Participant (CP) Strategy and Protocol set out:

• how individuals and organisations are designated as Core Participants;
• the rights and responsibilities associated with CP status; and
• how CP participation fits within the Inquiry’s overall approach.

Core Participant status:

• provides defined procedural rights within the Inquiry process; and
• represents a formal and specific form of participation, distinct from wider engagement.

Not all individuals who engage with the Inquiry will be Core Participants. Many victims and survivors will contribute through:

• experience-sharing;
• evidence submission; or
• other engagement routes.

The CP framework therefore sits alongside, not above, the wider engagement model.

2.3 Review and continuous learning

The Inquiry will:

• regularly review engagement practice;
• monitor how safeguarding and support are delivered; and

• use learning from:
  • engagement activity;
  • complaints and feedback;
  • safeguarding issues; and
  • staff and partner insight

to improve delivery.

This includes:

• updating approaches where needed;
• refining guidance and training; and
• ensuring consistency across teams.

2.4 Accountability and oversight

Governance arrangements ensure that:

• safeguarding, engagement and complaints are centrally coordinated;
• risks and issues are identified and reviewed at the appropriate level within the Inquiry; and
• there is clear accountability for decisions and delivery.

Together, these arrangements ensure that:

the Inquiry’s approach remains safe, consistent, and aligned with its commitments to victims and survivors.