Institutional Fragmentation in Domestic Abuse Safeguarding Systems
Written Evidence Submission
Institutional Fragmentation in Domestic Abuse Safeguarding Systems
Submitted by:
Samantha Avril-Andreassen
Founder – SAFECHAIN™
Email: samantha@safe-chain.org
Website: safe-chain.org
© 2026 Samantha Avril-Andreassen. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
This written evidence introduces SAFECHAIN™, an independent governance framework developed to explore structural approaches to strengthening coordination across safeguarding systems in England and Wales.
Individuals experiencing domestic abuse frequently engage simultaneously with multiple institutional systems. These commonly include police services, local authorities, healthcare providers, domestic abuse support services, and legal proceedings.
While each institution operates within its own statutory framework and professional standards, national safeguarding reviews have repeatedly identified operational challenges arising from fragmentation between these systems.
This submission seeks to highlight the impact of institutional fragmentation within safeguarding pathways and to introduce SAFECHAIN™ as a governance framework intended to contribute constructively to discussions about improving institutional coordination.
2. Institutional Fragmentation in Safeguarding Systems
Domestic abuse cases often involve complex interactions across multiple public institutions. These interactions may include:
police reporting and investigation
safeguarding referrals
housing assistance and homelessness prevention
healthcare interventions
domestic abuse advocacy services
family or civil court proceedings
Although these systems are individually governed by established statutory duties and professional standards, the operational reality is that they frequently function in parallel rather than in coordination.
As a result, safeguarding information may exist across multiple institutional environments without structured continuity or governance alignment.
This fragmentation can lead to:
• inconsistent documentation across agencies
• gaps in safeguarding awareness between institutions
• procedural complexity for individuals seeking protection
• increased administrative burden on victims navigating multiple systems
National policy discussions have increasingly acknowledged that the structure of safeguarding systems themselves can influence outcomes.
3. The Impact on Victims Navigating Institutional Systems
Individuals experiencing domestic abuse are often required to interact with numerous institutions during periods of acute stress and vulnerability.
Trauma responses associated with domestic abuse and coercive control may affect:
communication
recall of events
ability to navigate complex administrative procedures
consistency of disclosure across institutional settings
Where institutional systems operate without structured interoperability, victims may experience the additional burden of managing multiple parallel processes.
This can create situations where individuals are effectively required to act as informal coordinators of their own safeguarding pathway, despite experiencing significant trauma.
Recognising these dynamics is increasingly important when examining how institutional structures influence safeguarding outcomes.
4. SAFECHAIN™ – A Governance Framework for Safeguarding Interoperability
SAFECHAIN™ has been developed as an exploratory governance framework designed to examine how greater structural coherence across safeguarding institutions may strengthen safeguarding integrity.
The framework focuses on three key dimensions.
Participation Integrity
Participation Integrity refers to recognition that trauma may affect an individual’s ability to engage consistently with institutional processes.
Understanding trauma responses may support institutions in recognising how communication patterns, documentation inconsistencies, or disclosure timing may be influenced by psychological distress rather than credibility concerns.
Documentation Continuity
Safeguarding information frequently exists across multiple institutional environments.
SAFECHAIN™ explores governance approaches that may strengthen continuity between institutional records where safeguarding responsibilities intersect.
Safeguarding Governance Awareness
The framework encourages recognition of how trauma and coercive control may influence institutional interactions, particularly where individuals are navigating multiple safeguarding systems simultaneously.
5. Institutional Context
SAFECHAIN™ does not seek to replace existing safeguarding legislation, professional regulatory frameworks, or institutional responsibilities.
Rather, the initiative seeks to contribute constructively to ongoing policy discussions regarding how safeguarding systems may function more coherently across institutional environments.
The framework has been developed with awareness of existing legal and regulatory structures governing safeguarding responses, including the roles of policing institutions, local authorities, legal systems, and professional regulators.
SAFECHAIN™ therefore aims to complement rather than alter existing institutional frameworks.
6. Potential Areas for Policy Consideration
In light of the structural challenges identified in safeguarding reviews, the following areas may warrant further examination within national safeguarding discussions:
• how institutional systems exchange safeguarding information across agencies
• how trauma-informed awareness may support participation within institutional processes
• how governance structures can support continuity across multi-agency safeguarding pathways
• how institutional fragmentation may influence the experience of individuals navigating safeguarding systems
These questions are increasingly relevant as safeguarding systems evolve to respond to complex domestic abuse dynamics.
7. Conclusion
Domestic abuse safeguarding systems in England and Wales involve multiple institutions with distinct statutory responsibilities and professional standards.
While these institutions play vital roles in protecting vulnerable individuals, safeguarding outcomes may also be influenced by how effectively institutional systems coordinate with one another.
SAFECHAIN™ has been developed as a governance framework exploring how structural interoperability across safeguarding systems may contribute to stronger safeguarding integrity.
The intention of this submission is not to propose immediate policy change, but rather to introduce SAFECHAIN™ as a framework that may contribute constructively to broader discussions about institutional coordination within safeguarding systems.
Further dialogue with policymakers, safeguarding practitioners, researchers, and regulatory bodies may help explore whether governance models of this nature could support ongoing safeguarding reform.
Submitted by:
Samantha Avril-Andreassen
Founder – SAFECHAIN™
© 2026 Samantha Avril-Andreassen. All rights reserved.