The Accountability Gap: When Safeguarding Systems Lack Structural Responsibility

Introduction: Responsibility Without Resolution

Safeguarding systems are built on the principle of responsibility.

Public institutions — including police services, courts, healthcare providers, and housing authorities — each carry defined duties to protect individuals from harm.

In theory, this creates a network of protection.

In practice, the outcome can be more complex.

Because while responsibility may be clearly assigned within individual institutions, it is not always structurally connected across them.

This creates what can be described as an accountability gap.

The Distribution of Responsibility

Domestic abuse cases often involve multiple institutions simultaneously.

Each agency engages with the situation through its own mandate:

• police investigate criminal behaviour
• courts adjudicate legal disputes
• healthcare providers respond to physical and psychological harm
• housing authorities address accommodation and tenancy issues

Each institution may fulfil its responsibilities within its own framework.

However, safeguarding does not operate in isolation.

Abuse frequently spans multiple domains of a person’s life, meaning responsibility is distributed across agencies rather than contained within one.

When Responsibility Becomes Fragmented

The distribution of responsibility can create structural challenges.

When multiple institutions are involved, it may become unclear how safeguarding responsibility is shared, coordinated, or escalated.

In such environments:

• each institution may act within its own remit
• but no single system holds responsibility for the whole safeguarding picture

This can result in situations where:

• risks are identified but not collectively assessed
• actions are taken but not coordinated
• responsibility exists — but accountability is diffused

The Illusion of Coverage

From a structural perspective, safeguarding systems may appear comprehensive.

Multiple institutions are involved.
Policies exist.
Procedures are followed.

However, coverage does not always equate to coordination.

An individual may be known to several institutions, yet still experience gaps in protection.

This is because safeguarding effectiveness depends not only on whether institutions act, but on how those actions connect.

The Accountability Gap Defined

The accountability gap emerges when responsibility is present within institutions but not integrated across them.

This gap is not necessarily the result of individual failure.

Rather, it reflects a structural limitation in how safeguarding systems are designed.

In fragmented systems:

• accountability is often institution-specific
• but harm occurs across institutional boundaries

This creates a mismatch between how responsibility is assigned and how abuse unfolds.

The Impact on Safeguarding Outcomes

When accountability is fragmented:

• safeguarding decisions may lack full context
• risk escalation may not occur at the appropriate level
• institutional responses may appear proportionate individually but insufficient collectively

For survivors, this can result in:

• repeated engagement with multiple agencies
• inconsistent or uncoordinated responses
• difficulty achieving meaningful protection

The issue is not necessarily the absence of effort.

It is the absence of structural cohesion.

From Responsibility to Accountability

Responsibility refers to what institutions are expected to do.

Accountability refers to whether those responsibilities produce effective outcomes.

For safeguarding systems to function effectively, responsibility must be supported by structures that enable accountability across agencies.

This requires:

• clarity of roles within multi-agency contexts
• mechanisms for coordinated decision-making
• visibility of safeguarding actions across institutions
• frameworks for collective responsibility

Without these elements, safeguarding systems may struggle to translate institutional duty into real-world protection.

SAFECHAIN™ and Structural Accountability

SAFECHAIN™ approaches safeguarding through the lens of structural accountability.

The framework explores how safeguarding systems might move from distributed responsibility toward coordinated accountability.

Key considerations include:

• continuity of safeguarding documentation
• cross-agency visibility of actions and risk indicators
• structured escalation pathways
• alignment of institutional responses

SAFECHAIN™ does not propose replacing institutional responsibilities.

Instead, it focuses on how those responsibilities can be connected and reinforced through structural design.

Rethinking Safeguarding Governance

Improving safeguarding outcomes requires a shift in how governance is understood.

Rather than viewing safeguarding as a collection of individual institutional duties, it may be more effective to view it as a shared system of accountability.

This perspective emphasises:

• how institutions interact
• how decisions are connected
• how responsibility is coordinated across agencies

Such an approach supports a more integrated safeguarding framework.

Toward Accountable Systems

The future of safeguarding will depend on the ability of institutions to operate not only responsibly, but accountably — both individually and collectively.

This requires systems that:

• recognise patterns of harm across institutional boundaries
• support coordinated safeguarding responses
• ensure that responsibility translates into protection

Structural reform is therefore not an abstract concept.

It is a practical requirement for improving safeguarding outcomes.

Conclusion: Closing the Accountability Gap

Safeguarding systems are built on the principle that institutions have a duty to protect.

The challenge lies in ensuring that these duties function cohesively in practice.

When responsibility is fragmented, accountability can become unclear.

Closing the accountability gap requires strengthening the structures that connect institutional actions.

SAFECHAIN™ contributes to this conversation by exploring how safeguarding systems might evolve toward greater coordination, visibility, and accountability.

Because safeguarding is not only about who is responsible.

It is about whether those responsibilities, collectively, result in protection.

© 2026 Samantha Avril-Andreassen. All rights reserved.