Why Survivors Are Forced to Become Their Own Case Managers

One of the most striking features of many domestic abuse journeys is the extraordinary level of responsibility placed upon survivors themselves.

In theory, safeguarding systems are designed to support victims through complex legal and social processes. In practice, survivors frequently find themselves coordinating those systems on their own.

They become, in effect, their own case managers.

A survivor may need to communicate with police regarding criminal allegations, engage with housing services to secure accommodation, attend family court proceedings concerning children, consult healthcare professionals about trauma, and interact with financial institutions to resolve economic complications created by the abuse.

Each institution operates according to its own procedures, documentation requirements, and timelines.

Rarely do these systems function as a coordinated whole.

As a result, survivors often become the only consistent link between them.

They carry documents from one agency to another. They repeat their story to different professionals. They attempt to ensure that each institution understands the broader context of their circumstances.

This informal coordination role requires organisational skills, emotional resilience, and legal awareness that few individuals possess — particularly while recovering from trauma.

It also exposes a fundamental weakness in safeguarding structures.

When the continuity of information depends on the survivor rather than the system, safeguarding becomes fragile.

If a survivor becomes overwhelmed, misses an appointment, or struggles to communicate their experiences clearly, critical information may fail to reach the relevant authority. Risk assessments may be incomplete. Decisions may be made without the full context of the situation.

The burden placed on survivors is therefore not only unfair but structurally risky.

Safeguarding systems should be designed to reduce this burden, not amplify it.

Effective safeguarding requires institutional coordination. Agencies must be able to share relevant information responsibly, maintain continuity of safeguarding assessments, and ensure that individuals are not required to repeatedly reconstruct their case history.

This does not mean removing survivors from decision-making processes. On the contrary, survivors’ voices should remain central.

But the administrative responsibility for safeguarding coordination should lie with institutions, not with the individuals they are trying to protect.

When survivors are forced to become their own case managers, the system has already failed to provide the structural support it promises.

Reforming safeguarding therefore requires a shift in perspective.

Instead of asking how survivors can better navigate institutional systems, we must ask how institutions can better navigate the needs of survivors.

The Governance Gap in Safeguarding Systems

Why Survivors Are Forced to Become Their Own Case Managers

The Hidden Cost of Procedural Trauma in Domestic Abuse Cases