SAFECHAIN™

Institutional Safeguarding Scorecard

Benchmarking Institutional Integrity in Domestic Abuse Protection Systems

Author: Samantha Avril-Andreassen
Founder – SAFECHAIN™

© 2026 Samantha Avril-Andreassen. All rights reserved.

Introduction

Safeguarding systems rely on the coordinated actions of multiple institutions responsible for protecting individuals experiencing domestic abuse and coercive control.

These institutions include policing services, healthcare providers, housing authorities, domestic abuse organisations, and legal institutions.

While each institution operates within established statutory duties, safeguarding outcomes are influenced by how effectively institutions operate within multi-agency safeguarding systems.

The SAFECHAIN™ Institutional Safeguarding Scorecard has been developed as a benchmarking tool to examine institutional safeguarding integrity across key governance dimensions.

The scorecard aims to support policy discussions about how safeguarding systems function in practice.

Purpose of the Scorecard

The SAFECHAIN™ Institutional Safeguarding Scorecard serves four purposes.

1. To examine safeguarding governance across institutional environments.

2. To encourage reflection within institutions regarding safeguarding coordination.

3. To provide policymakers and researchers with a framework for evaluating safeguarding systems.

4. To contribute to public discussions about strengthening domestic abuse protection systems.

Institutions Evaluated

The scorecard framework may be applied to institutions across the safeguarding ecosystem, including:

• police forces
• local authorities
• healthcare institutions
• domestic abuse support organisations
• justice system institutions

Each institution operates within distinct statutory responsibilities but contributes to the wider safeguarding environment.

Scorecard Governance Dimensions

The SAFECHAIN™ Institutional Safeguarding Scorecard evaluates institutional safeguarding integrity across five governance dimensions.

Each dimension reflects structural challenges frequently identified in safeguarding reviews.

1. Participation Integrity

Participation Integrity measures how institutions support individuals experiencing trauma when engaging with safeguarding processes.

Indicators may include:

• trauma-informed communication practices
• accessibility of safeguarding pathways
• support mechanisms for victims navigating institutional processes
• consistency of engagement across safeguarding systems

2. Documentation Continuity

Documentation Continuity evaluates how safeguarding information is recorded and coordinated across institutional environments.

Indicators may include:

• clarity of safeguarding documentation protocols
• coordination of safeguarding records across agencies
• continuity of safeguarding information across multi-agency environments
• accuracy and consistency of documentation practices

3. Institutional Coordination

Institutional Coordination examines how effectively institutions collaborate within safeguarding systems.

Indicators may include:

• participation in multi-agency safeguarding frameworks
• structured communication between agencies
• clarity of institutional safeguarding responsibilities
• coordination of safeguarding interventions

4. Recognition of Coercive Control

This dimension evaluates institutional recognition of coercive control dynamics within safeguarding environments.

Indicators may include:

• awareness of coercive control patterns
• training for recognising psychological abuse
• documentation of coercive control indicators
• integration of coercive control recognition within safeguarding processes

5. Governance and Accountability

Governance and Accountability measures the strength of safeguarding oversight within institutions.

Indicators may include:

• safeguarding leadership structures
• institutional accountability mechanisms
• oversight of safeguarding responses
• transparency within safeguarding systems

Scorecard Scoring Framework

Each governance dimension is scored on a 20-point scale.

Participation Integrity – 20 points
Documentation Continuity – 20 points
Institutional Coordination – 20 points
Recognition of Coercive Control – 20 points
Governance and Accountability – 20 points

Maximum Score: 100

Scorecard Ratings

Institutions may be classified according to their overall safeguarding integrity score.

85–100
Strong Safeguarding Governance

70–84
Moderate Safeguarding Governance

50–69
Developing Safeguarding Governance

Below 50
Significant Safeguarding Governance Challenges

Example Scorecard Output

Institution: Example Police Force

Participation Integrity – 15/20
Documentation Continuity – 14/20
Institutional Coordination – 16/20
Recognition of Coercive Control – 12/20
Governance and Accountability – 17/20

Total Score: 74 / 100

Rating: Moderate Safeguarding Governance

Policy Value of the Scorecard

The SAFECHAIN™ Institutional Safeguarding Scorecard can support policy discussions by:

• identifying structural safeguarding strengths and weaknesses
• highlighting governance challenges across institutions
• encouraging institutional reflection and improvement
• supporting research into safeguarding systems

Scorecards are widely used by policy institutes because they translate complex governance structures into clear evaluative frameworks.

Relationship to the SAFECHAIN™ Safeguarding Index

The SAFECHAIN™ Safeguarding Index examines safeguarding governance across systems.

The SAFECHAIN™ Institutional Safeguarding Scorecard evaluates individual institutions within those systems.

Together, the two tools provide complementary perspectives on safeguarding integrity.

Future Development

The SAFECHAIN™ Institutional Safeguarding Scorecard may evolve through collaboration with policymakers, safeguarding professionals, researchers, and institutional stakeholders.

Its long-term aim is to contribute to policy discussions about strengthening safeguarding systems and improving institutional coordination.

About SAFECHAIN™

SAFECHAIN™ is an independent initiative exploring governance approaches to safeguarding coordination across institutional systems responding to domestic abuse and vulnerability.