Institutional Coercive Control™
When Organisational Systems Reinforce Patterns of Power and Control
By Samantha Avril-Andreassen, LLB (Hons), LLM, LPC, FRSA
Founder, SAFECHAIN™
Coercive Control Does Not Always End When the Relationship Ends
For many people, leaving an abusive relationship is expected to mark the beginning of safety.
Yet for countless survivors, the experience of control does not simply disappear.
Instead, it changes form.
The methods become different.
The individuals exercising authority may change.
The systems become more complex.
The experience, however, can feel remarkably familiar.
Repeated demands for information.
Unexplained delays.
Financial uncertainty.
Constantly proving credibility.
Retelling traumatic experiences.
Fragmented communication.
Conflicting decisions.
Power exercised without explanation.
Feeling unheard despite engaging with multiple organisations.
These experiences do not necessarily arise because institutions intend to harm people.
They often emerge from fragmented systems, disconnected decision-making and governance failures.
SAFECHAIN™ describes this phenomenon as Institutional Coercive Control™.
Understanding Coercive Control
Coercive control is widely recognised as a pattern of behaviour through which one person seeks to dominate, isolate or control another.
It may include psychological abuse, economic abuse, intimidation, surveillance, manipulation or restriction of autonomy.
Its defining characteristic is not a single incident.
It is the cumulative pattern of power and control.
Modern safeguarding increasingly recognises these dynamics within intimate and family relationships.
SAFECHAIN™ asks a broader governance question:
Can institutional systems unintentionally reproduce similar patterns of control through the way they operate?
Introducing Institutional Coercive Control™
Within the SAFECHAIN™ Governance Framework, Institutional Coercive Control™ is the principle that organisations should identify and prevent operational practices that unintentionally reinforce patterns of dependency, power imbalance, loss of autonomy or cumulative institutional harm.
It asks one fundamental question:
Could the way this system operates unintentionally reproduce experiences of coercion, dependency or powerlessness?
This is not an allegation that institutions abuse people.
Rather, it is an invitation to examine whether fragmented governance, poorly designed processes or disproportionate exercises of power may create experiences that resemble the dynamics of coercive control.
Recognising these risks allows organisations to improve systems before unnecessary harm occurs.
The Difference Between Authority and Control
Public bodies, regulators and service providers often exercise lawful authority.
Authority is necessary.
Safeguarding requires decision-making.
Courts must determine cases.
Police must investigate crime.
Local authorities must assess risk.
Healthcare professionals must make clinical decisions.
Lawful authority, exercised proportionately and transparently, protects the public.
Coercive control is fundamentally different.
It uses power to restrict autonomy, increase dependency, create uncertainty or undermine an individual's ability to act freely.
The governance challenge is therefore not whether organisations possess authority.
It is whether that authority is exercised fairly, transparently and consistently with safeguarding principles.
How Systems Can Reinforce Harm
Most institutional harm does not arise from malicious intent.
It arises through cumulative organisational failures.
For example:
individuals repeatedly asked to provide the same evidence
agencies holding fragmented records that are never effectively connected
long periods of uncertainty without meaningful communication
financial decisions that increase dependency rather than support recovery
repeated retelling of traumatic experiences
inconsistent decisions across organisations
inaccessible complaints procedures
barriers to challenging decisions
rigid processes that ignore individual circumstances.
Each issue may appear relatively minor in isolation.
Together they may create an environment in which individuals experience increasing uncertainty, dependency and loss of control.
SAFECHAIN™ recognises these cumulative effects as governance risks.
Institutional Fragmentation and Cumulative Harm
Institutional Coercive Control™ is closely linked to two other SAFECHAIN™ governance principles.
Institutional Fragmentation™ describes systems where information, responsibility and accountability become divided across multiple organisations.
The Cumulative Harm Model™ recognises that harm should not always be assessed as isolated events.
Instead, the overall impact of repeated procedural failures, delays, fragmented communication and organisational decisions should also be evaluated.
When fragmented systems repeatedly expose individuals to avoidable stress, uncertainty and disempowerment, the cumulative experience may become as significant as any single decision.
Good governance requires organisations to examine these broader patterns.
The SAFECHAIN™ Perspective
Institutional Coercive Control™ does not suggest that organisations intentionally imitate abusive behaviour.
Rather, it recognises that safeguarding systems should be evaluated from the perspective of those who experience them.
Within the SAFECHAIN™ Governance Framework:
The Directive™ requires legal duties to be implemented.
Operational Law™ translates legislation into operational practice.
Legal Duty of Care™ requires accountability for safeguarding responsibilities.
Disclosure Integrity™ strengthens evidence-based decision-making.
Jurisdictional Integrity™ ensures lawful authority.
Process Integrity™ ensures systems function coherently.
Process Harm™ evaluates whether processes create avoidable harm.
Participation Integrity™ ensures people remain meaningfully involved.
Financial Integrity™ recognises the safeguarding consequences of financial decision-making.
Institutional Coercive Control™ integrates these principles by asking whether the overall operation of the system promotes autonomy, fairness and protection—or whether it unintentionally reinforces dependency and powerlessness.
Questions Every Organisation Should Ask
Leaders should regularly examine whether their systems unintentionally create experiences of institutional control.
Consider asking:
Do our processes increase unnecessary dependency?
Are individuals required to repeat traumatic experiences unnecessarily?
Are delays creating prolonged uncertainty?
Can people understand, question and challenge decisions?
Are complaints genuinely accessible?
Do different organisations coordinate effectively?
Does our governance strengthen autonomy or unintentionally reduce it?
Are we evaluating cumulative experience as well as individual decisions?
These questions encourage organisations to move beyond procedural compliance towards genuinely person-centred governance.
Good Governance Restores Autonomy
Effective safeguarding should increase a person's ability to make informed choices, exercise their rights and regain independence.
Well-designed organisations do not create unnecessary dependency.
They remove barriers.
They communicate clearly.
They coordinate effectively.
They recognise trauma.
They support participation.
They promote fairness.
Above all, they restore confidence that systems exist to protect rather than overwhelm.
Conclusion
Coercive control is fundamentally about the misuse of power.
Institutions must therefore remain vigilant about how their own power is exercised.
Institutional Coercive Control™ provides a governance framework that helps organisations identify where fragmented systems, procedural rigidity or cumulative organisational failures may unintentionally reproduce experiences of control, uncertainty and disempowerment.
The goal is not to weaken lawful authority.
The goal is to strengthen legitimate authority by ensuring it is exercised transparently, proportionately, accountably and with safeguarding at its core.
Because the strongest institutions are not those that exercise the greatest power.
They are those that exercise power with the greatest integrity.
Listen to the Full Discussion
This article introduces Institutional Coercive Control™, one of the governance principles within the SAFECHAIN™ Framework.
To explore these ideas in greater depth, listen to Episode 9.12 – Coercive Control Beyond the Home on Silent Screams, Loud Strength – Unmasking Justice, where Samantha Avril-Andreassen examines how fragmented organisational systems can unintentionally reinforce patterns of dependency, uncertainty and powerlessness, and how stronger governance can reduce institutional harm while improving safeguarding outcomes.
Subscribe, listen and share the podcast to join the conversation on strengthening safeguarding, governance and institutional reform.
Copyright
© 2026 Samantha Avril-Andreassen. All Rights Reserved.
SAFECHAIN™, Institutional Coercive Control™, Institutional Fragmentation™, The Cumulative Harm Model™, The Directive™, Operational Law™, Legal Duty of Care™, Disclosure Integrity™, Jurisdictional Integrity™, Participation Integrity™, Process Integrity™, Process Harm™, Financial Integrity™, Remedy Integrity™, and all associated methodologies, frameworks, governance models and intellectual property are the exclusive property of Samantha Avril-Andreassen.
No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, adapted, stored or transmitted in any form without prior written permission from the copyright holder.