The Safeguarding Paradox: How Institutions Use Policies to Deflect Accountability and Silence Victims.

Safeguarding has become a key concept in institutions worldwide, from schools and workplaces to places of worship and community organizations. It promises protection, accountability, and safe environments for all. But is the safeguarding culture always as it seems?

The Reality Behind Safeguarding Policies.

Safeguarding policies are essential for preventing abuse, maintaining ethical standards, and ensuring the well-being of individuals. On the surface, they appear to be a noble effort to protect vulnerable people. However, in practice, these policies can sometimes be weaponized, not to protect the vulnerable, but to deflect accountability and conceal deeper systemic issues.

Institutions may present safeguarding frameworks to show their commitment to safety, but when concerns are raised, victims often face minimization, dismissal, or even gaslighting. Instead of receiving support, they may encounter responses that undermine their credibility or suggest they are overreacting.

Case Study: The Church of England's Safeguarding Crisis and a Widespread Issue.

A recent and poignant example of safeguarding policies being manipulated is the Church of England's handling of abuse allegations against John Smyth, a former barrister and lay reader. Smyth was accused of abusing over 100 boys and young men in the 1970s and 1980s. Despite being informed of these allegations in 2013, the Church failed to act decisively, allowing Smyth to continue his activities in Zimbabwe and South Africa.

An independent review by Keith Makin, published in November 2024, revealed extensive negligence and cover-ups by church officials. The report highlighted that the Church's primary concern was protecting its reputation rather than addressing the abuse. This failure led to an "existential crisis" within the Church, culminating in the resignation of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, who acknowledged the Church's shortcomings in handling the case.

However, this issue is not limited to the Church of England. Safeguarding failures have been observed across various institutions, including schools, sports organizations, and workplaces. The systemic nature of safeguarding issues suggests that the problem runs deeper than isolated instances or specific organizations. In many cases, institutions prioritize self-preservation over genuine accountability, creating a culture that can shield abusers and silence victims.

Another Case Study: The Larry Nassar Scandal in Gymnastics.

The Larry Nassar scandal in U.S. gymnastics serves as another devastating example of safeguarding failures within a mainstream organization. Nassar, a former doctor for the U.S. Gymnastics team, sexually abused hundreds of young female athletes over the course of decades. His actions were often overlooked or minimized by those in power within the gymnastics world, including coaches, trainers, and institutional leaders, despite numerous opportunities to intervene.

Many of Nassar's victims, including Olympic gold medalist Simone Biles, came forward with their stories, but it wasn't until 2018 that he was convicted. The case revealed a culture of silence within USA Gymnastics and broader sport organizations, where powerful figures were allowed to perpetuate their abuses under the guise of safeguarding and training. Nassar's abuse went unchecked for so long in part because the institution prioritized its reputation and the success of its athletes over the well-being of vulnerable young girls.

This case shows that safeguarding issues are not confined to places of worship or small organizations—they also occur in highly visible, mainstream institutions, where people expect the highest levels of integrity and care.

Inclusivity: A Double-Edged Sword?

The concept of inclusivity has become central to many organizations, promoting the idea that everyone, regardless of background, should feel welcome and supported. While this is an admirable goal, the drive for inclusivity can sometimes inadvertently widen the scope for abuse. By creating environments that are open to everyone, institutions may lower the barriers for individuals who may have harmful intentions. This can reduce the detection of abusive behavior, as the focus shifts toward tolerance and acceptance rather than vigilance and accountability.

Inclusivity can sometimes create a "safe space" for abusers to operate under the radar, particularly when institutions are more focused on ensuring that no one feels excluded or alienated. In such environments, the emphasis on being "inclusive" can lead to a reluctance to scrutinize individuals too closely, for fear of being perceived as discriminatory or intolerant. As a result, abusive behavior may go unnoticed or be dismissed as misunderstandings or isolated incidents, particularly when the abuser is in a position of power or respect.

Moreover, leaders within these inclusive environments may use the very policies designed to protect people as a shield to protect themselves. The same principles that encourage openness and tolerance may be manipulated to deflect suspicion or to downplay serious allegations. This can create a culture of impunity, where abusive actions are dismissed or ignored, and victims are left feeling unsupported.

A Broader View: Safeguarding Leaders and Institutions.

In some cases, safeguarding needs to extend to those who hold power and leadership positions within institutions. Even leaders, who are often seen as the ultimate authority, can be vulnerable to manipulation or coercion, and their actions may need to be scrutinized and safeguarded as well. Safeguarding policies should not only protect vulnerable individuals within the organization but also ensure that leaders and decision-makers are held accountable for their actions.

Leaders may face pressures that could lead them to ignore or downplay serious allegations, particularly if such actions threaten the institution's reputation or financial stability. Safeguarding policies must therefore be comprehensive, protecting not only the vulnerable but also ensuring that those in positions of power are subject to the same standards of accountability and transparency.

Manipulation Tactics in Safeguarding.

Institutions frequently employ manipulation tactics that silence victims and protect their own interests. These tactics include:

Questioning Credibility: Accusing victims of misinterpreting events or being overly sensitive.

Blaming the Victim: Shifting the focus to the victim’s actions or behavior, suggesting they were at fault.

Accusing Mental Instability: Labeling victims as mentally unstable to discredit their claims, suggesting they are unreliable or exaggerating their experiences.

Reframing the Narrative: Highlighting the institution’s charitable work or positive contributions to overshadow complaints about misconduct.

Token Gestures: Offering surface-level apologies or “gifts” that fail to address the root issues, such as charitable donations or public relations efforts.

Stonewalling: Ignoring or dismissing concerns completely, leaving victims feeling powerless and invisible.

These manipulative responses prevent meaningful change and create a toxic culture where misconduct continues unchecked.

Shifting Responsibility: The Safeguarding Disclaimer.

In some cases, safeguarding policies carry an implicit disclaimer: “You are responsible for your own safety.” This mindset shifts the burden onto individuals, absolving institutions of responsibility when issues arise.

When allegations of misconduct occur, institutions may focus on protecting their image rather than addressing the harm caused. This can involve minimizing the issue, deflecting blame, or framing the victim’s concerns as unreasonable.

The Safeguarding Paradox: Policies vs. Practice.

Although safeguarding policies are intended to ensure safety, they often become tools for concealing harm. Institutions may point to these policies as evidence of their commitment to safety, even when they fail to address the underlying problems that victims face. This paradox creates a dangerous cycle:

1. Institutions implement safeguarding policies as a form of protection.

2. Victims trust these policies and raise concerns.

3. The institution undermines or silences those concerns.

4. The institution uses its safeguarding policies as proof of its integrity.

Who Can We Really Trust?

In the face of systemic abuse and safeguarding failures, a critical question arises: Who can we really trust? When institutions fail to protect individuals and instead prioritize self-preservation, those seeking help can find themselves in even more precarious positions.

What happens if the very people we turn to for guidance and support are also the perpetrators or complicit in misconduct? This is a deeply unsettling reality that many victims face. It can create a toxic environment where trust is shattered, and those with the power to protect are the very ones who perpetuate harm.

The Dilemma of Seeking Help.

In many cases, the individuals entrusted with safeguarding responsibilities, such as senior leaders, HR professionals, or safeguarding officers, may be the ones most responsible for neglecting or covering up abuse. This creates a difficult dilemma for those who seek guidance: Who can you turn to when the system itself is compromised?

This manipulation of power places individuals in an impossible position. Victims, or even whistleblowers, may find themselves isolated, doubted, or punished for speaking out. The very act of seeking help can lead to further victimization, as perpetrators use their positions to silence and discredit those who try to expose the truth.

The Cycle of Betrayal.

When those in power are the ones causing harm or enabling it, it can foster a cycle of betrayal that leaves individuals feeling trapped. The abuse of power isn't always overt; it can be subtle, with perpetrators using their authority to gaslight, manipulate, or intimidate others. In such environments, people who should be trusted become the ones who perpetuate harm, leaving victims with nowhere to turn.

This dynamic creates a profound crisis of trust. If those who are supposed to protect us can’t be trusted, where does that leave us? How can we believe in institutions that fail to protect us, and how can we place trust in individuals who are deeply embedded in those institutions?

The Importance of Independent Oversight.

To break this cycle, there must be robust systems of independent oversight. External bodies, such as regulatory agencies, independent complaint mechanisms, and whistleblower protections, are critical to holding institutions accountable. When those within the institution cannot be trusted, it is imperative to have safe, independent spaces where concerns can be raised without fear of retaliation.

Individuals who find themselves in situations where trust is broken must be encouraged to seek support from external bodies that are less likely to be influenced by internal power dynamics. This is not always easy, but it is essential for breaking the toxic silence that allows abuse to continue unchecked.

Advice for Individuals Feeling in Breach of Safeguarding Policies.

If you find yourself in a situation where you feel your actions or those around you are in breach of safeguarding policies, it's important to address the issue with careful consideration, both for your own well-being and for the safety of others. Here are some steps you can take:

1. Recognize the Signs: If you feel uncomfortable with the behavior of others or see that policies are being ignored, trust your instincts. If something feels wrong, it often is.

2. Seek External Guidance: If the institution itself is not a safe space for raising concerns, look for independent bodies that handle such issues. Whistleblower organizations, legal counsel, or external safeguarding agencies can provide confidential advice and help you navigate the situation.

3. Document Everything: Keep a record of any incidents, conversations, or concerns that arise. Documentation can be crucial in helping you understand the situation, defend your actions, or provide proof if needed.

4. Consider Silent Withdrawal: In some cases, it may not be possible to change the situation or trust the system to respond appropriately. If you feel unsafe or unable to make a difference within the institution, walking away quietly might be the best option for your mental and emotional health. Removing yourself from a toxic or unsafe environment allows you to regain control and seek a safer space.

5. Know Your Rights: Understanding your legal rights is essential. You should be aware of protections available to you under employment law, safeguarding legislation, and whistleblower protections.

6. Support Networks: Connect with others who have experienced similar situations. Support groups, advocacy organizations, or even trusted friends and colleagues can offer advice, validation, and emotional support.

Conclusion: Safeguarding Must Be More Than a Shield.

As we’ve seen in the cases of the Church of England and the U.S. Gymnastics team, safeguarding policies can be used as a shield for organizations to protect their reputations rather than genuinely protect individuals from harm. Unfortunately, in some cases, safeguarding is not about keeping people safe, but about covering up misconduct and protecting those responsible.

The manipulation of power in these systems leaves victims feeling unsupported, gaslit, and isolated. As a result, we must critically assess the integrity of safeguarding policies and the true intent behind them. Institutions must be transparent, accountable, and willing to act on serious concerns without fear of damaging their image.

Ultimately, we cannot afford to ignore the reality that those tasked with safeguarding may also be the ones enabling or perpetuating harm. To create meaningful change, we must demand independent oversight, advocate for the rights of victims, and ensure that safeguarding policies are truly designed to protect everyone, regardless of rank or status.

Trust can only be rebuilt when institutions prioritize genuine accountability over self-preservation, and when individuals are empowered to speak out without fear of retaliation or further harm.