Purpose of this audit
This audit assesses rape crisis and sexual violence support services in England through a survivor-led safeguarding lens, specifically focused on the real-world accessibility and safety of services for transitioned women. It does not evaluate organisational intent, values, or public inclusion statements in isolation. Instead, it examines whether a transitioned woman can safely approach, engage with, and remain within a service without facing misclassification, forced disclosure, or exclusion.
Audit methodology
The two-minute rule
Every service from Rape Crisis England was reviewed. This audit applies the “two-minute navigability test”: Can a transitioned woman experiencing crisis determine, within approximately two minutes of visiting a service’s website, whether the service is safe to approach?
This test mirrors the reality of help-seeking during acute trauma, where cognitive capacity is reduced, emotional resources are limited, multiple service websites may need to be assessed quickly, and prolonged searching or uncertainty itself functions as a deterrent.
Assessment process:
We examined publicly available information on each service’s website, focusing on front-facing service descriptions and eligibility statements, inclusion policies or trans-specific guidance where present, self-referral forms and intake processes, and group work descriptions and accessibility information. We then measured these findings against safeguarding standards, asking whether a transitioned woman can determine eligibility without disclosure, whether trans inclusion is explicit, absent, or ambiguous, whether group work can be accessed safely and is this clear before contact, and whether the service design creates foreseeable barriers or risks.
Based on this assessment, services were classified as recommended (clear, safe, navigable), conditionally recommended (accessible with caveats or disclosure burden), not recommendable (high safeguarding risk), or under review (insufficient clarity to assess safety).
Scope of review:
We reviewed main service pages, about sections, referral information, and where available, self-referral forms. Site complexity varied considerably: some services had extensive web presence, others were minimal. We did not exhaustively search every subpage or linked document, but where self-referral forms existed, we assessed them for forced disclosure requirements.
Email contact and follow-up
Following the initial website audit, we contacted all services by email to request clarification on trans inclusion policies, ask specific questions about group work accessibility, and seek information not visible on public-facing materials. This audit reflects publicly available information and email responses received as of January 2026. Services that have not yet responded or provided clarity remain classified as “under review.”
Limitations of this audit
We assessed publicly available website information and email responses from services. What we could not assess includes internal policies that may differ from public statements, actual staff practice and competency, local variations in policy implementation across different branches or regions, and changes in practice following recent policy guidance that may not yet be reflected online. This means a service classified as “not recommendable” based on website content may have inclusive practice that is simply not visible. Conversely, a service with inclusive website language may have operational barriers not apparent from public materials.
Limited service user feedback
We have direct accounts from some transitioned women about their experiences with specific services, informing our understanding of how policies translate to practice. However, we lack comprehensive service user feedback across all 36 services audited. Most services have not been tested by enough transitioned women to establish reliable patterns. Classifications therefore reflect our best assessment of risk based on available information, but do not represent confirmed outcomes across all contexts.
Variability in local implementation
Even where national organizations have inclusive policies, local implementation can vary significantly based on individual staff knowledge and attitudes, local commissioning requirements, regional policy interpretations, and availability of trained practitioners. A service that appears safe based on national policy may have local barriers not captured in this audit. The reverse is also possible: local services may be more inclusive than their website suggests.
Point-in-time assessment
This audit reflects the state of services as of January 2026. Service policies, staff training, website content, and legal interpretations are all subject to change, particularly in the current environment following the April 2024 Supreme Court ruling. Information may become outdated, and services may improve or deteriorate between audit and access.
The gap between stated policy and lived experience
No website audit can fully capture whether a service will be safe in practice for any individual survivor. Variables include which staff member you encounter, how disclosure is handled if it occurs, whether group composition matches what’s described, how conflicts or complaints are managed, and whether therapeutic approach actually fits your needs. Even “recommended” services carry some degree of uncertainty for transitioned women navigating systems not designed with us in mind.
What this audit can and cannot tell you
This audit cannot guarantee that any specific service will provide appropriate care in practice, that staff will be competent or kind, that local implementation matches national policy, that you won’t encounter barriers not visible in public materials, or that a service’s classification won’t change over time.
What this audit can and cannot tell you
✅ This audit CAN help you:
- Identify services with clear, explicit trans inclusion policies
- Avoid services with high visible risk (exclusionary language, sex-based routing, no trans clarity)
- Understand which services require disclosure to determine access
- Know which services offer group work and whether accessibility is clear
- Make more informed decisions about where to start when seeking help
❌ This audit CANNOT guarantee:
- That any specific service will provide appropriate care in practice
- That staff will be competent or kind
- That local implementation matches national policy
- That you won’t encounter barriers not visible in public materials
- That a service’s classification won’t change over time
For services and commissioners:
If your service is classified as “under review” or “not recommendable,” this audit identifies specific gaps including lack of visible trans inclusion policy, unclear group work accessibility, forced disclosure in intake processes, and sex-based routing without context assessment. These are fixable operational issues, not insurmountable barriers. Contact us if you would like to discuss how to improve navigability and safety for transitioned women.
Core safeguarding principle applied
Safeguarding is breached where disclosure (or discovery) of a transitioned woman’s history alters her categorisation, access, or eligibility for support.
This audit therefore prioritises operational reality over stated ethos. Services are assessed on what will happen in practice, not what is intended.
Key safeguarding risks identified across England
1. Forced or coerced disclosure risk
Many services require, explicitly or implicitly, information about sex assigned at birth, “biological sex”, or gender history through:
- Intake forms
- Equality monitoring
- Staff discretion policies
- Single-sex service rules
This creates an environment where a transitioned woman must choose between:
- Concealment (with ongoing fear of later exclusion), or
- Disclosure (with unpredictable or adverse consequences)
Both outcomes constitute safeguarding harm.
2. Reclassification after engagement
A recurring high-risk pattern was identified:
- Initial acceptance via inclusive language
- Emotional engagement and disclosure of trauma
- Later discovery of transition history
- Reclassification out of women-only provision or groups
- Rerouting, exclusion, or withdrawal of support
This pattern mirrors dynamics of conditional safety and institutional betrayal, particularly harmful for survivors with complex trauma.
3. Semantic red flags
Certain language patterns consistently correlated with exclusionary practice:
- Use of the term “females” instead of women
- Emphasis on “biological sex” in service eligibility
- Framing women-only provision as needing protection from trans women
These markers reliably predicted operational risk even where inclusion statements existed elsewhere on the site.
4. Parallel but non-protective LGBTQ+ pathways
Several services offered LGBTQ+ or trans-specific advocacy (e.g. LGBTQ+ ISVA) while simultaneously:
- Restricting women-only counselling or group work to biological females
- Failing to guarantee continuity of care across pathways
Parallel services do not mitigate risk where core therapeutic or group provision remains exclusionary.
5. Staff discretion as a double-edged factor
Where genuine staff discretion existed without rigid sex-based policy, this was assessed as protective.
Where discretion was constrained by:
- Supreme Court reinterpretations
- Organisational policies defining sex as biological
- Mandatory reclassification rules
…it became a risk amplifier, removing professional judgement and survivor-led decision making.
Group work and peer support: critical findings
Group work access emerged as a decisive safeguarding factor.
- Services allowing transitioned women into women’s groups without disclosure requirements were assessed as safer.
- Services offering only:
- 1:1 support
- Or rerouted mixed / LGBTQ+ groups
…were assessed as incomplete and inequitable, as group work is a core modality for recovery, not an optional extra.
The inability to safely access group work constitutes structural exclusion, even where 1:1 support exists.
Overall audit conclusions
Across England, the majority of services fall into one of three categories:
❌ Category A – High safeguarding risk (not recommended)
Characteristics:
- Sex-based eligibility defined as biological
- Conditional or post-disclosure exclusion
- Forced reclassification
- Women-only spaces inaccessible to transitioned women
These services present an unacceptable risk of retraumatisation and should not be recommended.
🟡⚠️ Category B – Ambiguous / survivor-risked
Characteristics:
- Inclusive language without operational clarity
- Staff discretion inconsistently applied
- Lack of explicit guarantees around disclosure and group access
These services are not safe to recommend without prior direct clarification and remain risky for survivors navigating trauma.
✅ Category C – Safer practice indicators
Characteristics:
- Explicit inclusion of transitioned women as women
- No requirement for disclosure of sex assigned at birth
- Unconditional access to group work and women’s provision
- Clear survivor-led safeguards
These services were uncommon but represent best practice.
Strategic implications for Finding Safety
- Inclusion statements are insufficient without operational safeguards.
- Disclosure-neutral access must be treated as a safeguarding requirement.
- Group work access must be audited explicitly, not assumed.
- Reclassification risk should be treated as institutional harm.
- Survivor trust depends on predictability, not goodwill.
Additional safeguarding clarification (England audit)
Where groupwork eligibility is unclear or emotionally unsafe, non-disclosure by transitioned women functions as a rational protective response, not a breach of trust.
Services that rely on disclosure to determine access — without providing safe, transparent routing information in advance — inadvertently increase safeguarding risk. This includes services where access is technically possible but contingent on silence, concealment, or survivor resilience.
While some services express inclusive values, the absence of survivor-facing clarity about:
- transitioned women’s eligibility
- disclosure handling
- group-work placement
- staff competence in trans-specific trauma
means transitioned women cannot reasonably assess whether their experiences will be understood or safely held.
In safeguarding terms, unknowability is not neutral.
If a survivor must risk rejection to find out whether they are safe, the system has already failed.
Final safeguarding position
From a survivor-centred safeguarding perspective:
A service is only safe if a transitioned woman can enter, engage, and remain without fear that her safety will be withdrawn later.
Where that cannot be guaranteed, non-recommendation is the only ethical position.
Overall Situation: Services at a glance
Services assessed: England comprehensive audit table
| Service | Area | Service framing | Trans inclusion clarity | Group work accessibility | Assessment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ARCH | Teesside | Mixed/all-survivor at entry (women+men named); women-only spaces offered | Absent; backend only (“Trans Gender Female” on form); no survivor-facing clarity | Women-only groups offered; trans inclusion unclear; disclosure required to assess access | 🔴 Not recommendable (high risk) |
| Bradford | Bradford | By women, for women and girls (front-door deterrent) | Absent; silence functions as exclusion | Not accessible / not stated – women-only framing; no trans pathway | 🔴 Not recommendable (high risk) |
| Cambridge | Cambs | Women/girls focus; women-only groups; “some services all genders” | Absent; segmented inclusion (all-gender advocacy, women-only recovery) | Closed – women’s groups explicitly female-only; no trans inclusion | 🔴 Not recommendable (high risk) |
| CARA | Essex | Explicit all-gender, all sex/gender identities | Strong and front-loaded | Clear – choice of mixed or women-only groups | ✅ Recommended (benchmark) |
| Ches/Mers | Ches/Mers | Neutral/inclusive (women+men+young people); plus women-only spaces | Absent; relies on inference | Unclear – women-only groups exist; no public eligibility clarification | 🔴 Not recommendable (high risk) |
| CRASAC | W Mids | Feminist, women-only framing | Poor – exclusionary in practice | ❌ Not available – trans women routed away from women’s groupwork | 🔴 Not recommendable (explicit exclusion/misrouting) |
| Darlington | Durham | Women-led | Not specified | Unclear – binary routing; no trans-specific group pathway | 🔴 High risk |
| Devon | Devon | Survivor-centred; universal eligibility stated; non-gender-exclusive entry framing | Explicit (“irrespective of gender identity or sex”) – strong universal eligibility statement; lacks trans-specific operational reassurances (pronouns, non-outing) | Partial – mixed/all-survivor groups accessible to trans women; women-only space exists but eligibility unclear from public materials | 🟡⚠️ Recommendable (with notes) – strong minimum standard; secondary exclusion risk from unclear women-only group routing |
| E Kent | E Kent | Feminist; women/girls primary; men’s provision noted | Implicit only (form-level; no public clarity) | Unclear – women-only groups present; disclosure required to assess access | 🔴 High risk (high navigational risk) |
| NIA | E London | Women- and girls-only (VAWG framework); feminist analysis | Not stated; no mention of trans women or gender identity across all pages | Groups offered (workshops + therapeutic groups); eligibility for trans women unclear; must disclose to find out | 🔴 High risk / Not recommendable (structural exclusion through silence) |
| GRASAC | Glos | Feminist-rooted; women-only staffing + multi-gender service model; explicit sex-based routing | High (explicitly names trans women + non-binary) but requires “biological sex” disclosure alongside gender identity (Supreme Court framing) | Yes – explicitly states groups for all survivors incl. trans women; also has women-only spaces/days with sex-based framing | 🟡⚠️ Recommendable (with notes) – clear pathways, but forced disclosure/sex classification creates avoidable safeguarding risk and may deter survivors |
| Gtr Manc | Gtr Manc | Women-only feminist service | Not stated / not indicated | ❌ Not accessible / not stated (women-only groups; no inclusive pathway) | 🔴 Not recommendable (high risk) |
| Herts | Herts | Run by women, for women; services explicitly unavailable to men | Not stated; no reference to trans women or gender identity | ❌ No group work offered; women-only service | 🔴 Not accessible (sex-based service with no pathway) |
| KCW | W Yorks | Intersectional feminist; parallel women-only and all-gender provision | Explicit inclusion in all-gender services; women-only groups sex-based | ✅ Yes – via all-gender groups; ❌ women-only groups sex-based | ✅ Recommended (clear, discoverable pathways) |
| Leicester | Leics | Women-only; all-female staff; feminist framing | ❌ Sex-classification language (“who are females”); no safeguards | 🔴⚠️ Conditional via non-disclosure only; unsafe on disclosure | 🔴 Very high risk / Not recommendable (structural exclusion mechanism) |
| Lincs | Lincs | Explicitly inclusive; anti-discrimination framing | ✅ Explicit inclusion; trans-competent language | 🟡⚠️ Yes, but internal routing introduces some ambiguity | ✅ Provisionally recommended (clarify group allocation) |
| Northants | Northants | Women-and-girls-only; LGBTQ provision routed separately | ❌ No assurance trans women included in women’s services | ❌ Women-only groupwork; no safe trans pathway | 🔴 Not recommended (high misrouting risk) |
| Solace | N London | Women-only services with inclusive definition of women | ✅ Explicit: trans women included as women | ✅ Yes – full access without disclosure | ✅ Recommended (gold-standard clarity) |
| Notts | Notts | Inclusive survivor service; identity-respecting; discretion-led placement | Explicit identity respect (“self-defined gender / preferred pronoun”); no sex-essentialist gate language | 🟡⚠️ Yes, but discretion-routed – group structure uses “male/female groups” language without explicit trans mapping; placement depends on staff judgement | ✅ Recommended (discretion-led model; note: group cohort clarity could improve) |
| P’boro | P’boro | Substantive-equality, individualised support; honest about inclusivity still improving | Implicit (not named) – no trans-specific sentence, but strong Equality Act / protected characteristics framing and training commitment | 🟡⚠️ Unclear from public notes provided – likely handled case-by-case; no visible trans-specific group cohort statement | 🟡 Conditionally recommended (discretion-led and non-hostile; visibility gap may deter pre-contact) |
| Tyneside | NE | Identity-inclusive women-only provision with explicit definitions; supportive pre-group assessment | Explicit & repeated – women-only definition includes trans women and non-binary people who identify women’s services are right for them | ✅ Clear – groups inclusive unless specifically advertised single-sex; trans women explicitly included | 🟢 Recommended / Gold-standard (clarity + discretion-with-boundaries; low disclosure risk) |
| Merseyside | Merseyside | All-survivor service framing (women/men/children) but routing details not surfaced | Not stated – no explicit trans signalling in notes provided | 🟡⚠️ Unclear – group composition and any gendered provision not specified; cohort unknowable pre-contact | 🟠 Moderate risk / Under review (not red-flag, but not confidently navigable for transitioned women) |
| N Wales | N Wales | Feminist, women-centred model with principle-led women-only spaces; right-to-refuse clause | Form-level recognition (“Trans Gender Female” option) but no explicit inclusion in women-only policy | 🟡⚠️ Unclear / high-risk – women-only spaces are constitutional; no public rule resolving trans women’s eligibility in women-only groups | 🔴 High risk (disclosure and participation risk in group settings; not safely navigable) |
| SAASS | Bucks/MK | All-gender services | Not stated – no trans guidance | Unclear – women-only framing; no trans guidance | 🔴 High risk |
| SERICC | S/W Essex | Explicit women-only referral pathways and women-only staffing; separate men’s provision | Not stated – no definition of “women” / no trans inclusion statement in notes provided | 🔴 Unclear in a high-risk way – women-only pathway is explicit, but trans eligibility for women’s spaces not defined | 🔴 High risk (sex-segregated design + silence on trans inclusion = unsafe ambiguity) |
| Sheffield | Sheffield | Rape Crisis member centre | Not specified | Unclear – groupwork exists; inclusion not specified | 🔴⚠️ Medium-high risk |
| Somerset | SW | Rape Crisis member centre | Not specified | Partial – mixed provision exists; women-only eligibility unclear | 🔴⚠️ Moderate risk |
| Southend | Essex | Rape Crisis member centre | Not specified | Unclear – women-only framing; no explicit trans pathway | 🔴 High risk |
| S London | S London | Women-only framing | Not specified | Unclear – women-only framing; trans inclusion not stated | 🔴 High risk |
| Leeds | Leeds | Feminist, women-only, “trans inclusive” | Internally permissive, externally risky | Unclear – groupwork exists; no survivor-facing trans guidance | 🟠⚠️ Medium-high risk / Not recommendable (semantic red flags “females”) |
| Sussex | Sussex | Survivor-led, mixed services | Not assessed here | Partial – mixed services exist; groupwork routing unclear | 🟠⚠️ Moderate risk |
| Oxon | Oxon | Neutral survivor framing | Operative exclusion via forced disclosure | Unclear – multi-agency hub; gendered routing embedded in intake | 🟠⚠️ Medium risk / Not recommendable |
| Cornwall | Cornwall | Women-only, values-led | No explicit trans clarity | ❌ Not recommended – women-only framing; no trans inclusion | 🔴 High risk / Not recommendable |
| Trafford | Gtr Manc | Feminist, women-only | No explicit trans pathway | ❌ Not recommended – women-only groups; no trans pathway | 🔴 High risk / Not recommendable |
| WGN | W London | Feminist, women-only, empowerment-led | No operational clarity | Unclear – women-only framing; no explicit trans guidance | 🔴 High risk / Not recommendable (disclosure-dependent, high social risk) |
| W Mercia | W Mercia | All-gender + separate LGBTQ+ pathway | Clear but segregating | Yes, but only via LGBTQ+ ISVA route (not women’s groups) | 🟡 Conditionally recommendable (1-to-1 only) |
This document is intended for use alongside the Finding Safety guide and associated service tables. It reflects survivor-led analysis and should be treated as a safeguarding assessment, not a reputational judgement of individual organisations.
Additional notes on borderline services:
Devon Rape Crisis and Sexual Abuse Services
Status: 🟡⚠️ Recommendable (with notes) — Moderate risk
Service framing
Devon Rape Crisis and Sexual Abuse Services presents as a survivor-centred, non-gender-exclusive service at first contact. Entry pages prioritise “survivors” rather than women-only framing and avoid sex-essentialist language.
Trans inclusion clarity
Strong on eligibility.
Devon explicitly states that specialist support is available “irrespective of gender identity or sex.” This is survivor-facing, unambiguous, and removes the need for pre-contact disclosure to establish eligibility.
However, trans-specific reassurance (e.g. pronouns, non-outing, non-scrutiny) is not explicitly stated, leaving some residual anxiety for survivors with prior negative service experiences.
Group work accessibility (critical test)
Groupwork is offered: ✅ Yes
Support is described as being delivered “individually or as a group.”
Mixed / all-survivor groups:
✅ Accessible to trans women.
Given the explicit universal eligibility statement (“irrespective of gender identity or sex”), mixed-cohort groupwork is available to trans women.
Women-only groups / spaces:
🟡⚠️ Eligibility unclear from public materials.
Devon includes a navigation item for a “Women Only Space.” Public-facing content does not clarify whether trans women are included within women-only groupwork, or how access decisions are made.
This creates a secondary exclusion risk: eligibility is clear in principle, but not fully navigable across all group modalities.
Disclosure safety
🟡 Moderate–good.
Trans women do not need to disclose in order to establish eligibility for support or groupwork generally. However, ambiguity around women-only provision may still require enquiry or disclosure to resolve placement questions.
Safeguarding assessment
Devon meets a strong minimum standard by explicitly stating universal eligibility on a survivor-facing page. The remaining risk arises not from exclusionary policy, but from gendered content architecture that introduces uncertainty about routing and group placement.
Bottom-line assessment
- Groupwork access: ✅ Yes (mixed groups)
- Women-only group clarity: 🟡⚠️ Unclear
- Risk level: Moderate
- Classification: 🟡⚠️ Recommendable (with notes)
England report flag
Devon demonstrates how a single, explicit sentence (“irrespective of gender identity or sex”) materially improves navigability for transitioned women. The next step toward exemplar practice would be to clarify eligibility for women-only groupwork and add brief operational reassurances (pronouns, non-outing, non-scrutiny).
GRASAC (Gloucestershire Rape and Sexual Abuse Centre)Core assessment stays the same
Status:🟡⚠️ Recommendable (with notes)
Why: strong navigability + explicit pathway options, but avoidable safeguarding risk created by mandatory “biological sex” disclosure and “recent legal developments / Supreme Court” framing.
GRASAC is unusually explicit and navigable in stating it supports all survivors, including trans women, and it describes a mixed model with women-only spaces/days alongside all-gender provision and groups. This clarity improves survivability of the “two-minute” decision compared with most centres. However, GRASAC also states that it will require clients to disclose “biological sex” in addition to gender identity, and it frames service design around “biologically single-sex” spaces with reference to recent legal developments. This creates an avoidable forced disclosure / sex-classification burden at first contact, which can function as a deterrent for transitioned women (especially those who are non-disclosing or carrying prior institutional trauma).
Safeguarding position: approach is more transparent than most, but not disclosure-neutral; recommend with caution and clearly note the disclosure requirement and potential deterrent effect.
version 1.1 17/1/25