Sorry Isn’t Safety: What Real Accountability Looks Like

It happens every time.

A report drops. A survivor speaks. A lawsuit is filed. And within hours, the institution accused of harm has issued a statement — “We take these allegations seriously.” They affirm their “zero tolerance policy.” They offer their “deepest sympathies” to “anyone who may have been affected.”

Then they wait.

They wait for the media cycle to move on, for the public to forget, for the survivor to tire out or be tied up in legal knots — especially if an NDA is involved.

This isn’t accountability. It’s risk management.

At The Restitution Project, we’ve spent years supporting survivors across systems: sports, churches, schools, government, corporate offices, and care institutions. What we’ve learned — and what survivors keep telling us — is that words without action aren’t healing. They’re retraumatizing.

The Performance of Apology

Institutional PR teams have become fluent in the choreography of apology:

• A carefully worded press release

• An internal “review” (often with no survivor participation)

• An “awareness” campaign or staff training module
  

These actions serve the institution, not the survivor. They check boxes. They protect brands. And they often come with tightly-controlled media messaging that leaves the survivor’s voice distorted — or entirely absent.

A recent example: when Hockey Canada faced national outrage in 2022 over a sexual assault lawsuit and hush money payments, they offered public statements of regret and promises of reform. But even in 2025, survivors continue to face institutional stonewalling, sealed records, and non-disclosure agreements that hide the truth and shield those in power.

The same pattern played out with Operation Underground Railroad, where former founder Tim Ballard was accused of sexual misconduct by multiple women. Despite denial-filled press releases, the organization failed to disclose its internal findings and kept survivors out of the process entirely.

In the UK, major institutions like the BBC and Church of England have also issued apologies — while still lobbying against full disclosure policies or dragging their feet on redress.

This is not justice. It’s optics.

A Survivor’s Definition of Accountability

Survivors are not asking for perfect outcomes. They are asking for real ones.

Survivor-centered accountability doesn’t begin with PR. It begins with power. Specifically, the willingness to give it up — to relinquish control over the narrative, the process, and the legal tools used to silence victims.

Here’s what real accountability looks like:

• Releasing survivors from NDAs and gag orders, so they can speak freely

• Independent investigations, with no influence from the accused institution

• Survivor-led policy change, including legislation like Canada’s Bill S-232 or Texas’ SB 835

• Public restitution — not just settlements, but clear acknowledgment of harm

• Ongoing reform, informed by those who were harmed
  

Accountability is uncomfortable. It costs money. It costs reputation. That’s how you know it’s real.

“We’re Listening” Isn’t Enough

Too many institutions mistake saying the right thing for doing the right thing. Survivors don’t need more slogans. They need the freedom to name what happened, to have it believed, and to see structural change follow.

If you are a leader reading this — in a school, a church, a nonprofit, a sports team, a workplace — ask yourself: what are you doing beyond the press release? Have you audited your NDAs? Have you listened to survivors without trying to control the outcome? Have you relinquished power?

If not, your apology is just another page in a crisis communications plan.

We don’t need more statements. We need truth. We need safety. We need restitution.