U.S. NONPROFIT SAFEGUARDING Crosswalk Project

Bridging the Safeguarding Gap in the U.S. Nonprofit Sector

Open-access frameworks equipping U.S. nonprofits to operationalize their duty of care.

Get the free toolkit → New here? Start with two pages

Safeguarding protects the people an organization serves from harm by those entrusted with their care: its own staff, volunteers, or representatives. The United Nations and international aid agencies spent two decades putting this into practice through a complete safeguarding standard. In the United States, this protection is scattered across separate laws, each covering a single setting or group: residents of nursing homes, children in schools, employees in the workplace. In the absence of a unified standard, organizations are expected to fill the space themselves because the absence of a standard is not an absence of risk: harm is possible in any organization, and when it occurs, everything the organization has built — its funding, its reputation, its mission — is on the line.

This initiative compared the international standard with U.S. law and mapped exactly where the fragments end and the gaps begin. The result is a set of open-access tools — a policy template, a self-assessment, and training materials — built to fill those gaps and free for any organization to adopt.

The international standard contains 13 key protections. U.S. law mandates none of them for every nonprofit.

  • 0 of 13 mandated by U.S. law for every nonprofit
  • 11 of 13 appear in U.S. law, but only for certain settings, groups, or government grants
  • 2 of 13 with no U.S. anchor identified in this review

Open any protection to see where U.S. law reaches it, and who is left out. Notice which setting keeps appearing.

Principle 1 · Consequences for abuse

Anchored only for some: 1.1 Abuse treated as gross misconduct Only in nursing homes certified under Medicare or Medicaid
Where U.S. law reaches it
Certified nursing homes must have written policies that prohibit and prevent abuse, neglect, and exploitation of residents.
Who is left out
Participants in every other kind of nonprofit: youth programs, shelters, resettlement agencies, disability services, food assistance, legal aid, mentoring. Elsewhere, dismissal for abuse is allowed but never required; the decision is left to each organization.

Source: 42 C.F.R. § 483.12(b)(1)

Anchored only for some: 1.2 A dismissal that follows the person to their next role Only in nursing homes, licensed professions, and AmeriCorps-funded positions
Where U.S. law reaches it
Certified nursing homes may not employ anyone with a court finding, a nurse-aide-registry finding, or license discipline for abuse, neglect, exploitation, or mistreatment, and must report to the registry or licensing authorities any court action showing an employee is unfit for service. AmeriCorps grantees must run criminal-history checks for covered positions.
Who is left out
Nonprofit staff and volunteers generally. Someone dismissed for sexual misconduct by one nonprofit is not, by that dismissal alone, barred from a similar role at another, and a dismissed volunteer leaves no record that travels with them.

Source: 42 C.F.R. § 483.12(a)(3)–(4); 45 C.F.R. § 2540.204

Principle 2 · Protecting children

Anchored only for some: 2.1 No sexual activity with anyone under 18 Only as a crime for the individual, at an age that varies by state (16 to 18)
Where U.S. law reaches it
State criminal law. The age of consent is 16 in the largest group of states and 17 or 18 in the rest; in some states, position-of-trust laws raise it to 18 for adults who supervise or care for the minor.
Who is left out
16- and 17-year-old participants in states with a lower age of consent, where no position-of-trust law reaches the staff member’s or volunteer’s role. No U.S. rule requires a nonprofit to adopt the under-18 standard for its own people.

Source: State statutory-rape and position-of-trust laws, e.g., Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-3-405.3

Anchored only for some: 2.2 Believing a child was older is no defense Only in criminal law, and only in most states
Where U.S. law reaches it
In most states, statutory-rape law is strict liability: believing the minor was older is no defense. This is the closest match among the 13.
Who is left out
Minors in the substantial minority of states that allow a mistake-of-age defense. And everywhere, the rule binds individuals in criminal court; no U.S. rule requires a nonprofit to apply it in its own disciplinary process.

Source: State statutory-rape law (majority rule); e.g., People v. Hernandez, 61 Cal. 2d 529 (1964) (California, minority rule)

Principle 3 · Exchanges for sex

Anchored only for some: 3.1 No trading money, jobs, goods, or services for sex Only as a crime for the individual, or for employees at work
Where U.S. law reaches it
Federal trafficking law, which applies only where force, fraud, or coercion is used or the person is under 18; state commercial-sex laws; and workplace harassment law (Title VII, as interpreted by the courts), which reaches trading job benefits for sex, but only for employees of employers with 15 or more staff.
Who is left out
Adult participants who are not employees, where the conduct falls below the trafficking threshold of force, fraud, or coercion. No general U.S. prohibition identified in this review addresses that exchange.

Source: 18 U.S.C. § 1591; state commercial-sex statutes; 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.; Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986)

No anchor identified: 3.2 No sex in exchange for aid people are already owed No U.S. anchor identified in this review
Where U.S. law reaches it
No anchor identified within the scope of this review. The conduct is actionable only when the facts also amount to trafficking, extortion, or coercion.
Who is left out
Everyone who receives nonprofit services or entitlements. No one can meaningfully consent to paying for what is already theirs. This is the international standard’s most distinctive rule, and the sharpest gap in the crosswalk.

Source: No anchor identified within the scope of this review. Nearest adjacent provision: 18 U.S.C. § 1591(e)(2) (definition of coercion)

Principle 4 · Misuse of power

Anchored only for some: 4.1 No sexual relationships with participants that misuse a position of power Only for licensed professionals and some care or trust relationships
Where U.S. law reaches it
Licensed practitioners (social workers, psychologists, counselors, physicians, nurses), through their licensing boards and professional codes; some state laws on care providers and vulnerable adults; position-of-trust laws for minors.
Who is left out
People served by unlicensed staff and volunteers: case managers, intake workers, pantry coordinators, mentors, resettlement caseworkers, shelter staff, drivers. The same relationship is covered when the provider is a licensed clinician and not when the provider is an unlicensed caseworker in the same organization, serving the same person.

Source: State licensing law and professional codes, e.g., NASW Code of Ethics, Standard 1.09; state care-provider and position-of-trust statutes

Principle 5 · Speaking up

Anchored only for some: 5.1 Reporting concerns about a colleague Only for mandated reporters, nursing homes, and covered amateur sport
Where U.S. law reaches it
State laws require designated reporters to report suspected abuse of children and vulnerable adults to a state agency; for child abuse, some states require it of anyone. Staff of federally funded nursing homes must report suspected crimes against residents within 2 to 24 hours. Adults in covered amateur sports organizations must report suspected child abuse within 24 hours.
Who is left out
Personnel outside the listed categories; adult participants who are not “vulnerable adults” as their state defines the term; exploitation that is not a reportable crime or reportable abuse. U.S. duties begin once harm is suspected and run to the authorities; the international duty begins earlier, with a concern about a colleague, and runs to the organization.

Source: State mandatory-reporter statutes; 42 U.S.C. § 1320b-25(b); 34 U.S.C. § 20341

No anchor identified: 5.2 Reporting concerns about someone at another organization No U.S. anchor identified in this review
Where U.S. law reaches it
No anchor identified within the scope of this review: no duty, and no lawful pathway, to report suspected misconduct by someone at a partner, subgrantee, or referral organization. Mandated reports run to a state agency, not to another organization.
Who is left out
People served by every organization other than the reporter’s own. In a referral network, a concern about a colleague at a partner agency has no defined destination.

Source: No anchor identified within the scope of this review

Anchored only for some: 5.3 A way to raise concerns inside the organization Only in nursing homes, in full; for staff, only indirectly
Where U.S. law reaches it
Certified nursing homes must name a grievance official and let residents raise concerns orally, in writing, or anonymously, with set timeframes, written decisions, outside escalation, and records kept at least three years. For staff, complaint channels are driven by the harassment defense described at 6.1.
Who is left out
People served by nonprofits generally. Elsewhere, the nearest touchpoint is IRS Form 990, which asks whether an organization has a whistleblower policy: a policy for staff, and a question, not a requirement.

Source: 42 C.F.R. § 483.10(j); IRS Form 990, Part VI, Section B, Line 13; 34 U.S.C. § 12291(b)(2)(A) (confidentiality, victim-services grantees)

Principle 6 · Prevention and leadership

Anchored only for some: 6.1 An environment that prevents abuse Only in nursing homes and, in California, youth organizations
Where U.S. law reaches it
Certified nursing homes must have written policies that prevent abuse and procedures to investigate it. California requires youth service organizations to adopt abuse-prevention policies, train on identifying and reporting child abuse, and fingerprint administrators, employees, and regular volunteers. Beyond these, the strongest push is a legal defense: an employer with 15 or more employees that takes reasonable care to prevent and correct harassment can rely on that care against claims by its own employees.
Who is left out
People served by nonprofits outside these settings, and the workforces of organizations below the 15-employee threshold. The defense shields the organization from its own employees’ claims; it is not a duty to the people it serves. Those people can sue for negligent hiring or supervision, but only after harm.

Source: 42 C.F.R. § 483.12(b)(1)–(2); Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 18975; Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998); Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998); Restatement (Third) of Agency § 7.05 (2006)

Anchored only for some: 6.2 A code of conduct, put into practice Only in nursing homes, through training that reaches volunteers
Where U.S. law reaches it
Certified nursing homes must train all staff, contractors, and volunteers on what counts as abuse, neglect, and exploitation, and on how to report it.
Who is left out
Staff and volunteers of nonprofits generally. No U.S. rule of general application requires a nonprofit to have a code of conduct governing boundaries with the people it serves. IRS Form 990 asks about conflict-of-interest, whistleblower, and document-retention policies, and nothing about safeguarding.

Source: 42 C.F.R. § 483.95 and § 483.95(c); IRS Form 990, Part VI, Section B, Lines 12a, 13, and 14

Anchored only for some: 6.3 Leaders responsible for the system Only in nursing homes
Where U.S. law reaches it
Certified nursing homes must run a training program and tie abuse prevention into quality assurance; their owners or operators must notify staff of their duty to report.
Who is left out
Nonprofit boards and executives generally. A board’s legal duty of care is owed to the organization rather than to the people it serves, and says nothing about safeguarding. The level where the international standard places primary responsibility is the level where U.S. law defines none.

Source: 42 C.F.R. § 483.12(b)(3)–(4); 42 C.F.R. § 483.95; 42 U.S.C. § 1320b-25(a)

The United States has already built this system — for one sector.

Read down the list and one setting keeps returning: nursing homes certified under Medicare and Medicaid. Federal rules there require written abuse-prevention policies, investigation procedures, a hiring bar with registry reporting, a named grievance official, training that reaches volunteers, and reporting deadlines with penalties. No other body of U.S. law maps as closely to the international standard, and it applies to those facilities alone.

The design problem is solved. The scope problem is not.

Read the full crosswalk →

Source: Gul (2026), Safeguarding Without a Baseline, Module 1, §7.2; 42 C.F.R. Part 483.

Figure 1 — The crosswalk at a glance. Each row is one obligation of the international safeguarding standard (the IASC Six Core Principles, broken into 13 elements), mapped against U.S. federal and state law. “No anchor identified” is a bounded finding: none was found within the scope of the review. Source: Gul (2026), Safeguarding Without a Baseline, Module 1, §§ 6–7 and Appendix A.

Published outputs

Module 1 — Safeguarding Without a Baseline The 13-element crosswalk of the international standard against U.S. law. DOI 10.5281/zenodo.22022939
Implementation Toolkit Four free tools for building a safeguarding system. DOI 10.5281/zenodo.22023885
Washington Safeguarding Baseline 2026 A random-sample study of 100 direct-service nonprofits. Read the study

Updates