Surfacing and Addressing Systemic Harm in Public Services: Cross-Sector Accountability Arrangements 

[Manuscript submitted; under review]

Mele, V., Kirley, R. & Ospina, S. 

Public institutions generate systemic harm that remains underreported and difficult to address. Integrating insights from social accountability and quasi-judicial governance, we ask how cross-sector arrangements enable communities to surface systemic harm and public agencies to respond constructively. Our abductive qualitative study of the police super-complaints system in England and Wales, with seven concluded complaints as embedded units, traces the arrangement from accountability demand to accountability supply, drawing on archival material and 51 interviews. Civil society organizations aggregate community experiences while preserving their institutional autonomy, while independent agencies co-substantiate claims by validating community knowledge and procedural evidence, forcing and enabling different police organizational responses within administrative constraints. Problem type shapes outcomes: organizational failures prompt correction, whereas contested policy settlements generate validated evidence for action in other accountability forums. The study explains how cross-sector accountability arrangements turn fragmented harm into actionable public claims by sustaining the productive tension between confrontation and collaboration.