The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) has long supported law enforcement-based victim services (LEV). In recent years, the IACP’s work in providing training and technical assistance to these victim service providers has been funded by the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office for Victims of Crime. Through this work, the IACP recognized the need for more data regarding the extent and operations of such programs. 

To conduct this investigation, the IACP partnered with the Justice Information Resource Network (formerly the Justice Research and Statistics Association) to explore the scope and nature of LEV through a series of interconnected activities. These included surveying law enforcement agencies, interviewing a set of survey respondents, conducting case studies on six agencies with victim services programs, and holding focus groups with senior victim services professionals. The project shed light on the extent of victim services in law enforcement, the benefits to victims and agencies, factors in success, and some of the challenges in maintaining a strong victim assistance program. 

Victim Services Programs 

The project revealed that, while there was no one blueprint for LEV, certain aspects applied to a majority of programs. All LEV programs included in this study employed (nonsworn) professional staff to provide direct victim services. Seventy-one percent of responding agencies indicated they provide assistance to victims through a specialized unit. Victim services programs were most commonly housed in an investigation division, but others reported directly to the police chief or sheriff or were housed in another division such as community relations or patrol. The average staff size of a victim services unit was four full-time employees (FTEs); however, the majority (61 percent) had two or fewer FTEs. 

Most programs (78 percent) utilized funding from federal grants, including direct funding from the Office for Victims of Crime, Office on Violence Against Women, or Bureau of Justice Statistics, or pass-through funding administered at the state level through Victims of Crime Acts or Violence Against Women Act subgrants. Over half of agencies (56 percent) had at least some part of the victim services program covered by the overall agency budget; 15 percent indicated their entire victim services budget was covered by the agency budget. 

While victim services programs most often indicated they served victims of violent crime—or specific crimes including homicide, aggravated assault, domestic violence, sexual violence, stalking, trafficking, and elder or child abuse—only 11 percent of respondents said their services were limited to victims of specific crimes. In other words, most programs retained the flexibility to respond to any crime. 

The services most often provided to victims were:

• Information and referral services (99 percent) 
• Legal and victims’ rights assistance (99 percent) 
• Assistance with crime victim compensation or other material assistance (97 percent) 
• Safety planning (86 percent) 
• Crisis intervention (74 percent) 

Other common services included assistance with return of personal property (69 percent); transportation assistance (68 percent); intervention with an employer, creditor, landlord, or academic institution (65percent); locating emergency or other housing assistance (61 percent); or obtaining or replacing documents such as social security cards or driver’s licenses (41 percent). 

Benefits of Victim Services 

Victims of crime, and family members of homicide victims, are the primary beneficiaries of LEV programs. Establishing a specific, well-trained person or unit within the agency ensures that victims receive an empathetic, trauma-informed response and acknowledgment of the harm they have sustained. Whether that contact is provided initially at the scene or within a short time after the incident, victims are given the message that someone cares about them. They also have a clear point of contact who can provide the practical assistance to begin recovery, someone who can field their questions, support them during the investigation, and connect them to government and community services to address the needs resulting from their victimization. 

“Statistically speaking, the percentage of cases that go to prosecution is very low, and there’s a lot of time that passes… Who’s helping that person at the time of the crime?” —Victim Services Interviewee

Providing victim assistance at the law enforcement level was seen by interviewees as filling an important gap in services. Persons without a daily connection to the justice system may assume that serving victims at the prosecution level is sufficient, but as one victim services interviewee noted, “Statistically speaking, the percentage of cases that go to prosecution is very low, and there’s a lot of time that passes … Who’s helping that person at the time of the crime?” Having victim services at the law enforcement level provides victims an immediate connection to support, information, and resources. 

Interviewees also made clear that the benefits of victim services were not limited to victims; law enforcement agencies also derive a number of benefits from strong victim services programs. 

Improved agency efficiency. One of the most commonly reported benefits was more efficient operations through defined roles for officers and victim services staff, allowing officers to focus on the investigation while victim services staff provided hands-on care for the victim. This care can include supporting the victim at the hospital, while the officer turns to other responsibilities; fielding the same question from victims or families multiple times; responding to frequent requests for information about the status of the investigation; and listening to victim concerns that aren’t strictly related to the investigation or law enforcement’s response. 

Increased victim engagement. During interviews and focus groups, several sworn supervisors and victim services staff reported that providing victim assistance appeared to improve victim engagement in the process throughout the investigation and into prosecution. One victim services provider tracked her own data and found that when victims were NOT contacted by victim services within three days, their participation rate dropped by more than half. 

Improved community relations. An improved victim response and a victim services connection to local service providers were credited with improved community perceptions of police, improved community trust, and strengthened collaborations with community organizations—particularly community-based victim service providers. 

Key Factors in Success 

Interviewees—both sworn supervisors and victim services program staff—made a number of observations regarding factors that were instrumental to program success. 

Leadership Support. Support from agency leadership—most commonly the chief or sheriff but including other command-level leaders—was seen by victim services professionals as the biggest factor in ensuring a strong victim services program. This support was demonstrated in a number of ways. Sometimes it was clear actions to raise the profile of victim services, such as through the physical placement of the victim services office or including and acknowledging them in department-wide or leadership meetings. Other times it was made apparent in leader comments during case discussions, such as by noting, “That sounds like you could use victim services to reach out.” Leadership support was also evidenced through making victim services part of the agency’s internal budget or strongly supporting grant applications. 

Fostering Personal Relationships. Both supervisors and victim services staff stressed the value of relationship building in maximizing the benefit of the program. In particular, officers had to come to trust the victim services staff. To build this relationship, interviewees noted that victim services staff have to be seen and heard, which is accomplished by strategies such as physically locating victim services within the investigation unit or other visible location within the agency; encouraging victim services to participate in ride-alongs; having victim services staff and officers lunch together; including victim services staff in roll calls and other meetings where reports or updates were expected; and utilizing victim services staff to train officers on issues relating to victimization or trauma. 

Firsthand Experience. Many victim services professionals noted that individual officers became real partners after witnessing victim services firsthand. While they may learn about victim assistance in the academy or other training, it often takes observing the victim response in action to demonstrate the value of that role. One victim services provider observed that after officers witnessed services being provided to victims, then “We’re on their speed dial.” Relatedly, several interviewees recounted instances where senior agency staff who had worked with their victim services went on to a position in another agency and prioritized creating a victim services program in their new agencies because they had experienced the value of victim services to victims, the agency, and the community. 

Clear Roles. While those creating a victim services position understand where victim services fit into the agency, it can be important for the frontline officers to understand the demarcation of the victim services role. 

Clear roles are also important for the victims. One victim services professional related that she tells victims, “I’m not here to investigate. I’m not here to take your statement. I am only here [for] you,” which helps the victims to feel supported and valued. ​ 

Policies/Procedures. Incorporating victim services in general orders or agency policies was also seen as important. It provided a sense that victim response would have a permanent place in the agency’s mission and daily actions. 

Including victim response in officer review or providing an opportunity to recognize individual officers for their victim response serve to help officers remember to incorporate victim response into their work—including by ensuring victims are routinely connected to victim services. 

The Right Hire. Sworn supervisors often pointed to the importance of hiring the right person to lead a victim services program. In interviews conducted as part of the six case studies, law enforcement leadership identified five key attributes of victim services personnel: 

• Having compassion for victims who are experiencing trauma 
• Being a team player who can communicate, collaborate, and improve unit effectiveness 
• Having experience—in victim services (a must), grants management (a plus), and program development (a plus) 
• Being able to think “outside the box” and innovate new ways to get people what they need 
• Being a self-starter, driven to help others and quick to learn and manage the fast-paced environment of the law enforcement agency 

Challenges

Victim services programs within law enforcement are not immune to challenges. The most commonly reported challenges were related to agency size and resources and the availability of funding. These challenges can restrict the services programs can provide. 

While obtaining initial funding is key, maintaining funding was also seen as a challenge, particularly with increased competition for grant funding. It is essential for victim services programs to be able to document the difference they are making for victims, the agency, and the community to be able to demonstrate the need for and value of those programs. 

Another identified challenge was leadership change. For example, if victim services were viewed as a “special program” that had been a priority for previous leadership, they ran the risk of being displaced by new priorities. Full integration of the program, through general orders/policies and routine activities, can help prevent a program from being viewed merely as an outdated initiative. 

Staff workload can also be a challenge, causing highly qualified staff to step down. Building in wellness support, promoting partnerships with community programs, and supporting robust volunteer or intern programs can be helpful. It can also be important to ensure that victim services staff are not expected to shoulder primary responsibility for officer wellness. 

Other challenges were also mentioned, including a lack of local community services for victims such as emergency shelter or counseling, an insufficient number of qualified and available volunteers—especially in rural areas—and a lack of access to interpretation services for non-English speaking victims. 

Sustaining Victim Services 

Both the case studies and victim services focus groups explored steps to sustain victim services programming in a law enforcement agency. Several concrete recommendations resulted: 

• Invest time in identifying state and federal funding opportunities. Identifying various funding opportunities well in advance of application deadlines can help an agency think through needed structural requirements, partnerships, and other elements that may take time to work through. 
• Diversify funding sources. Many of the mature victim services programs used a combination of agency funding and grant support to fund and expand their victim services program.
• Identify key stakeholders (e.g., leaders in law enforcement and the community) well in advance of budget requests or grant applications and build up support from them. 
• When applying for grants, seek assistance from an experienced grant writer to navigate the proposal development process and ensure compliance with all requirements. 
• Engage stakeholders throughout the design, planning, implementation, and evaluation of victim services. This will improve the quality and reputation of the program. 

Conclusion 

The findings of the IACP Victim Services Mapping Project reinforce the 2019 IACP resolution, “The Importance of Law Enforcement-Based Victim Services in the United States.”1 That resolution called for agencies to employ victim services personnel or enter formal agreements with local victim services organizations to ensure that crime victims have immediate access to professional personnel who understand the complexities of trauma and victim needs. It further called on state and local agencies to work with state Victims of Crime Act administrators and local legislators to identify opportunities and to allocate adequate funding for LEV. These action steps remain a priority for law enforcement leadership. 

For More Resources 

The IACP’s Law Enforcement-Based Victim Services (LEV) Program has the tools, resources, and direct assistance available to help agencies learn more and start their own victim services program. These resources were developed in collaboration with existing programs, building off their experience. 

Existing programs are always invited and encouraged to reach out to the IACP for individual guidance, materials, and peer support to address challenges. This assistance is made possible through funding from the Office for Victims of Crime, which recognizes the value of law enforcement-level victim response. d

Note: 
¹ Victim Services Committee, “The Importance of Law Enforcement-Based Victim Services in the United States,” IACP Resolution, adopted December 2019, 39–40.

Please cite as

Susan Smith Howley, “Mapping Law Enforcement-Based Victim Services,” Police Chief Online, December 4, 2024.