The looming risk of under- and over-protection: A critical review of victim vulnerability assessment tools in a policing context

Abstract

Victim vulnerability assessment instruments applied by the police face significant challenges in accurately identifying vulnerable victims and offering adequate protection measures. This paper comprehensively analyses five key shortcomings and demonstrates how all of these may contribute to the risks of under- and over-protection. Drawing on theoretical perspectives on vulnerability and empirical studies of vulnerability assessments and police-victim interactions, this paper highlights how under-protection can result from narrow definitions of vulnerability, biases, and inadequate assessments of protection needs. Over-protection may result from overlooking resilience and excessive implementation of protection measures for victims with minimal or no protection needs. This paper aims to raise awareness among researchers and policymakers about these issues and proposes improvements of the instruments themselves and the way they are monitored. It also proposes several attainable solutions that may reduce the risks of under- and over-protection, ultimately improving the accuracy and effectiveness of vulnerability assessments in policing.

In the past decade, European Union (EU) member states have increasingly introduced vulnerability assessment tools to help frontline police officers identify and protect vulnerable victims (Ivankovic et al., 2019; Pavlou et al., 2019; van der Put et al., 2019). Consequently, officers conduct Individual Assessments, in some cases supported by risk assessment instruments. The Individual Assessment is based on Article 22 of the EU Victims’ Directive (European Parliament, 2012), which requires that victims receive a timely assessment of their vulnerability. Articles 18 and 23 of the Directive outline measures that should be taken to protect victims, such as enhanced surveillance, specialized interview protocols and courtroom accommodations. In addition, officers may use risk assessment instruments to assess the risk of repeat victimization for specific types of crimes, such as Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) and stalking (Hehemann et al., 2017; van der Put et al., 2019). These instruments often include a list of possible risk management strategies officers can apply to reduce the risk of repeat victimization (Pavlou et al., 2019).

In practice, several shortcomings occur concerning the identification of vulnerable victims and their protection needs. These stem from issues in the design of assessments on one hand and their practical use on the other. Previous studies have addressed these shortcomings in isolation, whereas better understanding requires the examination of these collectively. More importantly, previous studies gave little attention to the overarching issue these shortcomings may result in: the risk of either under- or over-protection of vulnerable victims. This paper, therefore, advances earlier research in two steps. First, it discusses five major shortcomings related to the design and the practical use of the assessments together: (1) a fragmented conceptualization of vulnerability in assessment instruments (Bartkowiak-Théron and Asquith, 2012, 2017; Enang et al., 2019; Van der Aa, 2016); (2) police officers who perform assessments often have limited understanding of the broader concept of vulnerability (Robinson et al., 2016, 2018); (3) police officers may fail to identify certain types of vulnerable victim due to biases and expectations (Ask, 2010; Franklin et al., 2020; St George et al., 2021); (4) police officers may incorrectly override assessment outcomes (Orton et al., 2020); and (5) mismatches occur between victims’ protection needs and police responses (Meyer and Reeves, 2021; ten Boom, 2022; Villacampa and Salat, 2019).

Second, by drawing on empirical studies of vulnerability assessment practices and police-victim interactions, alongside theoretical work on victim vulnerability, this paper addresses how the five key shortcomings all may result in the overarching issue of the risk of either under- or over-protecting vulnerable victims. Under-protection occurs when victims who need protection are misclassified as non-vulnerable and/or when the police fail to take appropriate protection measures, leaving victims exposed to further harm (Aihio et al., 2017; Enang et al., 2019; Franklin et al., 2020). Over-protection occurs when victims who have minimal or no protection needs are yet identified as vulnerable and receive (excessive) protection measures, leading to stigmatization and straining of limited police resources (Gilson, 2016; Peroni and Timmer, 2013; Verza, 2022; Walklate, 2011). Options to empirically measure the extent to which these misclassifications occur are limited because no objective baseline exists which allows to determine victims’ protection needs. This paper, therefore, examines under- and over-protection at its most extreme ends, for instance, when no measures are taken for victims with clear protection needs or conversely, when extensive measures are taken for victims with minimal needs. In other words, this paper focusses on cases in which misclassifications have the most serious impact, affecting both vulnerable and non-vulnerable victims. The paper aims to raise awareness among researchers and policymakers and calls for enhancing the effectiveness of vulnerability assessments and, ultimately, to promote adequate protection of victims and efficient use of police resources.

The structure of the paper is as follows: first, it explores the concept of identifying vulnerability through assessment instruments, followed by an overview of how the police use Individual Assessments and risk assessment instruments to evaluate vulnerability. Second, it demonstrates how the risk of under- and over-protection relates to five specific shortcomings of assessments. Third, this paper discusses the challenges for policymaking and future research, suggesting several avenues that could be explored.

Identifying victim vulnerability through assessment instruments

Vulnerability is a highly heterogeneous concept with varying meanings and indicators to establish its presence (Brown et al., 2017). The most prominent meanings of vulnerability after victimization relate to an elevated risk of revictimization or to the harm resulting from the experience of victimization (Keay and Kirby, 2017; Skidmore et al., 2020; Walklate, 2011). Indicators are commonly grouped into three broad categories: victim characteristics, the type of crime and the context in which victimization occurs (Innes and Innes, 2013). Although a single indicator may suggest vulnerability, it may also follow from the interaction between different indicators, which illustrates the dynamic and layered nature of the concept (Bartkowiak-Théron and Asquith, 2015; Luna and Vanderpoel, 2013; Verza, 2022).

Some studies view vulnerability as an inherent human condition (Fineman, 2008; Verza, 2022), while others link it to specific individuals or groups with particular characteristics (Enang et al., 2019; Peroni and Timmer, 2013; Skidmore et al., 2020; Verza, 2022). Police assessment instruments adopt the latter approach and use predefined indicators and meanings of vulnerability to allow police officers to distinguish vulnerable from non-vulnerable victims and determine which protection measures, and which type, should be taken. Predefined indicators help officers in knowing which victim groups to target, while the predefined meaning helps officers determine the type of protection measures required. For example, preventing repeat victimization may require other measures than helping victims to deal with harm caused by the initial victimization. Most assessments focus on preventing repeat victimization and therefore focus on measures aimed specifically at this goal rather than at the harm victims have experienced.

As mentioned above, the police assess victim vulnerability through what is called Individual Assessment, in some cases supported by risk assessment instruments. Next, I briefly describe the design of these tools. Police officers conduct these assessments when a victim reports a crime or during initial victim-police contacts in incidents.

Individual assessment

The Individual Assessment follows a two-step process. First, police officers identify vulnerability, in terms of the victim’s risk of repeat victimization, including retaliation and intimidation, as well as potential secondary victimization by the criminal justice system. The assessment is often based on a checklist comprised of indicators. Specific indicators may vary per member state, but they can roughly be distinguished into three categories: victim characteristics, the type and nature of the crime and the circumstances in which it took place (Ivankovic et al., 2019). Victims of human trafficking, gender-based violence, IPV, sexual violence, and hate crimes receive special attention in the Victims’ Directive. The EU has not prescribed a uniform checklist and consequently indicators differ between Member States (Ivankovic et al., 2019). A victim is considered vulnerable if the presence of at least one indicator is established.

In the second step, officers assess specific protection needs and then implement appropriate measures in consultation with the victim. Measures may be taken to prevent future victimization and protect the physical and psychological integrity of the victim, such as imposing a restraining order, providing shelter for victims of domestic abuse, or reference to specialized victim support services (Ivankovic et al., 2019). In addition, protection measures may be necessary to prevent secondary victimization, for instance during the criminal investigation or court proceedings, such as that interviews be conducted by specially trained personnel or preventing visual contact between the victim and suspect in court. Police officers are encouraged to discuss potential measures with individual victims and allow them to express their wishes and respect these even if they refuse specific protection measures offered to them.

Risk assessment instruments

Several countries have developed risk assessment instruments to support frontline officers particularly regarding the risk of repeat victimization for specific crimes, such as IPV and stalking (e.g. Hehemann et al., 2017; Pavlou et al., 2019; van der Put et al., 2019). These instruments may complement the Individual Assessment (Pavlou et al., 2019). Examples of risk assessment instruments currently integrated into police practice include B-SAFER in Sweden (Kropp and Hart, 2004), SASH in the Netherlands (Hehemann et al., 2017), and DASH in the United Kingdom (CAADA, 2012).

Risk assessment instruments also follow a two-step process in which officers first fill in a questionnaire with vulnerability indicators which allows them to calculate the risk of repeat victimization and second to propose appropriate responses. These questionnaires are again based on indicators grouped into victim characteristics, the type of crime, and the circumstances in which it took place (e.g. CAADA, 2012; Hehemann et al., 2017; Kropp and Hart, 2004; Pavlou et al., 2019). Officers determine whether indicators are present, absent or unknown through questioning or observations. The outcome is usually classified as a high, medium or low risk. A higher risk logically implies a higher need for advising protection measures.

Next, police officers assess victims’ protection needs and recommend, based on their own judgement, risk management strategies from a predefined list of measures aimed at preventing repeat victimization. Four types of strategies exist: monitoring, treatment, supervision, and victim safety planning (Belfrage et al., 2012; Kropp and Hart, 2004; Pavlou et al., 2019). Monitoring entails keeping in regular contact with victims or their support networks. Supervision means imposing restrictions on suspects’ movements or activities to prevent further harm. Treatment focuses on treating the suspects, typically through referrals to healthcare or social services. Victim safety planning aims to enhance security and promote empowerment of victims after victimization. Finally, victims could also be referred to multi-agency safeguarding hubs (Enang et al., 2021; Robbins et al., 2014).

Under-and over-protection of victims in five key shortcomings of vulnerability assessments

The current section argues in more detail how shortcomings in vulnerability assessments may contribute to the overarching issue of the risk of under- and over-protecting victims. It draws on academic literature comprising theoretical work on victim vulnerability alongside empirical studies of vulnerability assessment practices and police-victim interactions. The empirical work used here comprised quantitative studies drawing on surveys, police files or completed assessments; qualitative studies based on interviews with professionals and victims; and systematic reviews/meta-analyses. Most of these studies were conducted in a European context.

Fragmented understanding of vulnerability

The conceptualization of vulnerability in questionnaires and checklists used by police officers to perform assessments may increase the risk of under- and over-protection. Empirical studies on assessment designs suggest these lists are inherently limited to a fixed set of indicators, which may result in an incomplete review of vulnerability (Bartkowiak-Théron and Asquith, 2012, 2017; Enang et al., 2019, 2021; Skidmore et al., 2020). Both the Individual Assessment and risk assessment instruments focus mainly on incident-related indicators, such as the type of crime, use of violence, and a discriminatory motive CAADA, 2012; Hehemann et al., 2017; Kebbell, 2019; Van der Aa, 2016). This focus narrows the full spectrum of vulnerability and implicitly deprioritizes other types of indicators, such as victim characteristics. As a result, assessments may overlook vulnerabilities not included as indicators, potentially leading to the under-protection of victims in need of protection.

Focussing on specific indicators may also lead to over-protection, as checklists may label all individuals of a certain crime as vulnerable and in need of protection measures. However, not all victims who meet these criteria are vulnerable and/or require protection. Misclassifying non-vulnerable victims can be problematic, since it may undermine victims’ autonomy and reinforce stigmatization and patronization (Gilson, 2016; Peroni and Timmer, 2013; Verza, 2022), as well as disrupt natural coping mechanisms, potentially leading to the over-protecting of victims.

The Individual Assessment and risk assessment instruments also emphasize specific meanings of vulnerability, shaping what victims are protected from. Both primarily address the risk of repeat victimization and consequently focus on protection measures mainly aimed at preventing future victimization. However, other meanings of the concept, such as the immediate harm caused by the victimization-incident are overlooked (Keay and Kirby, 2017; Skidmore et al., 2020; Walklate, 2011).

Potential solutions

Prioritizing specific indicators and meanings in the design of assessment instruments reflects the dilemma for police departments between conducting these assessments efficiently and in a way that fits police practice, while at the same time preventing victims’ needs being overlooked. Although on one hand, predefined indicators and meanings assist police officers in identifying vulnerable victims and determining appropriate protection measures (Keay and Kirby, 2017), on the other hand the checklists do not fully capture the heterogeneity of the concept of vulnerability (Bartkowiak-Théron and Asquith, 2012; Brown et al., 2017). Incorporating open fields in the questionnaires, such as used in B-SAFER (Svalin et al., 2018), may encourage officers to also consider unlisted indicators. However, this may only be relevant to specialized, non-first responder officers, as open-text fields are often incomplete or inconsistent in frontline contexts (Myhill et al., 2023). Regular review of which indicators officers add in the open-text fields could reveal gaps in the assessment designs and allow additional indicators (Saxton et al., 2020). Existing or newly developed training programmes for police officers on risk assessments could, if not already included, devote specific attention to recognizing indicators of resilience, autonomy, and empowerment among victims. This could mitigate the risk of over-protection by helping officers. Finally, monitoring victim satisfaction with the outcomes of the assessment procedure could lead to improvements. All of these strategies may help to better identify overlooked, and thereby under-protected victims, and prevent over-protection of specific victim, as well as improvements in officer training.

Police officers’ narrow focus of vulnerability

Interviewing victims who report a crime is complex and requires officers to balance two key roles: a judicial role focused on evidence, questioning and legal procedures, and a victim support role centred on protection and welfare (Rumney and Mcphee, 2023; Saxton et al., 2020). This dual purpose, however, complicates assessments, because comprehensive gathering of information on vulnerabilities and protection needs is often constrained by lack of time. This too, may lead to under-protection of victims. Empirical studies on officers’ application of vulnerability assessments reveal that they often use only a subset of indicators on the predefined lists (Kebbell, 2022; Raaijmakers et al., 2024; Robinson et al., 2016, 2018; Turner et al., 2019). These indicators often are closely tied to the incident, for example, whether violence was used or the suspect threatened to use a weapon. Analyses of filled-out questionnaires shows that police officers mostly take these factors into account, as they are most easily observed when filling out the questionnaires (Barlow and Walklate, 2021; Kebbell, 2022; Robinson et al., 2018; Turner et al., 2019). Other, less-apparent, indicators are more often marked as ‘unknown’, which excludes them from the risk assessment. Consequently, latent indicators, such as victim experiences of non-violent abuse or mental health problems, are potentially overlooked and under-protected (Aspinall et al., 2024; Kebbell, 2022; Robinson et al., 2016). Partial use of lists of indicators, which as the previous section has shown are incomplete to begin with, may exacerbate the risk that vulnerabilities and protection needs are not identified, increasing the risk of under-protection (Keay and Kirby, 2017; Robinson et al., 2018; Skidmore et al., 2020; Van der Aa, 2016).

Potential solutions

Raising awareness of latent vulnerability indicators and training officers to be responsive to those factors, could promote more comprehensive use of checklists included in assessments, and thereby potentially reduce the risk of under-protection (Franklin et al., 2020). Automated assessment tools for identification of the risk of repeat victimization, such as ProVict (Geurts et al., 2021; Raaijmakers et al., 2022), could also point police officers at latent indicators, such as prior police contacts (Kebbell, 2019; Turner et al., 2022). Adjusting questionnaire items can also help officers identify latent indicators and improve the accuracy and consistency of assessments. For example, the Domestic Abuse Risk Assessment (DARA), an update of DASH, was developed to improve the identification of non-violent domestic abuse, such as coercive control, specifically in frontline contexts (College of Policing, 2022). Compared to DASH, DARA uses fewer items, includes scaled response options rather than yes/no questions and reduces reliance on open texts. A pilot study indicated that officers identified coercive control more often and made more appropriate assessments (Wire and Myhill, 2018).

The development of DARA addresses a key constraint in frontline contexts: time. Due to limited timeframes, officers may be unable to obtain an in-depth picture of all relevant indicators. Specifying the key indicators that officers are most likely to identify in daily practice, such as incident-related indicators, may therefore be crucial. Other agencies, such as victim support services or health professionals operating in multi-agency hubs, can offer specialized expertise which allows to more easily recognize latent indicators, such as mental health problems or substance abuse (Bartkowiak-Théron and Asquith, 2017; Enang et al., 2021; Robbins et al., 2014). Collaboration between the police and these agencies could reduce the number of overlooked victims and thus the risk of under-protection, although this should not place an additional burden on victims in within the justice process.

Expectations and biases towards victims and victim behaviour

Empirical studies on police–victim interactions show that officers’ expectations regarding victim behaviour or cultural biases can negatively impact decision making in contexts such as vulnerability assessments (Ask, 2010; Franklin et al., 2020), again increasing the risks of both under- and over-protection. A prime example is rape myth acceptance (RMA) which refers to implicit standards for ‘credible victim behaviour’ in rape cases (Sleath and Bull, 2017; St George et al., 2021). Officers who accept these myths may consider victims who conform to expectations as more credible, and provide protection more readily, while those who show unexpected behaviour may struggle to receive necessary protection (Sleath and Bull, 2017; St George et al., 2021; Venema, 2019). Marginalized victims, who display nonconforming indicators, such as alcohol abuse, may especially run the risk of under-protection, as officers may interpret these indicators as signs of unreliability rather than vulnerability (Duggan, 2018; Murphy-Oikonen et al., 2020; Sleath and Bull, 2017). The impact of biases and expectations has not yet been addressed directly in the context of Individual Assessments or risk assessment instruments. However, it is crucial to acknowledge their potential presence as they prevent officers from correctly assessing victims in need of protection.

Expectations and biases may also increase the risk of over-protection. Biases can lead to assumptions about vulnerability based solely on group membership or a single indicator. Stereotypical associations between vulnerability and factors such as socioeconomic status and ethnicity, can lead to stigmatization, particularly of victims stemming from disadvantaged groups (Bartkowiak-Théron and Asquith, 2015; Peroni and Timmer, 2013). Furthermore, biases may result in overlooking factors that promote autonomy and resilience and empower victims (Gilson, 2016). Biases may result in automatically labelling victims as vulnerable solely based on the presence of indicators, even if they have minimal or no protection needs. Without an option to challenge these assumptions or overrule the outcome of the assessment, biases, and expectations may inadvertently lead to over-protection.

Potential solutions

Addressing the impact of police officers’ biases and misperceptions on victims could be effectively achieved through training programmes. In England and Wales, for example, several police forces have participated in a programme designed to improve officers’ responses to victims of sexual assault. An evaluation of this programme indicated that the training helped dispel rape myths and assisted officers in acknowledging the impact of their beliefs and behaviour on victims (HMICFRS, 2024). Other studies on programmes aimed at correcting officers’ misperceptions of victims similarly demonstrate that training could contribute to improving police-victim interactions (Franklin et al., 2020). Taken together, these examples suggest that training programmes could play an important role in reducing officers’ biases and misperceptions.

Yet, training programmes alone may not be enough to address challenges arising from daily police practice. A more comprehensive solution may, therefore, be needed, centring on a nuanced understanding of vulnerability that pays attention to both marginalized victims and resilient individuals within disadvantaged groups. This understanding raises awareness of the interaction of different indicators rather than assessing these in isolation (Bartkowiak-Théron and Asquith, 2015; Gilson, 2016; Walklate, 2011). Such nuances may help to gain a more comprehensive understanding of vulnerability and reduce the risk of both under- and over-protection.

Overriding of assessments outcomes

Police officers may override the outcome of the assessment, for example, because they believe the victim is vulnerable despite the instrument indicating otherwise. Such overrides are documented particularly in studies of risk assessment instruments (Orton et al., 2020; van der Put et al., 2019) but may also appear in the context of the Individual Assessment. While overruling the outcome may offset the limitations of the narrow focus on risk assessment checklists, overrides may at the same time increase the risk of over-protection by incorrectly labelling non-vulnerable victims as vulnerable (Kebbell, 2022; Orton et al., 2020). Misclassification may again patronize and stigmatize resilient individuals, who may negatively associate being labelled as vulnerable with being weak and dependent (Peroni and Timmer, 2013; Verza, 2022). Furthermore, resilient individuals may be offered unnecessary protection, which may disrupt natural coping mechanisms, increasing the risk of over-protection.

Potential solutions

Given the consequences of incorrectly overruling assessment outcomes, it is crucial to aim for a balanced use of overrides. Therefore, it is essential to gain a better understanding of why police officers in some cases override the assessment outcomes. Based on this, assessment guidelines provided to police officers can be adjusted and accuracy may ultimately be improved. Empirical studies show that police officers are generally able to identify high-risk victims, but perform less well when the risk is low (Kebbell, 2022). Exploring ways to improve identification of these victims may contribute to a better-balanced use of overrides and reduce the risk of over-protecting victims.

Mismatch between victims’ needs and protection measures provided

The risk of under- and over-protection is not only present in the first step of identification but also in the second step in which officers determine the need of taking protection measures. Here, under- and over-protection ultimately occur when victims receive disproportionate protection. Police officers discuss protection measures with victims and logically they may decline suggested measures. However, police officers may overrule these preferences if they perceive a high level of danger, which may or may not be justified.

Regarding the risk of under-protection, empirical studies of victim–police interactions indicate that victims may feel inadequately protected following vulnerability assessments, indicating a gap between victims’ own protection needs and the actual measures provided by officers (Ivankovic et al., 2019; ten Boom, 2022; Villacampa and Salat, 2019). Descriptive data in empirical studies on the Individual Assessment and risk assessment instruments show that approximately half the victims who run a high-risk of repeat victimization receive no protection measures (Geurts et al., 2023; Hehemann et al., 2017). Whether this results from an agreement between the police officer and the victim or insufficient assessment of their protection needs is unclear (Ivankovic et al., 2019). In addition, research of police–victim interactions shows that when protection measures are taken victims may still feel insufficiently protected and may request more intensive measures to better guarantee their safety (ten Boom, 2022; Villacampa and Salat, 2019). This may possibly be explained by officers following a ‘one size fits all’ approach where all victims receive a similar response regardless of their specific protection needs (Meyer and Reeves, 2021; Raaijmakers et al., 2024). In other words, a tailored response which accurately matches protection needs with appropriate measures may be lacking and result in under-protection of victims with significant protection needs.

In contrast, empirical studies on police officers’ decision-making also found that police officers often adopt a ‘better safe than sorry’ approach and recommend protection measures driven by risk aversion rather than careful judgement (Meyer and Reeves, 2021; Raaijmakers et al., 2024; Richards et al., 2021). As a result, measures may be counterproductive for victims who are at low risk and not particularly vulnerable, potentially disrupting natural coping mechanisms (Belfrage et al., 2012; Storey et al., 2014). Offering excessive protection measures not only affects victims but also has consequences for police departments. Protecting victims with intensive measures may require considerable effort by the police and thus may burden limited police resources and be in conflict with proportionality principles. All of this adds to the commonly high workload of police officers,

Potential solutions

To reduce the risk of improper assessments of protection needs it is important to determine which measures are effective in which contexts, and to identify who these should target. While previous studies have explored the effectiveness of protection measures based on the outcomes of Individual Assessment and risk assessment instruments (e.g. Belfrage et al., 2012; Geurts et al., 2023; Storey et al., 2014), further research is required to understand the impact of risk management strategies and protection measures under Article 18 and 23 of the Victims’ Directive (Pavlou et al., 2019). Empirical studies of police–victim interactions suggest that officers generally respond appropriately to vulnerable/high-risk cases but could reduce unnecessary interventions for non-vulnerable/low-risk cases (Belfrage and Strand, 2012; Geurts et al., 2023; Kebbell, 2022; Storey et al., 2014). A gradual scale of measures would help officers to better distinguish between intensive measures for vulnerable/high-risk individuals with significant protection needs, and less-extensive interventions for vulnerable/low-risk individuals. This solution aligns with the the Risk-Needs-Responsivity-principle, which states that the intensity of interventions should match with the individual’s risk level and should target the individual’s needs (Andrews and Bonta, 1990), thereby assuring a more balanced response towards victims and, ultimately, a lower risk of under- or over-protection.

Conclusion

Evaluations of vulnerability assessments in police practice, such as risk assessment instruments and the EU Victims’ Directive’s Individual Assessment, have revealed several shortcomings in the identification and protection vulnerable victims. Although previous studies highlighted shortcomings in identification and protection separately, these have rarely been analysed in conjunction and, more importantly, do not discuss a shared issue: the risk of under- and over-protection. This paper fills this gap. First, it identifies five key shortcomings in vulnerability assessment. Second, it demonstrates their contribution to the risk of under- and over-protecting victims, based on both theoretical insights regarding victim vulnerability and empirical studies of how the police conduct assessments in practice, and police–victim interactions. By demonstrating this overarching issue, this paper critically reviewed how it affects both victims who are in need and those who are not, as well as police departments and officers.

This paper has argued that risks of under- and over-protection emerge during both the identification and protection steps of vulnerability assessments. In the first step, under-protection may result from narrow and fragmented approaches to vulnerability (Bartkowiak-Théron and Asquith, 2017; Enang et al., 2019; Robinson et al., 2016, 2018; Turner et al., 2019; Van der Aa, 2016), leading to overlooking groups of vulnerable victims who may need protection. In addition, biases and expectations towards victim behaviour may have the same effect (Sleath and Bull, 2017; Venema, 2019). During the identification step, over-protection may be the consequence of failure to recognize factors that promote resilience and an incorrect assumption that all victims who fit the criteria are vulnerable (Bartkowiak-Théron and Asquith, 2015; Peroni and Timmer, 2013; Verza, 2022). Moreover, officers may over-protect victims by incorrectly overruling assessment outcomes (Orton et al., 2020; Verza, 2022).

When assessing protection needs in the second step, under-protection may occur when the police offer no or inadequate measures to victims in need of protection (Ivankovic et al., 2019; ten Boom, 2022; Villacampa and Salat, 2019). Over-protection may occur when extensive measures are taken for victims with minimal or no protection needs, with the potential effect of disrupting their natural coping mechanisms (Belfrage et al., 2012; Meyer and Reeves, 2021; Raaijmakers et al., 2024; Richards et al., 2021; Storey et al., 2014). The question of how the police assess protection needs and decide upon which measures should be taken, deserves further research, to allow reduction of both the risks of over and under-protection, given the potential impact on both vulnerable and non-vulnerable victims.

Demonstrating how key shortcomings of vulnerability assessments share the risk of under- and over-protection underscores that police departments face significant challenges when it comes to identifying and safeguarding vulnerable victims. This paper calls upon both researchers and policymakers to be aware of and address the risks of under- and over-protection that follow from the inherent design of vulnerability assessments and how the police conduct these in practice. Future research and policies should aim at helping to reduce failures in identification of victims in need of protection, as well as those who are resilient. This requires the development of a balanced and gradual approach to vulnerability that provides adequate protection for those who need it while empowering victims who are capable of recovery without such interventions.

To stimulate improvements, this paper proposes several pathways to further develop the design of vulnerability assessments and promote police officers’ understanding of the impact of how they conduct these on the victim. To reduce under-protection, open fields in assessments could enable specialized non-first responder officers to address indicators beyond the predefined criteria (Svalin et al., 2018), while automated risk assessment instruments could support them in identifying latent indicators, such as prior police contacts (Geurts et al., 2021; Raaijmakers et al., 2022; Turner et al., 2022). Ensuring that instruments better apply to, for example, frontline policing contexts may further help first responders in gathering information relevant for risk assessments (Wire and Myhill, 2018). In addition, existing or newly developed training programmes could play a role in raising officers’ awareness of the risks of under- and over-protection. Such programmes could give specific attention to identifying latent indicators, low-risk or resilient victims, and on recognizing how officers’ biases affect victims. Studies on training initiatives in sexual and domestic violence cases demonstrate the potential of these programmes to improve police-victim interactions (Franklin et al., 2020; HMICFRS, 2024). Implementing, adjusting or continuing these programmes may help mitigate the risks associated with under- and over-protection.

While these improvements are important, they may not fully address the challenges arising from assessing vulnerability in daily police practice. It is, therefore, crucial to also raise more fundamental questions, notably whether the role of police officers in identifying and protecting vulnerable victims should be reconsidered. This refers to the dual role of police officers who interview victims. On one hand, it is expected that they gather detailed information for the purpose of criminal investigation or proceedings, whereas on the other hand police officers must assess and address victims’ vulnerability and protection needs (Rumney and Mcphee, 2023; Saxton et al., 2020). Some scholars indeed question whether it is reasonable to expect police officers to identify vulnerability across its diverse manifestations (Groenhuijsen, 2014). While studies suggest that police officers are capable of identifying certain aspects of vulnerability, outcomes in terms of under- and over-protection also underline limitations to what can be expected of police officers, given the constraints of knowledge, time, and resources (Barlow and Walklate, 2021; Belfrage et al., 2012; Myhill et al., 2023; Raaijmakers et al., 2024; Robinson et al., 2016, 2018; Skidmore et al., 2020; Storey et al., 2014). A possible reconsideration of police officers’ roles in the assessment of vulnerability, may partly relieve these constraints and enable officers to focus on their strengths.

Promising avenues may be to experiment with offering generally trained police officers the option of referring cases to specialized police officers or ask advice. Another option could be to foster collaborations with other agencies, such as victim support services and health professionals, for instance in multi-agency safeguarding hubs. Research shows that specialized officers may be better equipped than general officers to assess protection needs and choose protection measures which are better tailored to the needs of individual victims (Meyer and Reeves, 2021; Richards et al., 2021). In addition, other agencies may be better at identifying indicators that are often overlooked in police assessments, such as individual-specific indicators (Bartkowiak-Théron and Asquith, 2017; Enang et al., 2019, 2021). Collaboration with non-police actors could therefore broaden the range of assessments, although this needs to be carefully organized to prevent extra burdening victims, for instance by avoiding they must tell their story twice.

In conclusion, this paper underscores an important overarching issue of the shortcomings in vulnerability assessments that may negatively affect both victims who need protection and those who do not, as well as police departments and officers. By addressing this issue, this paper aimed to pave a way for future research and policy initiatives focused on reducing the risks of under- and over-protection. These efforts hold the potential to enhance the safeguarding of vulnerable victims and to improve the quality of police-victim interactions in general.