Walking a tightrope? Independent sexual violence advisors and their relationship with the police

Abstract

International research consistently confirms that collaboration between the police and independent sexual violence advisors (ISVAs)/advocates can facilitate much-needed improvements to criminal justice responses and outcomes for victim-survivors in the aftermath of sexual violence. The relationship between ISVAs and the criminal justice system, however, is contentious and evolving. Drawing upon qualitative data from police and ISVA interviews and focus groups, undertaken as part of a large government-funded project in England and Wales, this paper critically examines the police–ISVA relationship. Grounding our analysis within wider debates about collaboration between independent violence against women organisations and the criminal justice system, the findings reveal the complex, gendered and hierarchical nature of the police–ISVA relationship. It is argued that in working critically and collaboratively with the police to improve victim-survivor experiences, ISVAs ‘walk a tightrope’ at individual and institutional levels. To ameliorate these challenges and achieve the best outcomes for victim-survivors, a more meaningful and explicit understanding of ISVA independence from the criminal justice system, rather than just its processes, is urgently required. We offer recommendations for how this can be achieved at symbolic, policy and practice levels.

Introduction

Independent sexual violence advisors (ISVAs) and victim advocates ¹ have been introduced across an extensive range of jurisdictions, including Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Sweden, France, Germany, Ireland, Scotland, England and Wales, Canada, the USA, Hong Kong, South Africa, New Zealand and Australia (Brooks and Burman, 2017; Hester and Lilley, 2018; Rich, 2014; Robinson and Hudson, 2011; Nichols, 2011). The impetus to develop independent victim advocate roles has largely been driven by feminist, survivor-led, support organisations (Burman and Brooks-Hay, 2020; Davies, 2020; Thunberg et al., 2020) in response to the pervasive challenges and re-traumatising nature of the criminal justice process for victim-survivors of sexual violence (Brooks-Hay et al., 2019; Campbell and Raja, 1999; Hohl et al., 2023; Cubells and Calsamiglia, 2018; Antonsdóttir, 2018; Parti et al., 2021).

Working collaboratively with the police and the wider criminal justice system forms a central element of ISVA/advocate roles, meanwhile multi-agency and partnership working have become common currency in contemporary responses to sexual violence. Yet there is limited appreciation of the philosophical and operational complexities of collaboration in this space, and relatively little European research about the day-to-day realities or implications of partnership working for ISVAs/advocates and the feminist organisations they originate from. Within wider academic literature, collaboration between feminist support organisations and state agencies is subject to critique with concerns that the independence and activism of feminist organisations, which has been central to the advancement of victim-survivor rights and interests, are being eroded. Furthermore, it has been suggested that the agendas of feminist organisations and an increased focus on victims’ rights have been exploited by the state to meet a punitive, neo-liberal agenda characterised by increased criminalisation (Bumiller, 2008; Gruber, 2020; Grzyb, 2021). Attentive to this broader context, this article explores collaborative working at a practice level through a timely examination of the police–ISVA relationship in England and Wales as a site that functions as a direct interface between the criminal justice system and specialist victim-survivor support organisations.

This paper begins with a review of international literature about the role and value of ISVAs/advocates and consideration of how the ISVA role has evolved in England and Wales specifically. This is followed by exploration of key debates and literature relevant to collaborative working, including the relationship between feminist support organisations and the criminal justice system. Drawing upon data from interviews and focus groups with police and ISVA participants across five police forces areas in England and Wales, findings about their collaborative efforts are then organised in three sections: (1) divergent police and ISVA views on ‘justice’ and ‘success’; (2) limited and gendered appreciation of the ISVA role; and (3) unequal police and ISVA relationship dynamics. The insights gleaned from this analysis reveal the complexities of the police–ISVA partnership, with implications for how the ISVA role and relationship with the police and wider criminal justice system can be conceptualised, defined and operationalised. We argue that ISVA/advocate independence is crucial to their capacity to challenge criminal justice institutions and drive much-needed improvements to victim-survivors’ experiences of the criminal justice system (Brooks and Burman, 2017; Davies, 2020; Day and Gill, 2020) and conclude by calling for meaningful recognition of ISVA independence from the criminal justice system rather than from the criminal justice process alone. Finally, we offer recommendations for advancing this call at symbolic, policy and practice levels underpinned by an appreciation of the ‘productive tensions’ within the police–ISVA relationship.

Background

The role and value of ISVAs/advocates

Advocacy provision varies across different jurisdictions, and discernible differences exist in terms of the nature of work undertaken and the organisations that advocacy services are located within. However, some consensus exists in relation to role of advocates/ISVAs being defined as one that is centrally focused on the needs of victim-survivors (Brubaker, 2019; Rich, 2014). This may entail attending to the interests of victim-survivors at an individual case level and/or at an institutional level by seeking to influence or challenge wider policy and practice (Brooks and Burman, 2017; Burman and Brooks-Hay, 2020; Davies, 2020) through institutional or ‘system-based’ advocacy that draws upon insights and expertise gleaned through their direct work with victim-survivors.

According to Brubaker (2019: 308), an advocate's role ‘is typically to support victims by protecting their right to control the process and prioritising their needs over those of others participating in the response to an assault’. Meanwhile, Robinson (2009) suggested that their remit is to help victims make the transition to survivor, independent of any other organisational mandates. This can be contrasted with investigative duties of the police and the responsibilities of the broader criminal justice system to attend to the rights and needs of the accused. Rich (2014: 84) noted that ‘in countries where victims do not have attorneys protecting their interests, victim advocates may be the only professional whose allegiance is solely to the victim’.

Central to the ethos of ISVAs/advocates is a feminist-inspired focus on victim-survivor choice and empowerment (Burman and Brooks-Hay, 2020; Hester and Lilley, 2018; Zweig et al., 2021). While ISVAs and advocates can work with victim-survivors if they choose not to engage with the criminal justice system or wish to withdraw from it, for those who do engage, they provide vital practical and emotional support tailored to the needs of individual victim-survivors across the often lengthy criminal justice process, irrespective of what stage their case may reach (Brooks and Burman, 2017; Hester and Lilley, 2018; Patterson and Tringali, 2014). In practice, they can accompany victim-survivors to appointments with the police or prosecutors, provide information about procedures and the options available, liaise with other professionals, attend court hearings and provide emotional support to help victim-survivors cope with the demands of the criminal justice process (Brooks and Burman, 2017; Robinson and Hudson, 2011; Zweig et al., 2021). Moreover, they can provide specialised ‘end-to-end’ sexual violence support throughout the criminal justice process (as opposed to more generic victim support or court-based advocacy roles, as Thunberg et al., 2020, discussed in the Swedish and German contexts).

The features of advocacy support most valued by victim-survivors have been described as the flexibility, reliability and consistency of support across the various stages of the criminal justice system; the provision of information to assist understanding of developments in both individual cases and the criminal justice system more generally; and emotional support provided within an ethos of victim-survivor-led empowerment (Brooks and Burman, 2017; Hester and Lilley, 2018). Relatedly, international research evidence confirms that the value of ISVAs/advocates is multi-faceted. Victim-survivors are reported to be more willing to access support from organisations that are independent of the criminal justice process and other statutory agencies; as one professional in Robinson and Hudson's (2011: 525) study commented, ‘statutory agencies are always seen as part of the machine’. Furthermore, victim-survivors who have the support of an ISVA/advocate are more likely to receive better treatment from criminal justice professionals (Campbell, 2006; Westmarland et al., 2012), and their cases are significantly more likely to result in prosecution and conviction (Walker et al., 2021).

In sum, ISVAs/advocates can improve victim-survivor experiences of the criminal justice process and their access to ‘justice’ (Brooks and Burman, 2017; Campbell, 2006; Robinson, 2009; Robinson and Hudson, 2011). They do so both directly, through the provision of emotional and practical support for those accessing their services, and indirectly, by prompting or advocating for systemic improvements in criminal justice responses.

The evolution of the ISVA role in England and Wales

In England and Wales, ISVAs have been part of the criminal justice landscape since 2005. Like other jurisdictions, the impetus to develop the ISVA role in England and Wales and improve criminal justice responses to victim-survivors has largely been driven by feminist-survivor-led support organisations ² (Burman and Brooks-Hay, 2020; Davies, 2020). As such, ISVAs have traditionally been based within specialist feminist support organisations (e.g., rape crisis centres) although the location of service providers has evolved to include health, social service and criminal justice agencies (George and Ferguson, 2021; Robinson and Hudson, 2011) with funding administered via bodies including Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs), the National Health Service (NHS) and other various charitable bodies (Home Office, 2017). Following its introduction in 2005, the ISVA workforce in England and Wales has increased over time, with a recent government commitment to providing ring-fenced funding to expand the number of government-funded ISVAs and independent domestic violence advisors (IDVAs) by 300 (43%), bring the total to over 1000 by 2024/2025 (Ministry of Justice (MoJ), 2022).

In 2017, the Home Office, in partnership with third-sector specialist support organisations, published guidance on ‘essential elements’ of the ISVA role with the aim of raising awareness and understanding of their remit. This guidance has recently been superseded by statutory guidance on the ISVA role, published by the MoJ (2025) in accordance with provisions of the Victims and Prisoners Act (2024). The initial 2017 guidance acknowledges variation in practice and in job titles used to describe the work of an ISVA, though it is noteworthy that ISVAs continue to be defined as ISVAs rather than advocates within both sets of guidance. Arguably, there are important differences in what constitutes an advisory role and an advocacy role. While the term ‘advisor’ implies provision of impartial advice or guidance, the term ‘advocate’ suggests a more proactive role in upholding rights and defending an individual or a cause.

A notable feature of the revised ISVA guidance (MoJ, 2025) is the enhanced focus given to ‘institutional advocacy’ as an aspect of the ISVA role designed to facilitate improvements in the practices of statutory agencies by raising systemic issues that impact victims. Within the guidance, there is also acknowledgement that ISVAs should have parity of status with other professionals and be invited to attend strategic forums where they can contribute to improving practice. To do this effectively, the independent status of the ISVAs is crucial. The updated guidance (Section 3) addresses the issue of independence with greater clarity than before, stating that ‘ISVAs are independent from the government and the interests of other organisations and statutory agencies, which is critical to their success’. While the new statutory basis of the 2025 ISVA guidance could be seen to contradict the independent status of ISVAs, its provisions have the capacity to strengthen the ISVA role since they also place an onus on relevant professionals working with ISVAs to have regard to the guidance.

Collaborative working

The benefits of multi-agency collaboration for victim-survivors of sexual violence are well documented (Maier, 2011; Rich, 2014; Zweig et al., 2021), and successful partnership working between agencies has been identified as key to effective advocacy work (Brooks and Burman, 2017). Furthermore, McMillan (2015) argued that when the police work in collaboration with ISVAs, this also pays dividends for the police by alleviating pressure on their time and resources, although Rich (2014) highlighted the absence of research on how the police perceive and utilise advocates, calling for more research on the nuances of collaboration. Indeed, multi-agency collaboration and partnership is not without its challenges. In the USA, Sudderth (2006) described the relationship between victim advocates and law enforcement as ‘an uneasy alliance’, and more recently, Zweig et al. (2021: 42) alluded to ‘natural tensions’ between the two. In a systematic review of rape crisis victim advocacy, Wegrzyn et al. (2023) noted that future research should address how challenges arising from such tensions could be overcome.

The nature of the relationship between the criminal justice system and violence against women (VAW) organisations has been subject to debate and change in recent decades. Historically, independent organisations such as rape crisis have adopted a radical stance in relation to the criminal justice system as a patriarchal instrument of the state (Martin, 2005). As such, the criminal justice system has constituted a site of political activism rather than collaboration. Over time, however, the women's movement has evolved to work more collaboratively with statutory agencies. This seemingly ‘perverse alliance’ (Grzyb, 2021: 838) and an accompanying shift in working practices have been linked to the receipt of state funding and the need to ensure organisational sustainability (Davies, 2020; Hall, 2020; Maier, 2011), as well as improved outcomes for victim-survivors. While these changes may have brought some benefits to VAW organisations and the victim-survivors that they work with, greater collaboration with statutory agencies is a development that has attracted criticism and concern on the basis that it may represent an erosion of their independence and a deradicalised agenda (Campbell and Raja, 1999; Davies, 2020; Martin, 2005). Hence, Maier (2011: 1403) called for research to ‘explore how collaboration with other agencies and institutions is beneficial because it may improve services offered to victims, but detrimental because it may hinder rape crisis workers’ ability to assist rape victims and change the institutions that re-victimize them’.

Taking these concerns further, Ritchie (2017) argued that anti-violence work simply cannot and should not occur through collaborative relationships with the police and other criminal legal systems. This view draws upon suggestions that the VAW movement in the USA has been appropriated or co-opted by the state (Bumiller, 2008) to legitimise a neo-liberal punitive turn with the term ‘carceral feminism’ (Bernstein, 2012) used in critique of the VAW movement's reliance upon criminalisation as a remedy for VAW (Kim, 2018). Increased criminalisation and over-reliance on carceral solutions are said to absolve state responsibility to provide adequate resources to address the social roots and consequences of VAW (Goodmark, 2018). Moreover, it is deemed especially problematic for marginalised and racially minoritised communities, already subject to over-criminalisation, although Day and Gill (2020), writing in the context of the UK, contended that a critical approach to partnership between government bodies and VAW organisations has the potential to advance an intersectional understanding and response to victim-survivors.

Much of the literature discussed here emanates from the USA; far less has been documented about the relationship between feminist activism, the state and criminal justice institutions within a European context (Grzyb, 2021). Yet differences exist between the political context of the USA and other jurisdictions; while similar concerns exist elsewhere about over-criminalisation, these concerns are more pronounced in the USA due to the over-policing and high rates of incarceration of African Americans (Hinton and Cook, 2021; McGlynn, 2022). This is also true of the gravitation towards criminal justice-oriented commissioning of services in the USA (Campbell, 2024) although these concerns also exist in the UK alongside a shift to market-led commissioning and a drive towards the ‘professionalisation’ of victim support services (Davies, 2020; Hall, 2020; Vera-Gray, 2020), including the ISVA role.

Further, much of the anti-carceral debate is situated at the level of law reform (Gotell, 2015; Taylor, 2018) and increased criminalisation (Gruber, 2020), abstracted from the day-to-day realities of those working to improve criminal justice responses to survivors of sexual violence. While detailed engagement with these conversations is beyond the scope of this paper, it is argued that they provide an essential backdrop within which to understand and contextualise a critical examination of the police–ISVA relationship as a site where the criminal justice system and victim-survivor support organisations intersect. By providing critical insights at a practice level through interactions within the police–ISVA relationship, the findings of this paper help illuminate what has been described as an abstract and polarised debate (McGlynn, 2022) about the interplay between VAW organisations and the criminal justice system.

Methodology

The data underpinning this paper are drawn from Operation Soteria, a Home Office-funded project designed to transform policing responses to rape and other sexual offences in England and Wales (Hohl and Stanko, 2024). Operation Soteria focused on improving police engagement with victims and gathered in-depth data from five police force areas using an extensive range of qualitative methods (see Smith et al., 2025, for a comprehensive discussion of methodology). More specifically, this paper draws upon qualitative interview and focus group data from the police and ISVA/support service providers. This aspect of the research explored the day-to-day realities and challenges of working in partnership to identify how collaborative efforts may be improved to benefit victim-survivors who report to the police. The five police force areas comprised a mix of large metropolitan and smaller rural police forces, spread geographically across England and Wales.

The research team worked with designated police leads in each force area to identify and recruit appropriate participants, based on their job role and experience of working with ISVAs. Although police participants were provided with information sheets and required to give individual written consent, the researchers were attentive to the fact that officers were nominated for participation by senior colleagues, and this may have meant they felt obliged to take part due to the hierarchical nature of their organisation. At the outset of interviews and focus groups, the researchers therefore took particular care to emphasise that individuals could decide how much information they wished to share and that they were not obliged to give a response to a question if they did not wish to. Further assurances about the purpose and ethical design of the focus groups and interviews, including confidentiality, were also given. To avoid compromising any officers participating in focus groups, or the information that officers of any rank wished to share, senior officers were invited to attend interviews rather than join focus groups.

Regional support service commissioners identified the main ISVA support organisations in each force area. These organisations were invited to participate by the research team, and they self-selected practitioners to represent them. However, services were asked to include specialist ISVAs who support marginalised or minoritised groups where possible, and participants comprised both managerial and practitioner-level staff. As with the police participants, managerial staff typically took part in interviews rather than focus groups though this demarcation was less distinct due to the smaller and less hierarchical nature of these organisations.

Ten individual/joint interviews (n = 13) and 17 focus groups (n = 72) were completed with police officers across a range of ranks and roles (see Smith et al., 2025). The police focus groups were dedicated to specific topics, which included investigations, victim support and partnership working. Eleven individual/joint interviews (n = 14) and 11 focus groups (n = 50) were completed with victim-survivor support-focused organisations/practitioners, most of which were ISVA services. All focus groups and interviews took place online over a 21-month period.

After each interview or focus group, notes were collated and discussed by the researchers as part of a debriefing exercise. Interview and focus group transcripts were reviewed by two of the authors, and the emerging themes were discussed with the wider research team to support a process of triangulation (Denzin, 1978) with other forms of data collection. A thematic coding frame (Braun and Clarke, 2006) was devised and refined following reflexive discussion about the emerging themes. The verbatim transcripts were coded using NVivo 12 for further detailed analysis. In addition to the analysis undertaken within the research team and drawing upon Lincoln and Guba's (1985) principle of ‘member checks’, the key research themes were ‘sense checked’ via online consultation groups with ISVAs and victim-survivor ‘expert by experience’ panels (see Smith et al., 2025, for further methodological detail).

The findings presented in this paper highlight the dominant themes emerging from this analysis, using illustrative extracts from the data gathered. All identifiers have been removed from data to ensure confidentiality, both in secure data storage and in the presentation of data. To maintain anonymity, specific job roles have been omitted, and force areas are presented as Forces V, W, X, Y and Z.

Findings

Findings from the data gathered through interviews and focus groups exploring the police–ISVA relationship are distilled in three sections: (1) divergent police and ISVA ideas of ‘justice’ and ‘success’; (2) limited and gendered appreciation of the ISVA role; and (3) unequal police and ISVA relationship dynamics. Taken together, these findings elucidate the day-to-day realities of the police–ISVA relationship and identify both complimentary and concerning elements of their collaborative efforts.

Divergent police and ISVA views on ‘justice’ and ‘success’

Following Rosenbaum's (2002: 172) definition of partnerships as a ‘cooperative relationship between two or more organisations to achieve some common goal’, our analysis of police–ISVA partnership working begins by exploring their respective goals through understanding what they believe constitutes justice or a positive outcome. Police and ISVA articulation of their roles and what they view as ‘success’ within their work reveal fundamental differences in their understandings of justice and their confidence that this can be achieved within the parameters of the current criminal justice system. Resonating with Zweig et al.'s (2021: 42) observation that partner agencies such as those represented by victim advocates and criminal justice professionals come with ‘differing missions’ (also Jubany et al., 2022), these findings may be unsurprising though they merit further exploration since they point to a potential tension in the police–ISVA relationship. Police participants were clear that their investigative role was a key priority as part of their institutional remit. This aspect of their role was deemed central to securing prosecutions and convictions, which, in turn, was essential to a ‘successful’ case. For some officers, there was a clear sense of commitment and ownership of cases with professional fulfilment attached to what they considered a ‘successful’ outcome in a ‘serious’ case.

…they are serious and heinous crimes, and they are good, challenging investigations to do. And when you own a case, and you take that all the way to court … and that jury finds that defendant guilty, all the hardship, and everything … that it takes you to get a case to court, it's just absolutely brilliant then, and that is your reward, getting that person behind bars. (Force X Police FG)

At times, officers discussed ‘good outcomes’ in cases without reference to how the case is experienced by the victim-survivor. Most of the police participants, however, expressed some concern about the victim or were at least aware of the importance of victim-centred approaches, even if this was not their primary focus or the main criteria by which their work would be ‘judged by’:

Ultimately, we’re in the business of locking up the bad guy, so that's what we’re targeting. Obviously, the ISVA service are much more victim-focused than we are. Not to say that we’re not victim-focused; that is obviously one of the aims of what we’re aiming to do. But we are a prosecuting agency at the end of the day, and that's what we’re judged by. (Force Z Police Interview)

ISVA participants also understood the importance of prosecutions and convictions, describing how the support they provide ‘has really helped people who are thinking about dropping out or stopping the investigation’ (Force X ISVA FG). Consistent with existing literature, ISVAs and advocates can play a vital role in sustaining victim-survivor engagement in what can be a lengthy and arduous process (Burman and Brooks-Hay, 2020; Walker et al., 2021). However, drawing parallels with the findings of Hester and Lilley (2018), ISVAs adopted a more holistic understanding of what counts as ‘success’, and they were clear that ‘a successful outcome isn’t just a conviction’ (Force W ISVA FG). Within their accounts, elements of feminist-informed procedural justice (Hohl et al., 2022; Johnson et al., 2025) also emerged through an appreciation of the importance of voice, dignity and respect, trustworthiness, fairness and safety within the criminal justice process. The broader understanding of justice held by ISVAs stemmed from an appreciation that some victim-survivors hold different visions of justice.

…sometimes for the police, their idea of justice is that conviction, but I think for the individual it's not necessarily for that person to go to prison for example, sometimes like, kaleidoscopic justice I think they call it, where the person, their version of justice is so different to the police's. (Force Y ISVA FG)

The term ‘kaleidoscopic justice’ mentioned in the extract above refers to a concept developed by McGlynn and Westmarland (2019) to facilitate appreciation of victim-survivor understandings of ‘justice’ as complex, fluid and dynamic. Indeed, ISVAs described working with victim-survivors when they begin to re-evaluate ‘justice’ and reorientate their relationship with it, particularly if their case did not proceed to court or result in a conviction.

I don't think the meaning of justice changes … if we are doing our jobs properly, the way our clients hold it changes. So, they might enter the process thinking the only way I'm ever going to be happy, the only way I'm going to survive, is if this person gets locked up for life, and they're holding that tightly. And yet, as I'm working with them, never am I taking away the idea that this person needs to be held responsible and accountable. But I'm hoping that you won't be holding it so tight, so if that doesn't happen, I don't want that to be the end. I don't want you to crumble up and die or have this negative opinion about continuing to live or the possibility of your life holding further joy. That's what I think changes; is how tightly it's being held. (Force V ISVA FG)

It can be argued that ISVAs play a role in assisting victim-survivors to turn the ‘kaleidoscope’ as their view and experience of justice evolves and sometimes becomes less centred upon substantive justice. While the more holistic vision of justice held by ISVAs is underpinned by an appreciation of victim-survivor rights and interests, it is also informed by ISVA awareness of limited opportunities for substantive justice outcomes due to low rates of prosecution and conviction.

Police participants did not express the same lack of confidence in the system, though they variously described the challenges of investigating sexual offences. This included high and rising case volumes against a backdrop of limited resources (see Smith et al., 2025).

In sum, both police and ISVAs broadly shared the goal of achieving ‘good outcomes’ for victim-survivors and understood the importance of prosecutions and convictions. However, there are clear points of divergence in what they understood a ‘good outcome’ to mean, namely, in terms of how they view justice and what counts as ‘success’ when working with victim-survivors. The differing goals and perspectives held by police and ISVAs were shaped by their respective institutional remits, confidence in and attachment to the criminal justice response. While the police are part of the criminal justice system and inevitably invested in its functioning, ISVAs sought to manage victim-survivor expectations of the system, mitigate the harms produced by it and support victim-survivors to manage their relationship with ‘justice’. Appreciation of the divergent, yet at times overlapping, nature of police and ISVA goals or ‘missions’ (Zweig et al., 2021) is central to understanding their efforts to work in partnership (also Jubany et al., 2022, speaking to broader victim advocacy).

Limited and gendered appreciation of the ISVA role

Police participants expressed their appreciation of the ISVA role in terms of their capacity to provide ‘tremendous support’ to victim-survivors (Force Y Police FG). Due to being independent of the police investigation, ISVAs were described as able to ‘handle the emotional side effects of things’ (Force X Police FG) since they can ‘just purely be there for the survivors’ (Force W Police FG). This in turn allowed officers to focus on their investigative role.

…with the ISVAs, they are there supporting our victims, whilst we sort of get on with, the criminal, the investigation side of things. They offer lots of help and support to our victims, which is nice. (Force X Police FG)

While police appreciation of the work carried out by ISVAs was evident, this was primarily grounded in a gendered appreciation of their role as one of conventionally feminine emotional care and support work. Where ISVAs moved from the role of ‘helper’ – described above as ‘nice’ – to challenge police practices, divergent understandings of their role and its perceived boundaries emerged. Hence, some ISVAs described a sense that their role was not valued or understood by the police.

I think the police struggle to see the benefit of an ISVA and I think they struggle to understand what the ISVA role is. And I think that a lot of the time when I contact the police, they see me like a nuisance. And I'm just something extra in their investigation. (Force W ISVA FG)

ISVA perceptions of them being viewed as a ‘nuisance’ or a ‘hindrance’ (Force Y ISVA FG) were linked to police perceptions of ISVAs ‘overstepping’ the parameters of their role. Elsewhere, it has been noted that from a police perspective, advocates may be viewed as interfering with investigations (Brubaker, 2019) or serving as ‘watchdogs’ (Lonsway and Archambault, 2008). In a similar vein, the term ‘overstepping’ came up a number of times in police interviews and focus groups, although notable gendered and hierarchical elements were also revealed in the police–ISVA relationship and understandings of their respective roles. ‘Overstepping’, for example, implies a greater understanding of roles and responsibilities on the part of the police; they had the superior role and were arbiters of what was and was not acceptable.

Interestingly, gendered terms were also reflected in other accounts of police and ISVA roles and behaviours. The extracts below highlight the sense of tension around ownership and authority. The police officer, for example, describes the victim-survivor as ‘our victim’ and ‘their client’. Meanwhile, the ISVA describes the police response, in conventionally masculine terms, as ‘very authoritative’.

We’ve had a lot of overstepping in one way or another, whether it's by the communication routes, we’ve had issues around certain ISVAs telling their clients, and, obviously, our victims, that they’re not allowed to speak to us, unless it's through an ISVA, or with an ISVA present, which is incredibly ridiculous [laughs]. (Force X Police FG)

…it's like really difficult because the client has requested the updates go through the ISVA, but the police officer is having absolutely none of it and they're very authoritative, and you can tell them that that's what the client wants, but in reality, the police officer sometimes goes against that. (Force W ISVA FG)

Ensuring that victim-survivor communication preferences were respected was highlighted as especially challenging by ISVAs, but of great importance to the victim-survivors they were working with, especially those who had learning disabilities or additional communication needs. ISVAs described their role primarily as advocates and discussed challenging police practices on behalf of their clients as an essential, if difficult, part of their role due to victim-survivors feeling unable to raise concerns with the police or having little prior knowledge or information about their rights. Although ISVAs are typically described as ‘advisors’ in policy documents and job titles, a resounding majority of ISVA participants identified their role as ‘advocates’ rather than ‘advisors’; ‘I never give anyone advice. I'm not an advisor’ (Force W ISVA FG). ISVAs identified key elements of their role as ‘making survivor's voices heard’ (Force Y ISVA FG), ‘advocating for the victim to be respected’ (Force V ISVA FG), standing up for clients ‘best interests’ (Force Y ISVA FG) and ensuring that clients are ‘fully aware of their rights’ (Force V ISVA FG). These elements of the ISVA role draw upon their long-standing experience of advocating in the interests of victim-survivors and are linked to feminist and survivor-led responses to sexual violence. Key to being able to advocate for survivors and challenge police practice where required is the independence of the ISVA role.

…the most important thing for me about the ISVA role is independence. Independent sexual violence advocate. And that is something that's very important for me in terms of partnership working with the police as well. (Multiple Force ISVA FG)

ISVAs described their independence, in terms of independence from both criminal justice processes and the criminal justice system. In addition to engendering trust from victim-survivors, the independent status of ISVAs allows them to challenge decisions made within the criminal justice system and ‘push back on criminal justice processes’ (Multiple Force ISVA FG) rather than ‘just’ provide emotional support and information. ISVAs also described how they acted as a buffer between the victim-survivor and the criminal justice process and were able to allow ‘people to go at their pace’ rather than at ‘the pace of the system’ (Force X ISVA Interview).

ISVAs are incredible people and they do very challenging work, but to be able to be that kind of buffer, and to be able to kind of change the tempo of the system sometimes … one of the amazing things that ISVAs do is to be able to kind of slow things down and create space for the survivor to think, and to be able to wonder what different options might be like, rather than being, signing a blank form that's put in front of them, because I think so often, ISVAs have to be like guard dogs, because their rights are not properly afforded, processes are not properly adhered to … ISVAs do incredible stuff and survivors feel it. (Force V ISVA FG)

It was also apparent that the independence of ISVAs from the criminal justice system rather than just its processes was considered crucial and to the benefit of victim-survivors.

…the professionalism that is involved in being an ISVA has come from within the VAWG sector and the VAWG sector's deep understanding of what survivors need. Wherever you see that kind of knowledge and expertise then mainstreamed, it becomes ineffective… So, I think it's that independence again and the ability to be flexible and almost outside of those systems and processes, is what I think benefits survivors. (Multiple Force ISVA FG)

However, the implications of their independent advocacy role – which included questioning police practices – were acknowledged as problematic for partnership relations with the police.

I mean, it's the reason they don’t like us. So, if you took away the advocacy from the role, then they would probably be really happy to have cups of tea. So, it's the challenging aspect of it. But I think that it's the really essential aspect of it. (Multiple Force ISVA FG)

…when you’re an ISVA you can hold the police accountable, can’t you, you can challenge, you can ask questions, and they don’t like it. I think there's a real issue around a sense of power and the fact that they’re statutory … it becomes really aggressive at some points for no reason. (Force V ISVA FG)

This issue is discussed in greater depth below within the third and final theme that emerged from the findings, relating to inequalities in the police–ISVA relationship.

Unequal police and ISVA relationship dynamics

Good working relationships between police and ISVAs were acknowledged by both parties as important to improving victim-survivor experiences of the criminal justice process. However, the nature and quality of police–ISVA relationships were discussed in very varied terms. Both police and ISVA participants described some relationships very positively and with highly beneficial outcomes for victim-survivors although, in keeping with Rich's (2014: 98) observation that ‘some officers collaborate with victim advocates more than others’, examples of more difficult interactions were also prevalent, particularly within ISVA accounts.

…some officers are fantastic at working together in partnership, and some of them are just so defensive. (Force V ISVA Interview)

Analysis of police and ISVA narratives revealed differences in the perceived source of tensions within their relationships. For some police participants, there was a sense of their work being subject to scrutiny and criticism by ISVAs.

We are also constantly getting criticized by some of our third-party agencies, in particular, one of our ISVA services … they're forever making complaints about individual officers. Emails flying around about how they generally believe that the officers have spoken to victims … All they take is what the victims said and read and then they make complaints. (Force X Police FG)

Meanwhile, resonating with Coy and Kelly's (2011: 12) account of domestic violence advocates as ‘critical allies’, ISVAs described the challenges of ‘walking a tightrope’ to work both collaboratively and critically with the police. In practice, this meant ISVA navigating ways to maintain the ‘balance’ of their relationships with the police for the benefit of victim-survivors.

I think it's always difficult when the ISVAs have to challenge the police officers on certain things. It's about maintaining that balance really isn't it at the end of the day, of maintaining a good working relationship with the police, but also being able to challenge them on the victim's behalf. (Force X ISVA FG)

The level of practical and emotional labour (Hochschild, 1983) involved in forging relationships with the police was evident in ISVA accounts, as was their sense that this was something that largely fell upon their shoulders.

…the working relationships between the police and ISVAs have definitely massively improved. But sometimes it feels like it's more us going to the mountain as opposed to being met halfway. (Force V ISVA Interview)

ISVAs expressed particular frustration in relation to communication with the police. For example, difficulties in receiving updates from the police, resulting in ‘chasing people for a number of weeks’ (Force V ISVA FG) and a sense that ‘sometimes it feels like we’re working with one-and-a-half hands behind our back’ (Force V ISVA FG). The extract below illustrates how difficulties in communication can escalate and impact other cases.

…sometimes I feel for the ISVAs because they have had to send an email and they have to advocate for something, and they know that they will get a punitive response from that officer. And we’ve had officers where we try to advocate, they then just don’t answer your emails, it carries over into your work with them on other cases and then they then ignore your emails for your other clients. So, it's one of the hardest parts of the ISVA job but it is one of the most essential … I think it's perhaps getting them to recognise that it is part of our job and it's not personal. (Multiple Force ISVA FG)

Police participants highlighted some strong working relationships with ISVAs, which they clearly played a role in developing, but descriptions of having to work at these relationships were largely absent from their accounts. ISVAs also described how police resistance to their efforts to advocate on behalf of victim-survivors was facilitated and compounded by an imbalance of power between ISVAs and the police, whereby ‘within a system of hierarchy, an ISVA will come way down the bottom’ (Force V ISVA Interview).

I think sometimes for us as ISVAs it can be quite disempowering for us as practitioners as well because we're acutely aware of that and imbalance of power and the power that they [police] hold. (Force W ISVA FG)

So, we all feel the power dynamics when we work with police and CPS … there is a clear hierarchy as much as we want it to be equal, we’re not equal partners in the slightest. (Multiple Force ISVA FG)

These reflections resonate with Cole's (2018) examination of collaborative work within Sexual Assault Response Teams (SARTs) in the USA, which revealed perceived power disparities in the team, with law enforcement being viewed at the top of the hierarchy and victim advocates viewed at the bottom. The issue of an imbalance of power in partnership working was not raised by police participants though there were some instances where power dynamics were revealed through the language of partnership being replaced by less equitable terms, indicating a sense that the ISVAs worked for the police rather than with or alongside them.

I’ve had a really good service from them [ISVAs] … if you allow them, they like to, sort of, prod a little bit too much, but I would always offer the referral, one hundred percent. I really rate them, and I think we should have them more. (Force X Police FG)

The combined impact of the hierarchical police–ISVA relationship and resistance to the ISVA role, particularly where it involved challenging police practice to advocate on behalf of victim-survivors, was described as having a detrimental impact on ISVAs and contributing to their ‘burnout’ (Force W ISVA FG) within an already emotionally demanding role (Horvath et al., 2021).

…it's constant barriers, I find, with the police, and that can take a huge toll … you’re there as a support worker with your survivor, and you feel it as well as the ISVA when you feel like you’re banging your head against a brick wall. Imagine for one minute how that feels for the survivor. (Force V ISVA FG)

…that I would say, probably contributes to burnout for ISVAs, probably more so than the trauma of the sexual violence that they work with. Because imagine doing that 24/7, you are being treated like you’re overstepping and made to feel like you shouldn’t be articulating what you are articulating, it's so toxic. (Multiple Force ISVA FG)

These findings bring to light the complex and messy reality of day-to-day police–ISVA interactions, with ISVAs walking the precarious and emotional tightrope of having to work with and call to account those who often have different objectives, ideas and understandings of their role. It is within the context of discussing these challenges that striving for change, as a motivating factor that allowed ISVAs to sustain their work, was illuminated.

…there is a thread of activism, and this strive for change, which I think motivates us to do this kind of work otherwise we would have to be a bit crackers sometimes. (Force W ISVA Interview)

Conclusion

International research consistently confirms that collaboration between the police and ISVAs/advocates can facilitate much-needed improvements to criminal justice responses, experiences, and outcomes for victim-survivors (Brooks and Burman, 2017; Campbell, 2006; Robinson and Hudson, 2011; Westmarland et al., 2012). This article builds upon, and moves beyond, existing scholarship evaluating the value and efficacy of ISVAs/advocates and the material benefits of partnership working to improve victim-survivor experiences. It does so by critically examining the complexities of police–ISVA collaboration, located within a contextual understanding of the contested and evolving space occupied by the police and ISVAs, amidst wider criminological debates about collaboration between feminist support organisations and the criminal justice system.

It is within this context that our analysis begins with recognition of the police–ISVA relationship as one characterised by differing organisational priorities and ideas about what justice means for victim-survivors and how it can be achieved. ISVAs typically conceptualised justice more broadly than the police, reflecting an orientation towards both procedural justice (Hohl et al., 2022; Johnson et al., 2025) and a more holistic and feminist-informed vision of victim-survivor justice interests beyond the criminal justice process. ISVAs play a role in working with survivors as they navigate what ‘justice’ means for them while their journey through the criminal justice system and recovery evolves. In some cases, this includes turning the ‘kaleidoscope’ (McGlynn and Westmarland, 2019) to consider justice as something not necessarily anchored in a ‘successful’ criminal justice outcome. While supporting victim-survivors in their engagement with the criminal justice process is part of the ISVA role, they were acutely aware of the limitations of criminal justice. Hence, they sought to challenge the system, manage victim-survivor expectations of the process and mitigate the harms produced by it. These findings trouble the superficial notion that feminist support organisations are led by punitive agendas or have been co-opted by the criminal justice system, indicating that a much more nuanced picture exists.

However, our findings also reveal the ways in which ISVAs ‘walk a tightrope’ as they attempt to balance working critically and collaboratively with the police on behalf of victim-survivors within a partnership characterised by gendered and hierarchical power dynamics. While the productive and beneficial potential of collaboration was recognised by both police and ISVAs, appreciation of partner roles – particularly the ISVA role – emerged as a concerning theme. The police valued ISVAs’ capacity to remain independent of the criminal justice process and its investigative or evidential concerns, rather than the criminal justice system. For ISVAs, however, independence was more broadly conceived and considered to be a fundamental, if difficult, aspect of their role since it allows them to advocate for victim-survivor rights. This included challenging police practices and decisions, acting as a ‘buffer’ between victim-survivors and the criminal justice process and altering the tempo of the system to create a temporal space for victim-survivors to make decisions and regain some control over the events surrounding them.

These dimensions of ISVA work underscore the importance of advocacy at both institutional and individual case levels (Brooks and Burman, 2017; Burman and Brooks-Hay, 2020). When ISVAs exercised these more challenging elements of their role, however, it was less well received by officers. Some police participants expressed concerns about ISVAs ‘overstepping’ when they moved beyond emotional support, conventionally understood to be a feminine role, and began asking questions about investigative decisions and processes. Within these exchanges, gendered dynamics emerged with a sense from some police participants that the ISVA role should primarily be one of care rather than one of voice, challenge or decision-making. Imbalances of power between the police and ISVAs were also revealed through a sense from some officers that ISVAs work for the police, or at least in the interests of the investigation, rather than with the police and in the interests of the victim. This observation resonates with earlier work by Brooks and Burman (2017), but in the current study, further imbalances of power were described by ISVAs emanating from their independent non-statutory status and resulting in a sense that ISVAs were at the bottom of the hierarchy. This raises pressing questions about how these dynamics impact ISVAs’ ability to support survivors and influence change in policy and practice and what effect this has on individual workers and the organisations they work for. While many officers were supportive of the ISVA role, instances of police resistance to the ISVA remit not only limit the ability of ISVAs to provide effective support for victim-survivors but also contribute to burnout in an already challenging role.

Going forward, to ensure that these challenges do not sit on the shoulders of individual ISVAs, higher-level recognition of the value and status of the ISVA role is vitally important. For the beneficial outcomes of the ISVA role to be fully realised, the meaning and implications of ISVA independence also require careful and critical attention. Specifically, there is a need to recognise the value of ISVAs as independent from the criminal justice system rather than just independent of its processes. Conceptualising independence and advocacy at the level of systems rather than processes alone provides a foundation for the explicit acknowledgment that ISVAs are able, and have the right to, challenge police practices and wider criminal justice processes. While Zweig et al. (2021) referred to ‘natural tensions’ in multi-agency responses to sexual violence, these tensions may helpfully be reframed in this context as ‘productive tensions’ when victim-survivors are the beneficiaries. Without meaningful recognition of ISVA independence and their crucial role in institutional advocacy at a strategic level, there is a risk that the survivor-led feminist ethos that has underpinned the development of ISVA and advocate roles will be compromised, despite considerable evidence of ISVA commitment to upholding victim-survivor rights and resisting police practices that are detrimental to survivor interests.

Within the context of England and Wales, this recognition could be realised at three interrelated levels: (1) symbolic, (2) policy and (3) practice. Firstly, the title ‘independent sexual violence advocate’ rather than ‘advisor’ should be adopted to help embed understanding of the remit of ISVAs to advocate on behalf of victim-survivors. Secondly, the revised guidance on the ISVA role (MoJ, 2025) must be interpreted and implemented by the police and other criminal justice professionals in a way that enables a comprehensive understanding of what the independence of ISVAs means in practice; this should include appreciation of the contribution they can make to improving victim-survivor experiences through institutional advocacy at strategic and policy levels, rather than at the level of individual cases alone. Thirdly, the Police–ISVA Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) Framework devised by the authors to guide how the police and ISVAs work collaboratively should be adhered to. ³ Reflecting the findings within this paper, the MoU Framework explicitly acknowledges the independence of ISVAs, their remit to advocate on behalf of victim-survivors, and challenge police practice where appropriate.

Our recommendations are made within the context of contemporary developments in England and Wales though the insights developed by this article could be applied within research and policy relevant to other parts of the criminal justice system beyond policing and across other jurisdictions. Within Europe, recognition of victim rights, including access to victim support services, has gained traction with the adoption of the EU Victim's Directive in 2012 (Hall, 2020; Jubany et al., 2022). A wide range of victim support services now exist internationally though these services each have varied and evolving relationships with the criminal justice system and differing levels of independence from the state (Davies, 2020). There are ongoing concerns that changes to funding arrangements for these services will culminate in them moving from being activist driven to market or state driven (Hall, 2020), akin to concerns about services in the USA, resulting in their ability to push for change being compromised and their agendas ‘co-opted’ by the state (Bumiller, 2008). Ultimately, protecting and fostering a meaningful and explicit appreciation of the independence and feminist ethos underpinning ISVA and victim advocate roles, and the ‘productive tensions’ they bring to collaborative efforts with the criminal justice system, is vital in creating space for them to continue driving much-needed advancement of victim-survivor rights and interests within the criminal justice process.