Perceived effectiveness and use of prevention and support measures for professional victimisation among Lithuanian police officers

Abstract

Professional (occupational) victimisation in policing—manifesting as external aggression from the public, internal harassment and bullying, and organisational/systemic forms of secondary victimisation—poses significant risks to officers’ well-being, perceived safety and organisational performance. Lithuania has developed a multi-layered prevention and support architecture that combines labour-law prohibitions of violence and harassment, occupational safety and health (OSH) duties to manage psychosocial risks, organisational procedures for reporting and case-handling, and statutory provisions for psychological, medical and rehabilitation support. However, empirical evidence remains limited regarding how police officers assess the practical effectiveness of these formally established measures and how often they are used. The purpose of this study is to evaluate police officers’ perceptions of the effectiveness of prevention and support measures aimed at addressing professional victimisation and to examine patterns of reporting, utilisation and perceived usefulness of available support. A cross-sectional quantitative research design was applied using an anonymous online survey of Lithuanian police officers (n = 137). Data were analysed with descriptive statistics and non-parametric tests (Mann–Whitney U) to compare evaluations of effectiveness between officers with and without victimisation experience, supplemented by qualitative content analysis of an open-ended question on additional prevention measures (n = 40). The findings indicate that professional victimisation is salient in officers’ occupational environment through both direct and indirect exposure, while victimisation experience is not significantly associated with key socio-demographic or occupational characteristics. Officers’ evaluations of formally established measures were moderate overall: none achieved high perceived effectiveness, and ratings did not differ significantly between those who had and had not experienced victimisation, suggesting a shared system-level assessment. Psychological support was evaluated most positively, whereas trust- and confidentiality-dependent mechanisms (e.g., confidential reporting pathways, peer/internal support arrangements and rehabilitation-related measures) received lower evaluations. Practice-related indicators revealed substantial underreporting and limited utilisation of support measures among victimised officers, and the perceived usefulness of received support was frequently difficult to assess. Qualitative proposals emphasised strengthening accountability for external aggression, ensuring genuinely anonymous internal reporting, reinforcing leadership accountability and organisational climate, and expanding continuous training. Overall, the results suggest that the principal challenge concerns the credibility, accessibility and consistent implementation of prevention and support mechanisms rather than their formal existence.