Mapping Justice: A Conversation with Nela Kalpic on Transforming Victim Support Systems
In this exclusive interview with Victim Support Europe, Nela Kalpic—State Director for Marsy’s Law for Wisconsin and an internationally recognized advocate in victim-centered justice—shares insights into the groundbreaking Victim Rights Mapping Exercise. Drawing from her lived experience as an immigrant and survivor, Nela discusses the real-world challenges victims face and how mapping transforms abstract rights into tangible, enforceable support. With a career rooted in cross-sector collaboration and systemic innovation, she explains how this tool fosters accountability, clarity, and trauma-informed responses within justice systems. From military to community settings, her work has helped expose critical service gaps and inspire structural change. This conversation highlights her vision for a justice system that is truly responsive, inclusive, and grounded in the lived experiences of those it aims to serve.
Marina Kazakova, VSE: Can you briefly introduce the Victim Rights Mapping Exercise and explain how it transforms victim support within the justice system?
Nela Kalpic: The Victim Rights Mapping Exercise is a collaborative, scenario-based tool that visually maps how victims move through the justice system, from first contact to post-conviction. It is built around a mock case scenario designed to reflect real-life complexities, power dynamics, and service gaps. The exercise brings together a wide range of stakeholders—law enforcement, advocacy, legal professionals, and system actors—into the same room to examine how victim rights are upheld or missed across each phase of the process. The mapping is organized into specific stages of the criminal justice system, allowing participants to focus on particular rights implicated at each point, explore victim experiences unique to that stage, and identify where cross-sector collaboration is needed. This holistic and flexible framework has been adapted for various settings, including military, correctional, and community systems, making it a powerful tool for transforming how victim support is understood and delivered.
Marina Kazakova, VSE: What inspired you to develop this mapping framework, and what key challenges does it address?
Nela Kalpic: As an immigrant, a survivor, and someone whose first language is not English, I started thinking deeply about what it really means to have rights—and what it takes to access them in a way that’s meaningful. Without access, rights are just words on paper. The framework was born out of repeated stories from survivors who felt invisible or unsupported—especially after reporting. Many didn’t know their rights or who was responsible for upholding them. Mapping was developed to help bridge gaps in communication, coordination, and shared understanding between agencies—gaps that often leave victims without clarity or consistent support. It brings everyone to the same table to see the system as victims experience it.
Marina Kazakova, VSE: In your experience, what are the most common barriers victims face in accessing their rights and services?
Nela Kalpic: Barriers to accessing rights are often more complex and less visible than they appear. Beyond legal definitions, many victims face real-world obstacles like living in rural areas with limited services, lacking access to reliable internet or transportation, or not being spoken to in a trauma-informed or culturally responsive way. Others are not informed of what to expect, aren’t clearly told what their rights are, or don’t feel physically or emotionally safe within court or legal environments. These factors—often overlooked—can make meaningful engagement with the justice system extremely difficult, especially for those already navigating poverty, disability, language barriers, or prior system involvement. These challenges can be even more difficult for victims facing social, linguistic, geographic, or economic barriers—particularly when systems are not equipped to meet people where they are, communicate clearly, or provide consistent, accessible support. These challenges can be even more difficult for victims facing social, linguistic, geographic, or economic barriers—particularly when systems are not equipped to meet people where they are, communicate clearly, or provide consistent, accessible support.
Marina Kazakova, VSE: How can victim support professionals use mapping to streamline processes and improve enforcement of victims’ rights?
Nela Kalpic: Mapping gives professionals a shared framework to visualize their role in the broader system. It reveals overlaps, gaps, and missed opportunities in real time. Once those are identified, teams can co-design clearer protocols, simplify handoffs, and ensure rights are not just theoretical but actively upheld. It also helps professionals better understand the roles and responsibilities of other stakeholders, including the challenges they face, which in turn builds stronger collaboration and system-wide accountability. Often, stakeholders who participate in mapping have never been in the same room together—despite their work directly impacting one another. These exercises create space not just for strategy, but for conversation, relationship-building, and mutual recognition. The result is a shift from isolated action to shared commitment.
Nela Kalpic (Middle) presenting at the VSE Annual Conference 2025 in Lisbon, Portugal.
Marina Kazakova, VSE: Your session at the conference includes hands-on exercises—can you share a specific case study where mapping has successfully driven change?
Nela Kalpic: A tailored version of the mapping exercise was conducted in partnership with the Wisconsin National Guard to explore how military-affiliated victims of sexual violence navigate both military and civilian justice systems. The session traced the journey of a hypothetical service member through both processes, revealing complex jurisdictional overlaps, gaps in coordination, and missed opportunities for support. This mapping exercise was part of the National Guard’s broader efforts to strengthen victim response and has since been elevated in national discussions—currently being considered by the Department of Defense as a potential model for wider adoption.
More broadly, mapping has uncovered systemic gaps across a variety of justice settings. These include breakdowns in victim notification post-sentencing, lack of access to services in rural areas, and inconsistent support during transitions between agencies. In response, jurisdictions have implemented survivor notification protocols, improved interagency training, and strengthened policy clarity—resulting in better coordination, improved communication, and more consistent, trauma-informed practices that extend beyond the mapping exercise itself.
Marina Kazakova, VSE: How do you see this mapping exercise being adapted to different legal frameworks, such as those in Europe?
Nela Kalpic: The Victim Rights Mapping Exercise was intentionally designed to be adaptable across legal systems and institutional settings. It is grounded in a legally specific mock case scenario that can be modified to reflect different national procedures, legal frameworks, and cultural contexts. In Europe, mapping can support the implementation of EU Victims’ Rights Directives by illustrating how those rights are applied in practice—and where enforcement or coordination may fall short. The model has been successfully applied in military, correctional, and post-conviction settings. It brings stakeholders together in a structured environment to assess how rights are delivered, identify gaps, and strengthen collaboration. For jurisdictions considering adaptation, the exercise can be aligned with local terminology, systems, and institutional needs through guided facilitation and scenario development.
Marina Kazakova, VSE: Marsy’s Law for Wisconsin strengthens victims’ rights within the legal system. How has its implementation impacted victims and the justice process?
Nela Kalpic: Marsy’s Law added new rights to the state constitution and has increased both the visibility and enforceability of victims’ rights across all stages of the justice process. In practice, this has meant earlier victim notification, clearer access to information, and greater efforts to ensure victims are meaningfully informed and involved. It has also raised awareness about the full scope of victims’ rights and provided a stronger legal basis for their enforcement. Mapping exercises have played a key role by helping clarify which agencies are responsible for specific rights, improving procedures, and fostering collaboration among justice system stakeholders. This has helped ensure that constitutional rights are translated into practical, consistent support for victims.
Marina Kazakova, VSE: Victim Support Europe promotes the idea of a national framework for comprehensive victim support. What are your thoughts on this concept?
Nela Kalpic: A national framework can create consistency and clarity—especially for cross-agency collaboration and rural or underserved areas. The key is to embed flexibility and community voice within that structure. Mapping can support this by offering a participatory way to co-design such frameworks around real-world gaps and needs.
Marina Kazakova, VSE: What strategies do you find most effective in raising awareness about victims’ rights and the services available to them?
Nela Kalpic: The most effective strategies are those that combine storytelling with actionable pathways. Public awareness campaigns, survivor-led narratives, stakeholder training, and system walkthroughs have all made impact. Mapping, when used publicly or cross-sector, can also be a powerful education tool, bringing the abstract idea of rights into clear, relatable fo
