This project was supported by Grant No. 2015-AK-BX-K003 and Grant No. 2017-AK-BX-0021 awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance. The Bureau of Justice Assistance is a component of the Department of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, the Office for Victims of Crime, and the SMART Office. Points of view or opinions in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Table of Contents
Abstract
Sexual assault continues to be a major criminal problem. A sexual assault kit is a tool available to criminal justice personnel to help respond to the problem of sexual assault. Unfortunately, it is come to light that many of these sexual assault kits were never submitted for testing. In response, the Bureau of Justice Assistance funded various grants nationwide, known as the Sexual Assault Kit Initiative, to not just pay to test all the backlogged kits but to create multidisciplinary teams to both improve the process and response to sexual assault and to provide research on this issue. The article reports on lessons learned from one of the SAKI sites. In particular, it provides a summary of a presentation given at the Gender-Based Violence Symposium at the University of Utah on April 16th, 2021 by the SAKI researcher for the Salt Lake County site.
Introduction
Sexual assault continues to be a major criminal problem. Of particular interest is the criminal justice response to this problem. Often one of the tools available to criminal justice personnel is a sexual assault kit. A sexual assault kit (SAK), or rape kit, includes valuable evidence in the form of DNA from a sexual assault victim that may be of use to analyzing and investigating a criminal case against an alleged offender (Pinchevsky, 2018). This kit potentially reveals DNA evidence that can be used to pursue the case in the criminal justice system. Biological and physical evidence are collected by a sexual assault nurse or forensic examiner from the victim. It is then the police department’s responsibility to submit that evidence for forensic DNA testing (Campbell, 2018). Once a kit is submitted, if there is eligible DNA present, that can be uploaded to a national database. The combined DNA index system, CODIS, established in 1994 through the DNA Identification Act, serves as an archive of DNA collected from persons with criminal connections. Once in CODIS, the eligible DNA then might link or “hit” to either a suspect already in CODIS or DNA in CODIS from another case (Pinchevsky, 2018).
In recent years, it has become clear that very often these sexual assault kits are never sent to the crime lab to be processed and thus the evidence that they might reveal is never determined. In fact, studies have estimated that there are over 200,000 backlogged kits in the United States, kits that were never sent to a crime lab for testing (Strom & Hickman, 2010). In an effort to deal with these unsubmitted kits and to research their impact, the Bureau of Justice Assistance funded various grants nationwide to process backlogged kits and create multidisciplinary teams to both improve the response to sexual assault that are research informed.
This project evaluated the Salt Lake County unsubmitted sexual assault kits. The overall goal was to evaluate the effectiveness of testing unsubmitted sexual assault kits in Salt Lake County, the impact sexual assault kits had on cases, the victims’ experiences with the process, the overall process, and policy and practice recommendations. The main questions answered include: 1) Examine factors, which caused unsubmitted kits to accumulate in Salt Lake County; 2) Examine how Salt Lake County implemented the SAKI grant, including the development of protocols, collaboration across organizations and agencies, and policy development; 3) Gather preliminary information about what is working and not working to address the issue of unsubmitted sexual assault kits in Salt Lake County; 4) Evaluate victims’ responses to cold case notification and victims’ experience with the criminal justice system; and 5) Examine the effectiveness of testing unsubmitted sexual assault kits in Salt Lake County. Using a database compiled from police case files on cases associated with each kit, CODIS hits, and court records; interviews and focus groups with key stakeholders and informants; participant observation; and surveys completed by victims of sexual assault and people notifying victims of the results of their kits, the above questions are answered. This brief article reports on lessons learned from this project.
Background
In 2014, a statewide sexual assault kit working group was created in Utah. A statewide survey of law enforcement agencies identified 2,700 unsubmitted sexual assault kits. The Utah State Legislature appropriated $750,000 to test previously unsubmitted kits. In 2015, the Department of Public Safety Crime Laboratory received $1.3 million in federal funding (DANY) to test unsubmitted sexual assault kits. The Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice (CCJJ) received $1.9 million in federal funding (BJA) to address cold case sexual assault cases stemming from the unsubmitted sexual kits and created the SAKI pilot project in Salt Lake County. In 2017, CCJJ received a further $2.2 million in federal funding to expand the project to all of Utah. Additionally, HB 200 passed requiring the testing of all future sexual assault kits.
The mission of SAKI was to:
- Provide a multi-disciplinary assessment of each cold case sexual assault to determine potential for prosecution
- Use forensics and data analysis to make case-to-case associations between different jurisdictions
- Increase support for victims and improve the systemic response to survivors of sexual assault
- Enhance prosecution rates of sexual assault
- Identify trends associated with sexual assault kit accumulation
- Increase transparency throughout the criminal justice process
- Provide data to assess potential policy changes relating to sexual assault kits
The process included putting together a SAKI team made up of a SAKI site coordinator, a SAKI victim advocate, and 2 SAKI investigators.
Numbers & Case File Database
In the end, 1,514 previously unsubmitted sexual assault kits were found in 11 agencies in Salt Lake County. As of September 2019 (when the grant ended), 1411 kits were tested (93.2%). Out of those 549 profiles (38.9%) were eligible to be uploaded and were uploaded into CODIS. Finally, there have been 204 CODIS hits (either offender/arrestee or forensic or case-to-case hits). Thus, 37.2% of these cases with eligible DNA were CODIS hits, or linked to a person or case already in the criminal system. Looking at the totality of previously unsubmitted sexual assault kits that have now been tested, there were CODIS hits in 14.5% of the overall cases. That means, nearly one-in-seven CODIS hits would not have occurred if these kits had not been tested. Additionally, it is expected that the number of CODIS hits will continue to rise overtime. Of the 204 CODIS hits, 82 (40.2%) are serial offenders. In Utah, this is defined as an offender who has been previously convicted of a sex offense. Finally, as of September 2019, 26 cases have been filed.
Compiled from data from 9 agencies, a case file database of 1,413 cases were developed, ultimately representing 94% of the overall unsubmitted sexual assault kits; the database suggests the following key findings regarding gender, violence, witnesses, and offender perception. The majority of the victims were white females with known offenders with offenses that took place in either their or the suspect’s residence. Alcohol and drug use was prevalent with almost a third of the victims being passed out for some of the assault and almost a quarter reporting taking drugs/alcohol unknowingly. Almost half of reports documented force, coercion, expressing that the behavior was unwanted, and/or fear. Other violence was present in almost one-quarter of the cases and injury, in addition to genital injuries, in almost one-third of the cases. Witnesses were present in almost half of the cases. Offenders who were known and interviewed were likely to say it was consensual. In terms of case progression at the original incident, over 65% of cases were closed at the time of the original incident. The reason given had something to do with the victim in almost 50% of cases. Cases were more likely to be closed in the largest jurisdiction, with older victims, and an unknown suspect. Thirty-five percent of cases ended up being screened with 44% of those ended up in a charge. This was more likely for known suspects, cases outside largest jurisdiction, younger victims, and non-white victims.
Victim Notification
Victim notification of the results of a sexual assault kit that has been tested is an important part of this process. The fact that these kits had not previously been tested (when perhaps victims had assumed they were at the time) is an added complication to the notification. Prior research has identified the time in between as a factor in how a victim reacts to a notification—i.e. if there is a longer time between the original sexual assault kit being collected and the notification, they are more likely to have a negative reaction (Campbell, Shaw, & Fehler-Cabral, 2018). Other research identifies best-practice for conducting victim notification. Overall, little research exists so far on victim notification. Victim notification is of particular import because a victim’s experience with notification may impact their willingness to further participate with the criminal justice system in this particular case and/or any future cases they may have.
The victim notification serves several purposes in Utah. First, many believe that it is the victims right to know about any potential results from DNA testing. Indeed, this is written directly into the Utah Victims Bill of Rights (Utah Code Section 77-37 & 77-38). Second, if there is chance of legal action, victims need to be notified in order to determine if they want to proceed. Thus, it is a very practical matter to notify the victims in an attempt re-engage them with the legal process. Finally, regardless of whether anything is going to happen legally, many of these victims are eligible for services including specific funds set aside for SAKI cases. Part of the objective of a notification is not just about this particular case, but about supporting the victim in general so if they need to utilize the criminal justice system in the future, they may be more willing to do so.
Given how difficult it is to anticipate how an individual victim may respond to notification and because of the wide range of emotions and reactions that a victim may experience when being notified about the results of their kit, victim notification protocols are encouraged to reduce re-traumatization in cold cases. In Utah, a 14-page victim notification protocol was created by a multi-disciplinary team (victim advocates, law enforcement, SANE nurses, prosecutors, and others) with the aim to serve as a victim-centered/trauma-informed resource for agencies to use as they began the victim notification process in these cold cases. This protocol covers the who, what, why, and when of how to do a victim notification and serves as a recommendation that agencies can utilize. The protocol was disseminated at various meetings and trainings as well as to individual agencies.
All parties involved in the victim notification process (law enforcement and victim advocates) were asked to complete a short survey after every notification they participated in. These surveys covered the notifiers’ perceptions of how the victims responded to the victim notification process, how they felt the notification went, and whether or not they were following the protocol. This information was used to gauge the victim advocates’ perceptions of victims’ reaction to the overall victim notification process as well as to determine if agencies are following the victim notification protocol (and how and why it varies). Victims were also given a survey. Unfortunately, only a small number of victims completed and returned the survey. Additionally, questions were asked about victim notification in relevant stakeholder interviews and focus groups.
Victim notification were conducted in a variety of ways including with just a police officer, just a victim advocate, or a combination of the two. Some were scheduled and others unscheduled. Finally, some were conducted in-person and others on the phone. Overall, the notifications in which a police officer was present (either alone or with an advocate), that were scheduled, and that occurred in-person, were the notifications that elicited the most positive emotional reactions. Additionally, the vast majority of the victims, as perceived by those doing the notification, got more positive throughout the notification regardless of whether they initially reacted positively or negatively.
Those doing the notifications were also able to answer more open-ended questions about what worked and what did not work in the notification. While these answers varied, several themes emerged. This included: what works (in-person notifications), what does not work (need more information for the notification), what needs to be done (more training), and that it is important to have victims’ voices.
Finally, the SAKI Victim Advocate was interviewed and a focus group with other victim advocates and one law enforcement representatives were conducted and covered, in part, victim notification. This data indicates that all have a knowledge of protocol and are using it to a certain degree. Highlighted was the fact that there was involvement from different agencies and disciplines in the development of the protocol, it is research-based, and that agencies received individualized training. However, some concerns with the protocol were raised. Law enforcement felt it is too restrictive. Victim advocates felt it is potentially traumatizing, it is too long to be used, and raised concerned with law enforcement not always utilizing the victim advocates fully. These concerns should be addressed moving forward but overall victim notifications seem to be going well and are an important part of the process.
Process
While various processes were implemented as a result of SAKI, case reviews were an important one. Case reviews are a multi-disciplinary review of information from each submitted sexual assault kit. The goals are six fold: 1) track SAKI & DANY performance measures; 2) identify trends associated with sexual assault kit accumulation; 3) use the date gathered to make case-to-case associations between different jurisdictions; 4) provide a multi-disciplinary assessment of each cold case sexual assault to determine each cases potential to be prosecuted; 5) establish guidelines for re-opening cold case sexual assault investigations and; 6) to provide data to assess potential policy changes related to sexual assault kits. The disciplines represented in the SAKI Salt Lake County case reviews included: law enforcement, SANE nurses, victim advocates, prosecutors, crime lab personnel, toxicology personnel, CCJJ and DPS staff including the SAKI site coordinator, the SAKI victim advocate, and SAKI investigators.
Law enforcement agencies decided which cases went to case review. Agencies chose to prioritize the cases by statute of limitation, potential for prosecution, community safety, victim safety, CODIS hit, and so on. Once an agency determined the cases they want to bring to a case review at a particular time, the SAKI team (SAKI site coordinator, SAKI victim advocate, and SAKI investigators) collected the police reports. Then they go over each report as a team, collect more potentially relevant information (victim/suspect location, suspect criminal history, and so on), highlight potential issues to raise in the case review, and provide case summaries for the entire group. Case reviews took place twice a month at the State of Utah Crime Lab conference room and lasted three hours. In the case review itself, the SAKI site coordinator served as facilitator. One person, usually a law enforcement representative, read or summarized the case being discussed. On average 8-10 cases were discussed in one case review, usually one agency at a time. The goal was to review all previously unsubmitted sexual assault kits now submitted in Salt Lake County; however, it was up to each agency whether they choose to bring all of their cases to case reviews. In the end, the amount of time required to review cases was more than anticipated. Thus, a total of 425 cases over the course of 33 case reviews were conducted in Salt Lake County.
Data for this report includes a brief survey taken by participants in the case review at the conclusion of each case review, field notes taken by a participant observer, and results from interviews with key stakeholders in the SAKI project. In all disciplines, respondents found case reviews overwhelming helpful. Additionally, respondents highlighted learning new information at the case review process and potentially changing their opinions or decisions about a case based on the case review recommendations. Importantly, both law enforcement and prosecutors were the most likely to indicate they would change a decision. Considering that law enforcement and prosecutors are the most likely of all the disciplines involved in a sexual assault kit investigation and prosecution to be making decisions regarding whether a case moves forward, this is a significant finding.
Respondents also had the opportunity to provide comments regarding the case reviews. Themes revolve around training, information learned, collaboration, and positive opinions of the case review process. The only more negative themes revolved around certain respondents not having the information they needed or concerns about efficiency of the case reviews.
Overall, all key stakeholders interviewed (law enforcement, victim advocates, SAKI team members, a Crime Lab representative, DA investigator) case reviews are a beneficial tool. Of all disciplines, the focus group with law enforcement revealed the most negative response to the case reviews. This centered around the structure of the case review rather than the actual review themselves. For example, some law enforcement thought it was not worthwhile to try and review all the cases, but rather to allow law enforcement to decide what cases to bring for review. This was ultimately the procedure that was followed.
Finally, the participant observation revealed that case reviews were positive with engaged and active participants. In 100% of the case reviews observed, new information was shared as observed by the researcher. Often this came from the SANE reports or information from the Crime Lab. Participants, while they may have access to this information, most likely would not have accessed it if they were not in the same room as the representatives from those disciplines. Significantly, the case review success is dependent on the individual facilitator. There needs to be prep work done prior to the case review. Issues that need to be raised during the meeting very often are identified prior. If this is not done, it is unclear if these issues would come up organically in the case review—some might and some might not. Lastly, one of the major benefits of the case reviews were the multiplicity of issues that were raised during case review discussions. For example, issues around training, the crime lab, toxicology, and victim accessing services were all brought up over the course of the case review process. These discussions have led to changes in policy and practice surrounding all of these topics. In the end, case reviews served an important role in training, collaboration, raising issues for policy and practice, and informing victim notification.
Lessons Learned
Overall, many lessons were learned from the Sexual Assault Kit Initiative in Salt Lake County. One of the most valuable is that there needs to be an expanded definition of “success”—moving beyond just whether there was a court case or not. One of the most important results is the testing of all the previously unsubmitted sexual assault kits. This not only redresses some of the wrongs that have been done to victims of sexual assault who went through the experience of getting a sexual assault kit done, assuming that it was tested, only to find out (or not) that it had not been tested, but it serves the important purpose of populating CODIS. CODIS is only as effective as it is populated—if the DNA of offenders and DNA found in cases is never entered into CODIS, it is not going to be useful. At the very least, this project resulted in adding additional DNA into CODIS. This will change the issue of sexual assault kits in Salt Lake County and the state of Utah enabling the identification of offenders both past, related to SAKI cases, but also into the present and future, as these offenders potentially commit new crimes—now they can be identified.
The collaboration between agencies and disciplines facilitated by SAKI was important in the response. This was a consistent theme in all the interviews and focus groups. The experience with the case reviews, SAKI meetings, and trainings enabled participants from all disciplines to learn about the role and functions of other disciplines. It allowed the parties to opportunity to interact with members of other disciplines and see their perspectives on the issue. Additionally, it allowed participants the opportunity to be trained and informed about all the disciplines. These collaborations should only improve the overall response to sexual assault in the years to come.
Regardless of any other outcomes of the SAKI grant, one of the major impacts is the training SAKI has provided. This worked in a number of ways. First, the training provided through the case reviews. Case reviews served, in part, as a training mechanism. As cold cases were examined in a case review, the participants would reflect on what would or should be done differently. Moreover, a training aspect of the case reviews was just hearing what other disciplines had to say. It quickly became clear that more training was needed on the crime lab, on toxicology, and so on. It became clear that all disciplines potentially needed this training, not just some. Additionally, highlighted outside the case reviews, was when the training done in-person around the county.
There is no doubt that SAKI highlighted the import of victims of sexual assault and positively created transparency and support for victims in the process. The tracking system created by the SAKI grant greatly increases the transparency in the process for victims and others dealing with sexual assault kits. A victim information line and victim treatment funds were made available as part of the SAKI project. This should have a long-term positive impact and improve, at least those who used or are aware of these services, perception of the system and its response to sexual assault.
While overall there are many successful pieces to sexual assault kits initiated by the SAKI grant, there were some concerns, challenges, and barriers. These included resources, the way the grant was structured, and the issue of sustainability. Resources were an issue related to almost every discipline. While money was mentioned, it is clear that the issue is beyond just funding. Law enforcement, SANE nursing, and prosecutors need more personnel. Thus, the issue raised was with staffing. While initially the problem of unsubmitted sexual assault kits was in part due to lack of resources including funding and personnel of the Crime Lab that barrier may just have moved. Now that the crime lab is funded and has increased their personnel, the other agencies/disciplines are dealing with an increased work load—more cases to investigate, increased reporting for SANE nurses to deal with, and more cases to prosecute. If these resources are not provided, a new barrier will be erected at a slightly later point in the process—i.e. investigation and prosecution.
All agencies need to have buy-in concerning sexual assault kits and their processing. Agencies that did not were less likely to participate and created a barrier. Moreover, some disciplines had less buy-in than others, perhaps as a result of the way the project was structured. Again, the import of collaboration was very clear, so this created an obstacle.
Related to buy-in is the issue of accountability. While protocols were developed and recommendations for proceeding came out of case reviews, these were always framed as recommendations. The SAKI team did not tell any other agencies what they had to do rather it was always a recommendation. It was clear that the recommendations were not always followed. There was not a clear method to hold agencies accountable for their responses.
Probably the biggest concern related to SAKI is sustainability. While many parts of SAKI were set up to be sustainable—the tracking system, training, and testing with HB200—there is no guarantee other parts—protocols, procedures, and so on—will continue once SAKI is over. Of particular concern is sustainability relating to investigation and prosecution as well as with the case review process. The issue of potential CODIS hits that occur on these SAKI cases in the future is one such concern. If concrete policy and procedures are not put into place to deal with these potential issues, potential cases may continue to fall through the cracks.
Overall, many points, both positive and negative should be taken out of this project. Hopefully, this project will have an important and positive impacts on the processing of sexual assault and, ultimately, the experience of victims moving forward.
Conclusions
The Sexual Assault Kit Initiative in Salt Lake County involved enormous investment, dedication, hard work, and collaboration among numerous agencies and disciplines. Its success needs to be measured by more than just case progression. While as of September 2019, only 1% of kits tested resulted in new charges (almost 13% if you only include cases where there was a CODIS hit), the impacts on training, on collaboration between agencies, on transparency, on victims, and potential future cases both from populating the CODIS database as well as from increased participation from potential victims all speak to the success of the SAKI project in Salt Lake County.
References
Campbell, R., Shaw, J., & Fehler-Cabral, G. Evaluation of a victim-centered, trauma-informed victim notification protocol for untested sexual assault kits (SAKs). Violence Against Women. 2018; 24 (4): 379-400.
Campbell, Rebecca. Why police “couldn’t or wouldn’t” submit sexual assault kits for forensic DNA testing: A focal concerns theory analysis of untested rape kits. Law & Society Review. 2018; 52 (1): 73-105.
Pinchevsky, G. M. Criminal justice considerations for un-submitted and untested sexual assault kits: A review of the literature and suggestions for moving forward. Criminal Justice Policy Review. 2018; 29 (9): 925-945.
Strom, K.J. & Hickman, M.J. Untested sexual assault kits: Searching for an empirical foundation to guide forensic case processing decisions. Criminology and Public Policy. 2010. 15(2): 593-601.
