FINAL RESEARCH REPORT
Office on Violence Against Women
Award 2018-SI-AX-0001
EVALUATING A VICTIM NOTIFICATION PROTOCOL
FOR UNTESTED SEXUAL ASSAULT KITS (SAKs)
HOW DO SURVIVORS DEFINE JUSTICE YEARS AFTER AN ASSAULT?
Principal Investigator
Rebecca Campbell, Ph.D.
Professor of Psychology
Michigan State University
316 Physics Road
127C Psychology Building
East Lansing, MI 48824
Email: [email protected]
Phone: (517) 432-8390
Project Team
Katie Gregory, Ph.D.
Project Director
McKenzie Javorka, M.A.
Jasmine Engleton, M.A.
Rachael Goodman-Williams, Ph.D.
Kathryn Fishwick, M.A.
Research Associates
Award Recipient Organization
Michigan State University
Office of Sponsored Programs
426 Auditorium Road
East Lansing, MI 48824
Email: [email protected]
Phone: (517) 355-5040
Project Period
November 1, 2018 – July 31, 2022
Award Amount
$417,640
| 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT 2
SUMMARY OF THE PROJECT 6
Background and Literature Review 6
Major Goals and Objectives 14
Research Questions 15
Research Design, Methods, Analytical Techniques 16
Expected Applicability of the Research 25
PARTICIPANTS AND COLLABORATING ORGANIZATIONS 26
CHANGES IN APPROACH FROM ORIGINAL DESIGN 28
OUTCOMES 30
Activities/Accomplishments 30
Results and Findings 30
Limitations 72
Conclusions 75
ARTIFACTS 76
List of Products 76
Data Sets Generated 77
Dissemination Activities 77
REFERENCES 78
APPENDIX A: OPEN SCIENCE AND DATA ARCHIVING STUDY 83
APPENDIX B: IMPACT OF COVID-19 ON SEXUAL ASSAULT SERVICES STUDY 85
APPENDIX C: INFOGRAPHICS 88
| 3
ABSTRACT
Statement of the Problem:
After a sexual assault, victims are advised to have a medical forensic
exam, including the collection of a sexual assault kit (SAK) to preserve forensic evidence of the crime.
The SAK samples can be analyzed for DNA, which can help prosecute assailants and prevent future
assaults. However, police do not routinely submit SAKs for forensic DNA testing, and large stockpiles of
untested kits have been documented in over 41 jurisdictions. To address this growing national problem,
many cities are now testing all of their older rape kits, which raises complex issues for sexual assault
survivors as these traumatic events in their lives are revisited. Re-contacting survivors to inform them that
their SAK had not been tested and now will be/has been tested is referred to as ‘victim notification.’ In
jurisdictions throughout the U.S., Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)-funded victim advocates are
expected to help notify survivors that their SAKs have finally been tested and their legal cases might be
re-opened. Advocates need empirically-based recommendations for how best to serve this vulnerable
population, and this study addresses this gap by exploring how victim notifications can support survivors’
well-being and promote justice.
Subjects: We conducted qualitative interviews with N = 32 sexual assault survivors in Detroit, MI. All
participants had experienced a CODIS Hit Re-Engagement Victim Notification. Law enforcement
personnel employed by the county prosecutor’s office contacted survivors to inform them that their SAKs
had been finally been tested and the testing yielded a suspect DNA match in the FBI’s national criminal
database CODIS (Combined DNA Index System). All survivors agreed to re-engage with the criminal
legal system and participate in the investigation and prosecution of these cases. We also completed
qualitative interviews with N = 12 community-based advocates about their experiences providing
advocacy and support to these survivors throughout their notification and re-engagement experiences.
| 4
Partnerships:
This study was conducted as part of a long-standing researcher-practitioner partnership
with Avalon Healing Center (formerly Wayne County SAFE [Sexual Assault Forensic Examiners]), and the
Michigan Domestic & Sexual Violence Prevention & Treatment Board (a state-level policy and training
organization).
Research Design & Methods:
We used a qualitative transcendental phenomenological research
design that seeks to identify common features of a shared lived experience, which in this study was the
experience of a CODIS Hit Re-Engagement Victim Notification. We used semi-structured interviews to
document: 1) survivors’ CODIS Hit Re-Engagement Victim Notification experiences (Goal 1); 2) survivors’
decision-making processes regarding re-engagement with the criminal legal system (Goal 2); 3) survivors’
re-engagement experiences with the criminal legal system and the extent to which their court experiences
provided procedural, distributive, retributive, and/or restorative justice (Goal 3); and 4) survivors’
advocacy experiences from victim notification through criminal legal system re-engagement (Goal 4).
Analysis: We used Miles, Huberman, and Saldana’s (2020) analytic framework for qualitative data
analysis. In the first phase of analysis—data condensation—we organized the data, developed
preliminary themes, and prepared the data for more refined analyses. In the second phase—data
display—we organized comparisons and contrasts of the data. In the third phase—drawing and verifying
conclusions—we identified associations between themes and established the trustworthiness/validity of
the results. For Goal 1, we found that survivors had varied reactions to being notified that their SAK had
finally been tested and the testing yielded a CODIS hit (e.g., distress, anger, happiness). For Goal 2, we
learned that survivors considered multiple factors when deciding whether to re-engage with the criminal
legal system (e.g., wanting to protect public safety, seeking justice for themselves, protecting their own
safety and well-being). For Goal 3, we documented survivors’ case outcomes and court experiences. Of
the 32 survivors we interviewed, 31 had their cases resolved by guilty plea or a trial conviction and one
case ended as a trial acquittal. Survivors indicated that their court experiences did not necessarily provide
procedural, distributive, retributive, and/or restorative justice. For Goal 4, we found that survivors had
positive experiences with the advocates from the community-based sexual assault victim service agency.
| 5
Products, Reports, & Data Archiving:
We disseminated our results at multiple national conferences
and produced multiple peer-reviewed publications based on this research. We created a series of
infographics that summarize our primary findings. We have developed two archived data sets (a survivor
dataset and an advocate dataset).
| 6
SUMMARY OF THE PROJECT
Background and Literature Review
Sexual violence is a pervasive social problem (White House Council on Women & Girls, 2014), as
national epidemiological data indicate that 17-25% of women and 1-3% of men are raped in their lifetimes
(Black et al., 2011; Breiding et al., 2014).
1
When victims seek help after an assault, they are advised to
have a medical forensic exam (MFE) for assessment and treatment for injuries, testing and prophylaxis
for sexually transmitted infections (STIs), and evaluation for the risk of pregnancy and provision of
emergency contraception (Department of Justice [DOJ], 2013). The MFE can also include the collection
of a sexual assault kit (SAK; also known as a ‘rape kit’), which requires swabbing body orifices and
surfaces for semen, blood, saliva, and other trace evidence that can be analyzed for DNA (DOJ, 2013).
MFEs and SAK collection are often an invasive and psychologically re-traumatizing experience for victims
(Campbell, 2008), but one they endure in hope that the evidence will be used by police and prosecutors
to hold perpetrators accountable (Corrigan, 2013; Kaiser et al., 2017; Mulla, 2014;
Patterson & Campbell,
2010). However, a growing body of research indicates that law enforcement personnel do not routinely
submit rape kits for forensic DNA testing, and instead, they put untested SAKs in storage and close cases
with minimal to no investigation (see Campbell & Feeney, 2022 for a review). Large stockpiles of untested
SAKs (often termed ‘rape kit backlogs’) have been found in law enforcement property storage facilities
throughout the United States (Campbell & Feeney, 2022). Current estimates suggest there are 300,000 –
400,000 untested SAKs in the U.S. (Strom et al., 2021), which represent thousands of sexual assault
survivors who were neglected by the criminal legal system.
2
1
To clarify key terms used in this report, ‘rape’ refers to an act of sexual penetration committed by the use or threat of force, or
when an individual is unable to provide consent (e.g., incapacitation); ‘sexual assault’ refers to a broader range of non-consensual
contact and non-contact sexual offenses, up to and including rape (Fedina et al., 2016). Lifetime prevalence rates of sexual assault
are 45% for women and 22% for men (Black et al., 2011). The terms ‘victim’ and ‘survivor’ will be used interchangeably to convey
the both criminal nature of these assaults, and strength required to survive such violence.
2
The term ‘criminal justice system’ is more commonly used in U.S.-based research on violence and victimization, but a growing
number of scholars and activists have argued that this system does not provide justice for marginalized and minoritized
communities, but rather enacts and reinforces oppression (Kaba, 2021). Indeed, a large body of research supports that analysis as
‘justice’ is infrequent and fraught for sexual assault survivors who report their assaults (see Spohn, 2020 for a review). As such,
many scholars are adopting the term ‘criminal legal system,’ and this nomenclature will be used in this report.
| 7
In response to this national-scale problem, the federal government has increased funding for
DNA testing (e.g., the Debbie Smith Act & DNA Backlog Reduction Grants), established best practices for
SAK collection and testing (e.g., the Sexual Assault Forensic Evidence Registry Act), supported training
and technical assistance for communities with untested SAKs (e.g., the Bureau of Justice Assistance’s
Sexual Assault Kit Initiative), and supported survivors through Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)-
funded advocacy services (e.g., OVW’s Sexual Assault Services Program). To date, 28 states have
passed rape kit testing reform legislation to mandate timely testing of SAKs. These federal and state
initiatives have prompted cities throughout the U.S. to test all of their older rape kits and clear their
backlogs. However, testing previously-unsubmitted SAKs can raise complex issues for sexual assault
survivors. Emotionally, this is a painful reminder of the assault, and victims may be devastated when they
learn that their kits were never tested. Legally, victims could be expected to cooperate with police and
prosecutors if forensic DNA testing produces new investigative leads and the case is re-opened.
The process of re-contacting sexual assault survivors to inform them that a SAK had not been
tested and now will be/has been tested is referred to as ‘victim notification’ (Ahrens et al., 2020; Campbell
et al., 2015; Sulley et al., 2021). To date, there has been minimal research and evaluation to guide front-
line practices for victim notification, which is problematic given the widespread scope of untested SAKs in
the U.S. BJA’s Sexual Assault Kit Initiative has already identified 76 sites with large numbers of untested
rape kits, 28 of which are entire states. In jurisdictions throughout the United States, VAWA-funded victim
advocates are expected to help notify survivors that their SAKs have finally been tested and that their
legal cases might be re-opened. Advocates need empirically-based recommendations for how to serve
this population of survivors, and to that end, the purpose of this project was to partner with a community-
based sexual assault victim service agency that participates in their county’s victim notification task force
to evaluate how these notifications impacted survivors, how survivors decided whether to re-engage with
the legal system, and if so, how their investigation, prosecution, and advocacy experiences unfolded.
To set the stage for this research project, we will begin with a brief review of the process of
forensic DNA testing and how the results of that testing can affect victim notifications. When a SAK is
submitted for forensic testing and the samples therein are analyzed, there are three possible outcomes
(Table 1, next page, first column). First, there may not be sufficient biological material on the sample
| 8
swabs to develop a DNA profile of the offender (No DNA Present). Second, the samples in the kit may
yield a DNA profile eligible for upload into CODIS (Combined DNA Index System), the FBI’s national
criminal DNA database. When a DNA profile is entered into CODIS, it is compared to DNA reference
profiles collected from arrestees, convicted offenders, and/or crime scenes. Sometimes testing yields a
DNA profile, but there is no match to
an existing reference profile (DNA
Present, CODIS Upload, no CODIS
Hit). Third, SAK forensic testing could
yield a DNA profile eligible for CODIS
and that sample matches an existing
reference profile, termed a ‘CODIS hit”
(DNA Present, CODIS Upload, CODIS
Hit). CODIS hits provide promising
investigational leads by revealing the
possible identify of a suspect(s).
Furthermore, CODIS hits may link to other sexual assaults via DNA matches across cases (i.e., the same
DNA is found in multiple SAKs), thereby identifying a suspected serial sexual offender.
The DNA forensic testing results often affect what legal actions may be possible in a sexual
assault case (Table 1, second and third columns). Most states have statutes of limitations (SOL) laws that
impose time limits on prosecution, so depending on how long the SAK went untested, a case may no
longer be eligible for prosecution (SOL-Expired). However, some states do not have SOL laws and
others have DNA exemption laws to toll a statute, essentially pausing or restarting time limits if relevant
DNA evidence is later found (SOL-Unexpired) (National Center for Victims of Crime, 2013). Even if the
statute of limitations has expired in a case, if the DNA evidence matches to another crime that is still
within SOL, prosecutors may be able to present evidence of the prior crime (i.e., the SOL-expired sexual
assault case) in a current case, per 404(b) Federal Rules of Evidence (Federal Evidence Review, 2005).
As such, forensic DNA testing results need to be considered in conjunction with statutes of limitations to
determine whether future legal action is possible.
TABLE 1 — SAK Forensic Testing Outcomes
Statute of
Limitations
Expired
Statute of
Limitations
Unexpired
No DNA
Present
FYI Victim Notifications
DNA Present
CODIS Upload
No CODIS Hit
VICTIM NOTIFICATIONS
TYPICALLY NOT CONDUCTED
DNA Present
CODIS Upload
CODIS Hit
404(b) Participation
Victim Notifications
CODIS Hit
Re-Engagement
Victim Notifications
| 9
The cells in Table 1 reflect three main types of victim notifications, depending on the forensic
DNA testing results and possible legal action for the case.
3
When there is no DNA present, regardless of
the statute of limitations, prosecutors may be unable to pursue the case. If there will be active outreach
notifications in these situations, these ‘FYI Victim Notifications’ let survivors know that the kit was finally
tested but no legal action is likely. When DNA is present and a profile has been uploaded to CODIS, but
there is no hit (yet), it is unclear what legal action can be taken, so many communities do not conduct
active outreach notifications (SAKI, 2018). When a DNA profile has been uploaded to CODIS, and there
is a hit, but the case is beyond the statute of limitations, prosecutors may check whether the CODIS hit
links to another case still within the statute of limitations; if so, prosecutors may want to present the
CODIS hit as evidence, per 404(b) Federal Rules of Evidence. In these situations, survivors may be
notified to inform them that no action can be taken in their case and to ask them if they are willing to
testify in the trial, sentencing, or parole hearing for another survivor who was assaulted by the same
perpetrator (‘404(b) Participation Victim Notifications’). Finally, when a DNA profile produces a CODIS hit
and the case is still within the statute of limitations, survivors may be asked to participate in the re-
investigation and prosecution of their cases. These ‘CODIS Hit Re-Engagement Victim Notifications’ are
the most common type of active outreach victim notifications. Police and prosecutors tend to prioritize
these notifications because the cases are still within the statute of limitations and the DNA testing
provided information that may advance the investigation and prosecution of the case.
Given the priority of CODIS Hit Re-Engagement Victim Notifications for legal professionals, this
type of notification has been the focus in research on active outreach protocols. Only a handful of studies
have evaluated victim notification protocols as part of city-specific SAK testing initiatives, such as the NIJ-
funded SAK Action Research Projects in Detroit, MI and Houston, TX, and the BJA-funded Sexual
Assault Kit Initiative (SAKI) efforts in Cleveland, OH. No national-scale studies have been conducted,
though Ahrens et al. (2016), in collaboration with the Joyful Heart Foundation, interviewed survivors from
multiple cities that used different notification protocols. From this small literature, what do we know and
what do we still need to know about CODIS Hit Re-Engagement Victim Notifications?
3
In this project we focused exclusively on ‘active outreach’ victim notifications, whereby outreach is initiated by practitioners (e.g.,
police) to survivors with the express intent of providing information about a previously-untested SAK. Some communities also have
‘opt in’ protocols, whereby survivors can initiate contact (usually to a special hotline) for information (see Campbell et al., 2017).
| 10
In Detroit’s SAK Action Research Project (Campbell et al., 2015), CODIS Hit Re-Engagement
Victim Notifications were conducted in-person by detectives affiliated with the prosecutor’s office, not the
focal police department, given that most victims had negative experiences with the police during their
initial reporting process years ago. Confidential community-based advocates were on-call (but not
physically present) during the notification, and survivors were asked if they would like to talk more about
the testing results and possible legal action; if so, the advocate could come immediately to the survivor’s
home, the survivor and law enforcement staff could go to the victim service agency, or a follow-up
appointment could be scheduled for a later time. Campbell et al. (2018) were not permitted to conduct
post-notification interviews with survivors because these were potentially open legal cases, which was a
concern to the prosecutor’s office and the IRB of record. Therefore, Campbell et al. (2018) analyzed case
notes kept by the investigators and advocates about what happened in each notification. These proxy
data revealed that survivors had varied emotional reactions, including shock, anger, disbelief, and
happiness. Most survivors (89%) decided to have a follow-up conversation with the detectives and a
community-based advocate to learn more about the testing results and discuss possible next steps.
In Houston’s SAK Action Research Project, practitioners also focused exclusively on CODIS Hit
Re-Engagement Victim Notifications, but their protocol differed from Detroit’s approach in two ways: first,
in-person notifications were conducted by law enforcement associated with the focal police department,
and second, advocacy services were provided by a Justice Advocate, a specialized systems-based
advocate (not a confidential community-based advocate). To evaluate the protocol, Busch-Armendariz et
al. (2015) interviewed a small sample of survivors (N = 7) about their emotional reactions to the
notification and decision-making process regarding re-engagement. Survivors struggled with the “moral
dilemma” of whether to re-engage, as they were unsure how to balance their own needs with the desire to
hold perpetrators accountable and protect public safety (p. 4). The uncertainty of the case outcome and
the risks that re-engagement might pose to their physical and emotional safety weighed heavily upon
them. The more time that had elapsed since the assault, the more difficult this decision was for survivors.
In Cleveland’s SAKI project, CODIS Hit Re-Engagement Victim Notifications were typically
conducted by phone by legal personnel (police or prosecutors), and Regoeczi and Wright’s (2016)
evaluation of this protocol indicated that survivors were not immediately connected to either a community-
| 11
based or a systems-based advocate. Regoeczi and Wright (2016) interviewed N = 8 survivors whose
cases had pending indictments, which provided some insight into the latter stages of survivors’ re-
engagement with the criminal legal system. Survivors struggled with the decision to re-engage and many
felt pressured to participate in the prosecution of their cases. Further, many did not feel that legal
personnel attended to their safety and well-being. Indeed, when Regoeczi and Wright talked with systems
personnel as part of their evaluation, they noted that some survivors experienced significant mental
health distress, including substance abuse relapse and suicidality. Most survivors (5 of 8) were satisfied
with the legal outcome of their case, but the convictions and pleas came at steep costs to them, as they
felt their safety, well-being, and health were compromised.
The evaluations in Detroit, Houston, and Cleveland highlighted the risks survivors face if they re-
engage with the criminal legal system and the vital role advocates play in supporting survivors. Victim
notifications and re-engagement can be an empowering experience for survivors, but when not conducted
in a trauma-informed way, they may be distressing and dangerous. The survivors interviewed by Ahrens
and colleagues (2016) across multiple jurisdictions emphasized that notification protocols must respect
victims’ choice, agency, and safety, and that survivors need advocacy throughout the re-investigation and
prosecution process. Taken together, these studies underscore a key theme: victim notification is the
beginning of a long process of reopening the trauma of the assault and the trauma of engaging with the
criminal legal system. Therefore, we need a holistic view of this full process over time. Each of these
stages—victim notification experiences, decisions to re-engage, and re-engagement experiences—has
been studied in separate projects in different jurisdictions, so a key next step is to bring all these elements
together to evaluate the notification and re-engagement process from beginning to end. In so doing, we
can explore the extent to which survivors experience procedural justice (the perceived fairness of the
process and the manner in which victims are treated by criminal legal personnel), distributive justice (the
perceived fairness of the case outcome), retributive justice (the perceived fairness of the offenders’
punishment), and restorative justice (the extent to which court experiences contribute to survivors’ healing
and closure) (Tyler, 1988). Traditionally, the criminal legal system has centered distributive and
retributive justice, but researchers addressing gender-based violence have called for more survivor-
centered conceptualizations of justice that include procedural and restorative dimensions (Calton &
| 12
Cattaneo, 2014; Cattaneo & Goodman, 2010; Koss, White, & Lopez, 2017). In addition, because prior
evaluations have demonstrated the importance of advocacy services for survivors, advocates should be
included in research studies on SAK victim notifications. Interviewing both survivors and advocates about
the notification and re-engagement process could offer critical insights for practitioners and policy makers
on the needs of this client population and how victim service agencies should prepare their staff for
assisting these survivors.
To these ends, in this project we continued our collaborative partnership with the city of Detroit
and its community-based sexual assault victim service agency, Avalon Healing Center (formerly Wayne
County SAFE [Sexual Assault Forensic Examiners]). Our research team has been a collaborative partner
with this community since 2009 when approximately 11,000 untested SAKs were discovered in an off-site
police storage facility (see Campbell et al., 2015 for a review). With the support of federal funding from
OVW, NIJ, and BJA, as well as state, county, municipal, and foundation funding, all of these kits have
been submitted for forensic DNA testing. Testing results are reviewed on an on-going basis by the Wayne
County SAK Task Force, which is a multidisciplinary team of detectives, prosecutors, forensic scientists,
sexual assault forensic examiners, and community-based victim advocates. In 2019, at the ten-year
anniversary of the discovery of these kits, the Task Force reported that testing had yielded 4,512 CODIS
hits thus far.
4
Each of these cases was reviewed for statute of limitations restrictions, and all cases
eligible for possible re-investigation and prosecution were examined by the Task Force’s Victim
Notification Review Team to evaluate whether there should be active outreach notification to the survivor
(i.e., a CODIS Hit Re-Engagement Victim Notification).
5
After survivors were notified and cases were
adjudicated, our research team was permitted to conduct in-depth interviews with survivors and
advocates. Figure 1 (next page) summarizes the CODIS Hit Re-Engagement Victim Notification protocol
used in this jurisdiction, and how that process led to survivors’ decisions to re-engage and their criminal
legal system re-engagement experiences. The goals of the project are aligned with these processes and
are also depicted in Figure 1.
4
The review of testing results is ongoing and the final number of CODIS hits emanating from this testing is expected to change.
5
The Wayne County Sexual Assault Kit Task Force intends to evaluate the efficacy of 404(b) Participation Victim Notifications and
FYI Victim Notifications; however, the number of CODIS Hit Re-Engagement Victim Notifications was so high that these pilot
projects did not occur within the period of performance of this grant (see Changes in Approach from Original Design).
| 13
FIGURE 1 — Overview of Study Goals and the CODIS Hit Re-Engagement Notification Process
| 14
Major Goals and Objectives
GOAL 1:
To document survivors’ CODIS Hit Re-Engagement Victim Notification experiences.
Objective 1a:
To describe victims’ notification experiences and their recommendations for improving
CODIS Hit Re-Engagement Victim Notification protocols.
Objective 1b:
To describe the impact of CODIS Hit Re-Engagement Victim Notifications on
survivors’ emotional well-being.
GOAL 2:
To document survivors’ decision-making processes regarding re-engagement with the
criminal legal system.
Objective 2a:
To describe survivors’ reasons for re-engaging with the criminal legal system.
Objective 2b:
To describe survivors’ concerns about re-engaging with the criminal legal system.
GOAL 3:
To document survivors’ re-engagement experiences with the criminal legal system
and the extent to which their court experiences provided procedural, distributive,
retributive, and restorative justice.
Objective 3a:
To describe the re-engagement experiences of survivors who participated in plea
agreements.
Objective 3b:
To describe the re-engagement experiences of survivors who participated in trials.
GOAL 4:
To document survivors’ advocacy experiences from victim notification through
criminal legal system re-engagement
Objective 4:
To describe advocacy services received/provided and how advocates tailored
services to address the unique needs of this client population
| 15
In addition to these four primary goals, we had two emergent goals that were not part of the
proposed study. In Appendix A, we present Goal 5: To explore ethical and practical issues in archiving
data on sensitive topics. DOJ research and evaluation grants require grantees to archive data in Inter-
University Consortium for Political and Social Research’s (ICPSR) National Archive of Criminal Justice
Data (NACJD) for use by other researchers. There are no established research protocols for explaining
data sharing mandates in trauma studies, so we developed a provisional protocol informed by the
growing literature on trauma-informed research methods, which emphasizes empowering participants,
recognizing their strengths and autonomy, giving them control in all aspects of the study, and creating a
safe environment of mutual trust and collaboration (Becker-Blease & Freyd, 2006; Campbell et al., 2019;
Clark & Walker, 2011; DePrince & Freyd, 2006; Newman et al., 2006). We evaluated this protocol by
asking survivors at the end of their interview to discuss their views on data sharing (see Appendix A).
In Appendix B, we present Goal 6: To understand how COVID-19 impacted victim services
agency services. We had completed our research interviews with sexual assault survivors before the
COVID-19 pandemic began, and we were beginning the advocate interviews when our state’s governor
instituted a state-wide shelter-in-place order to curb the spread of the virus. During this shut-down,
Detroit’s sexual assault victim service agency remained open to serve survivors, and we studied how this
agency adapted services during the COVID-19 pandemic (see Appendix B)
Research Questions
QUESTION 1:
How were CODIS Hit Re-Engagement Victim Notifications conducted in this
jurisdiction and how did they impact survivors’ emotional well-being?
QUESTION 2:
How did survivors decide whether to re-engage with the criminal legal system after a
CODIS Hit Re-Engagement Victim Notification?
QUESTION 3:
How did survivors’ re-engagement experiences with the criminal legal system unfold
and to what extent did they experience procedural, distributive, retributive, and
restorative justice?
QUESTION 4:
How did advocates support survivors from victim notification through criminal legal
system re-engagement?
| 16
Research Design, Methods, Analytical Techniques
Research Design
We used a qualitative transcendental phenomenological research design, which seeks to
describe “the common meaning for several individuals of their lived experiences of a concept or a
phenomenon” (Creswell & Poth, 2018, p. 75). This is an appropriate design when research participants
have a common experience—in this study, CODIS Hit Re-Engagement Victim Notifications—and the goal
is to identify commonalities across cases as well as uniqueness that highlights the range and variability of
participants’ encounters. In this design, qualitative unstructured or semi-structured interviews are
conducted with participants who have experienced the phenomenon of interest, and then the researchers
analyze and reduce data to “significant statements or quotes and combine these statements into themes”
to produce a textural description of these experiences (Creswell & Poth, 2018. p. 78).
Methods: Survivor Interviews
Survivor Recruitment Methods. Sexual assault survivors were eligible to participate in this
study if: 1) they were currently aged 18 or older; 2) they had been sexually assaulted in Detroit, MI, had a
SAK collected and reported to police, but police did not initially submit their kit for DNA testing; 3) their
previously-unsubmitted SAK was discovered in this city’s backlog and was finally submitted for testing,
and based on the testing results, they had been selected for a CODIS Hit Re-Engagement Victim
Notification; 4) their legal case had been re-opened and prosecuted; and 5) their case had been
adjudicated and closed (by guilty plea bargain or trial). Over 20 months of recruitment, 112 survivors met
the study’s eligibility criteria.
The community-based sexual assault victim service agency that participated in these CODIS Hit
Re-Engagement Victim Notifications could not share the names and contact information of eligible
survivors with the research team, per their agency’s confidentiality policies and the policies of their
funders (VAWA/VOCA). Therefore, we developed a recruitment protocol so that agency advocates could
contact eligible survivors and ask whether they would be interested in participating in a research
interview. The protocol specified: 1) how advocates could reach out to survivors, based on their preferred
modality during their court case; 2) how often advocates would attempt to contact a survivor, which was
| 17
typically up to four times over the course of two weeks, followed by a two week break, then two final
contacts; 3) what advocates should say in voice mail messages (if survivors had given permission for
messages to be left); 4) how advocates should explain the purpose of the project, the expected time
commitment, and compensation; and 5) how to schedule the interviews. The research team and
advocates conducted mock recruitment calls to practice the scripts, and we had weekly check-in meetings
with the agency to ensure fidelity to the protocol.
Advocates were candid that it may be challenging to reconnect with eligible survivors, as many
had been hard to find during their court cases (e.g., inconsistent phone access, disconnected phones,
repeated address changes, voice mail messages not returned) and some had had negative experiences
in their court cases (e.g., not guilty trial verdicts). Indeed, of the 112 eligible survivors, the advocates were
unable to reach 68 survivors (61% of eligible survivors) and were able to connect with 44 survivors (39%
of eligible survivors). There was a significant difference between the survivors who were and were not
reachable based on their court case outcome (guilty plea bargain, trial acquit, trial convict), such that the
cases that ended in trial acquittal (i.e., not guilty verdict) were significantly more likely to be unreachable
(χ
2
[2, N = 112] = 7.85, p<.05). Of the 44 survivors who could be reached by an advocate, N = 32 agreed
to participate (73% of eligible and reachable participants; 29% of all eligible cases). There was no
significant difference in study participation as a function of case outcome (χ
2
[2, N = 44] = 1.86, ns).
Survivor Interview Procedures. The interviews were conducted by advanced Ph.D. students
who completed our university’s IRB training plus additional training on trauma-informed interviewing and
topics relevant for this study’s population (e.g., history of the city’s rape kit backlog, the police
department’s history of systemic racism). During training, the interviewers conducted mock interviews with
each other, the project’s principal investigator, and the agency advocates for developmental feedback.
The survivor interviews were conducted either in-person at the community-based sexual assault
victim service agency or by phone, based on each participant’s preference. During the informed consent
process, the interviewers described common provisions (e.g., the right to terminate the interview, the right
to decline to answer questions) and our funder’s mandate that we share de-identified transcripts in a
national data archive so other researchers could have access to the data (see Appendix A). Participants
were asked if they had any questions about the consent process or archiving requirement and their
| 18
concerns were addressed before they provided consent. Per the recommendations of our partner agency,
participants received payment ($50) prior to the start of the interview to affirm our commitment that they
would receive financial compensation for their time and to avoid what could feel like a cold, transactional
exchange at the end of the interview after so much sensitive information had been shared. For phone
interviews, we explained that money would be sent via Western Union immediately and that the research
team would cover the fees associated with that method of payment so that all participants received the
same compensation. All participants were offered a copy of our partner agency’s community resources
brochure. Advocates from our partner agency were available to support survivors if they were distressed
during or after an interview, but this resource was not needed by any of the participants.
Survivors were asked if they would consent to audio recording, and all agreed. The interviews
lasted on average 80 minutes (SD = 29 minutes), with a range of 36 to 171 minutes. The audio files were
transcribed verbatim and each interviewer was responsible for reviewing the transcript for accuracy.
Transcripts were reviewed weekly by the research team for interviewing feedback and discussion of
emerging themes. All procedures were approved by the IRB of Michigan State University.
Survivor Interview Measures. We developed a semi-structured qualitative interview protocol to
explore survivors’ experiences with CODIS Hit Re-Engagement Victim Notifications and their subsequent
court cases. Table 2 summarizes the 10 primary topics in this interview.
TABLE 2 — Survivor Interview Topics and Sample Questions
TOPICS SAMPLE QUESTIONS
(1)
Introduction to the interview and participants’
reasons for participating in
the study
“How did you hear about the study?”
“Why did you decide to participate?”
(2)
Background about the assault
“I understand that you have had to tell this story many times and
these questions are just to get background and context of the
assault. You can share as much as you feel comfortable with. Will
you tell me about what happened in the assault?”
(3)
Immedi
ate post-assault disclosure
experiences
“Who did you tell about the assault?”
“How did they react? What did they say or do that was supportive?
Not supportive?”
(4)
V
ictim notification experiences
“Can you take me through what happened when you were first
contacted about your kit being tested?”
“How did you feel when they explained your sexual assault kit had
not previously been tested?”
| 19
TABLE 2 (continued)
TOPICS SAMPLE QUESTIONS
(5)
Decision making process
of whether to re-
engage with the
criminal legal system after
victim notification
“What factors helped you to decide to re-engage in the
investigation and prosecution?”
“What were your concerns about participating? How were those
concerns addressed?”
(6)
Criminal legal system re
-engagement
experiences
“What happened during the re-investigation of your case?”
“What was it like for you to participate in the prosecution?”
“How do you feel about the outcome of your case?”
“What has helped you to heal?”
(7)
Advocacy experiences
“How were you treated by your advocate?”
“What did they say or do that was supportive? Not supportive?”
“Was there anything you needed from your advocate that you didn’t
get? If so, what was it?”
(8)
Recommendations for
improving victim
notifications and advocacy services
“How would you improve the notification process for other survivors
whose cases are being re-investigated because their kit was finally
tested?”
(9)
D
emographics
[Open-ended demographic questions inquiring about participants’
gender, race, age, and educational background]
(10)
Closing the interview
and data archiving “What has it been like to talk about this experience with me?”
“How can we improve the interview?
“What do you think about the requirement that researchers share
copies of their anonymous transcript with their funder and with
other researchers?”
Methods: Advocate Interviews
Advocate Recruitment Methods. Advocates were eligible to participate in this study if: 1) they
were currently employed by our partner sexual assault victim service agency; and 2) they had participated
in at least one CODIS Hit Re-Engagement Victim Notification with this county’s SAK task force and had
provided advocacy services to at least one notified survivor. The research team worked with the
Executive Director and Advocacy Director to obtain a list of advocates who met these eligibility criteria: N
= 14, which at the time of data collection was the agency’s full population of advocacy staff. The research
team sent an email to all eligible advocates to explain the study and invite them to participate. Of the 14
eligible advocates, N = 12 agreed to participate and completed an interview.
| 20
Advocate Interview Procedures. The interviews were conducted by advanced Ph.D. students
who completed our university’s IRB training plus additional training on trauma-informed interviewing and
topics relevant for this study’s population (see above). Interviews were conducted via Zoom, and
participants could choose whether to have their video on or off during the interview. No video recording
was captured during the interviews, but with permission of the participants, audio was recorded using
Camtasia. Interviewers obtained informed consent at the beginning of each interview; no incentive was
provided to participants, but the agency allowed advocates to complete the interviews during their regular
working hours. Interviews lasted between 23 and 114 minutes (M = 67, SD = 23). The audio files were
transcribed verbatim, and each interviewer was responsible for reviewing the transcript for accuracy.
Transcripts were reviewed weekly by the research team for interviewing feedback and discussion of
emerging themes. All procedures were approved by the IRB of Michigan State University.
Advocate Interview Measures. We developed a semi-structured qualitative interview protocol to
explore advocates’ experiences conducting CODIS Hit Re-Engagement Victim Notifications and providing
advocacy services to notified survivors. Table 3 summarizes the five primary topics in this interview.
TABLE 3 — Advocate Interview Topics and Sample Questions
TOPICS SAMPLE QUESTIONS
(1)
Experiences participating in victim
notifications and providing advocacy s
ervices
“What role did you have in the notification process?”
“Can you tell me about the services that you would provide when
working with a survivor who had an untested SAK?”
(2)
Perceptions of survivors’ experiences with
victim notification and re
-engagement
“What are your perceptions of what it has been like for survivors to
go through the notification/reinvestigation/prosecution process?”
(3)
Reflections on how advocacy services may
differ for backlogged cases relative to current
cases
“What emotional, physical, logistical, or economic needs, if any,
have been unique to survivors going through notification,
investigation, and prosecution related to a previously untested
SAK?”
(4)
Preparation for participating in victim
notifications and providing advo
cacy services
“What helped you prepare to provide advocacy services to
survivors with previously untested SAKs?”
(5)
Recommendations for preparing for
victim
notifications and providing advocacy
services
“Based on your experience providing this type of advocacy, what
advice would you give to an organization that is just starting to work
with survivors who had previously untested SAKs?”
“What training, support, or professional development do you think it
is important for advocacy organizations to provide to advocates
who work with survivors whose SAKs were untested?”
| 21
Data Analysis Techniques
We used Miles et al.’s (2020) analytic framework, which is a rigorous, pragmatic approach for the
analysis of qualitative narrative data. This framework outlines a three-phase process for identifying and
verifying patterns within and across cases. The first phase—data condensation—is a “process of
selecting, focusing, simplifying, abstracting, and/or transforming the data” (Miles et al., 2020, p. 8). This
phase includes coding, writing summaries, generating categories and themes, and writing analytic
memos. We used Atlas.ti (version 8) to complete these tasks. We began by grouping all text pertaining to
each of our four focal topics. Next, we created descriptive codes, which are inductive codes that briefly
summarize the basic content of a data passage (e.g., “concerned about retaliation from offender), and
pattern codes, which are “inferential or explanatory codes . . . that identify a ‘bigger picture’ configuration”
(Miles et al., 2020, p. 79). In other words, descriptive codes summarize the data itself, whereas pattern
codes are one level removed from the data and are created by categorizing and summarizing the
descriptive codes (e.g., pattern code “concerns about re-engaging due to emotional and physical safety
risks” summarized the following descriptive codes: “concerned about retaliation from offender,”
“concerned about retaliation from offender’s family or other people in the court,” and “concerned about
PTSD symptoms returning”). One-third of the transcripts were double coded until the coders reached
consistent coding processes. Thereafter, coders worked independently, met to review and resolve coding
differences, and wrote theme summaries and memos documenting coding processes.
In the second phase—data display—data are organized and compared in different displays that
“allows for analytic reflection and action” (Miles et al., 2020, p. 9). In this stage, we began to partition the
data, which helps analysts “see differences that might otherwise be blurred or buried” by separating and
comparing text as a function of key contextual variables, such as legal case outcome (plea bargain vs.
trial) and assailant characteristics (suspected serial sexual offender; Miles et al., 2020, p. 281). For
example, we examined survivors’ reasons for re-engaging with the criminal legal system separately based
on whether they had been told that their offender was a suspected serial sex offender. We created
matrices, graphics, and case summaries (for the overall sample and within partitions) to identify
underlying patterns in the data. The analysts met regularly to compare their work and reconcile
differences.
| 22
The third phase—drawing and verifying conclusions—involves “generating meaning from the
data [and] testing or confirming findings (Miles et al., 2020, p. 273). The primary analysts worked together
to identify themes in the data, and then we engaged in a group process to review preliminary conclusions
for their evidentiary adequacy (e.g., sufficient quantity of evidence, sufficient clarity of evidence, presence
of disconfirming cases). Themes were revised or eliminated based on their evidentiary adequacy until a
set of well-warranted themes remained, similar to Glaser’s constant comparison process (Glaser, 2007;
Glaser & Strauss, 1967). To verify our findings and conclusions, we drew upon the standards outlined by
Lincoln and Guba (1985) for establishing the validity of qualitative research:
Credibility =
Confidence in the truth of the findings
Transferabilty =
The findings have applicability in other contexts
Dependability =
The findings are consistent and could be repeated
Confirmability =
The finding are shaped by the participants and not the researcher’s bias
In Table 4 (following pages), we define each of these standards (and sub-criteria, as appropriate) and
describe how we met these standards in this project.
| 23
TABLE 4 — Validity (Trustworthiness) Assessments, Using Lincoln & Guba’s (1985) Standards
STANDARD: CREDIBILITY
Sub-Criteria Definition How Standard Was Met In This Project
Prolonged
Engagement
Spending sufficient time in the field to learn the culture,
setting, and phenomenon of interest. Spending
considerable time observing various aspects of the setting,
talking with people at all levels of each organizations, and
developing relationships and rapport with setting members.
This study is a continuation of a 12-year collaboration between the project PI, the
Wayne County SAK Task Force, and Avalon Healing Center. The PI has spent
considerable time working with multidisciplinary professionals in this community to
understand the root causes of their rape kit backlog and to identify empirically-based
solutions for SAK testing, victim notification, and professional training.
Persistent
Observation
Spending sufficient time observing the specific
characteristics and elements that are most relevant to the
problem being studied.
Throughout this study, the project PI attended the Wayne County SAK Task Force
Victim Notification Review Meetings, which is a standing meeting whereby the
county’s multidisciplinary practitioners review SAK testing results, decide which cases
will be selected for notification, and debrief on recent completed victim notifications.
Triangulation Collecting multiple data sources to ensure the research is
detailed, comprehensive, and well-developed. Triangulation
of sources refers to checking consistency of data sources
within same method. Analyst triangulation refers to using
multiple observers, coders, and analysts to check on
selective perception, “blind spots,” and bias.
Analyses compared and contrasted the extent to which our two primary sources—
survivors and advocates—provided converging perspectives (source triangulation).
Analyses were performed by multiple coders who compared and contrasted their
coding and analysis decisions. The analyses were reviewed multiple times by the full
research team (analysis triangulation).
Peer Debriefing Working with disinterested peers to test/defend the
emergent hypotheses and to help illuminate implicit
assumptions.
Protecting the privacy and confidentiality of the survivors who participated in this
study was a paramount concern, so discussing work in progress with a truly
disinterested party would have been inadvisable. The full research team discussed
work in progress and reviewed coding and analysis notes on a regular basis.
Negative Case
Analysis
Searching for evidence within the data that do not support
emerging patterns or interpretations. Helps revise, confirm,
broaden patterns/findings in the data.
The analysts assessed the evidentiary adequacy/inadequacy of the content themes,
which includes searching for disconfirming evidence (and then revising the content
themes accordingly).
Member Checks Sharing preliminary findings with participants to explore the
extent to which the researchers’ interpretations resonate
with their understanding of the issues.
A draft final report was shared with the staff of the Avalon Healing Center. Advocates
indicated that the findings reflected their lived experiences and the experiences of
their survivor clients. None of the findings were contested. Staff had no substantive
edits or corrections to the report.
| 24
TABLE 4 (continued)
STANDARD: TRANSFERABILITY
Definition How Standard Was Met In This Project
The researcher needs to provide the readers/audience with sufficient detail about
what happened in the setting/context of interest so that they can make informed
assessment as to whether conclusions that can be drawn are transferable to other
settings, situations, etc.
The PI kept field notes throughout the project, including thick descriptions of the
observed Wayne County SAK Task Force Victim Notification Review Meetings. The
details of the notification protocol are included in this report and previous publications
(Campbell et al., 2017).
STANDARD: DEPENDABILITY
Definition How Standard Was Met In This Project
The researcher needs to articulate the methods in sufficient detail so that the
process by which findings were created is clear, transparent, and reproducible. To
that end, the researcher must keep an audit trail, which includes: data collection
procedures, coding procedures, analyses, revisions, member checks, etc.
The research team maintained an audit trail throughout the project, tracking all data
collection methods, coding processes, coding decisions, analysis drafts, analysis
revisions, and member check feedback.
STANDARD: CONFIRMABILITY
Definition
How Standard Was Met In This Project
The researcher needs to examine how his/her own identity, life experiences, social
location, biases, and perspectives may have shaped the process of the research
and the resulting findings. Other strategies for assuring confirmability include:
keeping an audit trail (see above) and conducting triangulation assessments (see
above).
The PI kept field notes throughout the project, which included reflexive memoing. In
peer debriefing with other members of the research team, we regularly
questioned/challenged each other’s perspectives. We also kept an audit trail (see
above) and conducted extensive triangulation assessments (see above) to ensure
that the findings did not reflect the biases of the research team.
| 25
Expected Applicability of the Research
This project is the most comprehensive study to date on CODIS Hit Re-Engagement Victim
Notifications, which are the most common type of active outreach notifications. Jurisdictions with large
numbers of untested SAKs often prioritize these cases because the forensic DNA testing results provided
potentially actionable information for police and prosecutors (i.e., a CODIS hit). These cases may be at
risk for expiring statute of limitations, so there is urgency to notify victims and assess their willingness to
re-engage with the criminal legal system. This study provides guidance for notification teams and
advocacy professionals regarding the needs and concerns of sexual assault survivors who may be asked
to participate in the re-opening and prosecution of their cases. The notification protocol used in this
community includes common features typical across many jurisdictions (e.g., in person notifications,
partnerships with community-based victim service agencies), which enhances the generalizability of this
study’s findings. The scope of this study was limited to CODIS Hit Re-Engagement Victim Notifications,
and it is unknown if the recommendations stemming from this project would apply in FYI Victim
Notifications and 404(b) Participation Victim Notifications.
| 26
PARTICIPANTS & COLLABORATING ORGANIZATIONS
Sexual Assault Survivor Participants
We interviewed N = 32 sexual assault survivors who had CODIS Hit Re-Engagement Victim
Notifications. All participants identified as women, and their current ages ranged from 25 years old to 60
years old, with a median age of 41 years old. Most participants identified as African American/Black (n =
28; 87.5%), with the remaining four participants identifying as white (n = 3; 9.4%) or Multiracial (n = 1;
3.1%). The survivors in this study had been sexually assaulted on average 18.4 years ago (range 6 years
to 28 years). Most survivors were sexually assaulted by a stranger (n = 23, 72%; n = 9, 28% were
assaulted by someone known to them, such as a friend, partner, or ex-partner). Seven survivors (22%)
were raped by multiple assailants and n = 25 (78%) were assaulted by one perpetrator. Eleven survivors
(34%) were abducted by the assailant and n = 18 (56%) were threatened or harmed with a weapon.
Community-Based Advocate Participants
We interviewed N = 12 sexual assault advocates, all of whom had provided advocacy services to
at least one sexual assault survivor who had a CODIS Hit Re-Engagement Victim Notification. The
advocate sample was comprised of nearly all women (92%), and almost half (46%) identified as
Black/African American. Participants ranged in age, with a large proportion (38%) being between 25 and
34 years old, and were highly educated, as most (62%) held a master’s degree.
Collaborating Organization
Our collaborative partner in this project was Avalon Healing Center (formerly Wayne County
SAFE [Sexual Assault Forensic Examiners]). Avalon Healing Center provides sexual assault advocacy,
crisis intervention, medical forensic healthcare, individual and group counseling, expert witness
testimony, and training, education, and outreach services. The Center is funded by private donations and
multiple grants, including VOCA/VAWA, so all services are confidential. The organization employs 19 staff
members and in 2020, they served approximately 1,400 clients.
| 27
Avalon Healing Center has been a core partner in Detroit’s effort to resolve their untested SAKs
since 2009 when approximately 11,000 rape kits were discovered in a remote police property storage
facility. Avalon Healing Center was a partner in The 400 Project, a pilot study funded by OVW to test 400
SAKs and created initial victim notification protocols.
6
The 400 Project highlighted the need for
developing empirically-based testing and victim notification protocols, which were developed in the NIJ-
funded Detroit SAK Action Research Project. Avalon Healing Center was a partner in that project as well.
At the conclusion of that project in 2015, the county prosecutor established the Wayne County Sexual
Assault Kit Task Force with funding from BJA’s Sexual Assault Kit Initiative to support testing,
investigation, prosecution, and victim advocacy. Avalon Healing Center is a member of the Wayne
County Sexual Assault Kit Task Force, and their advocates are members of the Victim Notification Review
Team, which reviews DNA forensic testing results, decides which victims should be notified, and conducts
active outreach notifications.
The PI of this current study (Campbell) has worked with the Detroit community and the Avalon
Healing Center since the discovery of the untested kits in 2009. We have established a strong track-
record of collaborative practice, including co-dissemination of our findings and our research-practitioner
partnership model (see Campbell, Abdelnor, Cain, Hurst, & Kanitra, 2014; Campbell & Cain, 2014;
Campbell & Hurst, 2016; Campbell, Shaw, Feeney, & Cain, 2021; Feeney, Campbell, & Cain, 2018;
Shaw, Campbell & Cain, 2016; Shaw, Campbell, Cain, & Feeney, 2017).
6
The 400 Project was supported by OVW grants 2009-EF-S6-0053 and 2010-KF-AX-003.
| 28
CHANGES IN APPROACH FROM ORIGINAL DESIGN
Types of Victims Notifications Studied
We originally proposed to interview survivors who had CODIS Hit Re-Engagement Victim
Notifications as well as survivors who had FYI Victim Notifications and 404(b) Participation Victim
Notifications (i.e., a three-group design). As Detroit SAKs were submitted for forensic DNA testing, the
number of CODIS eligible profiles and CODIS hits emanating from that testing was substantial. The
Wayne County SAK Task Force decided to prioritize cases with CODIS hits, as many of the identified
offenders were suspected serial sexual offenders and many cases were at risk for expiring statute of
limitations. During the period of performance for this grant, the Wayne County SAK Task Force focused
on CODIS Hit Re-Engagement Notifications.
The research team asked the Wayne County SAK Task Force to consider whether some FYI
Victim Notifications could be conducted during this project’s period of performance. The Task Force
agreed to review a sample of “No DNA” lab reports, which could become FYI Victim Notifications.
However, when the Victim Notification Review Team examined these reports, the investigators and
advocates noticed that not all of the possible forensic evidence had been tested by the vendor labs. The
Wayne County SAK Task Force examined the master contract for the testing with the external labs and
noted that the contract specified that only a limited number of forensic samples (or a single most
probative forensic sample) would be tested. In all “No DNA” cases reviewed by the Victim Notification
Review Team, investigators and advocates identified additional forensic evidence that merited testing,
based on the documentation in the case files. The Victim Notification Review Team noted that in all
cases they reviewed, it was premature to declare that these were in fact no-DNA cases. These kits were
resubmitted to labs for additional testing, and the Wayne County SAK Task Force decided to review other
no-DNA reports to determine if those kits also merited re-testing. This work was not completed within the
period of performance for this grant. Therefore, we were not able to interview any survivors who had FYI
Victim Notifications.
| 29
The Task Force conducted a limited number of 404(b) Participation Victim Notifications near the
end of this project’s period of performance. As noted previously, the research team was not permitted to
interview survivors until after their cases were adjudicated. Advocates indicated that these cases had
been extremely difficult for survivors, but it was unclear whether these had been unusually challenging
cases or whether the problems encountered might in fact become typical experiences in 404(b) cases.
Advocates reached out to eligible survivors to explain the study and all three victims they were able to
contact declined to participate in an interview. Therefore, we were not able to interview survivors who
had 404(b) Participation Notifications.
Addition of Advocate Interviews
We had completed N = 32 survivor interviews when the COVID-19 pandemic began. The
Governor of Michigan issued a shelter-in-place order to curb the spread of the virus, and Michigan State
University suspended all human subjects data collection. During the COVID-19 research shut-down, our
team switched focus to begin analysis of N = 32 completed survivor interviews. The preliminary findings
suggested that survivors had positive experiences with their advocates during notification and throughout
their criminal legal system re-engagement. We had asked survivors to provide specific examples of what
the advocates did that they found helpful, as such information would be vital to developing training
materials, but few participants provided concrete examples. Upon reviewing those narratives, we realized
that interviewing Avalon Healing Center advocates would provide the “other side of the story” regarding
advocacy services for victim notification. Interviewing advocates would provide insight into the training
needs for sexual assault victim service agencies conducting SAK victim notifications. We requested a
modification to the design of this study to suspend survivor interviewing (final N = 32) and to shift our
resources to interview approximately N = 12-15 advocates. Michigan State University permitted remote
data collection, and it was feasible to interview advocates via Zoom. This change in scope enhanced the
overall design of the project and its utility to practitioners and policy makers as the advocate interviews
shed more light on the advocacy needs of survivors who re-engage with the criminal legal system after
SAK victim notifications.
| 30
OUTCOMES
Activities/Accomplishments
We successfully recruited and interviewed N = 32 sexual assault survivors and N = 12 sexual
assault advocates. These qualitative data were analyzed to prepare this report, and de-identified
transcripts were archived in the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data.
Results and Findings
GOAL 1:
To document survivors’ CODIS Hit Re-Engagement Victim Notification experiences.
Objective 1a:
To describe victims’ notification experiences and their recommendations for improving
CODIS Hit Re-Engagement Victim Notification protocols.
When jurisdictions are developing a victim notification protocol, practitioners often have many
questions about how to conduct active outreach to survivors: Who should reach out? How should we
reach out? What do we say? What information should be shared and when? What are the next steps
after notification and how can we communicate those effectively? Each case is unique, so practitioners
need case-by-case flexibility, but they also need empirical guidance on what approaches are most helpful
for survivors. In this study, we asked survivors what went well—or not so well—in these notifications and
sought to understand how different protocol features (e.g., in person vs. phone outreach methods) impact
victims. We also asked survivors and advocates to share their recommendations for creating more
trauma-informed victim notification protocols.
How Survivors Were Notified and Who Conducted the Notifications. In this community, all
active outreach notifications were CODIS Hit Re-Engagement Victim Notifications, and thus all were
considered open cases that were under consideration for re-investigation and prosecution. As such, the
Wayne County SAK Task Force decided that legal personnel should conduct the notification, and
because survivors had negative experiences with the city’s police department at the time of their original
report, detectives affiliated with the prosecutor’s office would instead make the outreach. Practitioners
| 31
debated at length whether initial outreach should be in person, by phone, or by mail. Given the complexity
of the information that needed to be conveyed, the team decided that a face-to-face conversation might
be best, so when feasible, in person notifications should be the first-choice option. Half (50%, n = 16) of
the survivors in this study were notified in in this way—by a prosecutor’s detective, in person, at their
homes. Some appreciated the personal connection and opportunity to talk, as this survivor described:
When they notified me they did [it] in a right way. They asked me, did I want to sit down. They
had some bad news, good news and after they told me, they made me feel comfortable, they
comfort me, they let me know everything was going to be all right. (Participant S27)
However, most survivors (n = 12 of 16, 75%) were upset and concerned as to why law enforcement
personnel were contacting them at their homes. The fact that the detectives were not affiliated with the
city’s police department and thus were not from the organization that had mishandled their kit and initial
report was not immediately recognized or appreciated. Many survivors assumed that the unannounced
presence of law enforcement personnel at their homes meant that they or their family members were in
trouble. For example, these two survivors described how frightening their notification experiences were:
They show you their badge and ask can they come inside…You think I'm in trouble or somebody
in my family in trouble. But they're reaching out to you to help you. I don't think they can do it no
different. I don't think there's a different process that they would take, but it is scary.
(Participant S31)
They didn't have to scare the crap out of me, and didn't have to be that many police up there on
my porch making me feel like I'm feeling to go to jail for something that I didn't do … I was glad
my [child] wasn't at home either. I was so glad, because [my child] would have been crying. [My
child] would have been crying, ‘Mama, what you going to jail for?’ I be like, ‘I'm not going to jail
baby.’ ‘Why so many people here?’ Because it was so many of them. They could have did that
different. They could have had at least two of them come up on the porch and knock, and speak.
They actually made my house look like they [were going] to raid it. (Participant S20)
Survivors also noted that if they had family or friends in their homes at the time of the notification, they
were placed in a difficult position to explain why police personnel were there. Some survivors had not told
people in their current lives about this past assault, as one survivor noted: “My husband, he was there
| 32
when all that happened and it wasn't something I had told him about” (Participant S28). In these
situations, in-person notifications prompted survivors to disclose to others, as this survivor explained:
Participant: I was [age]. Now, I'm grown, got my own family, I have a husband. The hardest thing
was to let my husband find out I had been raped. Because I haven't told him that part yet. And he
just looked at me. And he didn't look at me like he was mad. He just looked at me because he
didn't understand why I held that in and not let him know that part.
Interviewer: Of course. So he didn't know until they came?
Participant: Yes.
Interviewer: Did he find out when they walked in?
Participant: Yes…So it was like, he knew something was wrong with me, he knew something
happened to me, but I wouldn't talk about it. And that was the hardest thing for him. Because he
felt like he couldn't comfort me when I need my comfort. And he felt like I was pushing him away.
And I can't say I was pushing him away, but it's hard when you got a whole husband and you got
kids. It's hard to deal with being raped by a person. It's hard to tell your loved ones, especially
your husband. That I was raped at [AGE] by a man that I don't even know. I didn't [want that to
happen], but certain people feel a certain way when a person tells them, ‘Oh, I've been raped.’
(Participant S27)
Thus, for some survivors, in-person notifications were extraordinarily emotional because not only were
they managing their own reactions to being re-contacted years later about an assault, but because they
were also navigating the de facto disclosure of that assault to people currently in their lives.
Phone notifications were conducted if survivors had moved out of the region or otherwise couldn’t
be contacted in person. Overall, 44% (n = 14) of the survivors we interviewed were notified by the
prosecutor’s detectives over the phone. Many (n = 9 of 14, 64%) were bewildered and caught off guard as
to why law enforcement personnel were trying to reach them, as this survivor recounted:
So my boss was like, ‘Your phone is going off, really going off.’ And I didn't know who it was, so
he was like, go ahead and take the call. He's like, because they called a few times. It's just
vibrating, keep going off. So I picked up the phone, and his name was [detective name] and he
was telling me who he was, and who he was with. And I'm like, okay. You know, I'm kind of
| 33
confused. Because I'm like, I haven't been in no trouble or nothing. I'm like, I'm confused as to
why he calling me. (Participant S6)
However, survivors noted it was somewhat easier to disguise the purpose of the call and protect their
privacy if there were other people around when they received their phone notifications. Even so, there
were still some unwanted de facto disclosures made to other people who were present at the time of
phone notifications, as one survivor described:
They could have asked me in the initial notification phone call if I had time, or was in the position
to talk. Knowing that the sensitivity of what they were calling about, they should have taken that
responsibility to say, ‘Hello are you available to talk? Is this a good time for you?’ Any of those
avenues. But none of that was done, and if you're around somebody who doesn't know when you
get this phone call and then they overhear the conversation, now that's a problem between you
and that person. And that's what happened to me in my situation. I was actually engaged to be
married when I got my notification phone call, my then fiancé was sitting right next to me … So for
him to find out almost eight years after the fact because I'm having a conversation with the police.
It caused a rift in our relationship that we're no longer even together. (Participant S1)
The notification review team had strong concerns about conducting mail notifications, as they
feared the letter could be read by others and pose a safety risk to the survivor. Thus, in the event in
person or phone notifications were not possible, detectives affiliated with the prosecutor’s office might
send a brief letter, with no case details included, requesting that the survivor contact them. Two survivors
(6%) we interviewed were notified by mail, and both appreciated this approach because it gave them
privacy and time to decide whether they wanted to return the outreach made by the legal team.
When we asked survivors and advocates how notification protocols could be improved, they
provided clear and consistent feedback that in-person notifications conducted by law enforcement
personnel were frightening, so advocates should make first contact with survivors, either solely or
together with detectives. For example, as these two survivors noted:
I would have the advocate there then because I needed somebody. (Participant S1)
| 34
I think it would be nice to meet the advocate before you do that … it changes what you feel
comfortable saying, or you're ugly crying, and all this other stuff, so sometimes just totally having
a person that you don't know there that's like, ‘I'm here for you.’ (Participant S25)
Likewise, this advocate captured the recommendations of many of her colleagues when she said:
I'd want to change the initial contact with the client. I would like to see that not be a badge… the
issue has been brought up, like why can't an advocate go out with an investigator and liability and
safety concerns have always come up. So I never really completely understood that. I would, I
would want it to be an advocate to do it. And even work more on locating them by phone, instead
of showing up at their door, which is what's happening now… I've heard from countless survivors
who say that it's a jarring experience when they see a police officer, even if they're plain cloth, but
there's a kind of stature to them and you can see the badge too. So just the initial contact
shouldn't be one of fear. (Participant A8)
As noted by this advocate, initial phone contact may be less upsetting, and survivors concurred that this
method is preferable and in-person notifications should be used sparingly.
Recommendation:
Active outreach victim notifications should be conducted by advocates,
either in collaboration with law enforcement personnel or solely by
advocates so that survivors’ first contact experience focuses on their
emotional well-being.
Recommendation:
Active outreach victim notifications should be conducted by advocates by
phone in order to protect survivors’ privacy and prevent accidental and
incidental disclosures to others.
What Was Communicated to Survivors in the Notification. This community’s protocol
stipulated that notifying personnel should explain to survivors that the reason why they were contacting
them was to inform them that their rape kit had not been tested when it was originally collected years ago.
Most survivors (75%, n = 24) indicated that the detectives did share that information, but 22% (n = 7)
| 35
were not explicitly told this during their notification. However, survivors were not told why their kits had not
been tested. A few were told that their kits had been found in a police storage warehouse, but again, the
detectives did not explain why the kit was in storage in the first place, as one survivor noted:
They really didn't discuss that too much. They said my kit was found at the warehouse because I
read about it in the … newspaper. I read about [the prosecutor] and [their] assistant found it in the
warehouse but they really didn't specifically state in the paper or other why. What led them to that
warehouse to get the rape kit so they didn't specifically say why. (Participant S26)
This community’s protocol also stipulated that notifying personnel should apologize for the fact that the kit
had not been tested, but only 13% (n = 4) of the survivors stated that they received an apology. Most
(87%, n = 28) made no reference to receiving apology, so either notifying personnel did not apologize or
did so in a way that was neither direct nor memorable. Although it was rare for survivors to receive an
intentional, direct apology from the detectives, it was quite meaningful to them when they did, as these
two survivors relayed:
They were very apologetic that it happened. And they also let me know that their peers [were]
going to see to why the kits weren't seen to and that the system was going to make sure that that
didn't happen again for other people. (Participant S9)
They wanted to help and that she felt sorry for the way that the whole thing happened, from
[DATE]. Like, just basically apologized for being treated the way I was and nobody ever doing
anything. She said that they're here and if I ever need anything I can call her or text her anytime,
anything I needed I could get a hold of her. (Participant S5)
Given that most victims did not receive an apology from the detectives when they were notified,
survivors and advocates emphasized that this is an essential element that must be included in all victim
notification protocols—and actually conducted in practice. One survivor summarized the sentiments of
many when she said:
I think the thing that officers should do when they're letting people know that they're just testing
their rape kit, I think that the big thing for them to do is probably first apologize, because when
you're coming to a victim who is starting to start all over, and started picking up their lives, and
| 36
you bring this shit to put on top of their pretty castle that they're trying to build, you're reminding
them of the things that they dug. (Participant S3)
Advocates likewise emphasized that survivors deserved an apology from law enforcement personnel,
regardless of whether the notifying personnel were affiliated with the department that took the survivor’s
original report or from some other agency. At the moment of notification, the memory of their prior
treatment, not the organizational affiliation of the person notifying them, is at the forefront of their mind,
and that prior treatment must be addressed directly.
All survivors were told in the notification meeting that once their kits had been tested, the SAK
samples had a DNA match in the federal DNA criminal database, CODIS. In some cases, detectives
shared additional information about that DNA match and how those results might impact prosecution. For
example, in a substantial percentage of cases (n = 25, 78%), the testing revealed that the perpetrator was
a suspected serial sexual offender based on DNA matches across multiple sexual assault cases, and in
15 of those 25 cases, the detectives shared that information with the survivor during their notification
meeting. Likewise, the detectives had determined that in 15 cases of these 25 cases (60%) the offender
who was identified through the DNA testing was currently incarcerated, either for another/different sexual
assault case or some other crime. In 9 of those 15 cases, the detectives told the survivors at the
notification that the prosecutor’s office was considering filing new charges against the offender based on
the SAK forensic testing results to keep them imprisoned. Thus, a substantial proportion of survivors had
to absorb a cascade of increasingly complex and upsetting information, as two of these survivors relayed:
I was undone because I didn't know all these years he was still raping people. (Participant S12)
Terrifying. I didn't know if I wanted to deal with it all, but then I have a daughter and I have
cousins and nieces that are of age, and I just didn't want him on the streets with them. Having to
deal with it at all. Having to see him again. Having to explain it to my husband or my kids.
(Participant S18)
When we asked survivors and advocates for their recommendations for improving notification
protocols, they noted that victims will undoubtedly have questions about the forensic DNA testing results,
and it is challenging to know what information should be shared when and by whom. That said, survivors
| 37
emphasized that they wanted their advocates present when complex legal matters were discussed, which
would include information about other crimes linked to the offenders and how that might impact the
prosecution of their cases.
Recommendation:
Active outreach victim notification protocols must require that notifying
personal apologize to survivors for the fact that their SAKs were not tested
and should have been tested at the time of their initial report to law
enforcement.
Recommendation:
Details about the forensic DNA testing results and information about the
identified offender should be provided when an advocate is present to help
survivors cope with the range of emotions they may feel.
What Was Asked of Survivors in the Notification. The detectives who conducted the
notification meetings were directed not to press survivors about whether they wanted to participate in the
investigation and prosecution of their cases; instead, they were instructed to ask if they would be willing to
have a follow-up meeting with an advocate present for continued conversation about possible next steps.
All survivors we interviewed agreed to a follow-up meeting and all were connected to an advocate. At
those follow-up meetings, the survivors noted that they were relieved to have an advocate, particularly
because legal personnel began delving into the details of the case right away. The advocates noted that
they did not have much time to explain their role to survivors before the detectives and prosecutors
started with their follow-up questions. For example:
One of the least parts I didn't like about it is the sheer amount of time we may have to explain
what our role was, so how to best support that client. Because a lot of the time, the client may get
there after the team. When I say the team, I mean the prosecutors and the police officers and all
that. Usually, if that happens, they want to get it started right then and there. You really didn't
even have a chance to introduce yourself. You just tell them your name and basically a little bit
about what your role is. (Participant A9)
| 38
Survivors also had time to talk privately with the advocates after these meetings, but they emphasized
wanting their involvement sooner.
Recommendation:
Connect survivors to advocacy services at the time of the notification and
continue to provide advocacy services in any interactions with legal system
personnel.
Objective 1b:
To describe the impact of CODIS Hit Re-Engagement Victim Notifications on
survivors’ emotional well-being.
The volume and complexity of information shared with victims in the notification and subsequent
follow-up meetings was often overwhelming. We asked survivors to describe how they felt at the time of
the notification and the immediate aftermath as they continued to absorb what had been shared and
process their emotions. Survivors had varied reactions, which is to be expected given that victim
notification is essentially reactivating a traumatic memory and survivors have different trauma responses.
Most survivors noted that the notification left them emotionally distressed and overwhelmed, many felt
angry and frustrated, and others felt cautiously hopeful that they may have a second chance at justice.
We explore each of these three themes below.
Feelings of Distress. Most survivors (n = 22 of 32, 69%) shared that they were distressed in
some way by the notification (e.g., feeling overwhelmed, triggered, and/or retraumatized). Even though
the information that was shared in the notification meetings was potentially positive news and opened
options they had thought were closed, it was nevertheless an overwhelming experience. For example,
one survivor captured sentiments of many when she described her reactions as follows:
I was in disbelief that something happened. It seemed like a dream, like I was dreaming. I was
just waiting for somebody to wake me up. Because I didn't think anything was going to happen,
| 39
especially almost 10 years later. Disbelief, like all the emotions of what happened to me came
back … I was happy, I was sad. I had, like, all the emotions flowing through me. (Participant S5)
Some survivors discussed how in the immediate aftermath of the notification, they struggled with
returning PTSD symptoms, such as nightmares and hypervigilance, and described it being challenging to
return to their normal life and routine after such a significant emotional disruption. One survivor
summarized:
It threw me into an emotional rollercoaster at times. I would burst out in tears. I would separate
myself from my ex and just be like ... I dove into work and school and just went through the
motions and the processes as everything came up … some days I would be angry, some days I
would be normal, sometimes I would just cry, but I would also keep it in at the same time. I
became more quiet. (Participant S33)
Survivors emphasized that even though the assault occurred years ago, notification brought back their
memories of the rape, which were still vivid and painful.
Feelings of Anger and Betrayal. In this midst of these feelings of overwhelm, many survivors (n
= 17 of 32, 53%) also felt angry. For some, their anger was steeped in outrage, betrayal, and
disappointment that the police had such fundamental disregard for them and the safety of their broader
community. For example, as these two survivors described:
I mean, I was kind of disappointed, because I'm like, you know, there's so much that's going on.
This is a serious issue with not just young people in general, just women, period. And I know I
was like one of many, but I mean, it just made me feel like somebody wasn't doing their job
because I'm like, ain't no way all these rape kits sat in this building for all these years, and nobody
knew about it, or nobody had done nothing prior to the time, that it was something done about it.
It kind of made me devastated. (Participant S6)
Emotional, sad, mad, anxious. Everything. I was feeling everything because I didn't understand
why it took 19 years for you to find my rape kit, why it took 19 years for my stuff to be tested. It
was so much on me. I couldn't understand. Why would my rape kit be sitting in a warehouse all
these years, not tested, nobody looking for it … It was hard. I was mad. I was very mad. I was
angry. I didn't understand why did you all wait so long to find a warehouse house with rape kits.
Why? That's a long time.Yeah, we just was pushed to the side like do away. That's very hurtful. It
is. It's very hurtful that just finding out a warehouse, all our kits in the warehouse, ain't been
| 40
tested, ain't nothing has been done with them, they just sitting collecting dust. That's hard.
(Participant S27)
Others did not believe—and had never believed—that the police cared about them and would take their
case seriously, and they were angry that their doubts were founded. These two survivors described how
they were not surprised the police didn’t take in action in their cases years ago, but it still hurt:
I just thought, they don't care about it … so I guess people know they're free to rape if they want
to because they're not going to do anything about it, or they must know that the police officers
aren't going to test the kits.
(Participant S25)
I felt like at the time … I felt like I was a throw-away, I just felt like nobody cared. No one cared.
He was never going to be caught, they weren't even going to try. I guess it's kind of what did
happen, but it feels different. (Participant S18)
Because the police did not test these kits or act on these reported cases, the offenders were not
held accountable and were free to re-offend—and many did. Survivors were dumbfounded by such a
fundamental deraliction of duty by the police and the risk that posed to public safety, as one described:
Because for you to think a person is off the street [but] this person could've been walking
alongside of me this whole time, and I wouldn't have known. So I don't really know how I felt. It
was just like a lost feeling. Like, I can't believe this is happening. (Participant S10)
Survivors emphasized that they had reported the assault to the police to try to protect others, and they
were devasted when they were told that the perpetrator was linked to other sexual assault cases.
Survivors were enraged that the assailant raped other women and girls because the police took no action
in their cases, as these two women described:
I felt physically sick because I feel like this is the reason why there's so many serial rapists here.
This is why. If you can go out here and you can do this repeatedly and then you're not getting
caught, of course anybody would be confident, cocky, about the situation. They've gotten away
with lots of crimes because they were untested. By the way, he is linked to another girl … He’s a
predator … I didn't know what happened to my kit, so I was shocked, too, at the same time.
When he [the detective] said serial rapist, I said, ‘Oh my god. How many others?’ I knew I wasn't
the first, and I knew I wasn't the last, either. (Participant S7)
| 41
[What] they told me is that that person had done the same thing to another little girl a few years
later. That was an outrage when it happened to me, so it was crazy. It made me angry because
I'm thinking, how many girls has he done this to? It was … a crazy feeling. (Participant S28)
All of these survivors were betrayed by the criminal legal system—they had reported to the police, they
had medical forensic exams, they consented to evidence collection, and they released the rape kit for
forensic DNA testing—and the police did not take their cases seriously. Whether they expected better or
expected nothing better, many survivors were deeply angry.
Feelings of Hope and Vindication. Despite feelings of distress, anger, or betrayal, many
survivors never lost hope, and they were also happy and relieved to learn that their kits had finally been
tested (n = 17 of 32, 53%). They described waiting for years, and they felt palpable relief when they were
contacted by the detectives, for example, as these two survivors described:
And how I've been waiting and praying for that day to come for a phone call … Because after so
long you're like maybe it didn't happen, maybe I am crazy. To get that phone call it was like okay,
it did happen and I'm not crazy. (Participant S1)
A happy phone call to let me know that they caught this person after 15 years. So that just gave
me hope that no matter how long, you can get justice. No matter how long it take, you can get
justice. I'm thankful. [If they didn’t find the kits and start testing them] he probably would have got
out and been doing it somebody else. Especially for me to find out I wasn't the only person.
(Participant S30)
Other survivors highlighted how the notification provided vindication, as they finally felt believed.
The police had accused them of lying, and now, the forensic DNA testing results gave them credibility.
Some survivors described how other people in their lives, such as their family or friends, had also not
believed them—and the fact that the police never took any action in their case stoked their suspicions that
the survivor was being untruthful. For example,
I finally felt relieved. That I was going to get closure, and prove to everybody that said I was lying,
that I was not lying. They thought I was lying. Because they figured, well, if you went and did a
rape kit, why didn't they do anything about it? The system made me look like I was lying and
made up a whole story. If my friend didn't go with me to the hospital, they probably wouldn't have
believed nothing. You know? Even though I don't care what they believe, but that's the way it
| 42
made me look, you know? Like I never went to the hospital or that it never even happened. You
know? (Participant S9)
Survivors had endured lengthy, invasive medical exams to provide evidence that could help prove the
assailants’ identity and actions, and even though that verification came years later, it brought victims
tremendous relief and gave them hope for justice.
GOAL 2:
To document survivors’ decision-making processes regarding re-engagement with the
criminal legal system.
Objective 2a:
To describe survivors’ reasons for re-engaging with the criminal legal system.
In this jurisdiction, the detectives did not ask survivors at the time of the notification if they were
willing to participate in the re-investigation and prosecution of their cases, but survivors understood this
was the question on the table, even it was not asked aloud. Survivors appreciated having time and space
to consider that question because, as described in the previous section, they felt so many emotions
during the notification. As those feelings settled and as the enormity of this awful situation settled in, how
did they make this decision? In this project, all of the survivors we interviewed decided to re-engage, so
we could only study one of the possible pathways survivors might choose. When we asked survivors how
they made this decision, they cited two main reasons they decided to re-engage with the criminal legal
system: a desire to protect others and a hope for justice and closure for themselves.
Protecting the Community and Preventing More Harm. For most of the survivors we
interviewed (n = 27 of 32, 84%), the primary reason why they decided to participate in the re-investigation
and prosecution of their cases was because they wanted to prevent the perpetrator from causing
additional harm and hurting even more people. This survivor captured the sentiments of many when she
said:
I wanted to go ahead, because he could've did it to somebody else … I wanted to make sure that
I saw him go to jail. (Participant S9)
| 43
Some participants emphasized the gendered nature of sexual violence and the disproportionate risk
women and girls face in our society, and they wanted their daughters, nieces, or other girls and women in
their lives protected from harm. As one survivor noted:
Mainly, really my daughters because I got young adult daughters … I would hate for that same
man to approach them out here on the streets. That was really my only reason. (Participant S16)
Survivors whose assailants were suspected serial sexual offenders were particularly likely to emphasize
the need to protect others as their primary or sole reason for re-engaging with the criminal legal system.
As two of these survivors explained, they worried about others being harmed and felt they must do
everything they could to try to prevent further violence:
I felt like if he's still doing it, he's going to continue to do it and he going to wind up killing
somebody or somebody going to wind up killing him. So best thing is to get him off the streets so
he can't hurt nobody else. (Participant S12)
After he raped me, he raped other women around Detroit, too. I wasn't the only one he raped like
that, you know, so I had to get him off the streets. I had to for myself as well as everybody else.
(Participant S4)
Indeed, some survivors whose assailants were serial sexual offenders described feeling a moral
obligation to participate. Survivors noted that so few victims get the opportunity to pursue justice, so they
felt they had to participate, no matter the cost to them personally:
I don't feel that morally I had a choice. I don't know that I would do it again knowing what I know,
but … just morally I didn't, especially when I heard that other people were not willing to go
through with it … I thought it would be worth it, so then at least they can't do this to anybody else.
If it's 20 years later, this is still what they're doing, this is still what they're doing … I just didn't
personally feel that I could let it go … and I also sort of felt like it was my civic duty. (Participant
S25)
I felt like I took one for the team … The ones who didn't have a voice in this, that I went through it
all, and it wasn't just for me. I mean, I know it was for me, but I don't really feel that much it was. I
think if it was just me that I might've thought twice about getting involved in it. Actually, I know I
would've just said no. And that's also the only reason to go when I was heading down there,
| 44
because I was like, ‘I don't know if I want to be there.’ I kept saying it over and over again, and my
husband and my friend are like, ‘It's up to you.’ And I told myself, I said, ‘I have to do it. I just have
to.’ (Participant S13)
Survivors emphasized that they had reported the assault years ago to try to prevent the assailant from
harming others. The police did not believe them and did not take action in their cases, and survivors felt
tremendous hurt, guilt, and anger for years thereafter. They had to push through those same feelings
when legal system personnel came back to them to ask them to re-engage because the forensic
evidence they had provided years ago did indeed indicate that the assailant was a threat to public safety.
As one survivor noted with frustration, “like I said.”
Seeking Justice and Closure for Themselves. Some survivors (n = 15 of 32, 47%) described
what they wanted and needed for themselves. Many talked about wanting ‘justice,’ which some defined
as the right to speak out about what had happened to them, and to have that truth heard, acknowledged,
and believed by the criminal legal system, as these survivors noted:
I wanted to tell my story, get him off the street and to see him not harm nobody else, and have
some justice of my own and some peace in my life. (Participant S26)
I felt liberated. I was very eager and happy to help because I felt like I deserved justice for what
happened to me. I was happy somebody was finally listening or hearing me. (Participant S7)
For some survivors, justice was also retributive—it was not enough to speak their truths, they also wanted
to see the perpetrator punished for what he had done to them and to others. These survivors felt deeply
that perpetrators must be held accountable for the pain they caused and deserved imprisonment:
Once I was told [notified] I wasn't going to change my mind about anything … because I just felt
like for the sake of me, and this did happen to me, yes, he needs to serve his time for the crime
that he done to me. I didn't ask for that to happen to me. (Participant S31)
One survivor was notified that her assailant was in prison for committing a murder a few months after she
had reported him to the police for sexual assault. He had killed his girlfriend and was serving time for that
crime, and the prosecutors wanted to issue charges in her rape case to ensure that the offender would
| 45
not be released from prison. She agreed to participate and was clear that she did so because she felt he
deserved to be punished for everything that he had done:
I was just mad at the whole police system, once I found out he was already in prison for
murdering somebody a couple of months after he had raped me. If they would have just done
testing on the fricking kit then, they could have potentially prevented someone being murdered.
So that murder is on [the city], because if they would have done their job they could have
potentially saved that woman's life … It just made me more upset … I'm like, ‘He needs to just go
to prison for the rest of his life.’ … You did something to me. I did nothing wrong to you. You need
to be punished for what you did. (Participant S5)
Other survivors emphasized that their decision to re-engage and participate in the prosecution of
their case was about seeking closure so they could move on from the assault and set this behind them.
They had lived with the trauma of the assault for years, and many described how they lived in fear
because there was no closure in this case. For victims of stranger-perpetrated sexual assault, they
wondered who had harmed them and whether the assailant was still in their communities. For victims of
non-stranger perpetrated assaults, they knew who harmed them but struggled with the knowledge that
others didn’t believe them or help them. In addition, the offender was still in the community and their
safety was jeopardized because the perpetrator knew them and knew where to find them. Survivors
decided to re-engage with the criminal legal system in hope that doing so would provide closure:
Closure. I wanted closure. I don't want to live in fear. To know that this person that harmed me in
some type of way, violated me, did what he did, he's behind bars. Closure on that part.
(Participant S31)
When they called me, I was happy, I was ready for it to be over with. So it can go back to the
back of my mind. I was just happy to go in there and help them and do whatever they needed me
to do to make sure he wouldn't be able to do it. I just wanted to get back to where I was at in my
life, trying not to think about it, just leaving it in the back. (Participant S30)
Some survivors did not define closure in relation to retributive justice; for them, closure meant focusing on
their own healing and well-being, as this survivor described:
| 46
[I] needed a piece of my self-esteem back. That damages your self-esteem, when you let people
do things to you or you don't stick up for yourself. That's something you have to live with yourself
every day, that you could have did something different. If I have the opportunity to help myself,
I'm going to take it. (Participant S7)
Survivors wanted to put the assault behind them, but because their cases had remained open, unsolved,
and neglected, it had been hard for them to move on and heal their trauma. Although they knew re-
engaging would be taxing and challenging, they decided to participate in hope that prosecuting the case
would allow them to put it behind them, once and for all.
Objective 2b:
To describe survivors’ concerns about re-engaging with the criminal legal system.
Survivors weighed their desires to protect others, seek justice, and gain closure relative to their
concerns about how re-engagement would affect their lives and the lives of others. It had been years,
sometimes over a decade, since the assault, and re-engagement would mean re-opening and re-telling
(many times) significant traumatic memories. Even though the prosecutor’s office was engaged and
committed to prosecuting their cases, there was no guarantee what the case outcome might be, and
survivors risked still more blame, hurt, and disappointment. Survivors expressed three primary concerns
about re-engaging with the legal system, which included not only fears about their own well-being, but
also their doubts about whether the criminal legal system would (finally) help them and whether it was fair
to assailants and their families to pursue prosecution after all these years.
Guarding Their Emotional and Physical Safety. Some survivors (n = 10 of 32, 31%)
expressed concern about the emotional distress and disruption they would have to endure if they decided
to re-engage with the criminal legal system. They had gone to considerable lengths to move on with their
lives as best they could and reliving the trauma of the assault gave them considerable pause, as these
survivors explained:
I didn't agree to it at first. I had to think about it. I had to do a lot of soul searching and crying
before I did it. I wanted to go back to not thinking about it but then I couldn't. (Participant S18)
| 47
I was real nervous … I was nervous because then I had to think about everything that had
happened and relive it. (Participant S12)
Many survivors (n = 16 of 32, 50%) described being afraid to participate in the case because doing so
would risk their physical safety. They noted they were afraid that once the perpetrator’s family members
or other people in the community learned their identity, they would be stalked, threatened, or harmed.
Others were worried about retaliation from the perpetrator himself or described how they had already
been harassed by the perpetrator in the intervening years since the assault. These safety concerns were
more prevalent among survivors who were assaulted by a known assailant (vs. an unknown stranger).
For example, here is how some of these survivors described their fears for their safety and safety of their
families:
I was relieved, but I was still kind of scared, because I'm like, you know how people come to
court? They got family members. I don't know who none of these people is in the court. That was
a fear that I had, because I'm like, these people could see me out on the street. I don't know who
they is. They see who I am in court. That was one thing that did terrify me because I'm like, I have
kids now. Because I was going to back out at one point, because that was something that really
got to me, because I'm like, I don't know who these people were. Anybody could be sitting in the
courtroom for him. (Participant S6)
I had concerns. I was like, ‘After he get locked up is he going to try to find me and hurt me after
he get out? Is they going to notify me?’ Stuff like that. Am I safe, and stuff like that. Even after he
served his time, am I going to be safe … I had all of that on my mind. (Participant S20)
As much as they wanted closure, survivors were acutely aware that justice is not the same thing as
safety. Participating in the criminal legal system would risk their physical and emotional well-being, and
they did not know who they could trust to protect them from harm.
Doubting the Intentions of Police and Prosecutors. A few survivors (n = 8 of 32, 25%) were
deeply skeptical that the system that had already betrayed them would help them if they decided to
participate in the re-investigation and prosecution of their cases. Their past experiences with the police
had left them appropriately skeptical and cynical about whether law enforcement would protect them if
| 48
they faced retaliation and threats. Furthermore, many did not trust that the system would in fact pursue
their case because they had been lied to before. For example :
Because when I said yes, I still was at disbelief that they were really going to do anything and
catch the guy because the last detectives, they went through all those motions and still nothing
happened… in the back of mind, I'm thinking, ‘They ain't going to catch the man. They ain't going
to do nothing.’ (Participant S17)
I thought they had caught the guy. For years, I had thought it was just one person so I thought he
was in jail. And when I was notified [that the kit had never been tested], I just felt my security
leave…So if you’re lying to me about that, who’s to say that when you go to take this guy to court
you’re actually going to have him put away? (Participant S10)
Other survivors questioned the motivations of the police and prosecutors. The backlog of untested SAKs
in this city had been covered in local, state, and national media, and survivors could not help but wonder
whether the actions police and prosecutors were taking now were more about rebuilding their own
credibility than truly helping survivors or protecting public safety. For example, as one survivor stated:
I just felt were they're doing this for the victims? Were they doing this for us or were they doing it
for them? Because they had slipped on doing their job. Were they doing this for us or doing it for
them? (Participant S10)
Survivors had experienced profound institutional betrayal by the criminal legal system, and they were
being asked to set that aside and trust that ‘this time would be different.’ They had been told there was
new DNA evidence and that the prosecutor’s office was committed to seeking justice, but these
assurances did not quell their fears, and participation was still an enormous leap of faith for survivors.
Questioning the Fairness of Punishing Offenders. A subset of five survivors (16%)
questioned whether it was fair to punish the offenders for something that happened so many years ago.
All of these cases occurred more than ten years prior to the notification, and all were stranger-perpetrated
sexual assaults. These survivors grappled with feelings of guilt and worried about how prosecution would
disrupt not only the offenders’ lives, but also all their dependents (e.g., children, parents, partners).
Survivors described feeling unsettled with the responsibility of this decision and were frustrated that this
| 49
burden had passed to them because the legal system had not done its job years ago. As two of these five
survivors explained:
There was a point during this that, number one, I felt, as strange as this is going to sound, I felt
guilty because after they told me about this man, I actually went on Facebook and looked him up
and he had a family, children, he got married, which doesn't mean he's reformed or a great
person but I felt like, am I doing the right thing after all these years? And I've kind of moved on
past this and, am I doing the right thing by basically taking time out of his life for something that
happened so long ago and taking him away from his kids? ... And I'm like, am I doing the right
thing here? So I think maybe they should address whether or not the person feels some kind of
measure of guilt because it could make somebody not want to get involved. They might feel like,
was this worth taking away from this man's family? Am I doing the right thing? (Participant S28)
At first my thought was, I am not kidding, this was my thought. I said, ‘I will be putting a damper
on somebody’s life.’ I’m thinking in my mind, what if he got a family? What if he got kids and …
locking somebody away, I never had to do that. I had to tell myself he was wrong. He wronged
me. I didn’t wrong him. (Participant S31)
These survivors were hesitant to express these thoughts in the interviews, and we affirmed these are
complex decisions and it was unfair that so much weight rested on their shoulders. We expressed
appreciation for their trust and honesty because it helps us understand how complex the notion of justice
is for many survivors. When people do not trust the system that is the arbiter of justice, it is hard to assess
what is fair and right. In the end, all survivors decided to re-engage with the criminal legal system, but
they were wary about whether doing so would provide peace and closure.
GOAL 3:
To document survivors’ re-engagement experiences with the criminal legal system
and the extent to which their court experiences provided procedural, distributive,
retributive, and restorative justice.
Objective 3a:
To describe the re-engagement experiences of survivors who participated in plea
agreements.
| 50
Overview: Plea Cases. All of the survivors we interviewed decided to re-engage with the criminal
legal system, and prosecutors issued charges in all cases. Ultimately, n = 23 cases (72%) were resolved
by the assailants pleading guilty to criminal sexual conduct, the statutory term for criminal sexual assault
in this state. We examined the re-engagement experiences of this group (survivors with plea cases)
separately from those who participated in trials (see Objective 3b), as there are key procedural
differences in plea cases (e.g., typically fewer court appearances, no questioning or less intensive
questioning from defense attorneys). However, as one advocate noted, “court is court,” and it is a hard
path for survivors to travel no matter the outcome. We examined how survivors were treated throughout
court preparation and court appearances (procedural justice), how they felt about case outcomes
(distributive justice) and the assailants’ sentences (retributive justice), and extent to which their court
experience overall contributed to their healing and closure (restorative justice).
Court Preparations. Most survivors (n = 15 of 23, 65%) noted that detectives and prosecutors
kept them regularly informed about the status of their cases and tried to make court preparation less
burdensome (e.g., scheduling meetings based on the survivor’s availability). Survivors described how this
personalized attention was meaningful to them:
They worked around my time and didn't tell me, ‘Well, you only can do it during this time.’ They
worked around my schedule and made it convenient for me. [It made me feel like] … they actually
cared, they actually wanted to [get] him and actually try to make something right in this bad
situation, that they weren't blowing me off. (Participant S5)
The other detectives gave me their personal numbers. He used to call, I would say, every other
week and give me updates if there was any. (Participant S16)
Survivors recounted specific actions prosecutors and advocates took to help them prepare for court
hearings, which they found inordinately helpful for alleviating anxiety and de-mystifying the criminal legal
process. For example, one survivor described how her detective explained step-by-step what would
happen at a suspect line up and how they would protect her safety:
There was a line up, they told me the procedure of what's going to go on and you know the
basics of what happens before you go to court. When you go to court and he's going to be there,
they just told me everything that's gonna happen and make sure I was okay and that don't be
| 51
afraid because they was gonna be there for me and that when we go in if he tries anything,
there's going to be security there so there's nothing to worry about. (Participant S4)
Another survivor recounted how the prosecutor helped her feel more comfortable by arranging for her to
watch court hearings in other cases (non-sexual assault cases) so she could see the courtrooms, the
judges, the other court personnel, and learn the routines:
Before that, they had me just sit in on a couple court cases … just so I would feel comfortable in
front of a judge, so kind of like warming me up, just so I knew what to expect so I didn't go in
there blind. I mean, it was no cases related to ... nothing similar to mine, but just to get me into
the courtroom and where he would come in from, where I would sit, where I would stand, where
the judge would be, where the prosecutor would be, where he would be, and where he sat …
they didn't want me to be afraid or scared or confused about doing it. (Participant S5)
The critical need for regular communication and preparation was underscored by survivors who
did not get sufficient help from legal personnel. Although this was not common among the survivors we
interviewed, some indicated that they felt rushed into the proceedings without adequate preparation. This
was more common in plea cases in which the statute of limitations was set to expire soon and/or when
assailants were already imprisoned for other crimes and prosecutors were bringing these charges in an
effort to keep them imprisoned. In these situations, survivors were grateful their advocates stepped in to
explain the process, but they wanted that kind of engagement, support, and communication from legal
personnel as well. As one survivor explained:
They didn't tell me nothing … I found out most of it when I went to court for the second time.
That's when I found out everything … the advocate spoke to me about everything. She the only
one that sat me down and told me everything, and how he got caught and how they reporting him
back here to Michigan, and how long he have for jail time. I felt much better [after the advocate
told me] because I was in the dark about a whole lot of stuff. (Participant S20)
Criminal legal proceedings are logistically complicated and emotionally draining, and survivors
appreciated when the detectives, prosecutors, and advocates helped them understand the process. This
preparation was core to survivors’ sense of procedural justice, and it helped mitigate their distress.
| 52
Court Proceedings. Some of the survivors whose cases ended in plea bargains had been
preparing for trials, and as the evidence was presented in preliminary hearings or at the start of the trial
itself, the prosecutor and defense counsel began negotiations for a plea agreement.
7
Survivors indicated
that they were informed about these changes, but these abrupt shifts were hard to track and often
upsetting, as these two women described:
The back and forth … one minute, it was going to go to trial. Next minute, it wasn't. This date was
scheduled for this, then it was canceled. I would get a call, ‘Well, you got to be in court’ … the
back and forth. (Participant S16)
I was at court, in court one day, and they canceled it. I don't think they should be able to do that,
… I'd came all the way down [to court] and [my advocate had] Lyfted me down there … And just
keep stretching it out for me … because I got to keep tugging at my emotions, coming back and
forth to court because you keep changing. (Participant S23)
In the end, these survivors were amendable to a plea agreement because participating in more court
hearings and being subjected to cross examination was overwhelming. Many indicated they just wanted
to “get it over with,” and they did not want prolonged disruption of their lives. One survivor summarized
her thought process as such:
I had to take a couple of days to think about it. I agreed to it. I didn't want to have to go through
trial. They had contacted me and told me that the news had picked up my story, and that I was
anonymous, but if they find out who I am, they may contact me. I was like, God, I don't want to go
through all that. I thought about how old he would be when he got out, according to the plea deal.
I said, well, he'll be in his mid to late 60s. I can deal with that. (Participant S18)
For some survivors, the plea agreement came before they had to provide court testimony, which was a
tremendous relief to them, as this survivor noted:
I was glad that it happened so quick. I'm glad that I didn't have to get up on the stand. All those
people in the courtroom, I didn't exactly want them judging me. (Participant S13)
7
For this section, “Court Proceedings,” we will not be reporting thematic percentages because when we conducted the interviews,
we did not systematically ask about each and every appointment/meeting/hearing that preceded the plea agreement.
| 53
All the survivors we interviewed indicated that they had some voice in the decision to settle the case by a
plea bargain and none expressed a desire to proceed to a trial when there was a shorter and potentially
less traumatic option available. The opportunity for voice and engagement in these decisions was another
core element of procedural justice that was meaningful to survivors.
Some survivors in this group did have to provide testimony as part of preliminary hearings or
initial trial proceedings. Recounting the assault in painstaking detail was hard given that their memories of
the assault were still clear and vivid; as this survivor recounted:
I think it was scary to bring up that story again, to be on the stand to actually have to tell exactly
what happened that night. Like I said, I could tell it so easily because it actually happened. I just
had to tell the story and get it over with. It actually happened … just scary because to have to be
in front of people and have to tell that story over again is like, yeah. (Participant S31)
Many survivors felt they were well-prepared and well-supported for their testimony by their advocates and
the prosecutor, which made it bearable to recall their traumas in public:
When I had to testify in court, I had to go into detail about penetration and things like that. I had to
say those things out loud in front of people. That was hard. She prepped me for that. She helped
me. So I went in there, I knew what to expect, and I didn't crumble like they thought I would.
(Participant S7)
A key concern for many survivors was seeing the perpetrator again so many years later. Many discussed
how incredibly vulnerable they felt when they had to re-live the crime on the witness stand in front of the
person who harmed them—and in front of their family and supporters. Survivors felt exposed and judged,
as these two women explained:
Because there's so much anxiety. People don't get it. There's so much anxiety with it, that it's
easy just to say forget it and walk away, rather than be humiliated again, in front of a bunch of
strangers. His mom was in the courtroom, too, and his sister. They had to sit there and listen to
that. It was a lot to deal with. (Participant S7)
Having to unpack it all and deal with it by myself. Then, I go into the courtroom and his girlfriend
is on his side of the room supporting him. I just felt exposed. (Participant S18)
| 54
In plea cases, survivors generally did not have negative experiences with the defense attorneys. Some
did not have to answer any questions, and those who did noted that the cross examination was brief and
not combative. For example:
I didn't have any bad experience … he barely asked me any questions. Barely asked me any
questions. I wasn't afraid where I had to be argumentative or anything. He asked me a few
questions and that was it; I think three, three at the most. The detective had told me by him
admitting to it, it wasn't really too much he could ask because he admitted to [it]. (Participant S31)
These survivors expressed relief that their court experiences were not prolonged, and they were treated
reasonably by prosecutors, defense counsel, and judges (procedural justice). However, “court is court,”
and reliving trauma in a public forum and seeing the assailant was still upsetting.
Justice, Healing, and Closure. We partitioned survivors’ narratives about healing and closure
(restorative justice) based on whether the plea added time to the sentence of an offender who was
already incarcerated for other crimes (n = 12 of 23, 52%), or whether the plea secured the incarceration
of an offender who had been free (i.e., in the community/not in jail/prison; n = 11 of 23, 48%). For
survivors whose assaults added time to offenders’ sentences, most (n = 9 of 12, 75%) appreciated that
there was public, legal recognition of the harms that had been committed against them, but a few (n = 3 of
12, 25%) were angry that they were put through a difficult experience that ultimately did not give them
much closure. For example, as one of these survivors noted:
My main thing was just that he was already serving the life sentence. So, it really didn't make a
difference. As far as him, like is that really justice for somebody if a person is already in prison,
already doing life? It doesn't feel like it. Yeah, so I feel like that's the reason why he even took the
plea, was because it was like, well I'm already here. (Participant S11)
Another survivor expressed frustration about how the prosecutor handled the pleas in her case. She had
been sexually assaulted by two assailants, both of whom were now incarcerated for other crimes; one
had additional charges brought against him related to the sexual assault, but the other did not. The
assailant who was not charged was imprisoned for a homicide conviction, and the prosecutor did not
issue charges against him for her assault, which was upsetting to her:
| 55
To me, it's still bothering me, and I'm still angry about it, because it's the only the one guy. And I
feel like they telling me that almost, ‘So what something happened?’ You know what I mean?
Why would that be a statute of limitation? That was a crime, to me just as violent, just not ending
in death, because some of them do end in death. So they would've had to kill me for it to matter
that, what he did? … He know he in there for taking somebody's life and whatever else. But he
need to understand that this came knocking, too. (Participant S23)
This survivor wanted both offenders to have additional charges and time added to their sentences, so
they knew they were being held accountable and punished for hurting her. In the end, the survivor
described her court experiences as such:
I don't feel healed, and I don't feel like I got justice. Because the judge gave him a break, like he
needed a break. And nothing happened with the other guy, so I don't feel like nothing happened.
(Participant S23)
These quotes highlight some of the unique challenges of backlog SAK cases. Because these reported
assaults were not promptly investigated and adjudicated, offenders were not initially held accountable,
and many went on to commit additional crimes. By the time these rape kits were tested, some offenders
were already incarcerated for other crimes and survivors questioned whether the gains of seeking
additional charges were worth the distress re-engagement caused them. These survivors wanted clearly
defined, clearly bounded recognition of the crimes committed against them, and when assailants were
already incarcerated, those lines were blurred, which left some survivors feeling frustrated and empty.
In the other eleven plea cases, the offenders were not already incarcerated and their guilty pleas
would start new prison sentences for the sexual assaults they committed years ago. Survivors had mixed
feelings about these cases; some (n = 5 of 11, 45%) were happy that the court held their perpetrators
accountable and the plea agreement brought them tremendous relief; as two of these survivors
recounted:
I'm just glad it ain't something I went to my grave with, knowing that they never caught the guy.
Because that be hurt some feelings when something bad happen and you just don't get no justice.
I don't know how I would have felt to know that I never got justice. But it's a little of relief knowing
that he can't do it to nobody else … they asked me if I wanted to get up and say something to him.
But it wasn't nothing I wanted to say to him. I'm just glad you caught. (Participant S30)
| 56
I'm not going to say I'm glad it happened that way. But I can't change the way it happened. So at
the end of the day, I'm just relieved that everything went as according to plan. I'm glad about that
process. I'm glad that he got what he deserved. So at the end of the day, I'm so satisfied with
everything that took place, everything that happened, I'm satisfied because I got the one man that
did this to me off the street. The one thing I've been dreaming about that would happen for a long
time and it finally happened and I could feel at peace. I don't have to look over my shoulder. I don't
have to check my locks as often. Because I did what I needed to do, to put him away, to make
other people safer. (Participant S27)
However, a few survivors (n = 4 of 11, 36%) expressed strong disappointment that their offenders were
sentenced to less time than expected. They had hoped that the court would send a clear, powerful
message that the crimes committed against them years ago were just as important today, so when these
assailants were given reduced sentences, survivors did not feel the same measure of restorative justice
because they did not feel there was appropriate retributive justice in their cases.
In a final look across all 23 survivors whose cases ended in a guilty plea, we note that only three
survivors specifically mentioned that they had positive experiences of procedural justice that contributed
to their healing and closure. For example, one survivor described how the opportunity speak their truth in
court was incredibly impactful:
They asked me ... ‘Do you have anything that you want to say to him?’ During the court process.
And I was like, Yes. I just want to know why he made me feel like this. I just want to know why?
What made him through his mind to think it was okay to do this to a human being a person? Yes.
I think the opportunity that I had to actually tell him how I was feeling helped me a lot. When I said
it helped me a lot. I'm getting in better, I'm healing each and every day, I'm taking the healing
process slow. So I'm doing better like I said. (Participant S27)
In two other cases, survivors described how their assailants made a public apology, which was
inordinately impactful and healing; as one of these women described:
It made me be able to forgive him, when he apologized. That took so much off of my chest,
because by him doing this he took the load off of the, the pressure I had of people saying I lied.
You know? That made me feel a whole lot better … I was able to heal. (Participant S9)
| 57
These procedural elements (public statements, public apologies) were incredibly meaningful, but also
exceedingly rare. This does not mean that procedural justice is unimportant to restorative justice. Rather,
these findings suggest that survivors did not have many opportunities to experience procedural justice,
and those elements, when present in a plea case, were important for survivors’ healing.
Objective 3b:
To describe the re-engagement experiences of survivors who participated in trials.
Overview: Trial Cases. We interviewed nine survivors whose cases went to trial (28%), and in
these cases, the option of a plea bargain was either never offered or never accepted, so they ‘went all the
way’ as one survivor described it, to a bench or jury trial. Eight of these nine cases ended in a conviction,
and one ended in an acquittal. When we examined the re-engagement experiences of this group
(survivors with trial cases), there were many similarities to those who had plea cases—again, “court is
court” as one advocate noted, but here we highlight what was unique about the trial experience with
respect to survivors’ sense of procedural, distributive, retributive, and restorative justice.
Court Preparation. Most survivors whose cases went to trial indicated they had good
preparation and support from detectives, prosecutors, and advocates (n = 8 of 9, 89%). The trial process
was long and frustrating, and survivors appreciated being regularly updated about court processes and
felt the investigative team prepared them well for court testimony and cross examination (i.e., positive
experience of procedural justice). For example, as these two survivors noted:
Oh, they treated me highly with respect. They treated me with care, like they had a
understanding, like they understood what I was saying or understood what I was trying to say if I
even couldn't get it out. They just understood me. (Participant S24)
I'm not saying it was a very pleasant experience, but I'm glad to the people that helped me
through it. The prosecutors, it was very kind. The advocate was awesome, the detectives I know,
went beyond their jobs. A couple times I had to sign some paperwork, they would actually come
down to my job. To me, I will say, it wasn't a pleasant journey but it was comfortable. (Participant
S2)
| 58
However, for the survivor whose trial ended in acquittal, she felt the prosecutors and detectives did not
adequately warn or prepare her for this possible outcome. During court preparation, detectives and
prosecutors provide encouragement and express confidence and enthusiasm, and many survivors
emphasized that the team’s message to them was ‘you can do it, we’re going to be here with you, it’s
going to be okay.’ But, the reality is, sometimes the outcome is not okay for survivors, and the survivor
whose case ended in an acquittal felt that she was not adequately warned about how grueling the
process would be and how hard the outcome may be:
They needed to be more forthcoming throughout on both ends, the investigation and the
prosecution, they needed to be more forthcoming and less, I almost want to say deceitful.
Because they don't tell you literally what you're about to embark on, or how hard it's going to be.
They don't tell you they're about to rip you to shreds. And they don't tell you what you're about to
go through, how hard it's going to be. None of that, you're just immersed into it. And they tell you
it's going to be okay, and it's going to be fine and we're here with you. And the reality is the
complete opposite. (Participant S1)
In other words, this survivor emphasized that an important part of procedural justice is helping victims
prepare for the possibility that court will not bring distributive, retributive, or restorative justice. She felt
hurt by the outcome of her case, yes, but a key reason why the outcome hurt so much was because she
did not feel the legal team had been honest with her ahead of time.
Court Proceedings. All of the survivors who participated in trial had to recount their assault
experiences in open court, and without exception, this was extraordinarily emotional and traumatic.
Survivors emphasized that telling their truths meant having to publicly disclose painful and embarrassing
events in minute detail, as these women noted:
I never been through it before. That was my first time in my whole entire life that I ever been
through that type of procedure. I'm not saying that's the first time I ever been raped. No, it's not.
But that's the first time that one of my rape kits ever got pulled and I had to go through trial and
everything. Now that was different for me. (Participant S24)
It was a tough time for me … told them I was raped and this, that and the other. The whole court
was in shock over the fact that I was still standing there. That I'd survived and whatnot and
everything else too I told the whole truth and everything about it. (Participant S25)
| 59
It was not uncommon that survivors had to tell their stories multiple times, first as part of
preliminary hearings and then in the trial itself on direct examination and then again on cross
examination. The cross-examination experiences were particularly harrowing for survivors because the
defense attorneys attacked their credibility and tried to shift the blame from the assailant to the victim.
Common rape myth tropes were central features in defense strategy, and survivors had to relive their
trauma in one sentence and defend their character in the next. For example, the common myth that
survivors make false accusations of rape was brought into cross examination, as this survivor described:
Only time I felt differently in the whole situation is during trial when the lawyers was trying to pin it
on me and the false accusations that they had on me. That's the only time I felt I just felt like it
was because that was their way of trying to keep their client out of jail by trying to pin it on
somebody else or trying to get the person to recant their statement or whatever the case is or try
to see if they was going to catch me in a lie … And I'm able to give you everything word for word
on how everything happened from the day that I was there to where it happened at. (Participant
S24)
Another common trope that survivors had to confront in cross examination was the insinuation that they
were essentially un-rape-able and not credible because they were involved in prostitution or were using
drugs. For example, one survivor said about her cross examination:
Grueling. They had me get on the stand and the defense attorney, of course, he tried to make me
look like I was some drugged out prostitute, crack head out looking for drugs and trying to make
me look as though I was out selling my body to try and get drugs, which never happened, but that
wasn't me. I'm not innocent. I'm not, like I told the judge, I'm not trying to portray like this innocent
little girl that never got into trouble and did stuff, but the picture that the defense attorney tried to
make me look was not me at all. I got mad. (Participant S33)
These tactics were hurtful and infuriating, and they were also a painful reminder of what happened when
survivors initially reported to the police. In other words, the testimony experience, much like the police
reporting process, was replete with victim blaming and lacked any semblance of procedural justice.
As part of the court preparation process, prosecutors and advocates emphasized to survivors the
need to stay calm and composed when they were attacked on the stand. Survivors appreciated this
forewarning, but it also emphasized to them that a great deal hinged on their testimony, and they felt
| 60
tremendous pressure to do a good job on their direct and cross examinations. Even though prosecutors
and advocates told them that it was not their responsibility to ‘put the offender away,’ survivors knew—
correctly—that their testimony would influence the outcome of the case. They felt the weight of the world
on their shoulders, as these survivors described:
I was nervous, because I didn't want to do something that would cause their case to not be ... I
just wanted their case to go well. (Participant S3)
I wish I would have just did better on the stand. I guess I want to be perfect, do things perfectly.
I'm not perfect … I was all breathing hard and feel like I was going to lose because I said
something, didn't do something right or something like that. Messed up timing, whatever. Messed
things up. They try and confuse me, but it's not the prosecutor's fault or nothing. It's just I think
the other man doing his job. So I think everything, it's all my fault. They said I did a good job, but
the main thing is I got a conviction. (Participant S29)
As this survivor noted, there was a conviction in her case, and she did have a large role in that (“I got a
conviction”). That responsibility was a tremendous weight and burden that survivors had to carry in their
trial experiences.
Justice, Healing, and Closure. For the survivors whose cases went to trial, the court outcome
largely determined the extent to which they felt they received justice. When there was a conviction, most
survivors (n = 7 of 8, 88%) felt relief and happiness;
8
as two of these survivors recalled:
I felt good. Yes, I was nervous. I'm like, oh my God these people don't believe me, the jury and
everybody. I was scared and stuff, but I was so happy. So happy. Like, thank you Jesus. Thank
everybody. I thanked everybody. I appreciate everybody … I had the chance to get justice.
(Participant S29)
We was there for a while and eventually they said the verdict and we went back down to the
courtroom and they said they found the guy guilty. I was happy. I felt so happy. I ain't never felt so
much joy in all my life. (Participant S26)
8
In the other case that ended in a trial conviction, the survivor felt she did not receive justice because she had been assaulted by
two perpetrators, but only one was identified and prosecuted (the other still had not been caught/identified).
| 61
Survivors felt proud of themselves: for surviving the rape, for surviving how they were treated by police at
the time of the initial report, for surviving the intervening years of silence and neglect, and for surviving
their court case. It was empowering to be believed finally, as these two excepts illustrate:
I feel good. I feel good. I feel I did something good. I feel good about myself. I feel proud, too.
Mostly proud regardless of what people say. I don't care. I don't care, you’re guilty. I won and
that's the proof that I'm right. I feel like I did something right in life regardless of what you think of
me. I'm glad. I did something so I'm proud. (Particpant S29)
The judge gave me a moment to speak on my experience or how I felt or say whatever I wanted
to say to the jury, and the courtroom about what happened to me, and how I felt about the person
who assaulted me. I did that, and they sentenced him and that was that. It was almost like a ... I
don't know how to describe it. It was like a moment of empowerment. To let him know that, yes.
You did this to me, but I did not let it destroy me. I am just fine, and I am carrying on with my life. I
am not dwelling on the fact that you did this to me. Basically, you lose. I'm not the victim that I
was when you assaulted me and now you're going to pay for it. (Participant S17)
A key reason why survivors felt relief, happiness, and pride is that through their truth and their strength,
they felt they were making their community safer. Accountability was important them, and they wanted to
see the assailant punished for raping them, as these survivors described:
It was almost liberating to know that I could actually watch and witness myself the full prosecution
of the guy who assaulted me … that there was going to be seriously something being done about
it. (Participant S17)
That was one of the best moments of my life. I was so happy. They finally got him off the street
and he finally went to jail for the rest of his life. He ain't going to harm nobody else. I felt really
good about that. (Participant S26)
These trial convictions brought peace and closure for these survivors. The court experience was
restorative because they wanted to have a voice (procedural justice), they wanted the offender to be
convicted and punished (distributive and retributive justice), and despite the odds, they got what they
wanted. They were well-aware that justice is fleeting and rare for victims of rape, and they were grateful
they had received justice.
| 62
The survivor whose case ended in an acquittal felt lost and abandoned by the prosecutor and the
detective, as though it was her fault the assailant was not convicted. Even though this survivor knew she
had absolutely done everything she could, she described feeling intensely hurt when he was acquitted
and the legal team did not provide her the support she needed:
The prosecutor, the investigator, they were nowhere to be found but they said they would be
there no matter what. ‘Win or lose, we're here for you.’ They weren't, so don't tell me those things
because as a survivor we are really keen on what people tell us. Do not make promises to me
that you cannot keep, period. Because I'm looking for you to uphold that, especially if I'm
upholding my end of whatever bargain. And I've more than upheld my end. (Participant S1)
She had risked so much, endured so much, but received so little. She was emphatic that there was no
justice for her, and she described her court experience as such:
Traumatizing, heartbreaking, devastating … now you're left by yourself to pick up these pieces
that you thought you already … And you drop it and it breaks into a million pieces. Gluing the
pieces back together by hand with super glue. And you finally get the last piece in the set and
then someone comes and knocks it over, and you have to start all over. That's how it feels at the
end of a backlog rape trial. (Participant S1)
The case was closed, but there was not restorative closure and peace because she was not treated with
dignity and respect, from the initial report through the end of her trial (procedural justice), she did not see
the offender convicted (distributive justice), and there would be no punishment for what he did to her
(retributive justice). In this case, there simply was no saving grace.
GOAL 4:
To document survivors’ advocacy experiences from victim notification through
criminal legal system re-engagement
Objective 4:
To describe advocacy services received/provided and how advocates tailored
services to address the unique needs of this client population
We asked survivors to describe their experiences with their advocates throughout this entire
process of notification and prosecution. Survivors provided overwhelmingly positive feedback about their
advocates and described them as “nice,” “helpful,” “supportive,” and “always there for me,” but they often
| 63
struggled to identify specific things that the advocates did that were helpful. We wondered what specific
assistance was provided—and how it was provided—to elicit such positive regard, so we also interviewed
their advocates to gain more insight about the advocacy needs of survivors who are contacted for active
outreach victim notification, and what types of assistance were particularly critical at different junctures in
the re-engagement process.
9
Crisis Intervention and Emotional Support. Victim notification is an unexpected reactivation of
a traumatic memory. In any method of active outreach notification, there is some element of surprise, and
it is nearly impossible to fully prepare or forewarn survivors for re-opening a traumatic event from their
past. Even when a CODIS Hit Re-Engagement Victim Notification brings welcome news that survivors
have been wanting for years, it is still a tremendous emotional shock. A foundational component of
advocacy is providing emotional support, and survivors expressed that this support was particularly
needed and appreciated in the immediate aftermath of the notification. As the memories of the assault
started rushing back, they felt overwhelmed, and the emotional support their advocates provided was
critical. For example, as these survivors recounted:
They called me after [the detective had made the notification]. They was very supportive. They
was there. They was like, ‘We'll make an appointment to see you.’ They got me right in, they
made me feel comfortable, they made me feel like it's not your fault. I love them for that. They
was very supportive throughout the whole thing. Very supportive. (Participant S27)
It was a good experience. It helped me talk about the feelings and things connected to the part
that I basically had bottled up. (Participant S17)
Likewise, when we interviewed the advocates, they highlighted how the notification meetings were
stressful, so their first focus was supporting survivors’ emotional well-being. A CODIS Hit Re-Engagement
Victim Notification opens many complex legal issues—DNA testing results, identification of the assailant,
possible re-investigation and prosecution—and these matters can quickly dominate the discussion, so the
9
For Goal 4, we will not be reporting thematic percentages because when we interviewed survivors and advocates, we asked them
to describe important and meaningful aspects of their experiences receiving or providing advocacy services. If a survivor or
advocate did not mention a specific service experience (e.g., provision of emotional support), it does not mean that this service was
not provided, and thus, descriptive percentages could be misleading.
| 64
advocates described how important it was to give their full attention to the survivors’ emotional needs. For
example, one advocate explained how they convey their support:
I think it's like a soft spot in the notification process, like somebody to look at when you need a
tissue to cry, somebody to look at when you get the vibe like I need to talk to after. And you're
like, I got you. We're totally going to talk after. (Participant A3)
Another advocate elaborated on how embedding advocacy services in all aspects of victim notification
can help refocus everyone’s attention on the well-being of survivors. She described a follow-up
notification meeting she attended with another advocate and how her colleague helped the survivor:
It was a comfort of having [Advocate #1] in the room with a bunch of new people. [Advocate #1]
was there, like sitting right next to her… when she started crying and [Advocate #1] could give her
a tissue. And I think there were also some moments when the questions were getting really
specific and the survivor was really trying to remember like, ‘Oh, was this, this case, this case? I
don’t know.’ And [Advocate #1] was sort of there to say, ‘Take your time. It’s okay. These
questions are hard. Don’t worry if you can’t remember perfectly.’ And so I think like providing that
emotional support and also sort of stepping in to say like give her a little space, like give her some
more time to think about it rather than just sort of like rapid fire questions. (Participant A4)
Advocates noted that legal issues dominate victim notification meetings, as detectives ask questions that
cast survivors’ minds back in time to the assault, but those questions also raise complex issues for the
future. As survivors’ thoughts and feelings are pulled back and forth across the years, advocates are
focused on helping them feel safe and grounded in the present. These early moments of support and
intervention were foundational to the close, trusting bonds survivors formed with their advocates.
Confidential Communication and Consultation. The advocates were able to offer confidential
communication to survivors because they were community-based (not system-based) advocates funded
by VOCA/VAWA. This confidentiality provision meant that discussions between survivors and advocates
were private and could not be shared with anyone—including the detectives, prosecutors, or other legal
personnel—unless survivors gave permission for information to be released. The intent of such policies is
to provide survivors with a safe space to talk freely, to ask questions, and to discuss their options without
| 65
fear or judgment. Advocates noted that they explain the confidentiality provision to survivors as soon as
possible so they understand how their role is different; for example,
I usually just say, I'm your advocate. I ask them if they know what an advocate is. Some say yes,
some say no. If they don't know what an advocate is, I kind of tell them that I'm their support
person. I let them know that I'm working with a prosecutor's office in regards to their case, but my
main concern and focus will be them. So everything that's said between me and them is strictly
confidential I'm there for them as much or as little as they may need. If they need someone to be
able to process with about the case or the assault, or just to have somebody to vent to, that they
have ... that is what my role is. Again, this is as much or as little as they need in that moment.
(Participant A6)
When we asked survivors if and why confidential advocacy was important to them, one survivor captured
the sentiments of many when she said: “[It made me feel] safe. Yes, it made me feel like I could talk to
them about anything knowing that it's not going to get out” (Participant S27).
Confidential communication with advocates was important to survivors throughout their entire re-
engagement experiences, but survivors indicated it was particularly helpful as they were processing what
happened in the notification meeting and deciding whether to re-engage with the criminal legal system.
The advocates emphasized to survivors that this was their decision to make, and they would support
whatever they decided was best for them. As one advocate described:
First of all, my most important message to them [survivors] was that they did not have to go
through any of it if they didn't want to, that it was completely within their control. And sometimes I
think that that message isn't the most important message for the prosecutors and the
investigators. It doesn't always come across. (Participant A8)
The message that survivors have the choice whether to re-engage was not always clearly and
consistently communicated, particularly in cases in which the DNA testing results revealed that the
assailant was a suspected serial offender. In those situations, detectives and prosecutors were eager to
move forward, which was certainly a welcome reprieve from the blame, disregard, and neglect survivors
had received before. However, what they communicated and how they communicated it often left
survivors feeling pressured to re-engage. As one advocate recounted:
| 66
I'd honestly say every time the perpetrator has multiple cases, yes because of how much the
prosecutor's office emphasizes that to the survivor… the fact that the person is a serial rapist,
they'll definitely mention that a handful of times to make the survivor feel like, ‘You're doing this
for everybody else too, not just yourself’ and maybe that's not their intention, but that's the vibe
that I get when I hear them talking about it like that. (Participant A3)
The survivors affirmed that the detectives made them feel like they had an obligation to participate in
serial assault cases; for example:
I looked in [the detective’s] eyes … [They] really wanted to get that guy off the street. I'm like
okay. I looked [them] in the eye like yes I will. [They were] really desperate. [They were] really
desperate to get that guy off the street. I'm like okay. I thought about it and I'm like okay I'll do it.
(Participant S26)
Similarly, another survivor explained how she interpreted the information provided by the detectives:
I just kept saying to myself, ‘I have to. I have to do it for these women that are, I guess, past the
statute of limitations.’ They couldn't prosecute because it was so long ago … they had told me
that a serial rapist had done it to other women, and their cases had gone by too long, that they
couldn't do anything about it, which I thought was terrible. (Participant S13)
This quote conveys how much information the detective shared with the survivor—the testing suggested
the offender was a serial offender, the offender was linked to other sexual assault cases, and those other
cases were beyond the statute of limitations and could not be prosecuted so those other survivors would
not have an opportunity to see justice. How much information is needed to make a truly informed
decision is an open question, but at the very least, each of those details was a heavy weight for the
survivor to carry. The advocates had to explain to survivors that re-engagement truly was their decision,
and if they felt pressured to comply, they could take the time they needed to evaluate what was best for
them. As this advocate explained:
[Survivors] always ask me, ‘Do I have to do this?’ And I'm like, ‘Well, I thought the detective told
you that you didn't have to … this is your choice.’ A lot of times they end up still doing it, because
I feel like there's that pressure from prosecution. And it's like, ‘Well they found the DNA in more
than one rape kit, so your testimony would be very helpful for other women’ and they're like, ‘Well
| 67
I guess, I'm not doing it for me. I'm doing it for them.’ … My goal is not to get the perpetrator
prosecuted. My goal is to make sure that the survivor is safe, comfortable and feels advocated
for. (Participant A3)
Survivors needed a safe, confidential space to process what they had learned and to decide what was
best for them. What the legal system may want from survivors could be different than what they need for
themselves and their health and well-being, and the advocates’ role is to help survivors understand their
options and support their agency.
Court Accompaniment and Advocacy. All survivors we interviewed ultimately decided to re-
engage with the criminal legal system and all cases were charged. Court proceedings are often
confusing and intimidating, so a key component of advocacy services is demystifying the process and
helping survivors prepare for court appearances. After they had made their decision to re-engage with the
legal system, many survivors felt anxious and unsure about what would happen next, as this survivor
summarized:
[when the CODIS hit came back] I think I was relieved but at the same time still afraid. I never
had to go through trial for court or anything like that … It was like, what do I say, what do I do.
Like I said, [my advocate], she was so nice. She helped me along the way. She was very nice.
She contacted me every time something ... every time I had to go to court, she was there. She
was there. Yes, that was very helpful. Yeah, very helpful. (Participant S31)
Survivors were worried about what to say, what to do, and what would happen next, and they often
remarked how helpful their advocates were in explaining court processes. In our interviews with the
advocates, we asked them how they prepare survivors for court:
One of the things I did do, I set up a group to walk them through the criminal justice system
because they didn’t have an idea ... a lot of them had no idea of what was going to happen. To
ease some of that pressure, I set up a group and I had detectives and prosecutors from SAK
come in and tell them what their roles were and what they expected, or what they were going to
do or what they were going to see with the court system. I had somebody from the state lab come
in and talk about what their role is. I walked them through the whole system as a group. It worked
out well because they began to learn what was getting ready to happen before it happened... the
whole process. At a later date, I had a judge come in. I feel like I really ... I’ve gotten a lot of them
| 68
to the point where they ... I wanted them to be empowered, I wanted them to know, I wanted them
to go out here and pick up another person, another assault person and be able to tell them with
some confidence what’s going to happen to them or help them through it. I really feel good about
what we’re doing and what this agency is allowing me to do with that. (Participant A14)
Advocates also mentioned that they felt it was their responsibility to forewarn survivors about how difficult
court may be and how they may be treated by legal personnel. As these two advocates described:
I do feel it's our responsibility. But it's disheartening ... It's difficult for me personally ... trying to
explain to survivors that the justice system isn't set up for survivors to be successful, is very hard.
(Participant A5)
I would also give them a very clear picture of what it looks like, what the process looks like. That
it's not a quick thing. And it's a grueling examination. Trials can be very, very tough. (Partiipant
A8)
Survivors appreciated that the advocates were honest and direct about how they might be treated in
court:
She told me that they're going to come at you, they're going to ask you questions, they're going to
try to make it feel like it was your fault. They're going to try to play all of those little mind games,
but you know better than that, and you answer every question ... What I did was, I answered
every question yes or no. If they asked me, ‘Did this sexual thing happen?’ I would say three
times. I wouldn't go into specific because I was uncomfortable with it, but I answered the
questions. (Participant S7)
Advocates accompanied survivors to court hearings and other appointments to provide emotional
support and intervention, if needed. Survivors highlighted that having an advocate present from the first
victim notification meeting all the way through court sentencing was tremendously helpful to them, and
that steady support was critical to their re-engagement, as one survivor described:
I'm lucky I had them there, their support. Because doing it by myself, I wouldn't have made it. I'm
wouldn't get through it. I'm going to just be honest, I'm wouldn't get through it, I would have broke,
I would have crumbled. You know? So having that type of support and people that care about
you, your feelings and what happened to you. That was amazing. And I thank everybody for it.
| 69
That was amazing. Just to be there every step of the way with me. I thank them for that. Thank
them for having my back, being in my corner when I really needed the most. So that's the
important thing. (Participant S27)
Likewise, the advocates also mentioned that accompaniment was a central part of their work:
During the process, they have very limited support, and knowing that I'm a constant, which is
something that's new to them, knowing that not everybody is going to leave them, and building up
that self-esteem, it does them wonders, like, okay, I can do this. She has faith in me. I tell every
single one of my clients, ‘We're in this together. You're not in this alone.’ (Participant A12)
In many of these backlog cases, survivors did not want their family and friends present for court hearings
either because they had not told them about this assault or if they had, these people had not believed
them or supported them. Thus, the advocate was in many instances the sole and primary source of
support for survivors. Further, survivors emphasized how much they appreciated continuity in advocacy
services. The vast majority of victims had one advocate ("their" advocate) who worked with them for all
hearings and appointments. Survivors noted it was problematic when this was not the case, as they were
seeking not just the physical presence of an advocate but the personal connection with "their" advocate.
As one of these survivors described:
One time you will see this advocate, the next time you will see another one … It should just be
one person but I guess all the people don't have one specific person for a client… since they
switched up advocates with me I didn't really pretty much say too much of anything. I let them talk
to me, tell me. They ask me do I know different things and what it meant, this is pertaining to
court. I tell them no. They tell me about it. I just let them talk, because like I said, I don't like
talking to different people starting over and over and over. That's what kind of got me. (Participant
S20)
Survivors needed someone who was unequivocally “their person” for information and support throughout
their court case. Most survivors had never experienced court proceedings of this type, duration, or
intensity. For advocates, these kind of court cases are frequent occurrences in their careers, and they
had considerable knowledge and expertise that helped ease survivors’ distress.
| 70
Assistance With Other Life Needs. Given that that these notifications were unexpected
reactivation of traumatic memories, advocates asked survivors if they wanted help connecting to
counseling services to address their trauma symptoms, but many clients did not want such help. Here,
an advocate explains why many survivors in backlogged cases did not want counseling:
And that seemed to be a general theme that counseling could be helpful, but that wasn't really
utilized in the way that we thought it might be because the majority of people did not want
counseling. I think it was mostly that they just wanted as little to do with the process as possible,
because they just wanted to get this done and the court part done, and they were just so focused
on that, that they thought that that would be the most important to their version of what they
thought would be justice … I think in general, people have mixed feelings about counseling and
what that looks like, what that is. And maybe that it's been so long that they just kind of have
been dealing with life the way that they have been. And it's kind of hard to start to bring up all
those things in counseling and kind of start over in a way. (Participant A11)
Building on this idea that backlog assault cases are different from current cases, another advocate noted
that these survivors had already found ways to live with the aftermath of the assault, and they may not
want to re-open the trauma any more than necessary. Survivors were eager to get back to their lives and
to leave this incident behind them, as this advocate explained:
I think honestly the main difference is survivors from the backlog, [the assault is] not at the
forefront of their brain right now anymore. They have other things they're dealing with that seem
to be more pressing than this, because it's something that happened so long ago versus
survivors that have just been recently assaulted. It's like, I'm still dealing with this. I have to figure
out my health. I have to make a doctor's appointment. I have to figure out if I caught anything
from the perpetrator. I have to move my work schedule around so that I could deal with this. Am I
going to file a PPO? Am I going to do a restraining order? I have meetings with my detective right
now. I'm waiting on my kit to get processed. All of that is happening live, right now, versus the
survivor from the backlog, all of these things have already been dealt with, if they chose to deal
with it, 10, 15, 20 years ago. Now it's like, if they did deal with it, and they moved on, and they
developed healthy coping mechanisms, and it doesn't affect their life anymore, and they've
moved on from that, that's great. Now the main thing is, I got to get this court case out of the way,
and then, whatever. Other times this person has done such a good job suppressing it, not dealing
with it, losing faith in the system, probably have been revictimized multiple times by the time this
happened. So it definitely takes a lot more to get them emotionally engaged, because they've
| 71
worked so hard to detach themselves from the situation, right? Versus if you've been assaulted
now. (Participant A3)
The survivors echoed this sentiment in their interviews—mental health support services were not a focal
need and they wanted to return to the issues that mattered in their current lives, as this survivor noted:
Call somebody else … Some people actually need that help and support after something like that
happens. I'm not one of those ones that's suicidal and going to be sitting there, and hiding … Go
ahead call another person. Don't waste your time calling me because you're basically just
bothering me right now. So just go ahead and deal with one of the ones who actually need the
help and support like that. And need to get past that fence and that barrier that they have up. I'm
fine. (Participant S8)
Advocates reiterated the importance of listening to their clients and trusting that they truly are the experts
of their own lives and know what they need. Advocates can offer services, but they need to respect
survivors’ decisions about what they do and do not want to do:
I've long since learned that following the lead of the client, not the lead of the detective. If the
client does not want the services, I only ask that they allow me to contact them periodically to
follow up to see how they're doing and if there's anything I can do to assist them with anything.
(Participant A14)
Survivors indicated that they needed and wanted help in other domains of their lives, such as
childcare, housing, education, employment, financial help, and government assistance. The advocates
noted that survivors in backlogged cases often had more pressing tangible needs than many of their
current-case survivors; as one advocate explained:
Well, I think that [backlog] survivors definitely have a lot more needs I feel as far as financial
advocacy, housing, educational. We've come across situations where, especially with some of
the [backlog] survivors who may have been in their teens when they were assaulted, you have
the sense of they no longer have a relationship with their family, so having to deal with that. They
may have quit school because it was just too hard for them and they didn't have any support. So
being able to get them back on track of what would you like to do, we had a number of survivors
say, well, I want to go back to school. So trying to get them back on track in regards to that, trying
to help them out with financial advocacy and housing and things like that. When I say financial, a
| 72
lot of times I'm saying financial in regards to helping them to pay for the rent or helping them pay
for utility bills and things like that because there's a lot of [backlog] survivors are having issues
with housing right now. (Participant A6)
Because trauma has long-term, wide-ranging effects on survivors’ lives, these victims had been
experiencing significant stress and disruption for years, and their social support and resource networks
were strained or virtually non-existent. In our interviews with survivors, they expressed relief and
grattutide that the advocates could help them with more than just their court cases:
She was calling, checking on me, calling and seeing if I needed anything, because I was in the
process, I was still in the process of moving, so she was calling and checking on me, helping me
find an apartment. (Participant S12)
They help with resources. They help with housing. They help people overcome barriers to get a
job. Temporary employment, they help you with resume writing and they really support women
there and things like that. (Participant S26)
Advocates continued to maintain contact and provide comprehensive advocacy services to survivors long
after their court cases ended. As they emphasized to their clients in their first meeting, they were there to
help them with whatever they needed, for as long as they needed.
Limitations
This research was conducted in Detroit, Michigan, which is one of many U.S. cities with large
numbers of previously-unsubmitted SAKs. However, Detroit is not representative among U.S. cities, as it
is unusually racially homogeneous (78% African American in the 2020 Census), with a high violent crime
rate (highest rate in the nation, per 2019 FBI data) and severe economic hardships. Given these unique
features, it is important to consider how the results of this project may or may not generalize to other
communities. When the Detroit SAKs were submitted for testing, they yielded a substantial number of
CODIS hits. Although the number of CODIS hits emanating from Detroit’s kits seems quite high, the rate
of return was actually similar to studies conducted in communities with more racial/ethnic and economic
diversity (Lovell et al., 2018; Lovell et al., 2020; Strom et al., 2018; Whisman & Roberts, 2017). In
addition, emerging research on untested SAKs in small urban and rural communities has documented
| 73
similarly high CODIS hit rates (Campbell et al., 2020). In other words, Detroit’s SAK testing results are not
unusual, and practitioners should expect a substantial number of CODIS hits (proportional to community
size); therefore, they should have robust plan for CODIS Hit Re-Engagement Victim Notifications. Given
that most states have statute of limitations laws, it is reasonable to prioritize cases with CODIS hits, and
this appears to be common practice in other communities (SAKI, 2018). In this project we had hoped to
study not only CODIS Hit Re-Engagement Victim Notifications but also FYI Victim Notifications and
404(b) Participation Victim Notifications; however, in the 45 months of this grant’s period of performance,
Detroit stakeholders were still processing CODIS hit notifications. We acknowledge this limitation in the
scope of this study and caution that our findings should not be generalized to other types of notifications
(i.e., FYI and 404(b) notifications). Our results suggest that the legal implications of a notification are quite
important to survivors and affect how they react and what decisions they make; as such, the findings
would not be expected to generalize to notifications with strikingly different legal parameters.
The ways in which Detroit stakeholders conducted CODIS Hit Re-Engagement Victim
Notifications were influenced by different community and contextual features, some of which may not be
as salient in other jurisdictions. For example, Detroit stakeholders discussed at length how to reach out
to survivors in a trauma informed way, given that many did not have phones (or consistent and reliable
phone access), and many lived in neighborhoods with high rates of community violence. Given this
context, the protocol stipulated that outreach would be made in person, by detectives affiliated with the
prosecutor’s office (not the city police who took survivors’ initial reports), and advocates would not be
physically present due to safety concerns. Half of the survivors we interviewed were notified in this way,
and most did not have a favorable assessment of this method. It was frightening and upsetting to have
law enforcement personnel come unannounced to their homes. Detroit has a long, painful history of
tension and violence between its police and citizens, and this context likely affected how survivors
reacted. Given that many other U.S. cities also have strained relationships between law enforcement and
community members, the results of this project offer a cautionary tale for planning active outreach
protocols and sole reliance on police personnel as notifiers. In this study, survivors who were contacted
by phone (which was the ‘back up’ method) reacted more positively to that type of outreach, and we
encourage future evaluations of protocols that utilize phone and mail contact more extensively to
| 74
understand the potential benefits of these notification strategies. Regardless of the method of outreach
used, the survivors we interviewed were emphatic that advocates should be included in all outreach
efforts to survivors.
Once the survivors in this community had been notified about the CODIS hit associated with their
SAK, we had hoped we might be able to interview them about their notification experiences and then
conduct additional prospective interviews as their court cases unfolded. However, we could not have
contact with survivors during their legal proceedings because members of the research team could have
become a party to the case and called as witnesses. Any communications with the research team would
be protected by our DOJ Privacy Certificate and could not be disclosed, but the county prosecutor did not
want to risk such complications and our IRB stipulated that we could only interview survivors after their
cases were adjudicated. That stipulation meant that we had to wait for their cases to be adjudicated,
which took months and sometimes years. Participation rates tend to be lower in studies that defer
recruitment until services (broadly defined) are completed (see Campbell et al., 2011 for a review), and
the patterns in this study are consistent with those trends. Recruiting survivors was challenging, and
agency advocates were unable to reach most eligible participants to explain the study and request their
participation. Thus, we acknowledge the low response rate in the study, while noting this is a challenging
limitation to prevent. In the case of conducting research with survivors of sexual assault, there are ethical
and legal barriers that prohibit other recruitment methods that tend to yield higher participation rates.
Furthermore, we need to look more closely at patterns of non-response that we documented in
this study. The survivors who were unreachable were more likely to have had their cases end in not-guilty
verdicts, so this study’s sample over-represents survivors whose cases were settled by guilty pleas or trial
convictions. In fact, 31 of the 32 survivors we interviewed had their cases resolved by a guilty plea or trial
conviction, which is extraordinarily atypical among survivors who engage with the criminal legal system
(see Spohn, 2020 for a review). The vast majority of reported rapes are never charged by prosecutors, so
this study presented a rare, but important, opportunity to document survivors’ court experiences. Our
findings suggest that case outcome (i.e., distributive justice) certainly affects the extent to which survivors
felt they received justice, but this is not the sole determining factor in how they define justice, healing, and
closure. Procedural justice and retributive justice also affected the extent to which survivors felt the court
| 75
experience provided restorative justice. Because this study drastically under-represents cases that
ended in not-guilty verdicts, we do not know how these court experiences unfolded and the extent to
which these survivors felt they received justice. Likewise, we do not know about whether the advocacy
services they received were adequate and helpful. To protect the confidentiality of survivors’ information,
the advocates had to make the initial outreach to survivors, and if survivors whose cases ended in not-
guilty verdicts felt upset or angry with their advocates, that may have affected their willingness to return
phone calls (and thus engage in this study). Future research is needed with survivors who had different
case outcomes, as well as those who declined to re-engage after testing revealed a CODIS hit.
Conclusions
With these limitations noted, the results of this project offer practical guidance for other
jurisdictions who will be conducting CODIS Hit Re-Engagement Victim Notifications. We developed a
series of four infographics that highlight key findings and recommendations from this project (see
Appendix C). As more jurisdictions throughout the U.S. begin testing previously-unsubmitted SAKs, more
VAWA-funded advocates will be called upon to help survivors as they face difficult decisions about re-
engaging with the criminal legal system. Our findings suggest that integrating confidential community-
based advocacy services into all aspects of the notification and re-engagement process is critical for
supporting survivors’ well-being and promoting justice.
| 76
ARTIFACTS
List of Products (current to 7/1/2022)
Infographics (4)
“Tips for Advocates on How to Support Survivors with Previously Untested Sexual Assault Kits”
“Types of Justice”
“Factors That Matter to Survivors When Re-Engaging with the Criminal Legal System”
“Recommendations for Trauma-Informed Victim Notifications”
Publications (6)
Campbell, R., Goodman-Williams, R., Engleton, J., Javorka, M., & Gregory, K. (under review). Open
science and data sharing in trauma research: Developing a trauma-informed protocol for
archiving sensitive qualitative data. Submitted to Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research,
Practice and Policy.
Campbell, R., Goodman-Williams, R., Javorka, M., Engleton, J., & Gregory, K. (under review).
Understanding sexual assault survivors’ perspectives on archiving qualitative data: Implications
for feminist approaches to open science. Submitted to Psychology of Women Quarterly.
Campbell, R., Gregory, K., Goodman-Williams, R., Engleton, J., & Javorka, M. (under review).
Organizational readiness and response during COVID-10: Reflections from a sexual assault
agency on how the urban digital divide affected African American survivors. Submitted to
Violence & Victims.
Campbell, R., Javorka, M., Engleton, J., Goodman-Williams, R., & Gregory, K. (2022). Post-assault
healthcare for sexual assault survivors during COVID-19: A mixed methods analysis of service
rates in a predominately African American community. Journal of Interpersonal Violence.
Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F08862605221098963
Engleton, J., Goodman-Williams, R., Javorka, M., Gregory, K., & Campbell, R. (2022). Sexual assault
survivors’ engagement with advocacy services during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of
Community Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.22819
Javorka, M., Engleton, J., Goodman-Williams, R., Gregory, K., & Campbell, R. (2022). The impacts of
COVID-19 on criminal legal proceedings and legal advocacy for sexual assault survivors Victims
& Offenders. Advanced online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2022.2038319
| 77
Data Sets Generated (2)
Campbell, R. et al. (2022a). Evaluating A Victim Notification Protocol for Untested Sexual Assault Kits:
Sexual Assault Survivor Interviews (N = 32). Submitted to the National Archive of Criminal
Justice Data.
Campbell, R. et al. (2022b). Evaluating A Victim Notification Protocol for Untested Sexual Assault Kits:
Sexual Assault Advocate Interviews (N = 12). Submitted to the National Archive of Criminal
Justice Data.
Dissemination Activities (5)
Campbell, R. (2019, August). A trauma-informed approach to open science. In S. Cook & R. Goodman-
Williams (Chairs), Methodological and ethical considerations in sexual assault research in the age
of open science. Symposium presented at the American Psychological Association, Chicago, IL.
Engleton, J., Javorka, M., Gregory, K., Campbell, R., & Goodman-Williams, R. (2021, November). What do
sexual assault survivors want from the victim notification process? Paper presented at the
American Society of Criminology, Chicago, IL.
Engleton, J., Javorka, M., Goodman-Williams, R., Gregory, K., & Campbell, R. (2022, November). Justice
received? Perspectives on justice through the criminal justice system from sexual assault survivors
with previously untested SAKs. Paper to be presented at the American Society of Criminology,
Atlanta, GA.
Goodman-Williams, R., Campbell, R., Engleton, J., Javorka, M., & Gregory, K. (2022, June). Whose story
is it? A trauma informed approach to open science and qualitative data. Paper presented at the
Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues Conference, San Juan, Puerto Rico.
Javorka, M., Engleton, J., Goodman-Williams, R., Gregory, K., & Campbell, R. (2021, November). “They
let me down:” Sexual assault survivors’ reactions to untested sexual assault kit (SAK)
notifications. Paper to be presented at the American Society of Criminology, Chicago, IL.
| 78
REFERENCES
Ahrens, C., Dahlgren, S., & Howard, R. (2020). Rape kit notification: Recommendations and barriers to
reconnecting with survivors. Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 21, 419-436.
Becker-Blease, K., & Freyd, J.J. (2006). Research participants telling the truth about their lives: The
ethics of asking and not asking about abuse. American Psychologist, 61, 218-226.
Black, M. C., Basile, K. C., Breiding, M. J., Smith, S. G., Walters, M. L., Merrick, M. T., … Stevens, M. R.
(2011). National intimate partner and sexual violence survey: 2010 Summary Report. Atlanta, GA:
National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Breiding, M. J. (2014). Prevalence and characteristics of sexual violence, stalking, and intimate partner
violence victimization. Morbidity and mortality weekly report. Surveillance summaries, 63(8), 1-18.
Busch-Armendariz, N., Sulley, C., & McPhail, B. (2015). Sexual assault victims’ experiences of notification
after a CODIS hit: A report to the Houston Sexual Assault Kit Action Research Working Group.
Retrieved from http://houstonsakresearch.org/resources/documents/IDVSA_CODIS.pdf
Calton, J., & Cattaneo, L. B. (2014). The effects of procedural and distributive justice on intimate partner
violence victims’ mental health and likelihood of future help-seeking. American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, 84, 329–340.
Campbell, R. (2008). The psychological impact of rape victims’ experiences with the legal, medical, and
mental health systems. American Psychologist, 68, 702-717.
Campbell, R., Abdelnor, T., Cain, D., Hurst, K., & Kanitra, A. (2014, October). A multidisciplinary response
to untested rape kits: Lessons learned from the Detroit Sexual Assault Kit Action Research
Project. Keynote address delivered at the International Association of Forensic Nurses Scientific
Assembly, Phoenix, AZ.
Campbell, R., & Cain, D. (2014, June). Untested sexual assault kits: Lessons learned from the Detroit
Sexual Assault Action Research Project. Battered Women’s Justice Project Annual Conference,
New Orleans, LA.
| 79
Campbell, R. & Feeney, H. (2022, in press). “On the shelves, covered in dust:” The history of untested
sexual assault kits (SAKs) in the United States. In R. Lovell & J. Langhinrichsen-Rohling (Eds.),
Sexual Assault Kits (SAKs) and reforming the response to rape. Routledge.
Campbell, R., Fehler-Cabral, G., & Horsford, S. (2017). Creating a victim notification protocol for untested
sexual assault kits: An empirically supported planning framework. Journal of Forensic
Nursing, 13, 3-13.
Campbell, R., Fehler-Cabral, G., Pierce, S. J., Sharma, D., Bybee, D., Shaw, J., Horsford, S., & Feeney,
H. (2015). The Detroit sexual assault kit (SAK) action research project (ARP). Washington, DC:
National Institute of Justice.
Campbell, R., Goodman-Williams, R., & Javorka, M. (2019). A trauma-informed approach to sexual
violence research ethics and open science. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 34, 4765-4793.
Campbell, R. & Hurst, K. (2016, September). The role of forensic nurses in victim notification of untested
sexual assault kits (SAKs). Paper presented at the International Association of Forensic Nurses
Annual Scientific Assembly, Denver, CO.
Campbell, R., Javorka, M., Sharma, D.B., Gregory, K., Opsommer, M., Schelling, K., & Lu, L. (2020). A
state census of unsubmitted sexual assault kits (SAKs): Comparing forensic DNA testing
outcomes by geographic and population density characteristics. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 65,
1820-1827.
Campbell, R., Shaw, J., Feeney, H. & Cain, D. (2021). Participatory evaluation and public policy: Creating
collaborative partnerships to address the criminal justice system response to sexual assault. In.
R.P. Kilmer & J.R. Cook (Eds.) The practice of evaluation: Partnership approaches for community
change (pp. 331-348). Sage.
Campbell, R., Shaw, J., & Fehler-Cabral, G. (2018). Evaluation of a victim-centered, trauma-informed
victim notification protocol for untested sexual assault kits (SAKs). Violence Against Women, 24,
379-400.
Campbell, R., Sprague, H.A., Cottrill, S., & Sullivan, C.M. (2011). Longitudinal research with sexual
assault survivors: A methodological review. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 433-461.
| 80
Cattaneo, L. B., & Goodman, L. A. (2010). Through the lens of therapeutic jurisprudence: The relationship
between empowerment in the court system and well-being for intimate partner violence victims.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 481–502.
Clark, J.J., & Walker, R.L. (2011). Research ethics in victimization studies: Widening the lens. Violence
Against Women, 17, 1489-1508.
Creswell, J.W., & Poth, C.N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
approaches (4
th
edition). Sage.
Corrigan, R. (2013). Up against a wall: Rape reform and the failure of success. New York University Press.
Department of Justice (2013). A national protocol for sexual assault medical forensic examinations:
Adults & adolescents (2
nd
ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
DePrince, A.P., & Freyd, J.J. (2006). Costs and benefits of being asked about trauma history. Journal of
Trauma Practice, 3 23-35.
Fedina, L., Holmes, J. L., & Backes, B. L. (2016). Campus sexual assault: A systematic review of
prevalence research from 2000 to 2015. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 19, 76-93.
Feeney, H., Campbell, R., & Cain, D. (2018). Do you wish to prosecute the person who assaulted you?:
Untested sexual assault kits and victim notification of rape survivors assaulted as
adolescents. Victims & Offenders, 13, 651-674.
Glaser, B. G. (2007). Doing formal theory. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of
grounded theory (pp. 97-113). Sage.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative
research. Chicago: Aldine.
Kaba, M. (2021). We do this ‘til we free us: Abolitionist organizing and transforming justice. Haymarket
Books.
Kaiser, K. A., O'Neal, E. N., & Spohn, C. (2017). "Victim refuses to cooperate": A focal concerns analysis
of victim cooperation in sexual assault cases. Victims & Offenders, 12, 297-322.
Koss, M. P., White, J. W., & Lopez, E. C. (2017). Victim voice in re-envisioning responses to sexual and
physical violence nationally and internationally. American Psychologist, 72, 1019.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.
| 81
Lovell, R., Luminais, M., Flannery, D. J., Bell, R., & Kyker, B. (2018). Describing the process and
quantifying the outcomes of the Cuyahoga County sexual assault kit initiative. Journal of Criminal
Justice, 57, 106-115.
Lovell, R., Huang, W., Overman, L., Flannery, D., & Klingenstein, J. (2020). Offending histories and
typologies of suspected sexual offenders identified via untested sexual assault kits. Criminal
Justice and Behavior, 47, 470-486.
Miles, M.B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2020). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (4
th
edition). Sage.
Mulla, S. (2014). The violence of care: Rape victims, forensic nurses, and sexual assault intervention.
NYU Press.
Newman, E., Risch, E., & Kassam-Adams (2006). Ethical issues in trauma-related research. A review.
Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 1, 29-46.
Patterson, D., & Campbell, R. (2010). Why rape survivors participate in the criminal justice system.
Journal of Community Psychology, 38, 191-205.
Regoeczi, W., & Wright, V. (2016). Final report: An evaluation of the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor’s
Office Sexual Assault Victim Advocacy Initiative. Retrieved from
https://services.dps.ohio.gov/OCCS/Pages/Public/Reports/Final%20Report%20SAVA%20Evaluat
ion.pdf
Sexual Assault Kit Initiative (SAKI) (2018). Victim notification for untested sexual assault kits. Retrieved
from https://www.sakitta.org/virtual-academy.
Shaw, J., Campbell, R., & Cain, D. (2016). The view from inside the system: How police explain their
response to sexual assault. American Journal of Community Psychology, 58, 446-462.
Shaw, J., Campbell, R., Cain, D., & Feeney, H. (2017). Beyond surveys and scales: How rape myths
manifest in sexual assault police records. Psychology of Violence, 7, 602.
Spohn, C. (2020). Sexual assault case processing: The more things change, the more they stay the
same. International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy, 9, 86–94.
Strom, K. J., Markey, J., Noble, R. L., Werth, R., Daye, C. M. (2018). SAKI training and technical
assistance sexual assault unit assessment report: West Valley City Police Department.
| 82
https://www.sakitta.org/sau-assessments/docs/West-Valley-Police-Department-SAU-
Assessment-Final-Report.pdf
Strom, K., Scott, T., Feeney, H., Young, A., Couzens, L., & Berzofsky, M. (2021). How much justice is
denied? An estimate of unsubmitted sexual assault kits in the United States. Journal of Criminal
Justice, 73, 1-9.
Sulley, C., Wood, L., Cook Heffron, L., Westbrook, L., Levy, N., Donde, S. D., & Busch-Armendariz, N.
(2021). “At least they’re workin’on my case?” Victim notification in sexual assault “cold”
cases. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36, 4360-4380.
Tyler, T. R. (1988). What is procedural justice? Criteria used by citizens to assess the fairness of legal
procedures. Law & Society Review, 22, 103.
Whisman, K., & Roberts, M. (2017). The Kansas Sexual Assault Kit Initiative: Underlying factors
contributing to the accumulation of unsubmitted sexual assault kits in Kansas.
https://www.kansas.gov/kbi/news/docs/Underlying%20Factors%20Contributing%20to%20the%20
Accumulation%20of%20Unsubmitted%20SAKs.pdf
White House Council on Women and Girls (2014). Rape and sexual assault: A renewed call to action.
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
| 83
APPENDIX A: OPEN SCIENCE & DATA ARCHIVING STUDY
Creating a Trauma Informed Protocol for Archiving Sensitive Qualitative Data
Summary Abstract
Objective: The open science movement seeks to make research more transparent, and to that end,
researchers are increasingly expected or required to archive their data in national repositories. In
qualitative trauma research, data sharing could compromise participants’ safety, privacy, and
confidentiality because narrative data can be more difficult to de-identify fully. There is little guidance in
the traumatology literature regarding how to discuss data sharing requirements with participants during
the informed consent process. Within a larger research project in which we interviewed assault survivors,
we developed and evaluated a protocol for informed consent for qualitative data sharing and engaging
participants in data de-identification.
Method: We conducted qualitative interviews with N = 32 adult sexual assault survivors regarding: 1) how
to conduct informed consent for data sharing; 2) whether participants should have input on sharing their
data; and 3) whether they wanted to redact information from their transcripts prior to archiving.
Results: No potential participants declined participation after learning about the archiving mandate.
Survivors indicated that they wanted input on archiving because the interview is their story of trauma and
abuse, and it would be disempowering not to have control over how this information was shared and
disseminated. Survivors also wanted input on this process to help guard their privacy, confidentiality, and
safety. None of the participants elected to redact substantive data prior to archiving.
Conclusions: Engaging participants in the archiving process is a feasible practice that is important and
empowering for trauma survivors.
| 84
Exploring Sexual Assault Survivors’ Views on Data Sharing
Summary Abstract
The open science movement has framed data sharing and archiving as necessary and achievable best
practices for high quality science. Feminist psychologists have complicated that narrative by questioning
the purpose of data sharing across different paradigms, methodologies, and research populations. In
these debates, the academic community has centered the needs and voices of researchers, and
participants’ perspectives are largely missing from this literature. In this study, we sought to understand
how research participants feel about sharing qualitative data on a sensitive subject—sexual victimization.
As part of a participatory action research project, we conducted qualitative interviews with sexual assault
survivors about their post-assault help-seeking experiences. The federal funding agency that supported
this project requires researchers to archive de-identified data in a national data repository. All participants
consented to archiving data, and the vast majority expressed positive views about data sharing because
they wanted to help other survivors. Participants emphasized that our participatory action research
approach and our shared goals of helping survivors were important considerations in their decisions
regarding data sharing. These findings suggest that the reasons why participants agree to share their
data are important to explore in scholarship on open science practices.
| 85
APPENDIX B: IMPACT OF COVID-19 ON SEXUAL ASSAULT SERVICES STUDY
Impact on Post-Assault Medical Forensic Exams and Counseling
Summary Abstract
This study examined how the COVID-19 pandemic affected sexual assault healthcare services in a
predominately African American U.S. city. In mixed methods research design, we used quantitative
interrupted time series modeling to evaluate changes in service rates for three core post-assault
healthcare services—medical forensic exams (MFEs), medical advocacy MFE accompaniment, and
counseling—from January 2019 through June 2021. We also conducted qualitative interviews with 12
sexual assault advocates to understand how their clients were impacted by COVID and how their agency
adapted services to respond to the needs of their community. Both the quantitative and qualitative data
revealed marked disruptions in service provision. The number of MFEs, medical advocacy
accompaniments, and counseling sessions significantly decreased during the pandemic’s initial surge,
and survivors feared seeking hospital-based healthcare due to concerns that they might contract COVID-
19 in hospital emergency departments. The number of MFEs performed by program staff did not return to
pre-pandemic levels during this study’s observation period, but the number of medical advocacy
accompaniments and counseling sessions did significantly rebound. Counseling services eventually
exceeded pre-pandemic levels as agency staff supported clients with both assault- and COVID-related
trauma and loss. These results underscore the need for community-based sexual assault healthcare
services, so that if public health emergencies limit the availability, accessibility, and safety of hospital
emergency department care, sexual assault survivors have other settings for obtaining post-assault
healthcare.
| 86
Impact on Criminal Legal Cases and Legal Advocacy
Summary Abstract
This study examines how sexual assault criminal legal proceedings and victim advocacy services for
survivors have been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. We interviewed 12 victim advocates at a
sexual assault service organization in a large Midwestern city that was particularly impacted by the
pandemic. Results indicate that there have been major disruptions to sexual assault case timelines and
communication with victims. Victim advocacy for survivors has also been affected, especially the
provision of court advocacy and accompaniment. We discuss implications of these findings for sexual
assault survivors, service providers, and future emergency preparedness planning for the criminal legal
system.
Impact on Survivors’ Engagement With Advocacy Services
Summary Abstract
Sexual assault advocates provide support to survivors as they navigate medical, legal, housing, and other
complex systems. However, social distancing measures enacted in response to COVID-19 forced
changes to traditional advocacy services. The current study aimed to understand how the COVID-19
pandemic transformed survivors' engagement with sexual assault advocacy services. Semi-structured
interviews were conducted with twelve sexual assault advocates from a community-based sexual assault
victim service agency in Detroit. Thematic analysis was employed to uncover emergent themes reflecting
COVID-19’s impact on survivors’ engagement with advocacy services. Three themes were identified: 1)
Disruption to advocacy services; 2) Difficulty obtaining tangible resources; and 3) Desire for COVID-
related support, information, and resources. This study highlights the needs of sexual assault survivors
during the COVID-19 pandemic and explores how public health emergencies have the potential to
exacerbate the needs of this vulnerable population. Implications and future directions for service provision
and research are considered.
| 87
Impact on Organizational Readiness
Summary Abstract
Victim service organizations have had to establish remote/telehealth services during the COVID-19
pandemic. We conducted N = 12 qualitative interviews with sexual assault advocates working in an urban
agency in a predominately African American U.S. city to understand how they adapted services to meet
the needs of their community. A thematic analysis of these transcripts revealed this organization was
under-prepared for prolonged interruption of in-person services. Even though this agency was able to
create telehealth options, many clients did not have the financial and technological resources to utilize
these services. Advocates reported that survivors expressed a strong preference for in-person services,
which afford more privacy and confidentiality. The pervasive digital divide within this urban community
limited survivors’ access to comprehensive services and jeopardized their safety.
| 88
APPENDIX C: INFOGRAPHICS
“Tips for Advocates on How to Support Survivors with Previously Untested Sexual Assault Kits”
“Types of Justice”
“Factors That Matter to Survivors When Re-Engaging with the Criminal Legal System”
“Recommendations for Trauma-Informed Victim Notifications”
…
…
…
…
…
…
-
