The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice and prepared the following final report: 

Document Title: An Evaluation of the Rhode Island Sexual 

Assault Response Team (SART) 

Author(s): Doug Wilson, Andrew Klein 

Document No.: 210584 

Date Received: July 2005 

Award Number: 2002-WG-BX-0007 

This report has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice. 

To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made this Federallyfunded grant final report available electronically in addition to

traditional paper copies.

 

Opinions or points of view expressed are those 

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect 

the official position or policies of the U.S. 

Department of Justice.
An Evaluation of the Rhode Island Sexual Assault Response Team (SART) 

BOTEC Analysis Corporation 

Waltham, Massachusetts 

April 2005 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Table of Contents 

Introduction and Background.........................................................1 

The Literature...........................................................................2 

The Methodology - The Site.........................................................11 

Methodology – The Data.............................................................13 

 The Automated Court Connect File...........................................14 

 The Domestic Violence Sexual Assault Reporting Form (DVSA-1)....14 

 Sexual Assault Police Incident Reports.....................................14 

 SART Records..................................................................14 

Methodology – The Design..........................................................16 

Methodology – The Analysis.......................................................18 

The SART Process – Introduction..................................................21 

The Outcome of the SART Process.................................................27 

Contingency Analyses...............................................................32 

Conclusions............................................................................38 

Bibliography..........................................................................40 

Appendix 1: Forensic Examinations and Sexual Assault Prosecution........42 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Abstract of the Rhode Island Sexual Assault Response Team (SART) Evaluation1

In the past 25 or more years, the criminal justice system has reformed sexual 

assault laws and communities have developed programs, such SART which are designed 

to provide catalysts to the effects of legal reforms. 

The SART process in Rhode Island is a coordinated effort between the victim, the 

Sexual Assault and Trauma Resource Center (SATRC), the police department, and the 

Rhode Island Department of the Attorney General, the prosecuting agency for all felony 

sexual assaults. The SART program was initiated in January 2002. The evaluation covers 

assaults for a period, from September 2002 – August 2003 (n=238 sexual assaults). The 

cases were followed until July 2004. 

 The program has demonstrated positive effects in that there is demand among 

sexual assault victims for SART services. Victims who seek SART services have 

significant odds of being assaulted by a friend, acquaintance or relative, have had a 

subsequent forensic exam, and believe that the offense was first degree sexual assault. 

Also, users of SART services are importantly less likely to have an initial finding of 

probable cause found by the police. 

The estimated probability of a victim choosing to be a SART client, whose assault 

is without these assault characteristics and the police find probable cause is 3 percent, 

while the probability of a victim seeking SART services with all of these assault 

characteristics and the police do not initially find probable cause is 89 percent. 

 At this stage in the development of the SART program there is, however, no clear 

effect on the legal outcome of cases. Contingency analyses examined seven hypotheses 

about the legal effects of SART. They are: 

 

1

 This study was undertaken by Sexual Assault and Trauma Resource Center (SATRC) of Rhode Island, 

BOTEC Analysis Corporation supported by NIJ Grant No. 2002WGBX0007. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
1. SART increases the pool of defendants. 

2. SART cases that are intimate partner sexual assaults are more likely to be 

charged in Superior Court. 

3. Victims with forensic exams are more likely to have defendants charged in 

Superior Court. 

4. SART victims with forensic exams are more likely to be charged in Superior 

Court. 

5. Judicial processes for SART cases move more slowly and thus understate the 

effect of SART because of a SART case backlog. 

6. SART cases after they are filed in Superior Court are less likely to be 

dismissed. 

7. SART cases are more likely than non-SART cases to be charged in Superior 

Court. 

The application of Fisher’s exact test to each of these seven hypotheses provided no 

evidence that the null hypotheses should be questioned. 

These results, however, should be viewed with circumspection. The statistical 

power of the contingency analyses was modest, due to small sample sizes. Also, SART 

efforts may have helped to maintain a “level playing field” between the prosecution of 

acquaintance assault and stranger assault. The null results in the contingency analyses 

may demonstrate SART’s success at maintaining the likelihood that acquaintance assaults 

will be prosecuted. That is, SART programs may be a lagged social response to sociallegislative-judicial change. 

Finally, SART’s effect may “spillover” to the prosecution of sexual assault cases 

in which the victim does not use SART services. All sexual assault cases are prosecuted 

by the Department of the Attorney General. This may cause the null difference between 

the outcome of SART and non-SART cases. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Executive Summary 

An Evaluation of the Rhode Island Sexual Assault Response Team (SART)

Introduction: The Sexual Assault and Trauma Resource Center (SATRC) of 

Rhode Island contracted with BOTEC Analysis Corporation with funding from the 

National Institute of Justice1

 to undertake an evaluation of the principal legal effects on 

clients of the Sexual Assault Response Team (SART) operated by the Sexual Assault and 

Trauma Resource Center. 

 Local police, in the United States, have the unique role of determining the pool of 

defendants in crime investigations, given the ability and willingness of the victim to 

confirm them. Prosecutors then guided by the informal norms of the courtroom 

workgroup and their discretion choose from the pool of defendants. Police decisions to 

arrest and the prosecutor’s decision to file a felony complaint in sexual assaults constitute 

the primary official screening of these crimes. 

In the past 25 or more years, the criminal justice system has reformed sexual 

assault laws and communities have developed programs, such as rape crisis centers, and 

SART and Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE) programs, which are designed to 

provide catalysts to the effects of legal reforms. 

Study Results: This evaluation is the first outcome evaluation of a SART 

program. The evaluation describes the SART process, which is a coordinated effort 

between the victim, The Sexual Assault and Trauma Resource Center (SATRC), the 

police department, the Rhode Island Department of the Attorney General, the prosecuting 

agency for felony sexual assaults. It also examines the outcome of this process. The 

SART program was initiated in January 2002. The evaluation covers assaults for a 

period, from September 2002 – August 2003 following the initial implementation phase. 

 

1

 NIJ Grant No. 2002WGBX0007 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
The cases were followed until July 2004. As should be expected the program is still 

developing, but nevertheless it has demonstrated positive effects in that there is demand 

among sexual assault victims for SART services. Victims who seek SART services have 

significant odds of being assaulted by a friend, acquaintance or relative, have a 

subsequent forensic exam, and believe that the offense is first degree sexual assault. Also, 

users of SART services are importantly less likely to have an initial finding of probable 

cause found by the police. The estimated probability of a victim choosing to be a SART 

client, whose assault is without these assault characteristics and the police find probable 

cause is 3 percent, while the probability of a victim seeking SART services with all of 

these assault characteristics and the police do not initially find probable cause is 89 

percent. 

At this stage in the development of the SART program there is, however, no clear 

effect on the legal outcome of cases. Contingency analyses examined seven hypotheses 

about the legal effects of SART. They are: 

1. SART increases the pool of defendants. 

2. SART cases that are intimate partner sexual assaults are more likely to be

charged in Superior Court. 

3. Victims with forensic exams are more likely to have defendants charged in 

Superior Court. 

4. SART victims with forensic exams are more likely to be charged in Superior 

Court. 

5. Judicial processes for SART cases move more slowly and thus understate the 

effect of SART because of a SART case backlog.

6. SART cases after they are filed in Superior Court are less likely to be 

dismissed. 

7. SART cases are more likely than non-SART cases to be charged in Superior 

Court. 

ii

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
The application of Fisher’s exact test to each of these seven hypotheses provided no 

evidence that the null hypotheses should be questioned. 

These results, however, should be viewed with circumspection. The statistical 

power of the contingency analyses was modest, due to small sample sizes. That is, a 

longer test of SART and a larger sample might produce somewhat different results. 

Also, it may be that SART efforts have helped to maintain a “level playing field” 

and that that the consistent null results in the contingency analyses demonstrates SART’s 

success at maintaining the likelihood that acquaintance assaults will be prosecuted, which 

is an outcome of rape law reform legislated several years earlier. That is, SART programs

may be a lagged social response to social-legislative-judicial change. 

Finally, SART’s effect may “spillover” to the prosecution of sexual assault cases 

in which the victim does not use SART services. As a result there is a null difference 

between the outcome of SART and non-SART cases. 

The literature review of police and prosecution of sexual assault in other 

jurisdictions indicates that the reform of sexual assault laws has increased the likelihood 

of the prosecution of acquaintance rapes relative to stranger rapes. Nevertheless 

discussions with the Rhode Island Department of the Attorney General indicate that

SART cases, many of which by their characteristics are acquaintance assaults and are 

coupled with a lack of an initial finding by the police of probable cause, are more 

difficult to prosecute. Furthermore, as is discussed in the literature review, informal 

arrest and prosecution guidelines for sexual assault continue to apply extra-legal 

standards, such as evidence of resistance. For example, in this study, when the police 

failed to find probable cause it was strongly related to a lack of injury; that is, a failure to 

resist. 

Appreciation: The authors are greatly appreciative of the opportunity to work 

with The Sexual Assault and Trauma Resource Center of Rhode Island, the Domestic 

Violence Training and Monitoring Unit of the State Supreme Court and the Department 

iii

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
of the Attorney General all of whom generously gave their time and provided available 

information. Any program or agency that involves itself in an evaluation takes a risk, but 

it is also expressing confidence that it can learn from a disinterested evaluation. 

This study would not have been possible without the support of the National 

Institute of Justice/Department of Justice. The Institute’s help and the government project 

officer’s patience are appreciated. Two anonymous reviewers did their jobs by 

stimulating further thought about the results. Any errors in this report are solely those of 

the authors. The results of the report do not represent an expression of policy of any of 

the involved agencies, the reviewers, or the National Institute of Justice.

Andrew Klein, Ph.D. 

Douglas Wilson, Ph.D. 

BOTEC Analysis Corporation 

Waltham, Massachusetts. 

April, 2005 

iv

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
1

An Evaluation of the Sexual Assault Response Team (SART) Rhode Island

Introduction and Background: The following study examines the outcomes of 

the activities of the Sexual Assault Response Team (SART) of Rhode Island. SART 

programs are a collective response to the felony of sexual assault. In Rhode Island SART 

is a coordinated effort between the victim, the police department and the Rhode Island 

Department of the Attorney General, the prosecuting agency for felony sexual assaults. 

This study is divided into five sections. The first is a literature review which 

provides a conceptual background for the study. Fundamentally, SART, as a program, 

has a mission to respond to the concerns and needs of its clients - sexual assault victims – 

and pursues its operations within a bureaucratic criminal justice environment of local 

police, criminal prosecutors in the Department of the Attorney General, and the courts. 

The literature review helps to establish the critical importance of this administered 

environment and its effects on SART operations. 

The methodology section that follows includes a discussion of the study site – the 

state of Rhode Island, the data that the study draws upon and the study design. Rhode 

Island provides a good study site insofar as it is representative of the urban United States. 

The Rhode Island criminal justice data provide a unique data source for the study. The 

Domestic Violence/Sexual Assault (DVSA) database operated by the Rhode Island 

Justice system combined with the Rhode Island criminal history data provides a rich 

source of information. While these administrative data sources provide uniform data, the 

study also was hampered by reporting delays. The study is observational. SART cases 

and non-SART cases are not the result of random assignment, but are the outcome of 

victim behavior. A key issue in the methodology is to determine how the victims 

“assigned” themselves to SART or non-SART. SART and non-SART can be thought of 

as the treatment and control groups respectively. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
2

A third section describes the SART process. There is clear consistency between 

the conceptual basis established in the literature review and the criminal justice processes 

currently operating in Rhode Island with regard to sexual assault. 

The fourth section, the analysis section, uses logistic regression to examine the 

differences between SART clients and non-SART clients. Then, contingency table 

analysis is used to examine the differences in the outcomes for SART and non-SART 

cases within the Rhode Island criminal justice system. 

A final section provides some conclusions and makes suggestions for further 

analysis. It is an irony of the research process that study questions are often best framed 

after the study is completed. In that sense this study is formative and exploratory. 

The Literature: The FBI reports that in the period 1999-2000 the rate of female 

rape in the Northeast was 46.4 per 100,000 females; the rate in the South was 67.9, the 

West was 67.4 and the Midwest was 72.7. Legal redress for these sexual assaults 

depends on the screening decisions of police and prosecutors. 

The police have the unique role of determining the pool of defendants, given the 

ability and willingness of the victim to confirm the assault. Prosecutors then guided by 

the informal norms of the courtroom workgroup and their discretion choose from this 

pool.1 Police decisions to arrest and the prosecutor’s decision to file a felony complaint 

constitute the primary official screenings of sexual assault. 

In the past 25 or more years, the criminal justice system has reformed sexual 

assault laws and communities have developed programs, such as SART, sexual assault 

nurse examiner programs and specialized police and prosecution training all of which are 

designed to provide catalysts to the legal reforms with increased emphasis on forensic 

exams, and more specialized investigative resources and processes. 

Reforms were undertaken at the state and federal level in an effort to increase the 

reporting of sexual assaults and reduce the attrition of these cases due to a lack of arrest 

 

1 Ford, David A. and Susan Breall, Violence Against Women: Synthesis of Research for Prosecutors, Final 

Report, National Institute of Justice, 2000.p.17.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
3

 

or unsuccessful prosecution in the courts. State laws and the Federal code were revised 

by the 1980’s to shift the focus to the behavior of the offender and away from the victim. 

Most states eliminated requirements of victim resistance, prompt reporting and 

corroboration. The single crime of rape was replaced with a series of graded offenses 

similar to those for other types of violent crime that are graded by aggravating 

circumstances. The enactment of rape shield laws restricted the introduction of 

information about the victim’s sexual conduct.2

 

Bachman and Paternoster found that the outcome of these reforms was a modest, 

but measurable increase in the likelihood of a rape being reported to the police, an 

increased likelihood of the offender being imprisoned, and that stranger rapes and 

acquaintance rapes were more likely to be similarly sanctioned.3

 Finally, the rate of 

increase in the reports of acquaintance sexual assaults was greater than the increase in 

reports of stranger rapes.4 

Despite these reforms the problems of under-reporting and attrition remain. In 

part, it reflects the general behavior of the criminal justice system, and in part it reflects 

the failure of analysts and policymakers to understand the variance within the system so 

that effective practices and programs can be identified. 

Characteristically, sexual assault cases experience a high level of attrition 

between reporting and sentencing, as do other violent crimes. Approximately thirty-two 

percent of victims of sexual assault or rape report the incident to police. 5 One-half of 

those reports result in an arrest 6 and arraignment. Prosecutors fail to prosecute a 

2

 J. David Hirschel and DJ Dawson, Violence Against Women: Synthesis of research for Law Enforcement 

Officials, National Institute of Justice, 2003, p.11. 3

 Ronet Bachman and Raymond Paternoster, A Contemporary Look at the Effects of Rape Law Reform: 

How Far Have We Really Come? The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol. 84(9), 1993, 554-

574. 

4 Ibid

5

 Callie Marie Rennison, Rape and Sexual Assault: Reporting to Police and Medical Attention, 1992-2000,

Bureau of Justice Statistics, August 2002. 

6

 Lawrence A. Greenfield, Sex Offenses and Offenders: An Analysis of Date on Rape and Sexual Assault, 

Bureau of Justice Statistics, February 1997, p.v 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
4

 

significant number of the arraignments. The result is that 8-10 percent of sexual assault 

incidents are prosecuted and sanctioned.7

 

 Galvin and Polk find a similar result for other violent crimes. They report that 

rape ranked in the middle of four other crimes: homicide, robbery, assault and burglary, 

in terms of attrition between reporting and sentencing. 8 Myers and LaFree found that for 

the outcomes of dismissal, trial and verdict there was no evidence that in terms of 

reaching decisions sexual assault cases are treated differently from other violent crimes.9

Thus, enhancing the criminal justice response to sexual assault requires both reform of 

the standard criminal justice response to violent crimes and in greater diffusion of 

effective program practices in sexual assault cases. 

In addition to legal reforms, which in the face of the general problem of attrition 

have had some success, several organizational reforms have been developed with 

unknown effect. Among the interventions mentioned in the literature, are the 

development of sexual assault response teams (SART) to provide a coordinated 

community response,10 the increased use of forensic examinations to improve the 

evidentiary basis of sexual assaults, 11 and increased levels of investigative resources for 

police and prosecutors to reduce excessive workloads and increase professionalism.12,13 

7

 Estimates of the attrition vary, but all agree that “there is tremendous attrition in the process of rape cases 

between reporting and sentencing.” Frazier and Haney Sexual assault Cases in the legal system: Police 

Prosecutor and Victim Perspectives, Law and Human Behavior, Vol. 26(6) 1996, p.608. 8

 Galvin, J and Polk, K. Attrition in Case Processing: Is Rape Unique? Journal of Research in Crime and 

Delinquency, 1983, p. 126-153. 

9

 Martha A. Myers and Gary D. LaFree, Sexual Assault and its Prosecution: A Comparison with Other 

Crimes, The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol. 73(3), 1982, p. 1282-1305. 10 Rebecca Campbell and Courtney E. Ahrens, Innovative Community Services for Rape Victims: An 

Application of Multiple Case Study Methodology, American Journal of Community Psychology, Vol. 26(4), 

1998. P. 537-571. 

11 J. David Hirschel and DJ Dawson, Violence Against Women: Synthesis of Research for Law Enforcement 

Officials, NIJ, September 2003. There are also a number of journal articles in the public health literature 

that examine the effect of medical exams on the outcome of sexual assault cases. See, for example, Riggs, 

N, Houry D, Long G, Markovchick V, Feldhause KM, Analysis of 1076 cases of Sexual Assault, Annals of 

Emergency Medicine, Vol. 35(4), 2000 p. 358-62. 12 Ronald J. Berger, W. Lawrence Neuman, and Patricia Searles, The Impact of Rape Law Reform: An 

Aggregate Analysis of Police Reports and Arrests, Criminal Justice Review, Vol. 19, (1) 1994, p. 18. 13 Frazier and Haney, op.cit. p. 624. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
5

 

It is currently unknown whether and how these program responses have reduced barriers 

to arrest and prosecution and been catalysts for the benefits of legal reforms. 

Studies of the screening of sexual assaults through arrest and prosecution provide 

a generally consistent discussion of the micro factors explaining the decisions of the 

police to arrest and prosecutors to prosecute. Kerstetter, after reviewing alternative 

theories of decision making within the legal system in his study of police and the 

prosecutor responses to sexual assaults,14 settles on the importance of pragmatic 

instrumentalism as a description of how criminal cases are processed. Pragmatic 

instrumentalism seeks those devices that turn the formalism of a statute into official 

actions. These factors are manifested as the outcomes of bureaucratic behavior and the 

administrative processes. They include administrative practices, matters of evidence, 

aggravating circumstances, and behaviors not sanctioned by law, which are 

inappropriately considered. Kerstetter contends that the most serious oversight in sexual 

assault research concerns the role of evidence.15

Kerstetter writes, “As a result, attention must be paid not only to whether 

evidence of the incident exists, but also to other factors (e.g., the complainant’s 

willingness to prosecute) that relate evidentiary requirements and administrative 

convenience.16 In his examination of police response to sexual assault, Kerstetter finds 

that in official decision-making on sexual assault the instrumental and evidentiary 

processes predominate and is defined by the local justice system’s requirements of 

administrative and legal processes.17 This instrumental process defines and controls 

access to legal redress. 

14 Wayne A. Kerstetter, Gateway to Justice: Police and Prosecutorial Response to Sexual Assaults against 

Women, The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol. 81(2), 1990, p. 271-276. 15 Kerstetter, op.cit. p.282. 16 Kerstetter, op.cit, p. 271. 17 It is important to keep in mind that Kerstetter among others are examining single law enforcement 

agencies, and that the instrumental process will vary among communities. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
6

 

LaFree similarly concluded in his study “legally-relevant variables were 

paramount.” 18 He found that the complainant’s ability to identify the attacker and her 

willingness to prosecute were the most important factors in the police decision to arrest.19

Frazier and Haney also concluded that police and the prosecutors relied on similar factors 

and that “consistent with prior research, evidentiary and credibility factors as well as 

offense severity are associated with cases proceeding to the prosecuting attorney’s 

office.”20 

In the dynamics of a rape investigation, a significant portion of the arrest and 

prosecution process involves the victim confirming the assault. The investigator needs to 

establish three primary facts: a sexual assault occurred, the identity of the assailant and 

the complainant did not consent. If it is an attack by a stranger, the issue of consent is a 

null question. If the assailant is known then the issue of consent becomes problematic. 

Thus, stranger assaults and acquaintance assaults present the police and prosecutor with 

different problems. For example, in an acquaintance attack damage to the victim’s sex 

organs is interpreted as evidence of coercion and an aggravating variable.21 The use of a 

weapon in acquaintance assaults is similarly interpreted. In stranger rapes these facts are 

unrelated to the question of whether coercion can be demonstrated. 

The variables, such as those discussed above, may be manifestations of 

bureaucratic and administrative behavior within the organization. As such the stated 

reasons may be different from the causes for the behavior. For example, the variable 

“willingness to prosecute,” may not be simply based on the volition of the victim. It is 

likely the result of an interaction with a combination of factors such as having the 

accused in custody, the presence of medical or other supporting evidence, and a low 

likelihood that the sexual act was consensual. Lacking these case elements, detectives or 

18 Gary D. LaFree, Official Reactions to Social Problems: Police Decisions in Sexual Assault Cases, Social 

Problems, Vol.28, 1981 p.588. 

19 Gary LaFree, op. cit., p. 592. 

20 Patricia A. Frazier and Beth Haney, Sexual assault Cases in the legal system: Police Prosecutor and 

Victim Perspectives, Law and Human Behavior, Vol. 26(6) 1996, p.624. 21 Kerstetter, op.cit. p. 298. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
7

 

prosecutors may choose to emphasize to the victim the difficulties of proceeding. If a 

victim withdraws a complaint, the case is “unfounded.” It is no longer unsolved and a 

detective’s or prosecutor’s record is unblemished.It is estimated that in about 10 percent 

of cases the police or prosecutor encourages the victim to drop the case. 22 A lack of 

volition by the victim to sign a complaint or prosecute will result in the cases being 

dropped by busy detectives and prosecutors.23 Prosecutor decisions, while driven largely 

by the same concerns as police investigators, appear to make their decisions based on the 

capacity and credibility of the victim. The prosecutor’s concerns may be driven by the 

desire to avoid time-consuming and expensive trials by presenting as formidable a case as 

possible to the defendant.24

Micro studies provide a general understanding of how arrest and prosecution 

decisions are made, but they do not explain the variance in screening decisions among 

police departments. On the basis of work by Kerstetter, LaFree, and Frazier and Haney, it 

is reasonable to conclude that controlling for the dynamics of local official practices is a 

necessary part of integrating the effects of special organizational interventions, such as 

SART, forensic examinations, and the level of investigative resources. 

Studies across police and prosecution departments in contrast to within 

department studies provide additional background and insight. Berger et al 25 in an 

aggregate analysis of police reports and arrests describe additional complexities in the 

relationship between sexual assault reports and arrest. They find that the discretionary 

aspects of criminal justice processing insulate police from the legislative intent of legal 

reforms, although they do find that reform is likely to increase reporting and increase 

arrests in larger and more professional departments. They also documented the 

22 Ford, David A. and Susan Breall, op cit. p.18.

23 Kerstetter, Wayne and Van Winkle, B. Who Decides? Study of the Complaint’s Decision to Prosecute in 

Rape Cases, Criminal Justice and Behavior, Vol.17(3),1990, p.268-283. 

p. 268-283. 

24 Kerstetter and VanWinkle, op. cit. 25 Ronald J. Berger, W. Lawrence Neuman, and Patricia Searles, The Impact of Rape Law Reform: An 

Aggregate Analysis of Police Reports and Arrests, Criminal Justice Review, Vol. 19, (1) 1994, p. 18. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
8

 

importance of contextual variables. They found that the pre-reform attitudes measured in 

terms of an index of “liberalism-feminism” increased the likelihood of arrest in the postreform period, 

In contrast, they found that the “socio-cultural climate,” a measure of social 

disorganization or entropy decreased the likelihood of arrest. With regard to the negative 

effect of “socio-cultural climate,” the authors suggest that high levels of community 

instability generate more crime of all types placing more stress on law enforcement or 

desensitizing the police and the community to sexual violence.26 

Importantly, they found that other community variables have significant effects 

on police arrests, but not necessarily in the expected direction. The measure of rape crisis 

centers decreased the likelihood of arrest. The authors provide an interesting 

interpretation of this variable. They suggest that rape crisis centers provide for some 

victims “an alternative outlet for their pain and rage that decreases their inclination to 

expose themselves to the criminal justice system or to follow through on criminal 

charges.” Given the results of the Berger et al study, community responses such as rape 

crisis centers might provide a dual role; an outlet to a victim’s hurt and rage and thus an 

alternative to arrest and pursuit of legal sanctions, but also provide advocacy to victims 

pursuing prosecution. While Berger et al may have isolated this relationship between 

rape crisis centers and arrest, the sequence of reporting a sexual assault and arrest do not 

fit well with the interpretation by Berger et al that the presence of rape crisis centers is 

behaviorally related to a decrease in arrests. Lower arrest rates may have preceded the 

establishment of the crisis center. Nevertheless, a dual role may be played by these 

centers. 

A dual role may also be played by forensic exams. Hirschel and Dawson 

summarize the purpose of forensic exams. The examination is to properly collect forensic 

evidence, including offender identification by the victim, and tests for DNA, but at the 

26 Ronald J. Berger, et al, op.cit.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
9

 

same time treat victims for physical injuries, takes preventive measures against pregnancy 

and test for diseases such as syphilis, hepatitis B and HIV.27 

The contribution of forensic exams to sexual assault arrests and prosecutions is 

not currently well understood. For example, in Rhode Island 43 percent of sexual 

assaults victims for whom there is a domestic violence sexual assault (DVSA) report had 

a forensic exam; 23 percent of those cases were arraigned. In contrast, in the 57 percent 

of cases without an exam, 73 percent were arraigned.28 This result with regard to the 

outcome of sexual assault cases with forensic exams is not different from that reported in 

the public health literature.29 The public health literature finds little or no effect on 

judicial outcomes that result from forensic exams.30 Outside of a preliminary study by 

BOTEC Analysis Corporation, (Appendix 1) and this study, however, none of the 

previous studies compare the outcome of assault cases with and without forensic exams. 

For example, an evaluation of a SANE program, although it found positive qualitative 

effects, used a weak pre-post evaluation design without a control group and without 

multivariate analysis to adjust for pre and post SANE case differences.31 It also found no 

difference in judicial outcomes. 

27 J. David Hirschel and D.J. Dawson, op.cit. p. 14. 28 Douglas Wilson, A Review of Rhode Island Adult Sexual Assault Prosecution: 1999-2001,A Draft Interim 

Report, The Effectiveness of the Rhode Island SART Program, BOTEC Analysis Corporation, National 

Institute of Justice, 2003. 

29 The public health literature includes: Rambow, B, Adkinson C, Frost, TH, Peterson GF., Female Sexual 

Assault: Medical and Legal Implications, Annals of Emergency Medicine, 1992 Vol. 21(6), p. 727-31 

Frazier PA, Hanley B. Sexual Assault Cases in the Legal System: Police, Prosecutor and Victim 

Perspectives, Journal of Law and Human Behavior, Vol.20, 1996, p. 607-628 Gray-Eurom K, Seaberg DC, 

Wears RL, The Prosecution of Sexual Assault Cases: Correlation with Forensic Evidence, Annals of

Emergency Medicine, Vol.39 (2), 2002, P. 39-46.McGregor MJ, Du Mont J, Myhr TL, Sexual Assault 

Forensic Medical Examination: Is Evidence Related to Successful Prosecution? Annals of Emergency 

Medicine, Vol. 39(6), 2002, p. 639-47.McGregor MJ, LEG, Marion SA, Wiebe E. Examination for Sexual 

Assault: Is the Documentation of Physical Injury Associated with the Laying of Charges? A Retrospective 

Cohort Study, Canadian Medical Association Journal, Vol. 160(11), 1999, p. 1565-9.De Jong, AR, Rose M. 

Legal Proof of Child Sexual Abuse in the Absence of Physical Evidence, Pediatrics, Vol.88(3), 1991,p.506-

11, and Frequency and Significance of Physical Evidence in Legally Proven Cases of Sexual Assault 

Pediatrics, Vol.84(6), 1989, p.1022-6. 30 Ibid 31 Cameron S. Crandall and Deborah Helitzer, Impact Evaluation of a Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner 

(SANE) Program, Final Report, NIJ, December 2003. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
10

 

The study by Berger et al suggests a more complex general hypothesis with 

regard to the measurement of the effects of community agencies combating sexual 

assault. Specifically, when there is more than a choice of arrest and prosecution or 

nothing, the response to a sexual assault provided by a rape crisis center and/or a forensic 

exam may alter the likelihood of pursuing prosecution. Victims may place great value on 

dealing with a medical or social agency that will provide health and mental health 

services and a guarantee of confidentiality.32 At the same time other victims (or the same 

victims) may look to community agencies, such as a SART, to support and advise them 

in their pursuit of accountability when they fail to get satisfaction from the police, the 

sole agency determining the initial pool of defendants. 

Micro and aggregate studies demonstrate that arrest decisions are indeed complex. 

Kerstetter’s instrumental pragmatism likely interacts with other non-police factors such 

as the community’s level of social entropy, the availability of victim medical services, a 

community response team, and the level of investigative resources available to the police 

and prosecutors. 

Neither micro nor aggregate studies alone can provide an understanding of the 

contribution made by the program interventions, developed during the last 25 years, 

designed to cope with the legal and social problems that result from crimes of sexual 

assault. Although Berger et al and Spohn and Horney33 indicate that borderline sexual 

assault cases are more likely to be pursued it is not clear what enforcement instruments 

have been most effective in translating statutory language into official actions on these 

cases. 

The screening studies produced over roughly the last 25 years find that in terms of 

variables there are several that are important to making an arrest and prosecuting the 

assault. Specifically, the victim resisted,34 the victim is able to identify the assailant, the 

32 Ronet Bachman, 1998, op.cit. p.25-26. 33 Cassia C. Spohn and Julia Horney, The Impact of rape Law reform on the Processing of Simple and 

Aggravated Rape Cases, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Vol. 86(3), 1996, 861-885. 34 Rose and Randall, loc. cit. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
11

assailant is in custody,35 the victim reported the assault promptly,36 she is willing to 

prosecute,37 corroborating evidence is available,38 witnesses were present, or there were 

other circumstances such as the attack began as another crime.39 

The belief, by the police or by the victim, that sex role norms were violated, such 

as the use of drugs or alcohol, generally resulted in a modest disincentive to arrest or 

pursues prosecution.40 Alcohol abuse is interpreted as more important to credibility, than 

as a behavioral fault. The literature provides mixed support for the importance of race,41

and the presence of a weapon.42 The importance of the presence of a weapon may not 

hinge on its presence but its nature and how it was used.43 

In 1996 the American Society of Criminology convened a set of task forces to 

examine critical justice issues and report. The Violence Against Women: Overview

concluded that even following several years of reform efforts:44

Research shows that in the processing or rape cases, corroboration 

requirements persist in a de facto manner, resistance standards continue to 

provide the basis for decision-making; and past sexual activity of the victim still 

influence the management of rape cases. Moreover, victim credibility remains 

an issue for courtroom participants and often accompanies beliefs about victim 

culpability. 

Methodology – The Site: Rhode Island provides an excellent site within which 

to examine the effects of the Sexual Assault Response Team (SART). The FBI indicated 

that Rhode Island reported 39.3 forcible rapes per 100,000 population in 2000; 32.0 per 

 

35 Kerstetter, op.cit. p. 302 36 LaFree, op. cit.p.588, and Libby Ruch, Barry Coyne, Paul Perrone, Reporting Sexual Assault to the 

Police in Hawaii, NIJ, 2001. 37 Vicki Rose and Susan Randall, Attrition of Justice Phenomenon in the Processing of Rape/Sexual Assault 

Cases, National Institute of Mental Health, 1984 p.588. 38 Police Discretion and the Judgment that a Crime has been Committed –Rape in Philadelphia, University 

of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 277, 1968, p.286-289. 

39 Kerstetter, op.cit. p. 288. 40 Kerstetter, op. cit. p.285, and LaFree, op.cit, p. 588. 41 LaFree, loc.cit. finds support, Kerstetter, op.cit, does not. 42 Rose and Randall, op.cit. did not find the presence of a weapon significant. 43 Galton, Police Processing of Rape Complaints: A Case Study, American Journal of Criminal Law, Vol. 

4, 1975-76, p. 21. 

44 E.Erez, J.Belknap, S. Caringella-Macdonald, M.Chesney-Lind, K.J.Ferraro, D.A. Ford, J. Horney, 

S.I.Miller, and E.A.Stanko, Critical Criminal Justice Issues: Task Force Reports From the American 

Society of Criminology,Violence Against Women: Overview, American Society of Criminology,1996, p.61-

71 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
12

100,000 were reported for the United States.45 It is a homogeneous urban state with a 

population in excess of one million, and a density of about 1000 persons per square mile. 

Table 1: Comparison of Rhode Island and U.S. Socio-economic Variables indicates that 

Rhode Island is in many ways a social microcosm of urban United States. 

Table 1: Comparison of Rhode Island and U.S. socio-economic variables 

Item 

number 

Socio-economic variables 2000 Rhode Island 

(percent) 

US 

(percent) 

1 Persons under 5 years old 6.1 6.8 

2 Persons under 18 years old 23.6 25.7 

3 Persons 65 years and older 14.5 12.4 

4 Females 52.0 50.9 

5 White persons 85.0 75.1 

6 Living in the same house in 1995-2000, age 5+ 58.1 54.1 

7 Foreign born persons 11.4 11.1 

8 Language other than English spoken at home, age 

5+ 

20.0 17.9 

9 High school graduates, age 25+ 78.0 80.4 

10 Home ownership rate 60.0 66.2 

11 Median household money income (1999) ($ value) $42,090 $41,994 

12 Persons below poverty (1999) 11.9 12.4 

Rhode Island’s multiple police departments operate within the same legal 

framework. But within this single legal framework there is significant variation. The ratio 

of arrests to reported incidents varies significantly among Rhode Island’s towns and 

cities. The per capita police expenditures, a measure of the demand for services, and the 

number of police per 10,000 population, a measure of supply, varies among the 39 towns 

and cities. Victims’ access to SART varies among the jurisdictions, the likelihood of 

forensic examinations varies among the assault cases, and differences in social entropy 

and its affect on screening decisions varies among the Rhode Island’s towns and cities. 

Rhode Island operates under a sexual assault law that incorporates the many 

reforms that were legislated during the reform period. It has three graduated sexual 

assault offenses: First, Second and Third Degree Sexual Assaults. First Degree Sexual 

 

45 FBI Uniform Crime Reports 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
13

Assault involves “sexual penetration,” Second Degree involves “sexual contact,” and 

Third Degree is statutory rape, where the victim is over 14 but under the age of consent 

of 16 and the alleged assailant is over 18. Persons can be charged with Assault with 

Intent to Commit First Degree Sexual Assault. 

The penalties for these crimes are a minimum of ten years imprisonment for the 

First Degree, three years for Second Degree, not more than five years for Third Degree, 

and no less than three years for Assault with Intent. 

 As in many reformed states, the testimony of the victim need not be corroborated 

in prosecutions, nor prove the victim physically resisted the accused if the victim 

reasonably believed that resistance would be useless and might result in her serious 

bodily injury. Finally, in order for defense to introduce evidence of the victim’s prior 

sexual history, it must make a specific offer of the proof. The offer of proof, and all 

arguments relating to it, must take place outside the hearing of spectators and the jury. 

 A unique advantage of Rhodes Island as a laboratory is that all felony rape cases 

are prosecuted by the Attorney General’s office; prosecution within the state is relatively 

constant. 

Methodology – The Data: Rhode Island provides four data sources which are the 

basis for the evaluation. 

1. The automated CourtConnect file, 

2. The domestic violence/ sexual assault reporting form (DV/SA-1) 

3. Sexual Assault Police Incident Reports, which are centrally filed with the DV/SA1 forms. 

4. The SART files of RI/Sexual Assault and Trauma Resource Center 

The following describes these data sources. 

1. The Automated Court Connect File: 

The court’s public, automated case file provided the suspect’s prior criminal 

history as indicated by prior court cases heard in Rhode Island criminal courts (District 

and Superior) since 1990. Table 2 provides an outline of the available information. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
14

2. The Domestic Violence/ Sexual Assault Reporting Form (DV/SA-1) 

Law enforcement officers who respond to or investigate a sexual assault must 

complete a sexual assault report (DV/SA-1). The report is scanned into a computerized 

database maintained by the Domestic Violence Training and Monitoring Unit

Table 2: Suspect criminal history 

Prior offense category Disposition Date of disposition 

Crimes Against Persons: 

Sexual Assaults/Child 

Molestation, Domestic Violence, 

Other 

Dismissed, Not Guilty, Filed, 

Probation, Suspended Sentence, 

prison (Incarcerated after 

revocation) 

Date 

Crimes Against Property Same as above Same as above 

Crimes Public Order Same as above Same as above 

Major Motor Vehicle 

(excluding drunk driving) Same as above Same as above 

Substance Abuse Crimes 

(Including drunk driving) Same as above Same as above 

Other Same as above Same as above 

administered by the state’s Supreme Court. Table 3: DV/SA-1 Report Data below lists 

pertinent data indicating responses by the police, the victim, and the suspect. 

3. Sexual Assault Police Incident Reports 

 Law enforcement officials who respond to or investigate a sexual assault are 

required to file a written police incident report to accompany the (DV/SA-1). The written 

reports range from a few paragraphs to dozens of typed pages. Each local law 

enforcement agency maintains its own forms and formats for these reports 

 

4. SART records: 

The SART records contain all of the above mentioned information and any 

supplemental information about the progress of the case, and the victim’s continued 

involvement in the prosecution of the case or counseling services. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
15

Table 3: DV/SA-1 Report Data 

Incident /Police Response 

Questions Options 

Who Contacted Police? Victim, Family Member, Friend, Neighbor, 

Suspect, Hospital, 911, Anon, Other 

City of Incident (Name) 

Incident Date (Date) 

Did Initial Police Investigation Find 

Probable Case of Sexual Assault 

Yes/No 

Were Photo(s) Taken of Victim? Yes/No 

Were Photo(s) Taken of Crime Scene? Yes/No 

Weapon/Objected Used to Hurt/Injure Yes/No 

If yes, handgun, long gun, knife, other 

Witness Information 

Was Witness Present During Incident? Yes/No 

If yes, Friend, Neighbor, Relative, Passerby, 

Bartender, Other 

Post Incident Police Response 

Was Arrest Made within 24 Hours? Yes/No 

Follow Up Photos of Victim 

2-4 days later? 

Yes/No 

Did Investigation Establish Probable Cause Yes/No 

Warrant Issued? Yes/No 

Case Under Investigation? Yes/No 

Charges? 1st, 2nd, 3rd Degree Sexual Assault, Other 

Has Case Been Referred to Attorney 

General 

Yes/No 

Victim Information 

DOB (Date) 

Ethnic/Racial Background White, Black, Wh Hispanic, Bl Hispanic, Asian, 

Native Am., Other_________ 

Physical Assault Yes/No 

Visible Injuries Yes/No 

Victim Required Medical Attention Yes/No If yes, What Medical Facility? 

Alcohol/Drugs Involved Yes/No/Unknown 

Was Forensic Rape Exam Done? Yes/No 

Did Victim Give Written Statement? Yes/No 

Did Victim Sign DVSA Form Yes/No 

Did Victim Fill Out Body Chart Yes/No 

Did Victim Sign Medical Release Yes/No 

Suspect Information 

DOB (Date) 

Ethnic/Racial Background 

Relationship to Victim (I) Married, Formerly Married, Intimate Partner, 

Former Intimate Partner, Child in Common, 

Cohabitant, Dating, Relative _________ 

Relationship to Victim (II) Co-Worker, Stranger, Friend, Employer, 

Acquaintance, Caregiver, Date, Employee, Other 

Alcohol/Drug Use Yes/No/Unknown 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
16

Methodology – The Design: The study is observational. It is after the fact. 

Victims were not assigned randomly to receive SART services. As such it is necessary to 

determine the existence of a comparable counterfactual situation in which SART is not 

available or estimate the manner by which victims choose, or do not choose, to become 

SART clients. If the “assignment” problem is resolved, then it may be possible to test the 

effects of the SART program. 

The assignment approach is the preferred way to attack this problem. An 

alternative was to compare towns and cities in Rhode Island with and without access to 

SART services; that is use a comparative counterfactual design. The naïve expectation 

would be victims in towns and cities in which SART was available would have different 

outcomes for their sexual assault cases than victims without access to SART. The most 

serious flaw in this approach is the “ecological fallacy.” 46 Specifically, in the aggregate, 

victims in places with access to SART, access it individually with different likelihoods 

because of the individual circumstances of their cases. At best the measured effect would 

be weak or null and the possibility of confounding could lead to the measurement of an 

effect with the wrong sign. The preferred approach is to determine why victims use 

SART services and whether SART affects the victims’ cases. 

An initial task in the evaluation is to examine the SART process. Inspecting the 

process helps make clear the degree to which the processing of sexual assault cases in 

Rhode Island has features that are similar to those described in the literature review. The 

measurement of SART effects cannot come before there is an understanding of the SART 

process. 

Methodology – The Analysis: The SART analysis has three parts. The first is to 

describe the processes of the SART of Rhode Island and its coordination with the Rhode 

Island criminal justice system. This is followed by an examination, of the characteristics 

 

46 That is, inferences about individual behavior are drawn from data about aggregates. See David A. 

Freedman, “Ecological Inference and the Ecological Fallacy, International Encyclopedia of the Social and 

behavioral Sciences, Technical Report No. 549.October 1999. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
17

of victims who are and who are not SART clients through the application of logistic 

regression. Finally, a contingency table analysis examines the support for several 

hypotheses about SART effects. In summary, the problem of the evaluation is to examine 

the SART process to determine where it is most likely to have its effects and, with the aid 

of statistical analysis, determine why victims choose SART and if SART has an 

independent, measurable effect on the legal outcome. 

The following note is important. The reader must be mindful that the statistical 

power of the contingency analyses discussed in the analysis section is undesirably low. 

Low statistical power increases the likelihood of incorrectly accepting the null hypothesis 

when a treatment effect exists. 

The small statistical power found in the contingency analyses is the result of 

sample sizes that are too small to reveal the existence of program effects with any 

reasonable degree of certainty. A secondary cause of the low power is the generally large 

ratio of non-SART cases to SART cases. When the ratio between non-SART and SART 

cases is large, say 4:1 or 5:1, the contribution of the controls to statistical power is 

diluted; i.e., the sample is again, effectively small. 

There are several responses to this problem. The most important is to view the 

evaluation as a formative one. That is, the evaluation should be seen as providing useful 

information for the continued development of the Sexual Assault Response Team of 

Rhode Island. SART is a developing program. The analysis of the client population of 

SART indicates that its cases include those that are usually considered more difficult to 

prosecute. Specifically, SART cases have a high likelihood of involving sexual assaults 

by friends, acquaintances, or relative, are believed by the victim to be first degree 

assaults, but in an important number of cases the police initially fail to find probable 

cause. 

A second response is that the activities of the SART of Rhode Island and sexual 

assault cases in Rhode Island should continue to be studied. SART has willingly and 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
18

cooperatively engaged in this evaluation. This is greatly to their credit. Most 

organizations withdraw from rigorous evaluations, demand changes or refuse to engage 

in them in the first place. SART of Rhode Island has “stayed the course,” and they need 

to know whether they become more successful with more experience and possible 

process changes. 

The third response is that other SART programs should be evaluated even if they 

are relatively small in size. A number of small studies can be cobbled together in a metaanalysis to measure an average outcome. To successfully accomplish this it is necessary 

that similar measures are calculated in each study. To the degree that NIJ supports these 

studies it can administer them so that comparable measures are calculated or calculable. 

The difficulty of meta-analyses from the public policy view is that it provides little 

insight to the outcome of any particular program. The processes that lead to the “average 

outcome,” will differ among programs and the SART process becomes a “black box.” 

Finally, null results in the measurement of SART effects may mean that SART 

has effectively helped to maintain a “level playing field” for acquaintance sexual assault 

and stranger assault that resulted from reform of rape statutes that happened several years 

ago. 

The SART Process - Introduction: In 2001, SATRC began to establish its 

Sexual Assault Response Team (SART), based on a multidisciplinary team approach to 

working with victims and survivors of sexual assault. 47 Team members include law 

enforcement, SATRC staff, and persons from the Department of the Attorney General, 

charged with prosecuting all felonies across the state. The SART program was formed 

specifically to serve victims who cooperate with law enforcement in the prosecution of 

their assaulters. It serves a screening function followed by an advocacy and support 

function while being integrated into the overall services of its parent agency, SATRC. 

 

47 The first official SART case actually began in December 2001. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
19

 The main goal of SART is to help sexual assault victims navigate the criminal 

justice system with more knowledge and ease. The second goal is to increase the 

successful prosecution of sexual assault cases by enhancing communication between all 

parties involved in the process. This includes keeping the victim updated on the status of 

the case, and providing advocacy and referral services when needed. The third goal is to 

assist victims recover from and/or cope with the trauma of their assaults through 

individual and group counseling and support offered by SART and SATRC staff. 

 SART eligible victims must be 14 years or older, the age at which the underlying 

offense is charged as a Sexual Assault, as opposed to a Child Molestation. The victim 

must report to law enforcement, hospitals or the Helpline either a first (penetration), 

second (touching) or third degree (statutory) sexual assault. The assault must occur in one 

of the jurisdictions that have agreed to participate in the SART process. 

 The Rhode Island SART model differs from others in that it was initiated by and 

lodged in a private, non-profit sexual assault victim advocacy and counseling agency. 

SATRC reached out to law enforcement and prosecutors to develop the program. The 

organization obtained the agreement of local law enforcement agencies and the State’s 

Attorney to cooperate by the referral of victims to SART, participation in multidisciplinary team meetings with victims to facilitate charging decisions, and continued 

communication with SART to update staff and victims of case progress. 

In addition, SART provides periodic training to law enforcement officials 

regarding sexual assaults in general and the SART program specifically. SART officials 

have signed official Memorandums of Understandings (MOU) with participating police 

departments. Case referrals began during SART’s first round of development meetings 

with individual police departments in which they agreed to specific provisions of 

cooperation and support. 

 The MOU provides that all parties acknowledge that the “team approach is a more 

positive approach” in responding to sexual assaults. “Therefore, to improve such 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
20

responses, the participants agree to support the concept, philosophy and development of 

the Sexual Assault Response Team.” 

 Law enforcement agencies agree to inform victims about the SART program and 

if interested, refer them to the SART Coordinator. The detective assigned to the case will 

after conferring with the SART advocate will then decide whether or not a victim 

statement should be taken right away or whether a formal SART interview should be 

scheduled. If the latter, the scheduling is coordinated with SART and all the parties, 

including the victim. If a SART interview is not scheduled, the detective must contact the 

SART Coordinator within one business day to provide follow up services to any willing 

victim. Further, law enforcement participants agree to share information relevant to each 

case with SART for the purposes of tracking and maintaining an ongoing case dialogue. 

Law enforcement will participate in team meetings to review cases as needed. Any law 

enforcement personnel involved in sexual assault investigations will undergo SART 

training offered by SART personnel. SART, in turn, promises to continually review 

training needs of law enforcement and ways to improve SART. The first formal “official” 

agreement was executed by the Providence police and SART on July 23, 2003. By the 

end of 2003, twenty-five (25) of 39 departments had signed 

SART referrals come from two sources: one half from law enforcement and the 

other half from the victims themselves. (See Table 4.) Because the SART program is 

housed in a non-profit, victim service and advocacy agency, it is available to accept case 

referrals directly from victims regardless of local law enforcement officers’ decision to 

proceed or not with arresting the alleged sexual assaulter or sending or not sending 

incident reports to the Attorney General for possible charging where arrests are not made. 

Law enforcement cases generally result when patrol officers are called to the 

scene and complete the initial incident reports for sexual assaults. If the case so warrants 

and a detective is available, a detective may be called out initially to the incident scene. 

Otherwise, a detective may be assigned within a day or two. In Providence, there are two 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
21

detectives assigned to handle all sexual assaults. In the remaining smaller police 

departments, the detectives are drawn from the Major Crime Units. 

If the case is not referred by a participating police department, it may also be selfreferred by victims of sexual assaults. Victims may call the state’s sexual assault hot 

line, the 24 hour Helpline, or receive medical attention at area hospitals. All of the state’s 

hospitals have received training in how to response to cases of sexual assaults. The 

hospital, upon learning of a sexual assault, generally calls a Helpline advocate to meet 

with the victim in the hospital unless the victim refuses. In addition to responding to 

crisis calls, Helpline volunteers are trained to respond, in person, as requested by police 

or hospitals to assist victims of sexual and/or domestic assaults. In either case, victims are 

asked if they wish the police to be contacted and are referred to SATRC/SART. 

Table 4: SART referral sources 

Source* Number of clients Percent 

Initiated by justice system 

Police (12) or Law Enforcement 

Aide (4) 

16 37 

Attorney General 2 5. 

Other (Justice Commission) 2 5 

DCYF (child protective services) 1 2 

Sub-total 21 49 

Initiated by non-justice source 

Helpline 10 23 

Self 6 14 

Hospital 4 9 

SATRC/Rape Crisis Center 2 5 

Sub-total 22 51 

 * Four referral sources were not recorded. 

The SART Team Process: 48, 49 Detectives in participating departments fax a 

copy of the incident report to SART. The victim is told to contact the SART Case 

Manager and may be given a SART brochure by police. The SART Case Manager will 

also contact the victim if the victim has not contacted her. She explains to the victim the 

 

48 The information on the SART process is based on SART documents and interviews with the Supervisor 

of the SART Program, Melissa England. 

49 Information on the Department of the Attorney General is based on interviews with Assistant Attorney 

General Steve Ryan. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
22

 

SART process and tells the victim that if the Attorney General decides to proceed with 

the case, she will arrange for an interview with the victim and the SART team. Until the 

victim signs a release form, all communications between SART and the victim remain 

confidential. Victims are invited to meet with the SART coordinator. Approximately half 

agree to do so. The others are sent information on SART and services available, upon 

referral, as well as an information release form to sign. 

If the victim is interested in having the case prosecuted, SART faxes a copy of the 

police report to the Department of the Attorney General’s Screening Unit. The next 

available Assistant Attorney General from the Criminal Division starts the review process 

by reviewing the police report. Minimally for a case to proceed the victim must be 

interested in cooperating with criminal justice officials in the prosecution of their cases, 

the identity of the suspect must be known and be in custody available for prosecution. 

 When either the police or SART send the Attorney General’s Screening Unit a 

police report of a sexual assault, an Assistant Attorney General after consulting with the 

SART team makes the decision whether to prosecute the case or set up a SART 

interview. Several Attorneys in the Department have specialized training in sexual 

assaults. There are no formal criteria utilized by the Attorneys screening the cases other 

than an evaluation of “the evidence to support the charge.” They also assess “the 

reliability of the victim as reporter.” Finally, they evaluate the impact that prosecution 

may have on the victim, including, for example, if it may involve “serious mental health 

issues.”50

 If the prosecutor on rotation, after consulting with the SART team and after a 

review by the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Domestic Violence/Sexual 

Assault Unit makes a decision not to prosecute the case, charge or bring the case to the 

Grand Jury, it will not reach formal screening. If additional corroborating evidence, 

including witness statements, medical/physical evidence is forthcoming, the case will 

50 This is an example of an extra-legal criterion, which results in discriminatory treatment of mentally ill 

victims. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
23

then go to screening. In the gathering of additional evidence, the Department relies “in most 

cases” on local detectives. It also has at its disposal, investigators available through the 

state’s Bureau of Criminal Investigations that consists of “mostly retired police officers.” 

Forensic medical evidence is used more widely in child sexual assault cases than 

adult cases. Medical evidence, such as clothing and evidence of semen in adult cases 

may be compromised by reporting delays. According to the head of the Domestic 

Violence and Sexual Assault Unit, forensic examinations can constitute a “double edged 

sword.” If there are no findings, juries take that very seriously as if it is a “CSI world.” In 

such cases, the Department has a doctor testify that lack of forensic evidence, particularly 

in second degree sexual assaults, “neither proves nor disproves sexual assault.” When the 

Department receives a “very graphic complaint” and a violent assault is alleged and in 

some instances objects are used and no evidence is found in the forensic report, it poses a 

major problem for credibility of the case. 

If the victim does not wish to prosecute, there is no complainant and the case is 

generally dropped as it “would have a difficult time despite efforts to push the case 

through.” If, however, it is a “particularly violent assault,” or involves a repeat offender, 

the Department may move the case forward, regardless of the victim’s wishes in order to 

safeguard the victim or the public at large. If a victim changes her mind in midstream, the 

Department will try to go forward or “try to work out a reasonable disposition short of 

trial.” 

 There are no standard bail guidelines for sexual assault cases. They remain “pretty 

much” on a case by case basis. However, in the majority of first degree sexual cases, the 

Assistant Attorney General that handles arraignments beginning in the District Court 

requests defendants be held without bail. In cases, however, where evidence is weak or 

there was a significant delay in the original reporting of the alleged crime, the 

Department assesses the implications of exposing the victim to cross examination at this 

stage of the proceedings, especially if it believes the court is likely to grant bail. The 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
24

court’s criteria for bail differ from the Attorney General’s Department. The Department 

is primarily concerned with the relevant strength of the case; the court is concerned with 

the defendant’s prior record, ties to the community, employment and so on. 

 The Department has no formal criteria of when it is appropriate to convert sexual 

assault charges into non-sexual assault charges. Such conversions are a tool used to “get 

time hanging over an offender’s head,” a “conviction” on his record and avoid “facing a 

likely not guilty” on the original charges. Such plea bargains “occur with victim input 

and approval.” 

 Most of the cases referred to the Attorney General from SART are accepted for 

further SART Team interviews. The Department of the Attorney General usually needs 

one to two weeks to get back to SART. At times, police may proceed directly with victim 

interviews and not wait for the SART process to be completed. SART, however, will still 

offer services to these victims. 

One of the road blocks to SART case referrals from police has proven to be the 

time it takes for the Department of the Attorney General to complete the case review 

process described above. Police may be concerned in specific situations that SART may 

delay them from quickly completing full interviews with victims. Victims may be 

pressuring them to be interviewed before SART hears from prosecutors. 

 Most of the cases, involve the most serious sexual assault charges, sexual assault 

in the first degree. If the Department decides to proceed with a case, the SART case 

manager is asked to set up the SART Team interview with the victim. The Team is made 

up of the Advocate Coordinator, an Assistant Attorney General assigned from the 

Criminal Division, the police department and the victim. If the victim is involved with 

the Division of Children, Youth and Families, a representative of that agency also 

attends. Cases may include children who are 14 or over who are involved in state 

guardianship or on-going abuse and/or neglect investigations. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
25

 Interviews are scheduled in locations determined to be the most convenient for 

victims. In the Providence area, victims uniformly choose to have the interviews at the 

Sexual Assault and Trauma Resource Center (SATRC) headquarters. In outlying areas 

the interviews may be held in police stations or satellite SATRC offices used for its Child 

Advocacy Project. 

 The interviews are conducted by the police detective from the town or city where 

the incident occurred. By agreement and Attorney General’s preference, others do not ask 

the victim questions. When the detective has completed his or her questions, he or she 

may ask if anyone else has anything to ask. All of the detectives involve have received 

SART training and orientation and, according to SART participants, are uniformly 

sensitive to victims and professional in conducting competence interviews. The 

interviews last from one to three hours. 

 The interviews try to get specific, detailed information from victims to follow up 

on the initial incident reports, which are considered minimal. If the victim is under 18, it 

is his or her choice whether to have parents in the room. If the victim so requests, parents 

are asked to remain outside. Police are trained how to explain to parents why this may be 

for the best. Most victims do not want their parents in the room during the interview and 

most parents, according to SART personnel, don’t want to be present in the room to hear 

the details of the assault. 

 The interviews are audio taped and typed up by the police department or SART 

personnel if so requested by the police. The Department reviews the interview to help it 

decide whether or not to go forward. If not, the Department contacts the victim to 

explain why not. If the Department proceeds with the case, it is presented to the Grand 

Jury for a True Bill for sexual assault first degree. For lesser sexual assaults, the Attorney 

General signs “information” to bring charges in Superior Court. Most cases are presented 

to the Grand Jury. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
26

 If the Department proceeds with the prosecution, SART follows up with victims 

to inform them of all case progress, bail imposition, and so on. If the defendant is 

incarcerated, SART assists victims to sign up for VINE in order to be informed of moves 

of the defendant within the state’s prison system. Most of the SART victims are also 

involved in some form of counseling offered by SATRC or other agencies. In addition, a 

small percent attend weekly support groups for victims offered by SATRC. 

 The Department of the Attorney General also has its own felony victim advocates 

and there may be some overlap with these advocates. The Attorney General’s advocates 

are not assigned until after an indictment and generally they restrict their activities to 

informing victims of court dates. Unlike SART personnel, they do not have training on 

sexual assault victimization. 

 The Department supplies SART with monthly updates of all open SART cases. In 

addition, SART has access to the court’s computerized case file. If the case reaches 

disposition, prosecutors talk to victims directly on sentencing recommendations. Victim 

impact statements are completed by victims with the Attorney General, not SART. 

Notwithstanding minimum mandatory sentences imposed by statute for first and second 

degree sexual assaults, “courts have discretion in determining/ agreeing to lesser 

sentences. Often the charge will not be amended and, after victim contact, agreement is 

made to lower a jail sentence.” The “more experienced prosecutors have leeway to make 

a judgment as to the quality of the case and its likelihood for successful prosecution at 

trial” to agree to less than minimum mandatory sentences. The Department always makes 

sexual offender treatment part of the disposition but cannot control whether or not judges 

impose it. 

 According to SART, most victims are relieved when the case is prosecuted. They 

feel empowered; they did what they could although many are disappointed with the 

perceived leniency of the sentences. If the charges are converted from sexual to nonsexual assaults, they generally express profound dissatisfaction to SART personnel. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
27

 According to SART personnel, SART provides them the opportunity to be with 

victims consistently when needed, accompany them to court and offer them support. It is 

the experience of SART that victims often have no one to confide in as they often do not 

talk about their victimization with friends or family. SART involvement may also put 

subtle pressure on the Attorney General to proceed with the prosecution. 

 In summary, there are four principle SART activities. The first is the coordination 

and maintenance of the SART team. Second, SART arranges joint interviews. Third, 

SART accompanies victims to court and related proceedings. Finally, SART meets 

directly with victims to offer support, counseling and to make referrals for assistance to 

SATRC or other agencies. The second and third activities may end at different times. In 

other words, after the victim is no longer in counseling, she may still be accompanied by 

SART to court proceedings or after the legal case has been completed, SART may still be 

in regular contact with the victim offering support and counseling. 

The Outcome of the SART Process: SART is in an early stage of its 

development. Because of this the period of study covers SART and non-SART cases 

from September 2002 to the end of August 2003. The sexual assault cases reported in this 

period were followed until July 2004. There were 238 sexual assaults reported during the 

period in which perpetrators were identified; 47 were SART cases. In 10 SART cases the 

perpetrator was not identified. In the 20 month implementation period there were 38 

cases and in the eight months following the end of the study period there were 46 cases. 

These cases in the post-study period were not tracked because the available follow-up 

period was brief. 

Table 5: SART cases, 2001-2004 

January 2001- 

August 2002 

Implementation 

September 2002- 

August 2003 

Study Sample 

September 2003- 

July 2004 

Post-Study 

Number of Months 20 12 8 

Number of SART cases 38 57 46 

Average per Month 2 4.75 5.75 

. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
28

 The number of cases used in the analysis is 200, which combines data from 176 

completed DVSA forms and the data from 24 SART cases, where DVSA forms were not 

available and SART data was substituted. 

 Victims who participate in SART choose to participate. The obvious question is 

what motivates a victim’s choice. Table 6 suggests, on the basis of differences between 

proportions, that victims who chose to utilize SART had certain case characteristics that 

were different from victims who did not utilize SART. SART participants were less 

likely to have probable cause initially found by police, less likely to be injured, and less 

likely that the suspect was affected by drugs or alcohol, and more likely that the victim is 

photographed. This cluster of case attributes are interrelated and associated with the 

lower percentage of cases for which police found probable cause for SART victims. 

 An examination of these relationship, using binary logistic analysis, found that 

injury was related to whether police found probable cause (p=0.02) and that other 

variables: police photos (p=0.00), presence of drugs and alcohol (p=0.02), the filing of 

other charges (p=0.00), and the presence of evidence (p=0.03) were significantly related 

Table 6: SART compared to non-SART cases (DV/SA) n=176 

DV/SA item Percent of 

SART 

cases 

(n=22) 

Percent of 

Non-SART 

cases 

 ( n=154) 

Statistical 

significance 

of difference 

*=< 0.05 

Offender Race: White 78.2 66.7 

Police find probable cause 65.2 89.0 * 

Suspect at Scene 26.1 28.6 

Witnesses Present 9.1 22.7 

Weapon 9.1 9.1 

Suspect on alcohol/drugs 9.1 35.1 * 

Victim Contacted Police 63.6 64.3 

Evidence Found 50.0 33.1 

Other Charges Filed 13.6 22.7 

Victim Injury 9.1 33.1 * 

Police Photo Victim 50.0 26.6 * 

Victim Pregnant 4.5 2.6 

Victim Signed Statement 59.1 66.2 

 to injury. Clearly, injury or evidence of resistance is an important initial marker for 

probable cause. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
29

A logistic analysis, specific to the question of whether a victim is a SART client, 

indicates that in the study sample there is a cluster of three attributes. SART clients have 

significant odds of being assaulted by a friend, acquaintance or relative, have a 

subsequent forensic exam, and believe that the offense is first degree sexual assault.51

Table 7 indicates the odds ratio of a victim becoming a SART client given the selected 

attributes of the case and victim behavior. The presence of these attributes varies among 

the reported 200 sexual assault cases used in the analysis. Some victims were assaulted 

by a person other than a friend, relative or acquaintance, did not have a subsequent 

forensic exam, and did not consider the attack to be first degree sexual assault. The 

probability of choosing to be a SART client varies by the presence or absence of 

Table 7: The odds ratio of a victim becoming a SART client (n=200) 

Variable Odds Ratio Confidence interval 

 Low High 

Probability 

Assailant was friend, 

acquaintance or 

relative 

5.3 2.3 12.1 0.000 

Victim had a 

forensic exam 

2.8 1.2 6.2 0.014 

1st degree sexual 

assault alleged by 

victim 

3.9 1.8 8.7 0.001 

Police find probable 

cause 

0.27 0.11 0.67 0.003 

these attributes and behaviors. Table 8 indicates the distribution of the probability of 

being a SART client based on case attributes. The likelihood of being a SART client 

ranges from 5 percent for victims with none of the distinguishing attributes to 71 percent 

for victims with all three case attributes. There are, however, victims who have all or 

some of the distinguishing characteristics of SART clients, but do not choose to 

participate in SART. Why? 

As was indicated in Table 6, the evidence indicates that the choice appears to 

depend on whether the police have initially decided that there is probable cause to make 

 

51 The difference between the victim’s belief and prosecutor’s belief is important. The proportion of cases 

charged as first degree sexual assault by the Department of the Attorney General was 33 percent for SART 

cases and 27 percent for non-SART victims, an unimportant difference. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
30

an arrest. If the police have decided initially that there is probable cause, then the victim 

is much less likely to be a SART client. 

Table 8: The probability of being a SART client based on three case characteristics: 

assailant, forensic examination, belief that the sexual assault was first degree 

Variables Client choice 

Assailant 

was friend, 

acquaintance 

or relative 

Victim had 

a forensic 

exam 

Belief that 

sexual 

assault was 

first degree 

SART 

client 

Not SART 

client 

Total 

clients 

Estimated 

Probability of 

choosing SART 

based on 

logistic 

regression 

No No No 2 58 60 0.05 

No Yes No 2 11 13 0.10 

No No Yes 2 17 19 0.16 

Yes No No 11 38 49 0.21 

No Yes Yes 6 6 12 0.31 

Yes Yes No 4 10 14 0.39 

Yes No Yes 11 6 17 0.51 

Yes Yes Yes 9 7 16 0.71 

Total 47 153 200 

 Table 9 indicates that victims of assaults in which the police do not find probable 

cause for arrest are much more likely to become SART clients, given the circumstances 

of their assault. For example, the likelihood of seeking SART help is much less for a 

victim in which the assailant was not a friend, acquaintance or relative, the victim did not 

have a forensic exam and the victim did not believe that the assault was first degree, 

regardless of whether the police found probable cause. In contrast the likelihood of 

seeking SART assistance is much greater if the police do not initially find probable cause 

in a case in which all three circumstances listed above are true. For example, if the assault 

was by an assailant who was other than a friend, acquaintance or relative, there was no 

forensic exam and the assault was not believed to be first degree sexual assault, and the 

police do find probable cause, the probability of becoming a SART client is 3 percent. On 

the other hand, if the assailant was a friend, etc. there was a forensic exam and the assault 

was believed to be first degree, and the police do not find probable cause, the probability 

of becoming a SART client is 89 percent. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
31

 Table 9: The probability of being a SART client based on three characteristics of the 

case: assailant type, forensic examination, belief that the sexual assault was first degree 

and a finding of probable cause by the police 

 Variables Client Choice 

Estimated Probability of choosing SART 

based on logistic regression 

Assailant 

was friend, 

acquaintance 

or relative

Victim 

had a 

forensic 

exam 

Belief that 

sexual 

assault was 

first degree 

Police 

find 

Probable 

Cause 

N=165 Police do 

not find 

Probable 

Cause

N=35 

No No No 0.03 54 0.12 6 

No Yes No 0.09 10 .0.28 3 

No No Yes 0.13 17 0.36 4 

Yes No No 0.16 37 0.41 12 

No Yes Yes 0.29 9 0.60 1 

Yes Yes No 0.35 14 * 0 

Yes No Yes 0.42 12 0.73 5 

Yes Yes Yes 0.67 12 0.89 4 

 * No observation within sample.

A principal benefit of SART is that it may provide an opportunity for a “second 

opinion” when the police fail to find probable cause, and the victim feels that 

accountability has been denied. Generally, victims contact SART fairly quickly. The time 

from the adult sexual assault incident to the referral to SART averaged twenty days; the 

median time was 10.5 days. The times ranged from before a report was made to police to 

180 days after the incident. In child molestation cases, in which the victim reports as an 

adult, referrals have been as long as nine years after the alleged incident(s). 

It is important to note that forensic exams, while they generally have little 

leverage on their own with regard to case outcome, as noted in the literature, become 

important in the SART process. In many communities, SART programs are combined 

with SANE, (Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners) programs. Advocates for SANE have 

widely promoted it as a key component in strengthening the criminal justice response to 

sexual assault. 

The Rhode Island SART program does not have a SANE component; rather it 

relies on the medical staffs at the several major hospitals in the state. The state’s public 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
32

 

health laboratory analyzes specimens obtained from the rape examination kits. All the 

Rhode Island hospitals have standardized rape kits and use instructions developed by the 

State Department of Public Health. The Sexual Assault and Trauma Resource Center and 

the Department provide regular training of doctors and nurses in completing the kits. 

 Estimates in Table 9 (above) indicate that victims who have forensic exams and 

fail to be validated with decision of probable cause have an important increase in their 

likelihood of seeking SART assistance. This suggests that a formal SANE program 

should perhaps be developed and be coordinated with the SART program. An important 

effect of SANE may be to validate the victim’s concerns and provide access to a SART 

agency that will assist the victim in pursuing accountability for her assault. This may be a 

more effective route than having large numbers of SANE rape kits sit unexamined in a 

laboratory.52

Contingency Analyses: The following contingency analyses examine several 

hypotheses about the relationship between the SART of Rhode Island program and the 

judicial processes as they are applied to sexual assault cases. The statistical measurement 

tool is Fisher’s exact test, which is appropriate regardless of cell sizes and where 

observations are independent, as is the case in this study. The test provides directional P 

values (Chi-square does not), and is consistent with the measurements calculated with 

Chi-square. 

The contingency analysis examined seven hypotheses. 

1. SART increases the pool of defendants. 

2. SART cases that are intimate partner sexual assaults are more likely to be 

charged in Superior Court. 

3. Victims with forensic exams are more likely to have defendants charged in 

Superior Court. 

52 It should be noted that the role of forensic exams depends on whether the police or prosecution establish 

that the sex was not consensual, the availability of other evidence in the case and whether the victim 

pursues the case. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
33

4. SART victims with forensic exams are more likely to be charged in Superior 

Court. 

5. Judicial processes for SART cases move more slowly and thus understate the 

effect of SART because of a SART case backlog. 

6. SART cases after they are filed in Superior Court are less likely to be 

dismissed. 

7. SART cases are more likely than non-SART cases to be charged in Superior 

Court. 

 Hypothesis One: SART increases the pool of defendants. There are two ways in 

which the pool of defendants can be increased. The first is to increase the pool of 

defendants charged in felony court by increasing the number of charged cases where 

probable cause was not initially found. 

An examination of cases initially without probable cause divided between SART 

and not SART found no significant difference in the likelihood of a case being charged 

in felony court. 

Table 10: SART and non-SART cases without initial finding of probable cause and 

charged in Superior Court 

Item Charged in 

Superior Court 

Not charged in 

Superior Court 

Total 

SART and no 

probable cause 

1 6 7 

Non-SART 

and no 

probable cause 

0 17 17 

Total 1 23 24 

Although it was much more likely that a victim confronted with a case initially 

without probable cause would use SART services, it did not significantly increase her 

chances of having the case charged in felony court. The Fisher exact test, using a onetailed test was P=0.2917 

Similarly, the pool of defendants can be increased if SART cases, in which 

probable cause was initially found, were more likely to be charged in felony court. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
34

There was, however, no significant difference between the likelihood of SART cases or 

non-SART cases being charged in felony court in which probable cause was initially 

found. The Fisher exact test using a one tailed test was P=0.1281 

Table 11: SART and non-SART cases with an initial finding of probable cause and 

charged in Superior Court 

Item Charged in 

Superior Court 

Not charged in 

Superior Court 

Total 

SART and 

probable cause 

7 8 15 

Non-SART 

and probable 

cause 

39 97 136 

Total 46 105 151 

. 

 The above tests do not explicitly take into account the differences in case-mix 

between SART and non-SART cases. It may be that SART is more successful in dealing 

with the mix of cases that victims bring to SART. The null hypothesis is that case mix 

does not make a difference in the effectiveness of SART. 

A logistic regression with the independent variables that reflect the kind of case 

that SART attracts (assault by the friend, acquaintance or relative, the victim had a 

forensic exam and the victim believed the assault was first degree) does not cast doubt on 

the null hypothesis that controlling for case mix does not reveal an independent SART 

effect with regard to whether a case is filed in Superior Court. The P value for SART was 

0.19. Although SART case-types are likely to be the most difficult cases to prosecute, 

prosecutors do not think that victims who use SART services present, “at the end of the 

day” more convincing cases than victims not using SART. 

Finally, the number of SART cases used in the above logistic analysis is modest 

(n=22) because covariates are available for 22 cases. If, however, a Fisher exact test is 

applied to a 2x2 contingency tables without consideration of covariates, the number of 

SART cases is increased to 47. The result is unchanged. SART cases are no more likely 

to be charged in Superior Court than non-SART cases; P=4004 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
35

Table 12: SART and non-SART cases charged in Superior Court or not charged in 

Superior Court 

Item Charged in 

Superior Court 

Not charged in 

Superior Court 

Total 

SART 17 30 47` 

Non-SART 63 128 191 

Total 80 158 238 

 Hypothesis Two: SART cases that are intimate partner sexual assaults are more 

likely to be charged in Superior Court. It is hypothesized that cases involving intimate 

partner53 sexual assault were more likely to be charged and prosecuted in Superior Court 

if they were SART cases. The result of Fisher’s exact test indicates that an intimate 

partner victim who uses SART services is no more likely to have their case heard in 

Superior Court than intimate partner victims who do not use SART services; P= 

0.2946.(one-tailed test) 

Table 13: SART and non-SART intimate partner sexual assault cases charged in 

Superior Court or not charged in Superior Court 

Item Charged in 

Superior Court 

Not charged in 

Superior Court 

Total 

SART and 

intimate partner 

2 3 5` 

Non-SART and 

intimate partner 

11 44 55 

Total 13 47 60 

Hypothesis Three: Victims with forensic exams are more likely to have defendants 

charged in Superior Court. Fifty-six women had forensic exams out of the total of 199 

women for whom there was forensic information. For the Fisher exact test. P=0.0978 

(one-tailed test); P=0.1981 (two tailed test). A forensic exam does not significantly affect 

a victim’s chances of having the defendant charged in Superior Court. 

 

53 Intimate partner included intimate partner, ex-intimate partner, married, ex-married, and cohabitant. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
36

Table 14: Defendants whose victims had or had not a forensic examination charged in 

Superior Court or not charged in Superior Court 

Item Defendant 

charged in 

Superior Court 

Defendant not 

charged in 

Superior Court 

Total 

Forensic exam 18 38 56` 

No forensic exam 62 81 143 

Total 80 119 199 

Hypothesis Four: SART victims with forensic exams are more likely to be charged 

in Superior Court The result of Fisher’s exact test, with regard to this hypothesis 

indicates that such victims are no more likely to be charged in Superior Court than 

victims not using SART services who have a forensic exam; P=0.6017 (one-tailed test). 

Table 15: SART and non-SART case with forensic exam in which the defendant was 

charged/not charged in Superior Court 

Item Charged in 

Superior Court 

Not charged in 

Superior Court 

Total 

SART and forensic 

exam 

7 15 22 

Non-SART and 

forensic exam 

11 23 34 

Total 18 38 56 

 Hypothesis Five: Judicial processes for SART cases move more slowly and thus 

understate the effect of SART because of a SART case backlog. A possible confounder 

in this and other analyses is that some SART and non-SART cases are not charged or 

not yet charged. That is, if judicial processes treat SART cases more slowly, the 

number of SART cases charged in Superior Court may be understated. The question 

is whether SART cases are more likely to be not charged or not yet charged than nonSART cases. Fisher’s exact test does not find a significant difference; P=0.6241 (twotailed test). The judicial process does not favor SART or non-SART cases and cannot 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
37

Table 16: SART and non-SART cases charged or not charged or not yet charged 

Item Charged Not charged or 

not yet charged 

Total 

SART 25 22 47 

Non-SART 110 81 191 

Total 135 103 238 

be considered a source of the lack of difference in outcomes between SART and nonSART cases. 

Hypothesis Six: SART cases after they are filed in Superior Court are less likely to 

be dismissed. An examination of Table 17: Outcomes for SART and Non-SART cases, 

indicates SART cases are not processed differently from non-SART cases. The likelihood 

of a SART or non-SART cases being dismissed after it has been filed in Superior Court 

are not different. The Fisher exact test P=0.3355 (two-tailed test). 

Table 17: Outcomes for SART and non-SART cases 

Line 

No. 

Item SART case non-SART case Total 

n=47 % n=191 % n=238 % 

1 Cases filed in Superior 

Court. 

17 36 63 33 80 34 

2 Open 7 41 14 22 21 26 

3 Dismissed 0 0 7 11 7 9 

4 Disposed 10 59 42 67 52 65 

5 Cases Charged not in 

Superior Court 

 8 17 47 25 55 23 

6 Cases not charged by 

end of study (June 

2004) 

22 47 81 42 103 43 

Table 18: SART and non-SART case dismissals after being charged in Superior Court 

Item Dismissed Not dismissed Total 

SART 0 17 17 

Non-SART 7 56 63 

Total 7 73 80 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
38

 Hypothesis Seven: SART cases are more likely than non-SART cases to be 

charged in Superior Court. Similarly, there is no difference in the likelihood of a 

SART or non-SART case being charged in Superior Court or a District Court. The 

Fisher exact test P=0.3735. 

Table 19: SART and non-SART cases filed in Superior or District Court 

Item Superior Court District Court Total 

SART 17 8 25 

Non-SART 63 47 110 

Total 80 55 135 

 Table 20 summarizes the results of the contingency analysis using Fisher’s exact 

test as well as the outcome of the logistic regression that tested the likelihood of a SART 

case being prosecuted in Superior court controlling for the attributes of the case. 

Table 20: Summary of SART Outcome Hypotheses 

Hypothesis No. Hypothesis Statement Probability 

1 SART increases the pool of defendants. 

 -Initially no probable cause 

 -Probable cause 

 -Case mix variables (multivariate logistic analysis) 

0.29 

0.13 

0.20 

2 SART cases that are intimate partner sexual assaults are more likely 

to be charged in Superior Court. 0.29 

3 Victims with forensic exams are more likely to have defendants 

charged in Superior Court. 0.19 

4 SART victims with forensic exams are more likely to be charged in 

Superior Court. 0.60 

5 Judicial processes for SART cases move more slowly and thus 

understate the effect of SART because of a SART case backlog. 

0.62 

6 SART cases after they are filed in Superior Court are less likely to 

be dismissed. 0.33 

7 SART cases are more likely than non-SART cases to be charged in 

Superior Court. 0.37 

Conclusions: These outcomes should not be considered a final result. The SART 

of Rhode Island is a program that has not reached its maturity. Only SART’s effects 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
39

within the judicial process, primarily Superior Court (felony court) have been examined. 

There is clearly demand for SART services. The dual role of providing counseling and 

support during the adjudication of victim’s cases is an important combination of services. 

SART clients self-select and in the study SART cases had particular attributes. 

They were likely to have been assaulted by a friend, a relative or an acquaintance, had a 

forensic exam and believed that the sexual assault was first degree. The police were also 

less likely to initially find probable cause. SART clients, of course, had different mixes of 

these attributes. The likelihood of a victim becoming a SART client was a function of the 

mix of these four attributes. SART victims, while they are different from non-SART 

victims, do not appear to have differential success in the courts. 

It may also be the case that the null results of the contingency analyses indicates 

that SART is effective at helping to maintain a “level playing field” between 

acquaintance assault and stranger assault, which was initiated by the reform of rape 

statutes several years ago. That is, SART programs are a lagged response to a sociallegislative-judicial change and help to maintain it. 

Finally, SART’s effect may “spillover” to the prosecution of sexual assault cases 

in which the victim does not use SART services. As a result there is a null difference 

between the outcome of SART and non-SART cases. 

The SART study leaves unaddressed several intriguing questions. The present 

study does not provide the whole answer. There may have been other SART benefits, 

which the study was not designed to examine. The combination of SART judicial 

advocacy and rape counseling may, in general, lead to better victim outcomes. 

 Until further research is completed some principal cautions should be kept in 

mind. The study is a small study of a maturing program... A reasonable strategy is to 

lengthen the study to increase the number of cases and follow them until a high 

percentage of them are disposed. Such a strategy would provide greater confidence in the 

results. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
40

 Also, some of the underlying relationships are not well understood. The 

relationships, for example, between sexual assault, forensic examinations and prosecution 

have only been partially probed. The fact that this relationship is unclear means that the 

behavioral relationship between SART activities and forensic examinations is also not 

well understood. 

The behavioral variability may be larger than is evidenced by the study of a single 

period. The discussion in Appendix 1 of the prosecution of sexual assault cases in the 

baseline period 1999-2001 provides another look at the role of forensic exams in the 

period prior to SART. The Appendix concludes that the prosecution process and 

outcomes in Rhode Island are quite similar to the results found in other urban locations. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
41

Bibliography:

Bachman, Ronet and Raymond Paternoster, A Contemporary Look at the Effects of Rape 

Law Reform: How Far Have We Really Come? The Journal of Criminal Law and 

Criminology, Vol. 84(9), 1993 

Berger, Ronald J. Neuman, W. Lawrence and Searles, Patricia, The Impact of Rape Law 

Reform: An Aggregate Analysis of Police Reports and Arrests, Criminal Justice Review, 

Vol. 19, (1) 1994 

Campbell Rebecca and Ahrens Courtney E., Innovative Community Services for Rape 

Victims: An Application of Multiple Case Study Methodology, American Journal of 

Community Psychology, Vol. 26(4), 1998. 

Crandall Cameron S. and Helitzer Deborah, Impact Evaluation of a Sexual Assault Nurse 

Examiner (SANE) Program, Final Report, NIJ, December 2003. 

De Jong, AR, Rose M. Legal Proof of Child Sexual Abuse in the Absence of Physical 

Evidence, Pediatrics, Vol.88(3), 1991 

De Jong, AR, Rose M Frequency and Significance of Physical Evidence in Legally 

Proven Cases of Sexual Assault Pediatrics, Vol.84(6), 1989. 

Ford, David A. and Susan Breall, Violence Against Women: Synthesis of Research for 

Prosecutors, Final Report, National Institute of Justice, 2000 

Frazier and Haney Sexual assault Cases in the legal system: Police Prosecutor and Victim 

Perspectives, Law and Human Behavior, Vol. 26(6) 1996 

Frazier, Patricia A. and Haney Beth, Sexual Assault Cases in the Legal system: Police 

Prosecutor and Victim Perspectives, Law and Human Behavior, Vol. 26(6) 1996 

Galton, Police Processing of Rape Complaints: A Case Study, American Journal of 

Criminal Law, Vol. 4, 1975-76, 

Galvin, J and Polk, K. Attrition in Case Processing: Is Rape Unique? Journal of Research 

in Crime and Delinquency, 1983 

 

Gray-Eurom K, Seaberg DC, Wears RL, The Prosecution of Sexual Assault Cases: 

Correlation with Forensic Evidence, Annals of Emergency Medicine, Vol.39 (2), 2002 

Greenfield, Lawrence A. Sex Offenses and Offenders: An Analysis of Date on Rape and 

Sexual Assault, Bureau of Justice Statistics, February 1997 

Hirschel, J. David and Dawson, DJ, Violence Against Women: Synthesis of research for 

Law Enforcement Officials, National Institute of Justice, 2003. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
42

Kerstetter, Wayne A. Gateway to Justice: Police and Prosecutorial Response to Sexual 

Assaults against Women, The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol. 81(2), 

1990 

Kerstetter, Wayne and Van Winkle, B. Who Decides? Study of the Complaint’s Decision 

to Prosecute in Rape Cases, Criminal Justice and Behavior, Vol.17 (3), 1990 

LaFree, Gary D Official Reactions to Social Problems: Police Decisions in Sexual 

Assault Cases, Social Problems, Vol.28, 1981 

McGregor MJ, DuMont J, Myhr TL, Sexual Assault Forensic Medical Examination: Is 

Evidence Related to Successful Prosecution? Annals of Emergency Medicine, Vol. 39(6), 

2002 

McGregor MJ, LEG, Marion SA, Wiebe E. Examination for Sexual Assault: Is the 

Documentation of Physical Injury Associated with the Laying of Charges? A 

Retrospective Cohort Study, Canadian Medical Association Journal, Vol. 160(11), 1999 

Myers Martha A. and. LaFree, Gary D Sexual Assault and its Prosecution: A Comparison 

with Other Crimes, The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol. 73(3), 1982 

Rambow, B, Adkinson C, Frost, TH, Peterson GF. Female Sexual Assault: Medical and 

Legal Implications, Annals of Emergency Medicine, 1992 Vol. 21(6) 

Rennison, Callie Marie Rape and Sexual Assault: Reporting to Police and Medical 

Attention, 1992-2000, Bureau of Justice Statistics, August 2002. 

Ruch, Libby, Coyne, Barry, Perrone, Paul, Reporting Sexual Assault to the Police in 

Hawaii, NIJ, 2001. 

Riggs, N, Houry D, Long G, Markovchick V, Feldhause KM, Analysis of 1076 cases of 

Sexual Assault, Annals of Emergency Medicine, Vol. 35(4),2000 

Rose, Vicki and Randall, Susan, Attrition of Justice Phenomenon in the Processing of 

Rape/Sexual Assault Cases, National Institute of Mental Health, 1984 

Spohn Cassia C. and Horney Julia, The Impact of rape Law reform on the Processing of 

Simple and Aggravated Rape Cases, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Vol. 

86(3), 1996 

Douglas Wilson, A Review of Rhode Island Adult Sexual Assault Prosecution: 1999-

2001,A Draft Interim Report, The Effectiveness of the Rhode Island SART Program, 

BOTEC Analysis Corporation, National Institute of Justice, 2003. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
43

Appendix 1: Forensic Examinations and Sexual Assault Prosecution

The Baseline Period: The period 1999-2001 is the baseline for adult sexual assault 

prosecution. Sexual assault in Rhode Island is divided into four categories. Table 1 

distributes the cases by assault charge. 

Table 1: Most Serious Sexual Assault Defendant Charge: 

1999-2001* 

Most Serious Defendant Charge Number 

1st Degree 106 

2d Degree 107 

3rd Degree 70 

Sex Assault/Domestic 42 

Total 325 

 * includes cases not disposed

In each year of the three year baseline period an average of 108 assailants were 

charged with sexual assault.54 Chart 1: Rhode Island Justice System Outcomes for 

Disposed Adult Sexual Assault Cases 1999-2001, illustrates the distribution of adult 

sexual assault cases in the Rhode Island justice system with regard to the path of 

activities following the filing of a police report. Chart 1 outlines the criminal justice 

process starting with the police report, proceeds to whether the victim had a forensic 

exam, whether a defendant was arraigned, whether the case was dropped or dismissed, 

and finally the outcome of cases that were prosecuted. 

Specifically, Chart 1 maps whether there was a forensic exam (forensic exam, 

~forensic exam), an arraignment (arraigned, ~ arraigned), whether the case was dismissed 

(dropped/dismissed, ~dropped/dismissed) and the prosecution result (trial, plea, 

conviction).55 The data at each branch in the chart indicate the number of cases and the 

percents. Chart 1 does not distinguish among the levels of sexual assault charges, 

although there are some differences by level of charge. Whether there is a forensic exam 

 

54 The mean was 108.3 with an average deviation of 26.8 cases per year. 55 Thirty-one cases from the baseline period are currently pending. All the pending cases will be followed 

and added to the baseline when they are disposed. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
44

is generally independent of the charge, except for second degree assault for which a 

forensic exam is less likely, however the statistical power is small. That is, a larger 

sample might show that there are differences in the probability of an examination. The 

dismissal rate is also a function of the level of the assault charge. Third degree charges 

are less likely to be dismissed and domestic sexual assault charges are more likely to be 

dismissed. . 

This is an expected outcome. Third degree assault involves children and is not 

directly controllable by the victim and domestic sexual assault is likely to involve an 

overriding long-term intimate relationship. These differences notwithstanding an 

examination on the basis of the level of sexual assault charge did not show a significantly 

different pattern from the aggregate pattern. 

The Outcome of Police Reports: The generally desired outcome of a police report 

is an arraignment in those cases where evidence of a sexual assault has been established. 

In Rhode Island the police are required, by statute, to file reports on sexual assaults with 

the courts, regardless of whether there is probable cause to arrest a suspect. During the 

baseline period approximately 580 police reports, in which the outcome of the case is 

known, were filed with the Rhode Island Supreme Court’s Domestic Violence Training 

and Monitoring Unit.56 

In this period the rate of sexual assault, as measured by police reports, was 

11/10,000 female population. This significantly understates the rate of sexual assaults in 

the State. The National Crime Victimization Survey during the period 1992-2000 

estimated that 36 percent of rapes, 34 percent of attempted rapes and 26 per cent of 

sexual assaults were reported to police.57 Projecting these numbers to Rhode Island 

would mean that Rhode Island women were victimized at the rate of 35/10,000. 

 

56 Unfortunately, it is likely that this is a slight undercount. Some police departments do not report to the 

Unit in a timely manner, or where no arrest has been made the report may be sent to the Office of the 

Attorney General for an arrest decision. The likely result of the undercount is that the measure of the 

proportion of assailants charged is somewhat higher than actual. 

57 Rennison CM, Rape and Sexual Assault: Reporting to Police and Medical Attention, 1992-2000., US 

Department of Justice, August 2002, Table 3... 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Chart 1: Rhode Island Justice System Outcomes for Disposed Adult Sexual Assault 

Cases 1999-2001 

45

Police Report

N = 580

Forensic Exam

N = 244

% = 43

~ Forensic Exam

N = 336

% = 57

~ Arraigned

N = 187

% = 77

Dropped/

dismissed

N = 32

% = 56

Arraigned

N = 57

% = 23

Court

N = 3

Convicted as charged

N = 14

% = 64

Amended charges

N = 8

% = 36

Guilty

N = 2

% = 67

~ Guilty

N = 1

% = 33

~ Dropped/

dismissed

N = 25

% = 44

Trial

N = 3

% = 12

Pleas

N = 22

% = 88

% = 9

AG

N =28

% = 88

Grand Jury

N = 1

% = 3

~ Arraigned

N = 92

% = 27

Dropped/

dismissed

N = 112

% = 46

Arraigned

N = 244

% = 73

Court

N = 5

Convicted as charged

N = 83

% = 70

Amended charges

N = 35

% = 30

Guilty

N = 7

% = 50

~ Guilty

N = 7

% = 50

~ Dropped/

dismissed

N = 132

% = 54

Trial

N = 14

% = 11

Pleas

N = 118

% = 89

% = 5

AG

N =104

% = 93

Grand Jury

N = 3

% = 2

Outcomes

(% of cases)

4.9

0.5

0.2

0.3

0.2

2.5

1.4

33.1

17.8

1.0

0.4

1.2

1.2

14.0

6.0

15.3

100

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
46

 In assaults reported to the police about half of the cases result in an arraignment. 

This approximates the national clearance rate of sexual assault cases.58 Significantly 

fewer victims seek a forensic exam than not. Forty-three percent of the victims sought 

forensic examinations and the accompanying medical care;59 57 percent of victims were 

not examined. Arraignment is much more likely in cases without forensic evidence. 

Twenty-three percent of cases with forensic evidence result in an arraignment, while 73 

percent of cases without forensic evidence were arraigned. (See Chart 1) Cases with 

forensic evidence are clearly different with regard to their smaller occurrence and the 

lower likelihood that an assailant will be arraigned.60 

With regard to the distribution of charges across all cases, 16 percent were first 

degree, 17 percent were second degree, 11 percent third degree and 7 percent sexual 

assault domestic violence, and 49 percent were not arraigned. 

Dropped or Dismissed Cases: The outcome of 49 percent of the police reports was 

no arraignment. In addition, 48 percent of arraignments were later dropped or dismissed, 

most often by the Department of the Attorney General. That is, nearly three-quarters (73 

percent) of the police reports had a null result of no arraignment or an arraignment that 

was later dropped. As noted, the lack of arraignment was much more likely for a victim 

with forensic evidence, although the probability of later dismissal appears to be 

unaffected by whether the victim had forensic evidence. 

 The reasons for dropping or dismissing a case are complex. Most cases involve 

an intimate partner, a friend, neighbor, coworker or a relative. Nationally, 14 percent of 

victims claim that the assault was by a stranger.61 As noted earlier only 50 percent of 

reported sexual assaults are cleared by an arrest. Clearly, if only 14 percent of 

 

58 Bureau of Justice Statistics, Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics, 1998, Table 4.19 

59 The purpose of the examination is to properly collect forensic evidence, including victim identification, 

tests for DNA, treatment of the victim for physical injuries, and take preventive measures against diseases 

such as syphilis, hepatitis B and HIV as well as pregnancy. 

60 Whether a victim has a forensic exam is a matter of choice; they self-select. 61 Tjaden, Patricia and Thoennes, Nancy, Prevalence, Incidence and Consequences of Violence Against 

Women: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey, Research in Brief, National Institute 

of Justice Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, November 1998, p. 8. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
47

perpetrators are strangers, then many identifiable assailants are not charged. In addition, a 

significant number of arraigned assailants have the charges dropped or dismissed on the 

initiative of the victim or the initiative of the prosecutor who doubts the strength of the 

case. 

 Because it is a lengthy matter, the pursuit of a sexual assault case requires 

immediate and continuing support from the police, the prosecutor as well as the advocacy 

of ancillary organizations, friends and family. Nationally, the median number of days 

between arrest and sentencing is a lengthy 220 days.62 The length of time in Rhode 

Island is similar. 

Outcomes for Prosecuted Cases: If there is an arraignment the likelihood of the 

case going forward is essentially the same regardless of whether there is forensic 

evidence, but the current number of cases is too small to provide sufficient power to 

determine with a high degree of certainty that a difference does not exist.63

If the charges against the assailant are not dismissed the likelihood of conviction 

for a felony is about two-thirds. The conviction result is indifferent to whether forensic 

evidence was presented in the case. On the other hand, if the low level of arraignment for 

victims with forensic evidence is the starting point, the felony conviction rate is 7 percent 

while the conviction rate without forensic evidence is 27 percent.64 

Discussion-A Review of the Literature: There are two principal outcomes found 

in Chart 1. There is significant decay between the number of sexual assaults and the 

number of cases in which the court punishes the offender. Surveys estimate that about 32 

percent of sexual assaults are reported to the police. About 52 percent of the reported 

cases in Chart 1 result in an arraignment and about 48 percent of the arraignments are 

 

62 Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics, 1998, Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justoce, 

p. 434. 

63 The power is approximately 0.40. By the end of the study the number of cases is expected to provide 

sufficient statistical power. 

64 Ninety percent of prosecuted cases are settled with pleas; 10 percent were settled with trials in which 

about half of the defendants were found guilty. In plea bargained cases three-fifths of the assailants were 

convicted as charged; the remaining pled to amended charges. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
48

 

dropped or dismissed. That is, in about 8 percent of the assaults the court punishes an 

offender. The second result is the difference, particularly with regard to arraignments, is 

between victims with and without a forensic exam. 

A review of sexual assault studies in other locations indicates that the Rhode 

Island experience is repeated in other states. Unfortunately, the literature on the effect of 

forensic examinations on court outcomes generally does not include a non-forensic 

control group. The SATRC/BOTEC study is unique in this regard. 

 In a retrospective study in Minneapolis without non-forensic controls, only 29 

percent of the sexual assault cases seen in the Hennepin County Medical Center had the 

potential for successful prosecution with both a victim willing to cooperate in the 

prosecution and an identified assailant.65 Thirty-four percent of those cases, or 10 percent 

of all cases with a forensic exam, resulted in a successful prosecution; a rate not unlike 

Rhode Island. Evidence of genital or non-genital trauma was significantly associated with 

a successful legal outcome. 66,67 

In an uncontrolled retrospective study in Duval County, Florida, 33 percent of the 

assault cases with forensic evidence resulted in an arrest; in 44 percent of those cases, the 

charges were not dropped.68 That is, approximately 15 percent of the cases were 

arraigned and continued; roughly the same result that was found in Rhode Island. In 

Duval County perpetrators were more likely to be found guilty if the victim was less than 

18, there was trauma and a weapon was used. 

A study in Ontario, Canada of 187 female sexual assault victims seen at a large 

Ontario hospital indicated that non-medical variables such as the victims’ age, use of 

65 Rambow, B, Adkinson C,Frost, TH, Peterson GF., Female Sexual Assault: Medical and Legal 

Implications, Annals of Emergency Medicine, 1992 Vol. 21(6), p. 727-31 66 Frazier PA, Hanley B. Sexual Assault Cases in the Legal System: Police, Prosecutor and Victim 

Perspectives, Journal of Law and Human Behavior, Vol.20, 1996, p. 607-628. 67 Rambow, et al, op cit. 

68 Gray-Eurom K, Seaberg DC, Wears RL, The Prosecution of Sexual Assault Cases: Correlation with 

Forensic Evidence, Annals of Emergency Medicine, Vol.39(2), 2002, P. 39-46. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
49

alcohol, resistance and relationship of the assailant and corroborating evidence of 

witnesses were related to arraignment; medical evidence was not significant. 

In a second uncontrolled Canadian study in the Province of British Columbia, 

charges were filed in approximately 33 percent of the forensic evidence cases, in which a 

suspect was identified by police, and a conviction was obtained in 11 percent of the 

cases, similar to Duval County, Hennepin County and Rhode Island.69,70 In this study an 

injury score that qualified as severe was the only variable significantly associated with 

conviction, although documentation on the police record of the receipt of forensic 

samples was significantly related with charges being filed. 

Finally, in a parallel note, forensic evidence is also of modest use in child abuse 

cases.71 De Jong and Rose in a study of child sexual abuse found that physical evidence 

was present in only 23 percent of the cases that resulted in felony convictions. 

It is critical to determine the differences in the cases with and without forensic 

evidence and why forensic evidence seems not add to the prosecutorial attractiveness of a 

case. While the literature accords with the Rhode Island experience none of these studies, 

because they lack non-forensic comparison groups, shed light on why prosecutors regard 

forensic evidence so lightly. 

Hypotheses about Forensic Evidence: A forensic examination is an early step 

following a sexual assault. It appears that other case attributes dominate forensic 

evidence. For example, the offender may admit to the crime, prosecutors may require less 

evidence that the women was sexually assaulted in a stranger rape or the evidence may be 

more obvious, the victim may be young and the fact of youthfulness may override the 

need for forensic evidence. The forensic exam and particularly the accompanying 

 

69 McGregor MJ,Du Mont J, Myhr TL, Sexual Assault Forensic Medical Examination: Is Evidence Related 

to Successful Prosecution? Annals of Emergency Medicine, Vol. 39(6), 2002, p. 639-47. 70 McGregor MJ, LEG, Marion SA, Wiebe E. Examination for Sexual Assault: Is the Documentation of 

Physical Injury Associated with the Laying of Charges? A Retrospective Cohort Study, Canadian Medical 

Association Journal, Vol. 160(11), 1999, p. 1565-9. 71 De Jong, AR, Rose M. Legal Proof of Child Sexual Abuse in the Absence of Physical Evidence,

Pediatrics, Vol.88(3), 1991,p.506-11, and Frequency and Significance of Physical Evidence in Legally 

Proven Cases of Sexual Assault Pediatrics, Vol.84(6), 1989, p.1022-6. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
50

medical care may respond to the pain, rage and fear to the end that there is no 

arraignment, especially given that a large proportion of assaults are by known assailants. 

The public health literature on the outcome of forensic exams may be at too high 

a level of aggregation and overlook variables that are critical to prosecutors when 

deciding whether to pursue a case. It is also common for many rape kits that have been 

transported from emergency rooms to forensic laboratories to sit unused because of 

impediments to the use of the evidence. This is not a failure of the forensic exam process 

but a flaw in the criminal proceedings. Thus, the importance of forensic exams may be 

better understood if the emergency room literature was re-analyzed from the perspective 

of the prosecutor, and if there was better understanding of the impediments to the flow of 

forensic evidence from the emergency room to the prosecutor. That is, forensic evidence 

may be persuasive in some cases and that in its absence the probability of arraignment 

would be nil. The text of this study indicates that forensic evidence in combination with 

the SART program is perhaps more effective... 

It may also be hypothesized that reasons, unrelated to the physical evidence 

collected, explain the low arraignment rate of these cases. If victims who seek forensic 

exams were in all characteristics the same as those who did not, it would be expected that 

the probability of an arraignment for those with and without forensic evidence would be 

insignificantly different; the mean probability of arraignment of assailants of victims with 

forensic evidence and for those without would be from the same population. This is 

clearly not the case. This just as it is the case that the population that utilizes SART is not 

the same as the population that forego SART services. 

Victims seeking a forensic exam may be in greater need of help and less willing 

or unable to identify the assailant. In a large Cleveland Hospital 27 percent of the assaults 

involved a weapon, general body trauma was present in 67 percent of the cases, genital 

trauma occurred in 53 percent of the cases and 39 percent of the victims could not 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
51

 

identify a suspect.72 In the Duval County study there was evidence of trauma in 57 

percent of the examinations, and no suspect was identified to the police in 56 percent of 

the cases. In the Hennepin County study 50 percent of the victims had associated injuries, 

and 71 percent of the victims did not know the assailant or were unwilling to testify.73,74 

It appears that victims who have a forensic examination are more likely to have 

been assailed by a stranger or were unwilling to identify their attacker and suffered more 

genital and extragenital injuries. The increased likelihood of victims with forensic exams 

to be assaulted by strangers or unwilling to identify the attacker is hypothesized to 

explain a significant amount of the difference in the rate of arraignment. For example, as 

noted in Hennepin County only 29 percent of the victims identified the assailant and were 

willing to testify. The study does not identify the proportion of these cases that were 

arraigned, but even in the absence of that figure the arraignment rate is likely to be close 

to the Rhode Island rate of 24 percent. In Duval County a suspect was known to the 

victim in 65 percent of the assaults at the time of the examination, but was identified to 

the police in 44 percent of the cases. An arrest was made in 33 percent of the cases, again 

a result similar to Rhode Island.75 

In general, the information available on sexual assaults is modest. Most victims 

do not report them to the police, those who report to the police may have sustained fewer 

injuries, be more likely to know their assailant and be willing to testify than those victims 

who have forensic exams and the accompanying medical care 

72 Riggs N, Houry D, Long G, Markovchick V, Feldhaus KM, Analysis of 1076 cases of Sexual Assault,

Annals of Emergency Medicine, Vol.35(4), 2000,p. 358-62. 73 Rambow B, et al, op cit. 74 Intriguingly, a Nashville, Tennessee study suggests that the use of a county hospital emergency room for 

the medical management of rape victims discourages their reporting the event to the authorities. Cartwright 

PS, Reported Sexual Assault in Nashville-Davidson County, Tennessee, 1980-1982, American Journal of 

Obstetrics and Gynecology, Vol. 154(5), 1986, p. 1064-8. 

19 It should be noted that the rate of dismissal of cases with forensic evidence in Duval County and Rhode 

Island were the same, 56 percent.

75 The effectiveness of forensic exams can only be determined by comparing the cases with equivalent 

charges with and without a forensic exam. The outcomes are the arraignment and dismissal effects of 

forensic exams. That is, P(A1| F) = P(A1^ F)/P(F) compared to P(A1| ~F) = P(A1^ ~F)/P(~F), where A1,2,3 = 

assault degree, F= forensic exam. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
52

Examined victims are frequently injured. The forensic exam provides an 

opportunity to expertly collect, with training and proper equipment, evidence that would 

strengthen the assault case. It appears that prosecutors may not generally rely on 

forensic evidence in assault cases, as is discussed in the main text of this study. The rate 

of arraignment following the identification of an assailant is apparently much higher for 

non-forensic cases, perhaps due to their willingness to testify. The routine collection of 

DNA and its addition to and comparison to the Department of Justice CODIS database of 

DNA can increase the number of cleared cases. Clearly, the contents of many rape kits 

are not added to CODIS. Cases without forensic exams forfeit this avenue of pursuit, 

although stranger assaults may be less likely in cases in which forensic evidence is not 

sought. 

The conventional pattern appears to be one in which cases with allegations that do 

not appear to be supported by the evidence, or the victim does not wish to proceed, or is 

persuaded not to proceed, are sifted out by not charging the assailant or by dismissing the 

case after charges are made. This leaves the most flagrant cases, a few of which are tested 

in trials. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
53

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.