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

Department of Justice and prepared the following final report: 

Document Title: Step-by-Step Practitioner Toolkit for Evaluating 

the Work of Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner 

(SANE) Programs in the Criminal Justice 

System 

Author: Megan R. Greeson; Rebecca Campbell; 

Shannon K.E. Kobes 

Document No.: 226499 

Date Received: April 2008 

Award Number: 2005-WG-BX-0003 

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.
A Step-by-Step Practitioner Toolkit for Evaluating the Work of 

Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE) Programs in the 

Criminal Justice System 

Created As Part of NIJ Award 2005-WG-BX-0003 

Rebecca Campbell, Ph.D., Principal Investigator 

Megan R. Greeson, Primary Author 

Rebecca Campbell and Shannon K.E. Kobes, Secondary Authors 

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.
Introduction to the Toolkit 

The goal of this Toolkit is to assist SANE program staff in evaluating how their program 

affects the reporting, investigation, and prosecution of sexual assault cases in their 

community. There are many other ways to evaluate the success of SANE programs, 

such as their effectiveness with patient care and crisis intervention. This Toolkit was 

developed as part of a large research study on the work of SANEs in the criminal justice 

system. The lessons learned from that project helped inform the development of this 

Toolkit, but by no means are legal outcomes the only or best way to evaluate the 

success of SANE programs. 

The focus of this Toolkit is the impact of SANEs on the progression of sexual assault 

cases through the criminal justice system. To that end, the Toolkit is designed to 

provide practitioners with the necessary information for understanding and evaluating 

SANEs impact on prosecution in their own community and ideas for utilizing this 

information to enhance the positive impact of their program on the reporting, 

investigation, and prosecution of sexual assault cases. 

There are four main sections to the Toolkit: 

1) The first section provides a basic overview of conducting program evaluation with 

SANE programs. This includes sample evaluation questions for assessing the 

different domains of SANE’s work. 

2) The second section provides an introduction to the many ways SANE programs 

create change in their communities, with a particular emphasis on the impact of 

SANEs on the processing of sexual assault cases through the criminal justice 

system. 

3) The third section is a step-by-step explanation of a specific type of evaluation 

your program can conduct: an evaluation of whether your SANE program has 

impacted the progression of sexual assault cases through the criminal justice 

system in your community. 

4) The last section illustrates how your evaluation work (discussed in the previous 

section) can translate into ideas for community action. If you did find a positive 

impact on case progression through the criminal justice system, the rest of the 

Toolkit will help you to understand what you are doing well that should be 

continued and made to last. If you didn’t find a change, the rest of the Toolkit will 

help you understand what improvements can be made to change the criminal 

justice system response to sexual assault in your community. 

The Toolkit was designed to be as user-friendly as possible. It does not require users to 

have statistical expertise and we avoid using jargon. Resources are provided in the 

Appendices. Each section is organized to give you the basic information and skills you 

need to evaluate the impact of your program on the progression of sexual assault cases 

through the criminal justice system, as well as the information and skills you need to 

utilize the evaluation findings to make improvements in your community. 

2

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 creation of the Toolkit was funded by a National Institute of Justice research grant 

that assessed how SANEs affect the prosecution of sexual assault cases. These 

studies informed the recommendations found within this Toolkit. A research team from 

Michigan State University was responsible for conducting these studies and creating 

this Toolkit. The project was led by Dr. Rebecca Campbell, a researcher who 

specializes in sexual assault and SANE programs. 

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.
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction to the Toolkit 1 

SECTION ONE: Introduction to Program Evaluation for SANEs 7 

Why Conduct Program Evaluation? 8 

Common Concerns with Evaluation 8 

Evaluating SANE Programs 9 

Types of Program Evaluation for SANEs 9 

Key Concepts in Conducting Program Evaluation of SANE Programs 11 

Evaluation Questions 11 

Logic Models 11 

Sample Logic Models for SANE Programs 12 

Designing the Evaluation 15 

Data Collection 16 

Data Analysis 17 

Maintaining Confidentiality and Privacy Throughout Evaluation 18 

Using Your Findings 18 

Helpful Resources on Program Evaluation 19 

SECTION TWO: SANE Programs as Agents of Systems Change 23 

Defining the Effectiveness of SANE Programs 24 

Psychological Effectiveness 24 

Medical/Health Care Effectiveness 25 

Forensic Effectiveness 26 

Legal Effectiveness 27 

Community Change Effectiveness 28 

New Findings from the NIJ Study on SANEs and Criminal Justice System Impact 28 

Why Evaluate SANE Programs’ Criminal Justice System Impact 32 

SECTION THREE: Evaluating A SANE Programs’ Impact on Sexual Assault Case Progression 

Through the Criminal Justice System 34 

STEP ONE: Where Do I Begin? 35 

Why Evaluate Each Stage of the Criminal Justice System Process? 35 

Table 1: Stages of the Criminal Justice System & Corresponding Evaluation Questions 36 

STEP TWO: How Do I Design the Evaluation? 37 

Why Make A Comparison? 37 

Choosing the Design for Your Evaluation 39 

Table 2: Comparing the Designs 39 

Table 3: Implementation and Resources Needed to Conduct Each Design 40 

Figure 1: Decision Tree—Can You Conduct the Post-Only Evaluation? 42 

Figure 2: Decision Tree—Can You Conduct the Pre-Post Evaluation? 43

Choose Your Design: Pre-Post or Post-Only? 44 

STEP THREE: How Do I Begin the Evaluation? 45 

4

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.
SECTION THREE A: Conducting the Post-Only Evaluation 47 

POST-ONLY STEP FOUR: What Cases Should I Look Up At the Prosecutor’s Office? 48 

Table 4: Post-Only Design Sampling Criteria 49 

Table 5: Selecting Cases That Meet Criteria 51 

POST-ONLY STEP FIVE: How Should I Collect Information from the Prosecutor’s Office? 52 

Table 6: Information Collection Table 53 

Table 7: Examples Completed in the Information Collection Table 55 

POST-ONLY STEP SIX: How Do I Calculate Analyses on the Information I Have Collected? 56 

Calculating Frequencies and Percentages by Hand 57 

Table 8: Frequency Results 58 

A Few More Calculations By Hand 63 

Compare Your Results to National Rates 67 

SECTION THREE B: Conducting the Pre-Post Evaluation 68 

PRE-POST STEP FOUR: What Cases Should I Look Up At the Prosecutor’s Office? 69 

Table 9: Pre-Post Design Sampling Criteria 71 

PRE-POST STEP FIVE: How Do I Collaborate With the Hospital? 73 

Table 10: Selecting Cases That Meet Criteria 75 

PRE-POST STEP SIX: How Should I Collect Information from the Prosecutor’s Office? 76 

Table 11: Information Collection Table 77 

Table 12: Examples Completed in the Information Collection Table 79 

PRE-POST STEP SEVEN: How Do I Calculate Analyses on Information I Have Collected? 81 

Calculating Frequencies and Percentages by Hand 82 

Table 13: Frequency Results 83 

Testing for Pre-Post Change 88 

Testing for a Statistically Significant Difference From Pre- to Post-SANE 95 

Interpreting Your Results 98 

SECTION FOUR: Taking Stock—Now That We Know What’s Happening in Our Community, 

Where Do We Go From Here? 99 

SECTION FOUR A: If You Did Not Find A Significant Improvement in Case Progression

Through the Criminal Justice System 101 

Overview 102 

Conducting Focus Groups to Understand a “Breakdown” in the System 103 

STEP ONE: Preparation for Conducting Focus Groups 103 

STEP TWO: Conducting the Focus Groups 107 

STEP THREE: Analyze the Data From Your Focus Groups 112 

Table 14: Analysis Choices 114 

Table 15: Raw Data 116 

SECTION FOUR B: If You Did Find A Significant Improvement in Case Progression Through 

the Criminal Justice System 120 

Overview 121 

Documentation: Policies and Memorandums of Understanding 121 

Building and Strengthening Your Relationships With Community Partners 122 

Developing Ongoing Evaluation Processes 122 

5

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.
REFERENCES 123 

APPENDICES 128 

APPENDIX A: National Published Rates of Sexual Assault Care Progression Through the 

Criminal Justice System 129 

APPENDIX B: Tips for Working With An Outside Evaluator/Researcher 130 

APPENDIX C: Selecting Cases 131 

APPENDIX D: Information Collection Table 132 

APPENDIX E: Entering Data and Conducting Percentages in Excel 133 

APPENDIX F: Frequency Table 140 

APPENDIX G: Percentage Table 141 

APPENDIX H: Post-Only Totals To Be Compared To Rates From National Studies 142 

APPENDIX I: Comparing Your Rates From Pre- to Post-SANE 143 

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.
SECTION ONE: 

Introduction to Program Evaluation for SANEs 

7

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.
Why Conduct Program Evaluation? 

SANEs can use program evaluation for several purposes. Program evaluation can: 

• Help you understand the impact of your work on the people and communities 

you serve 

• Help you discover ways to improve services and programs 

• Provide information to funders about how your program is working 

• Increase community and financial support for your program by documenting 

what your program is doing well 

• Give survivors the opportunity to provide your program with input and 

recommendations for improvement. 

Common Concerns with Evaluation 

There are many reasons why programs may be hesitant to conduct program evaluation. 

We will address some of the most common concerns and ways to deal with them. 

• Lack of expertise in evaluation: Evaluation can seem daunting and may 

appear to require the help of an outside expert. However, evaluation does not 

have to involve a complex study or difficult statistical analyses. There are many 

resources available that break down the evaluation process to help organizations 

gain the knowledge and skills they need to conduct a program evaluation. 

Several resources are written specifically to help organizations deal with issues 

unique to evaluation of sexual assault programs. Of course, one can always 

consider collaborating with a good outside evaluator. 

• Bad experience with researchers/evaluators: Some programs may have had 

a bad experience when they relied on the expertise of an external researcher or 

evaluator. Naturally, this experience could make a program hesitant to work with 

another researcher/evaluator. Remember that not all researchers/evaluators are 

created equal; a good evaluator will value and ask for input, understand the 

dynamics of sexual assault, protect confidentiality, and have a plan for sharing 

the evaluation findings. If one is still reluctant to bring in a researcher, the 

manuals at the end of this section can help you conduct an evaluation on their 

own. 

• Lack of resources: This is a common problem for programs with limited time 

and money. Keep in mind that evaluation can be as simple as analyzing records 

that programs already keep to document what services are provided to patients. 

Evaluations do not have to cost a lot of money and take a lot of time to be useful. 

In the end, conducting an evaluation may bring in even more resources. For 

example, an evaluation can provide “hard evidence” to funders about how a 

program is working which may encourage them to continue or increase funding. 

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.
Evaluating SANE Programs 

SANEs’ work can be conceptualized as addressing survivors’ psychological, 

medical/physical health, legal and forensic outcomes, and community change 

outcomes. Program evaluation can help SANE programs learn about each of these 

domains by examining: (1) what it is that they do to address each of these domains; and 

(2) what effect their program has on these types of outcomes. We suggest limiting each 

project to one of these four domains to help keep your evaluation manageable in scope. 

If you are interested in learning more, two articles are available that 

summarize key studies on SANE programs across these four domains: 

Campbell, R., Patterson, D., & Lichty, L. F. (2005). The Effectiveness of 

Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE) Programs: A review of 

psychological, medical, legal, and community change outcomes. 

Trauma Violence & Abuse, 6, 313-329. 

Campbell, R. (2004). Sexual assault nurse examiner programs: evidence of 

psychological and legal effectiveness. VAWNet Document, National 

Online Resource Center on Violence Against Women, Minneapolis, 

MN: University of Minnesota. 

Types of Program Evaluation for SANEs 

There are two main types of program evaluation: 

• Process Evaluation: Evaluates your program’s activities. Put another way, 

process evaluation examines what it is that your program is doing and how you 

are doing it. Process evaluation assesses the degree to which your program is 

operating as intended. This can include documenting the services you are 

providing and how you are providing them, patients’ satisfaction with your 

services, and patients’ wants/needs. 

Examples of Process Evaluation: 

 Psychological- Were patients psychological needs met? (e.g., what 

percent of patients believed the nurse was supportive? felt the 

nurse believed their story? trusted the nurse?) 

 Medical/Physical Health- What types of services do patients receive 

to meet their medical/physical health needs? (e.g., how many 

patients receive STD prophylaxis? emergency contraception?) 

 Forensic- What specific information is being gained from the 

evidence collected when the lab analyzes the kit? (e.g., are they 

finding DNA? are they getting hits in CODIS? what evidence is 

being used in court? by police?) 

9

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.
 Legal- How do nurses attend to patients’ legal needs? (e.g., for 

what percent of cases do nurses give information about the criminal 

justice process? offer to call the police?) 

 Community Change- How satisfied are people that participate in 

your trainings? (e.g., what percent of people attending the training 

felt it was helpful? do police find the training as helpful as medical 

professionals do?) 

• Outcome Evaluation: Evaluates the impact your program is having. Outcome 

evaluation assesses whether your program is creating the impact you want it to 

have on survivors, your community, people who participate in trainings given by 

your program, etc. 

Examples of Outcome Evaluation: 

 Psychological: Do patients seen by the SANE program have better 

psychological outcomes than patients seen in a traditional 

emergency room? (e.g., do patients seen by the SANE program 

feel more in control? report fewer posttraumatic stress symptoms?) 

 Medical/Physical Health: Are patients more informed about their 

medical health once they talk with a SANE nurse? (e.g., do patients 

have more knowledge than they did before about risk of STDs?) 

 Forensic: Do SANE programs provide better forensic evidence than 

traditional emergency rooms? (e.g., are SANEs more likely to dry 

the buccal swabs? do SANEs document more injuries? are SANEs 

more likely to maintain the chain of evidence?) 

 Legal: Do SANE programs increase patients’ knowledge of the 

criminal justice system? (e.g., after talking with the nurse, are 

patients more knowledgeable about the processes involved in 

prosecution? about their right to participate in none, some, or all 

parts of the criminal justice process?) 

 Community Change: Do SANE programs impact coordination 

among stakeholders? (e.g., after the implementation of the SANE 

program, are police more likely to refer a survivor to a forensic 

exam? are prosecutors more likely to consult a medical expert 

about a case?) 

10

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.
Key Concepts in Conducting Program Evaluation of SANE Programs 

Evaluation Questions 

Evaluation questions help you to narrow down the scope of your evaluation. The work 

that SANEs do is varied and complex, which means you can’t evaluate it all in one 

project. For any evaluation project, you will need to decide upon one or two key 

questions that you want your evaluation to answer. Make sure that each of the terms in 

your questions is specific enough that you can measure them. For example, you can’t 

measure coordination, but you can measure how often prosecutors consult a medical 

expert; you can’t measure psychological outcomes, but you can measure feeling in 

control or posttraumatic stress symptoms. 

Logic Models 

A logic model is a tool that is frequently used in program planning and designing 

evaluations. A logic model is a visual display, usually a chart/table or a diagram, of how 

you expect your program to work. It helps you to map out our program goals and how 

you expect your program to achieve its goals. Many funders are beginning to require 

that programs provide a logic model to justify their requests for funding, so it may be 

useful to learn more about logic models. 

In a logic model, you begin with a list your inputs (what resources your program uses), 

your program activities (what services you provide), your outputs (things that are a 

direct result of your program activities, for example, the number of clients served), and 

the intermediate and longer-term outcomes that you expect to see based on your 

program’s activities. 

Developing a logic model for your program is often a good place to start in program 

evaluation. At the end of this section, we provide a list of helpful resources, including 

some specific suggestions for good workbooks on logic models. However, we also 

realize that developing a logic model from scratch can sometimes take a while, and 

many SANE programs may not have a lot of time to really work through the whole 

process from start to finish. In that situation, sometimes it’s helpful to look at some 

sample logic models and work off of those examples to customize a logic model for your 

specific program. 

We have included two sample logic models in this Toolkit. Both are “open domain,” 

which means they are not copyrighted and you can use them and/or modify as you like. 

The first logic model is on pages 12-13 and was developed by Campbell, Patterson, 

Adams, Diegel, and Coats (2008) to show how SANE programs can have a beneficial 

impact on patient care and emotional well-being. The second logic model is on page 14 

and shows how SANE programs may increase legal prosecution. 

11

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.
Logic Model: SANE Programs and Patient Care and Psychological Well-Being Impact 

Inputs Activities Outputs 

Initial 

Outcomes 

 Intermediate 

Lon

In order to accomplish our program activities we will need the following: 

In order to address the problem of sexual assault in our community, we will accomplish the following activities: 

We expect that once accomplished these activities will produce the following evidence of service delivery: 

We expect that these activities will lead to the following initial outcomes: 

We expect that these activities will lead to the following intermediate outcomes: 

• Forensic nurses 

• Program 

coordinator 

• Consulting 

physician 

• Medical/forensic 

equipment 

• Private, safe 

space to conduct exams 

• Sexual assault 

patients 

• Positive relations 

with police and local hospitals to identify and refer survivors 

• Build rapport and 

establish trust with patients 

• Put patients at ease 

and show compassion 

• Provide patientdirected care by 

treating patients one-on-one, working within the patient’s boundaries, adapting to each patient’s needs 

• Sexual assault 

survivors of diverse ages, races/ ethnicities, classes, languages, religions, sexualities, and abilities seeking medical attention and/or forensic evidence collection will be referred to our SANE program where trained forensic nurses will conduct 

• Survivors will feel 

they were cared for by a professional 

• Survivor will feel 

a sense of control 

• Survivors will feel 

someone cared and believed them 

• Survivors will feel 

respected 

• Survivors will feel 

they were treated with care and compassion 

• Emotional healing f

survivors 

• Survivors will gain a 

sense of closure 

• Survivors will be ab

to go on with their lives (i.e., maintain employment, have intimate relationshihave relationships with family/friends) 

• Improved standard 

care for sexual assault survivors 

• Survivors will enga

in follow-up service(e.g., counseling) 

12

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.
• Space for regular 

meeting to continually assess quality of care provided 

• Funding 

• Convey 

professionalism to patients 

• Provide resource 

referrals and followup information 

medical forensic exams in accordance with our empowering care model 

• Survivors will feel 

hopeful about the future and the potential for healing 

• Survivors will 

understand the medications they received 

• Survivors will 

know where to go for help, information, and/or additional services 

13

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.
Logic Model: SANE Programs and Criminal Justice System Impact 

Inputs Activities Outputs Outcomes 

ShortTerm 

Impact 

LongTerm 

Impact 

What 

resources 

do you 

invest? 

Staff 

Volunteers 

Money 

Materials/ 

Supplies 

Equipment 

Technology 

Community 

Partners 

What do you do? 

Provide medical services 

Treat patients with 

compassion and respect 

Provide information to 

patients about the 

criminal justice system 

Provide community 

referrals to patients 

Crisis intervention with 

patient and patient’s 

family and friends. 

Document injuries 

Collect and store DNA 

evidence 

Document the assault 

history 

Legal Advocacy for 

victims 

Expert witness testimony 

Conduct trainings with 

police, prosecutors, etc. 

Participate in case 

review meetings 

Educate the public about 

sexual assault. 

What are 

the direct 

products 

and who is 

reached? 

Patients 

treated and 

given 

information. 

Evidence 

collected 

Victim 

received 

information 

about her 

rights and the 

criminal 

justice 

process 

Expert 

witness 

testimony 

Community 

stakeholders 

trained 

Cases 

reviewed 

People 

receive 

information 

about sexual 

assault. 

What changes do you 

expect to see in 

individuals? 

Patients experience less 

distress, better 

psychological functioning 

and physical health, and 

less impairment in their 

everyday lives. 

Credible, high-quality 

evidence is available in 

prosecuting sexual assault 

cases. 

Patients understand their 

right to report or not to 

report and what 

participation in the criminal 

justice system entails. 

Patients are more aware of 

community resources, and 

better supported by friends 

and family. 

Juries, prosecutors, judges, 

and attorneys are educated 

about the dynamics of 

sexual assault. 

Community stakeholders 

change how they 

investigate cases, how they 

make decisions on cases, 

how they prosecute cases, 

and how they interact with 

victims. 

What 

short-term 

changes 

do you 

expect to 

see in the 

system? 

Victims are 

more likely 

to report the 

assault to 

the police. 

Victims are 

less likely to 

drop out of 

case 

prosecution. 

Fewer 

cases “fall 

through the 

cracks” 

More cases 

are 

investigated 

and 

prosecuted. 

What 

long-term 

changes 

do you 

expect to 

see in the 

system? 

Increased 

prosecution 

of sexual 

assault 

cases. 

14

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.
Designing the Evaluation 

You will need to make several decisions to plan out or design how your evaluation will 

work. The decisions you make will depend on the evaluation questions you are trying to 

answer. You will need to decide who to collect data from, what to collect, how many 

times, when, and how you will collect it. 

Who to collect data from: 

You can collect data from a variety of sources including existing records (e.g., 

your program’s records, police and prosecutor records), patients, program staff, 

training participants, etc. 

If you are interested in learning about how satisfied patients are with your 

services, you would want to collect data from patients. If you are interested in 

learning about what services were provided to survivors you could choose to use 

existing program records/documentation, or ask patients, nurses, or advocates 

about what services were provided each time a patient comes in. 

What data to collect: 

You can collect data in number or word form. Numeric data includes rating scales 

(e.g., 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree) and other close-ended 

questions where there is a set of acceptable answers the participant has to 

choose from to give a response. For example, did the nurse give the patient 

emergency contraception would be a close-ended questions because a limited 

number of responses are possible: yes or no. Data in words would be collected 

by asking people open-ended questions in an interview. The participant is able to 

answer however they would like. Open-ended questions include, “how do you 

feel about our new program” or “what should be we do to improve our program?” 

Generally, numeric data is quicker to analyze. Word data can take longer to 

analyze, but word data is a good way to get at topics you don’t know much about 

or you want to hear an explanation for the participant’s answer. 

How many times to collect data: 

You can collect data once or multiple times. Collecting data multiple times allows 

you to make a comparison between data collected at multiple times points. 

For example, if you are interested in whether your training increases police 

officers’ knowledge of medical/forensic exams, you could test their knowledge 

before and after your training. You would compare to see if officer’s had greater 

knowledge after the training. 

15

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.
When to collect your data: 

When collecting data from people rather than from existing records, it is 

important to consider when to collect your data. You need to consider when you 

are most likely to have access to people, who are willing to participate, and when 

it is appropriate to ask people to participate. For example, it may be the easiest 

to ask a patient to fill out a survey after the medical/forensic exam, but it may be 

more sensitive to the patients’ needs to wait and ask the patient to answer survey 

questions during a follow-up call. 

Data Collection 

There are four main techniques for collecting data: surveys, interviews, existing records, 

and observations. We discuss the disadvantages and advantages of each. 

Surveys- Surveys are generally quick and easy to fill-out; they don’t require much 

staff time to administer and don’t require much time from participants to fill out. 

You can write your own survey or use already developed questionnaires. 

Surveys are good for assessing which services patients were interested in, which 

they received, and how satisfied they were with certain services. You can read a 

survey to someone or you can have them fill out a pencil and paper survey. It is 

often easier for participants to be more honest about how satisfied they are with 

your services if they fill a survey out on their own rather than telling someone 

from the program how they felt. 

Interviews- Interviews can be done in-person or over the phone. These require 

more resources than surveys because someone has to do the interviewing; it is 

important that interviewers are trained in interviewing skills, such as how to probe 

for more information. Interviews usually last longer than surveys and require 

more effort from your participants. Interviews can help you get at topics you don’t 

know much about and can give you more depth of information. It is also 

important to consider whether you want program staff or someone else to 

conduct interviews with patients. Patients may have a difficult time telling a nurse 

that they felt another nurse could have done something better. In any interview, 

the interviewer needs to assure the participant that the interview will not affect 

his/her relationship with your program or his/her eligibility for future services and 

that their confidentiality will be protected. 

Existing Records- With existing records, you don’t have to administer anything or 

get anyone to participate. However, they can be problematic because they 

weren’t designed for the purposes of evaluation. If you use pre-existing records, 

it is important that the information in the records was thoroughly and 

systematically documented throughout all records and answers your evaluation 

questions. When you have easy access to existing records (e.g., your own 

program’s records) this does not require very many resources; however, trying to 

access hard-to-get records (such as records protected by HIPAA) can use up a 

lot of staff time and even money. 

16

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.
Observations- Observations can be used when you have a checklist of things 

you expect to visibly see. For example, after a medical/forensic exam, an 

advocate could check off what services the nurse provided to the patient. 

Observations can be fairly quick, don’t require many resources, and you don’t 

have to recruit anyone to participate. However, observations aren’t appropriate 

for all types of evaluation questions. It would be difficult to observe client 

satisfaction or a patient’s level of comfort; it would be easier to just ask the client 

how they felt. 

Data Analysis 

Keep in mind that data analyses do not have to be complicated. Some of the most 

commonly used, simple calculations are: 

• Frequencies- a count of how many times a certain response is given (e.g., 45 

patients received information about rape trauma syndrome.) 

• Percentages- a proportion of times that a certain response was given (e.g., 98% 

of patients strongly agreed that the information about risk of HIV was helpful.) 

• Means- an average (e.g., on average, patients seen by the SANE program had 

three post traumatic stress symptoms, but on average, patients seen in the 

tradition emergency room had six post traumatic stress symptoms.) 

“Resources for Evaluating Sexual Assault Service Delivery Programs” (one of the 

resources listed at the end of this section) gives tips for conducting these types of 

analyses. There are also tools and trainings out there that can help you to conduct more 

complicated statistics. If you are going to conduct more difficult analyses, you should 

consider using a data analysis package such as Excel or SPSS. If you want to conduct 

complicated analyses and don’t have the expertise “in-house” this may be a good place 

to bring in an outside evaluator or a volunteer with experience in statistics. 

There are many different techniques for analyzing open-ended data. Reviewing all the 

different ways is outside the scope of this Toolkit. However, a quick way is to have two 

people read your data with an open-mind and look for themes. A theme is a general 

idea or concept that comes up repeatedly, or a pattern in your data. A good rule of 

thumb is that an idea or topic is a theme if it comes up three times. For example, if three 

police officers you interviewed felt that being introduced to SANE nurses they will be 

working with was a benefit of your training, then it would be considered a theme and 

you could talk about this as a finding of your evaluation. If one participant said they liked 

the training because the power point you used was in their favorite colors this would not 

be a theme and would not be discussed as an evaluation finding. (Further information 

on analyzing open-ended data is available in the section on thinking about improving 

sexual assault case progression by conducting focus groups with community 

stakeholders beginning on page 106.) 

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.
Maintaining Confidentiality and Privacy Throughout Evaluation 

There are lots of ways to make sure that confidentiality is protected in an evaluation. If 

you don’t need to know who filled out a survey, then set up your data collection 

procedures so you don’t find out. Provide people with a private place where they can fill 

it out and leave it in a locked box away from program staff. If you have to know who a 

participant is to conduct an interview with them, that’s fine. Remember to tell them that 

you will keep what they tell you confidential just like you would tell a patient. When you 

are doing an interview, don’t write down any information that would identify who the 

participant was, like their name or contact information. And always make sure that when 

patients participate in your evaluations that the person administering an interview or a 

survey that is read aloud is not the person who provided that patient with services. 

Another way to protect confidentiality is to limit who sees your evaluation data. Do all of 

your staff persons need access to the data? Do your volunteers? Do people outside of 

your agency need access to the data? Probably not, unless they are working on the 

evaluation. If you do have information that identifies participants in your evaluation data, 

keep it separate from your regular program information and get rid of it when you no 

longer need it. And just like your program files, you need to carefully store and lock up 

your evaluation data. 

Using Your Findings 

Throughout your project, it is important to keep the end in sight. While you are making 

key decisions, ask yourself “how do I want to use this information?” That way at the end 

of the project you end up with information that is as useful as possible to you. 

Some ways to use your evaluation findings: 

• Inform the design of new programs and services 

• Improve existing services and identifying staff training and supervisory needs 

• Inform future evaluation questions 

• Use findings to inform your community change efforts and the collaborative work 

you do with professionals in the community 

• Gain community support and recruit volunteers by showing people what your 

program is doing well 

• Increase or maintain funding by sharing your findings with your funder. This can 

work for both positive and negative findings as long as you provide a plan for 

how you are going to make improvements for every negative finding you present 

• Share with the field by presenting at a conference or publishing your work in a 

journal 

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.
Helpful Resources on Program Evaluation 

Resources for Evaluating Sexual Assault Service Delivery Programs 

Citation:

Campbell, R., Davidson, W.S., Ahrens, C., Aponte, G., Dorey, H., Grubstein, L., 

Naegeli, M., & Wasco, S. (1998). Introduction to Evaluation Training and Practice for 

Sexual Assault Service Delivery. Okemos, MI: Michigan Public Health Institute. 

Campbell, R., Davidson, W.S., Dorey, H., Grubstein, L., & Naegeli, M. (1999b). 

EvaluationTraining and Practice for Sexual Assault Service Delivery, Part Two (Data 

Analysis). Okemos, MI: Michigan Public Health Institute. 

Campbell, R., Davidson, W. S., Dorey, H., Bennett, K., Hagstrom, J., & Bonter, F. 

(2000). Resources for Evaluating Sexual Assault Service Delivery Programs. Okemos, 

MI: Michigan Public Health Institute. 

Description: 

This series of manuals provides specific how-to-information on designing and 

implementing program evaluation, sample measures, and simple step-by-step 

instruction on conducting data analysis. 

Availability: Contact Rebecca Campbell, rmc@msu.edu (free) 

Citation: 

Sullivan, C.M. & Coats, S. (2000). Outcome evaluation strategies for sexual assault 

service programs: A practical guide. Okemos, MI: Michigan Coalition Against Domestic 

and Sexual Violence. 

Description: 

This brief, user-friendly manual was co-developed by a researcher and the director of a 

sexual assault service program to give practitioners the necessary introductory 

knowledge to conducting program evaluation of victim service programs. The manual 

also provides tips for programs who are considering working with an outside evaluator 

or researcher. 

Availability: Contact the Michigan Coalition Against Domestic & Sexual Violence, 

mcadsv.org ($30 plus $10 for shipping). 

19

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.
Resources for Evaluating Domestic Violence Programs 

Citation: 

Sullivan, C. M. (1998). Outcome evaluation strategies for domestic violence programs: 

A practical guide. Harrisburg, PA: Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence. 

Description: 

This is similar to the Sullivan and Coats manual described above but is tailored to 

evaluating domestic abuse programs. 

Availability: Contact the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Women violence, 

http://www.pcadv.net ($25) 

Citation: 

Sullivan, C. M., & Alexy, C. (2001). Evaluating the outcomes of domestic violence 

service programs: Some practical considerations and strategies. “Applied Research 

Forum” document for the National Electronic Network on Violence Against Women. 

http://www.vaw.umn.edu/. 

Description: 

This document gives a brief discussion of specific considerations in evaluating domestic 

violence programs. The document helps service providers to think about why to 

evaluate, what outcomes are appropriate to evaluate, and when it is best to evaluate a 

program’s effectives. Disadvantages and advantages of utilizing different data collection 

techniques specific to evaluating domestic violence programs are considered. 

Availability: 

A PDF of this document was available at 

http://www.vawnet.org/DomesticViolence/Research/VAWnetDocs/AR_evaldv.pdf 

Other Resources on Violence Against Women Evaluation & Research 

Citation:

Ellsberg, M., and Heise, L. Researching Violence Against Women: A Practical Guide for 

Researchers and Activists. Washington, D.C., United States: World Health 

Organization; PATH; 2005. 

Description: 

This document was written by the World Health Organization and PATH. It is a 

comprehensive resource on conducting research and evaluation that also takes into 

account the special considerations required when doing research and evaluation on 

violence against women. 

20

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.
Availability: 

A PDF file of the manual was available at 

http://www.path.org/files/GBV_rvaw_complete.pdf 

Citation: 

Burt, M. R., Harrell, A. V., Newmark, L. C., Aron, L. Y., Jacobs, L. K. (1997). Evaluation 

Guidebook: For projects funded by S.T.O.P. formula grants under the Violence Against 

Women Act. Washington, D. C: Urban Institute. 

Description: 

This document was written by the Urban Institute to help programs funded by S.T.O.P. 

grants evaluate their work. The manual helps service providers think about what about 

their programs to evaluate, develop logic models, find an evaluator or conduct an 

evaluation, and use evaluation findings. 

Availability: 

A PDF of this document was available at: http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=407365 

General Resources on Evaluation 

Citation:

Rossi, P. H., Freeman, H. E., Lipsey, M. W. (2003). Evaluation: A Systematic Approach 

(7th Ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. 

Description: 

This textbook provides a thorough, accessible introduction to program evaluation. 

Citation: 

W.K. Kellogg Foundation (2004). Logic model development guide. Battle Creek, MI: 

Author. 

Description: 

This guide, developed by the Kellogg Foundation, provides an introduction to the 

purpose of logic models, examples of different types of models, and takes the reader 

through a process of creating a logic model to fit their own program and using that logic 

model to inform an evaluation plan. 

Availability: 

A PDF of this document was available at: 

http://www.wkkf.org/Pubs/Tools/Evaluation/Pub3669.pdf. 

21

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.
American Evaluation Association 

The American Evaluation Association is the professional association of evaluators 

across the United States. Their website provides resources on various types of program 

evaluation and also allows you to search for an evaluator. Their web address is 

http://www.eval.org. 

Western Michigan University Evaluation Center 

The evaluation center’s website provides a variety of resources for people and 

programs interested in evaluation. These resources include checklists that outline the 

key processes and principles of program evaluation and a directory of evaluators. Their 

web address is http://www.wmich.edu/evalctr/. 

22

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.
SECTION TWO: 

SANE Programs as Agents of Systems Change

23

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.
Defining the Effectiveness of SANE Programs 

Because the work of SANE programs is multi-faceted, defining and measuring 

“success” or “effectiveness” is complex (see Campbell, Patterson, & Lichty, 2005). For 

example, some SANE programs have made it a goal to improve prosecution of sexual 

assault cases in their communities, whereas others have noted that the rape 

prosecution is influenced by many factors, only one of which is the presence and quality 

of forensic evidence. Therefore, the evaluation of SANE programs must reflect the 

specific goals and missions of each program, but it may be useful to consider multiple 

indices of success when evaluating the collective work of SANEs as a reform effort. In 

this section of the Toolkit, the empirical literature on SANE programs will be examined 

to evaluate their success in five domains: 1) promoting the psychological recovery of 

survivors; 2) providing comprehensive and consistent medical care; 3) documenting the 

forensic evidence of the crime completely and accurately; 4) improving the prosecution 

of sexual assault cases by providing high quality forensic evidence and expert 

testimony; and 5) creating community change by bringing multiple service providers 

together to provide comprehensive care to rape survivors. 

Psychological Effectiveness 

Although the forensic and legal aspects of SANEs have been a primary research focus 

in the literature to date, a fundamental role of forensic nurses includes providing 

patients with physical and emotional care (ANA, 1997; ENA, 2007; Ledray, Faugno, & 

Speck, 2001). As Lynch (2006) noted, “As a professional nurse, the SANE’s role 

encompasses all aspects of the bio-psycho-social needs of all patients, including the 

survivor of sexual assault” (p. 288). Providing comprehensive medical care and 

responding to patients’ psychological distress is essential for their long-term emotional 

well-being. Early intervention is particularly important with sexual assault survivors 

because most do not seek follow-up care (Campbell, Wasco, Ahrens, Sefl, & Barnes, 

2001; Resnick et al. 2000). As a result, if sexual assault survivors’ medical and 

psychological needs are not addressed immediately post-assault, they are at risk for 

longer-term health problems. 

Although emotional care is a primary goal of SANE programs, there have been few 

studies that have systematically evaluated the psychological impact of SANE programs. 

In a study of the Memphis SANE program, Solola, Scott, Severs, and Howell (1983) 

found that 50% of victims in their study were able to return to their usual vocation within 

one month, and in 3 to 6 months 85% felt secure alone in public areas. After 12 months, 

more than 90% of the survivors were entirely free of their initial assault-related anxieties 

and emotional discomposure. Unfortunately, this publication did not provide sufficient 

details regarding the methodology of this study to assess whether the recovery gains 

were attributable to the SANE program or to “normal” recovery processes. Other 

research suggests that, at the very least, rape survivors perceive SANEs as helpful and 

supportive. In an evaluation of the Minneapolis SANE program, Malloy (1991) surveyed 

70 patients in crisis, and found that 85% of the survivors identified the nurses’ listening 

to them as one thing that helped them the most during their crisis period. Similarly, 

24

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.
Campbell, Patterson, Adams, Diegel, and Coats’ (2008) evaluation with 52 sexual 

assault patients in a Midwestern SANE program found that survivors felt very 

supported, respected, believed, and well-cared for by their SANE nurses. In a 

qualitative study with eight survivors treated in a Canadian “specialized sexual assault 

service,” Ericksen et al. (2002) also substantiated that specialized care helps patients 

feel respected, safe, reassured, in control, informed, and well cared for in their postassault crisis period. 

Medical/Health Care Effectiveness 

Many rape survivors treated in hospital emergency departments do not receive needed 

medical services, which was another problem that SANE programs sought to address. 

As with the literature on psychological outcomes, there are few published reports 

documenting rates of medical service delivery in SANE programs, but available data 

suggest victims treated in SANE programs receive consistent and broad-based medical 

care. In a national survey of SANE program staff, Ciancone, Wilson, Collette, and 

Gerson (2000) found that 97% of programs reported that they offer pregnancy testing, 

97% provide emergency contraception, and 90% give STD prophylaxis. The SANE 

program staff indicated that services such as conducting STD cultures, HIV testing, 

toxicology and ethanol screening are not routinely performed, but are selectively offered 

to survivors. A larger-scale study by Campbell et al. (2006) substantiated rates similar to 

those of Ciancone et al., but also found that SANE programs affiliated with Catholic 

hospitals were significantly less likely to conduct pregnancy testing or offer emergency 

contraception. In addition, Patterson, Campbell, and Townsend (2006) examined the 

interrelationships between patient care practices and organizational goals and mission. 

SANE programs that were highly focused on improving legal prosecution outcomes 

were less likely to provide patient education medical services, such as information on 

STI risk, safe sex practices with consensual partners, pregnancy risk, emergency 

contraception, and post-exam assistance. However, in spite of these gaps in service 

delivery, medical provision is still far more comprehensive than what has been found in 

studies of traditional ED care (e.g., Amey & Bishai, 2002; Campbell et al., 2001; Rovi & 

Shimoni, 2002). 

In the most comprehensive and methodologically rigorous study to date on medical 

service delivery in SANE programs, Crandall and Helitzer (2003) compared the services 

received for sexual assault cases seen at the University of New Mexico’s Health 

Sciences Center for the two years prior to the inception of a SANE program (1994­

1996) (N=242) and four years afterwards (1996-1999) (N=715). Statistically significant 

changes in medical services delivery rates were found from pre- to post-SANE. For 

example, the rate of pre-SANE pregnancy testing in this hospital was 79%, and 

increased to 88% post-SANE. Providing emergency contraception was also more 

common after the SANE program was created (66% to 87%). STD prophylaxis was also 

more routinely provided in the SANE program as compared to the traditional hospital 

ED care (89% to 97%). Given the quasi-experimental design of this study, these 

increases are likely attributable to the implementation of the SANE program, but it is 

worth noting that the pre-SANE rates of service provision found at this hospital were 

already substantially higher than what has been found in prior studies of medical service 

25

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.
delivery. For instance, service delivery rates for emergency contraception in hospital 

EDs are typically 20%-38% and at the University of New Mexico’s Health Sciences 

Center they were 66% before the SANE program even started. Even though this 

hospital may have already been providing reasonably comprehensive care to rape 

survivors, their rates of service delivery still significantly increased post-SANE. 

However, it is not clear whether a SANE program could make such headway in 

hospitals that had lower rates of service delivery prior to SANE implementation. 

Forensic Effectiveness 

SANE programs emerged not only because traditional ED care did not pay adequate 

attention to survivors’ emotional and medical health needs, but also because the 

forensic evidence collection itself needed to be improved. Emergency department 

physicians receive either no training or only minimal training in forensics, which has 

raised concern among victim advocates that the evidence of sexual assault is not being 

adequately documented (Ledray, 1999; Littel, 2001). SANEs sought to address this 

issue through extensive training and practice in forensic techniques. However, since 

taking on this new role, SANEs throughout the country have been challenged by the 

both the medical and legal communities as to whether they were qualified and skilled 

enough to perform this task (DiNitto et al., 1986; Littel, 2001). The clinical case study 

literature suggests that SANEs are not only competent in forensic evidence collection, 

but they are actually better at it because of their extensive training and experience 

(Cornell, 1998). Yet, clinical case reports, though remarkably consistent in their 

conclusions, do not provide definitive evidence of the effectiveness of SANEs in forensic 

evidence collection. Empirical studies that directly compare the evidence collected by 

SANEs and non-SANE personnel on objective criteria would better inform the debate 

over whether nurses are competent forensic examiners. 

To date, there have been only two such comparative studies conducted in the United 

States. First, Ledray and Simmelink (1997) reported the findings from an audit study of 

rape kits sent to the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension. Twenty-seven kits 

conducted by SANEs were compared to 73 kits collected by physicians or non-SANEs 

with respect to completeness of specimens collected, documentation, and maintenance 

of chain of custody. Overall, the SANE-collected kits were more thorough and had fewer 

errors than the non-SANE kits. For example, with respect to completeness of evidence, 

96% of the SANE kits vs. 85% non-SANE kits collected the swabs to match the 

recorded orifice of penetration, 92% of the SANE kits vs. 15% of non-SANE kits 

contained an extra tube of blood for alcohol and/or drug analysis, and in 100% of the 

SANE kits vs. 81% of non-SANE kits the blood stain card was properly prepared. In 

addition, the chain of evidence was broken in some non-SANE kits, but was always 

maintained in SANE kits. Although these descriptive data suggest that the SANEs’ 

evidence collection was more thorough and accurate, inferential statistics were not 

reported so it not known whether these differences were statistically significant. 

26

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.
A larger-scale study by Sievers, Murphy, and Miller (2003) explicitly tested differences 

between SANE and non-SANE kits, and also found support for better evidence 

collection by SANEs. Specifically, this study compared 279 kits collected by SANEs and 

236 by doctors/non-SANEs on ten quality control criteria, and found that in nine of these 

ten categories, the SANE-collected kits were significantly better. The kits collected by 

SANEs were significantly more likely than kits collected by physicians to include the 

proper sealing and labeling of specimen envelopes, the correct number of swabs and 

other evidence (pubic hairs and head hairs), the correct kind of blood tubes, a vaginal 

motility slide, and a completed crime lab form. The Sievers et al. study provides the 

strongest evidence to date that SANEs collect forensic evidence correctly, and in fact, 

do so better than physicians. However, it is important to note that training and 

experience, not job title or professional degree, are the likely reasons behind these 

findings. Further underscoring the link between experience and evidence quality, DiNitto 

et al. (1986) reported that prosecutors in Florida were “satisfied with evidence collected 

by nurse examiners, crediting the training of the nurse examiners . . . Prosecutors 

tended to be more pleased with the quality of a physician’s evidence when the examiner 

had conducted many exams and thus had perfected the techniques” (p. 539, emphasis 

added). Because SANEs have made it a professional priority to obtain extensive 

forensic training and practice, it is not surprising that both case study and empirical data 

suggest they are better forensic examiners than physicians and nurses who have not 

completed such training. 

Legal Effectiveness 

SANEs provide law enforcement personnel and prosecutors with detailed forensic 

evidence documenting crimes of sexual assault. As with the literature on the quality of 

forensic exams, case studies suggest that SANE programs increase prosecution (Aiken 

& Speck, 1995; Cornell, 1998; Hutson, 2002; Littel, 2001; Seneski, 1992). For example, 

there are reports that SANE programs specifically increase the rate of plea bargains 

because when confronted with the detailed forensic evidence collected by the SANEs, 

assailants will decide to plead guilty (often to a lesser charge) rather than face trial 

(Aiken & Speck, 1995; Ledray, 1992; Littel, 2001; Seneski, 1992). Other reports indicate 

that when cases do go to trial, SANE expert witness testimony is instrumental in 

obtaining convictions (O’Brien, 1996; Smith, 1996, cited in Ledray, 1999). 

Few studies have rigorously tested the hypothesis that SANE programs increase 

prosecution. Crandall and Helitzer (2003) compared prosecution rates in a New Mexico 

jurisdiction before and after the implementation of a SANE program. Their results 

indicated that significantly more victims treated in the SANE program reported to the 

police than before the SANE program was launched in this community (72% vs. 50%) 

and significantly more survivors had evidence collection kits taken (88% vs. 30%). 

Police filed more charges of sexual assault post-SANE as compared to pre-SANE (7.0 

charges/perpetrator vs. 5.4). The conviction rate for charged SANE cases was also 

significantly higher (69% vs. 57%), resulting in longer average sentences (5.1 vs. 1.2 

years). However, this New Mexico community may be somewhat atypical in its preSANE response to sexual assault survivors. 

27

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.
Community Change Effectiveness 

In the only empirical study of the effectiveness of SANE programs in creating 

community change, Crandall and Helitzer (2003) interviewed 28 key informants from 

health care, victim services, law enforcement, and prosecution who had been involved 

in the care of sexual assault survivors both before and after a SANE program was 

implemented in their community. The informants stated that before the SANE program, 

community services were disjointed and fractionalized, but afterwards care for survivors 

was centralized because there was a point of convergence where multiple service 

providers could come together to help victims. Informants also noted that the SANE 

program increased the efficiency of law enforcement officers by reducing the amount of 

time they spent waiting at the medical facility. As a result, officers could spend more 

time investigating the case. Moreover, the informants believed that police officers were 

better able to establish positive rapport with survivors, which increased the quality of 

victim witness statements. 

In addition to improving the services provided to survivors, the informants indicated that 

since the SANE program was implemented, working relationships and communication 

between medical and legal professionals had improved substantially. For instance, prior 

to SANE, law enforcement had difficulty communicating with healthcare providers 

because their working relationship lacked consistency. The SANE program created 

standardized response protocols and hosted regular inter-agency meetings to review 

cases and engage in ongoing quality improvement. One important benefit of this direct 

communication was that officers were able to identify more quickly and accurately 

trends in similar assaults and perpetrator types, which was instrumental in discovering a 

pattern rapist in their community. 

New Findings from the NIJ Study on SANEs and the Mechanisms of 

Criminal Justice System Impact 

To continue expanding the scientific literature on the effectiveness of SANE programs, 

in 2005, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) funded a research project led by Dr. 

Rebecca Campbell to study the impact of SANE programs on criminal justice system 

case outcomes. As noted in the section above, there are many ways to define the 

effectiveness of SANEs, but because previous studies had found that SANE programs 

may help increase prosecution rates, there was a pressing need for further study of this 

issue. Two key issues needed to be addressed: would these positive findings be 

replicated in a larger-scale study with a very strict methodological design, and if so, why 

is there an increase? How and why do SANE programs contribute to increased 

prosecution? Researchers, practitioners, and policy makers need to understand the 

“how’s and why’s” by which SANE programs increase prosecution rates because 

communities may implement SANE programs with the hopes of achieving higher 

prosecution rates, but such effects fail to materialize. What are the “critical ingredients” 

necessary for such changes? 

The findings from this large-scale study are summarized on the following pages: 

28

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 

A Systems Change Analysis of SANE Programs: 

Identifying the Mediating Mechanisms of Criminal Justice System Impact 

The purpose of this project was to determine whether adult sexual assault cases in a 

Midwestern community were more likely to be investigated and prosecuted after the 

implementation of a Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE) program, and to identify the 

“critical ingredients” that contributed to that increase. Informed by a systems change theoretical 

model, the interrelationships between SANEs, legal professionals, victim advocates, and 

victims/survivors were examined as it is these linkages that may be instrumental to increased 

prosecution rates. The design of this project combined quasi-experimental quantitative methods 

to measure objective indices of change with qualitative methods to capture the processes that 

produce those changes. Police and court records, in addition to in-depth interviews with police, 

prosecutors, victims/survivors, and forensic nurses, were the data sources for this project. 

The first goal of this study was to examine whether adult sexual assault cases were more likely 

to be investigated and prosecuted after the implementation of a SANE program within the focal 

county. In Study 1, we used a rigorous quasi-experimental design to determine whether there 

was a change in prosecution rates pre-SANE to post-SANE. We collected 156 pre-SANE 

hospital cases from January 1994 to August 1999, and 141 SANE cases from September 1999 

to December 2005 that were equivalent on multiple criteria, except that the pre-SANE cases 

were examined by hospital emergency department personnel and the post-SANE cases were 

examined in the focal program. Using longitudinal multilevel ordinal regression modeling, we 

found that case progression through the criminal justice system significantly increased pre- to 

post-SANE: more cases reached the “final” stages of prosecution (i.e., conviction at trial and/or 

guilty plea bargains) post-SANE. These findings are robust after accounting for changes in 

operation at the focal county prosecutors’ office and seasonal variation in rape reporting. 

To understand whether implementation of the SANE program affected criminal justice system 

case processing, we also needed to explore what factors predict case progression. What makes 

some cases more or less likely to move further through the system? Therefore, in Study 2, we 

tested a model that compared the predictive utility of victim characteristics (e.g., race, age), 

assault characteristics (e.g., victim-offender relationship), and forensic medical evidence (e.g., 

injury, DNA) in explaining case progression in the post-SANE era (141 cases). In the 

hierarchical ordinal regression models, two victim characteristics were significant: survivors 

between the ages of 18 and 21 (i.e., younger women in the sample) were significantly more 

likely to have their cases move to higher case disposition outcomes; and alcohol use by the 

victim prior to assault significantly decreased the likelihood that the case would be prosecuted. 

Two assault characteristics were significant: penetration crimes (vs. fondling crimes) and 

assaults in which the offender was an intimate partner/husband, ex-intimate partner/husband, 

dating partner, or family member (i.e., stronger relationship bonds between the victim and 

offender) were more likely to advance to higher disposition levels. After accounting for these 

victim and assault characteristics, medical forensic evidence could still predict significant 

variance in case outcomes. The more delay there was between the assault and when the 

survivor had the medical forensic exam, the less likely the case would progress through the 

system. Positive DNA evidence significantly increased the likelihood of case progression. With 

respect to specific injury findings in the medical forensic evidence exam, physical or anogential 

redness was associated with increased likelihood of case progression. 

29

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 second goal of this study was to understand why there was an increase in criminal justice 

system case progression after the implementation of the SANE program: what are the mediating 

mechanisms that contributed to these changes? To identify these mechanisms, we conducted 

in-depth interviews with law enforcement personnel and prosecutors regarding their perceptions 

of how the emergence of the SANE program affected their work investigating and prosecuting 

adult sexual assault cases. In addition, we looked for objective, behavioral indicators of changes 

in law enforcement investigations as a critical gateway into the criminal justice system. We 

examined whether written police reports for sexual assault cases were substantively different 

after the emergence of the SANE program, and whether SANE involvement in cases affected 

the quality of law enforcement investigations. 

In Study 3, we interviewed 9 law enforcement supervisors from the five largest police agencies 

within the focal county (these were the same five departments from which the Study 1 and 2 

cases were drawn), and all 6 prosecutors in the focal county sex crimes prosecution unit to 

understand their experiences with the focal SANE program and assess their perceptions of how 

investigation and prosecution has changed in this community in the post-SANE era. The 

findings of study indicated that the SANE program has been instrumental in the creation of more 

complete, fully corroborated cases. With the medical forensic evidence safely in the hand of the 

SANEs, law enforcement put more investigational effort into other aspects of the case. The 

training and on-going consultation provided by SANEs often suggested investigational leads 

that law enforcement could pursue to further develop a case. As a result, the cases that are put 

forward to prosecutors reflect the collective efforts and expertise of law enforcement and the 

SANEs, and not surprisingly, the cases are stronger. Consequently, prosecutors are more 

inclined to move forward with charging cases, and over time, the prosecution rates did increase. 

These qualitative findings were replicated and triangulated with quantitative data in Study 4. We 

conducted a quantitative content analysis of 352 police reports collected from three of the law 

enforcement agencies examined in Study 1 and 2. This sample of police files included all 

reported sexual assaults from 1995-2005 (pre-SANE data from 1994 were not available), so 

some of these cases had SANE involvement and others did not. Results from the multilevel 

logistic regression models revealed multiple significant mediated effects indicating that SANE 

involvement in a case was associated with increased law enforcement investigational effort, 

which in turn predicted case referral to prosecutors. Specifically, in cases in which the victim 

had a medical forensic exam, police collected more kinds of other evidence to support the case, 

which was associated with increased likelihood of case referral. In addition, in cases where 

SANE conducted a suspect exam, police were also more likely to collect other evidence to 

support the case, and more likely to interview the suspect, both of which were associated with 

increased likelihood of case referral. In other words, evidence begets more evidence: the 

medical forensic evidence collected by SANEs may suggest specific leads that law enforcement 

can follow-up on to obtain more evidence, and/or the efficiency of the SANE program frees up 

law enforcement time to obtain other evidence. The additive effect of evidence from the SANEs 

plus the evidence collected by law enforcement created more complete documentation of the 

crime. 

30

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.
In Study 5, we conducted in-depth qualitative interviews with 20 victims/survivors who received 

post-assault medical forensic exams in the focal SANE program. The vast majority of survivors 

characterized their experiences at the SANE program as positive, empowering, and healing. 

The nurses and advocates worked together as a team to help survivors begin the process of 

reinstating control over their bodies and their lives. The program links survivors to advocacy and 

support services at the rape crisis center (with which this SANE is organizationally linked) so 

that they have the resources they need to focus on their own well-being and recovery. This 

attention to helping survivors heal indirectly affected their willingness to participate in legal 

prosecution. When survivors are not as traumatized, they are more willing and capable of 

participating the in the prosecution process. In addition, survivors often had questions about the 

medical forensic exam and the process of criminal prosecution, and when SANE program 

nurses and advocates provided patients with this information, it gave survivors more hope and 

confidence about their legal cases, which also indirectly contributed to increased victim 

participation. 

However, positive experiences with the SANE program did not guarantee that survivors would 

have similarly positive experiences with the legal system. The survivors interviewed in Study 4 

had three distinct patterns of experiences with the criminal justice system. First, there were 

cases in which the victim wanted the case to be prosecuted, but criminal justice system 

personnel did not prosecute the case, which we termed “rejected cases” (n=7). These survivors 

described their experiences with the legal system as hurtful, disappointing, and disempowering. 

Second, in some cases, the victims wanted the case dropped, but the criminal justice system 

personnel forwarded the case despite the victims’ expressed desire to drop (termed “dragged 

cases”) (n=4). These survivors also characterized their contact with the legal system as 

frustrating, disempowering, and hurtful. It appeared that law enforcement (and the forensic 

nurses) had serious concerns about potential lethality in these cases, and therefore, did not 

respect victims’ wishes not to pursue prosecution. Finally, there were cases in which the 

criminal justice system’s response matched the victims’ wishes (termed “matched cases”) (n=9). 

These survivors had positive experiences with law enforcement, noting that the care and 

empathy they received from police helped them participate more fully in the investigation and 

prosecution process. 

In the last study in this project, Study 6, we interviewed N=6 of the forensic nurses in the focal 

SANE program regarding their work with their patients and with local law enforcement. This 

SANE program maintains a philosophy that patient care—not supporting law enforcement or 

building legal cases—is their primary goal. This SANE program does not pressure their patients 

to report to law enforcement, and instead they emphasize that it is the survivor’s choice and 

either way, the forensic nurses will be there to care for them. Therefore, it is entirely consistent 

with this SANE program’s practice that we did not find a direct link between SANE involvement 

and victim participation—there should not be. The forensic nurses’ role is to provide care to their 

patients, and as it turns out, this can have an indirect benefit on victim participation in the 

criminal justice system. In SANEs’ work with law enforcement, the evidence collected from 

victims and suspects, and all accompanying documentation, was made immediately and easily 

accessible to law enforcement so that it could be used to inform their investigation. In their ongoing case consultations with police, the forensic nurses provided information about medical 

forensic evidence in general, and injuries in particular, and encouraged law enforcement to 

conduct a thorough investigation of the case, regardless of the medical forensic evidence 

findings. These findings are consistent with the Study 3 and 4 results that SANE involvement in 

a case is associated with increased investigational effort 

31

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.
In conclusion, this twelve year analysis of criminal justice system case outcomes revealed that 

more cases were moving through the system to higher levels of disposition (i.e., guilty pleas or 

guilty convictions) after the implementation of a SANE program. The quasi-experimental design 

and supplemental data collection used in this project allow us to conclude that these effects are 

reasonably attributably to the efforts of the SANE program and not due to other changes over 

time in this community. The SANE programs’ work with law enforcement and their patients, 

though separate and philosophically distinct, is mutually reinforcing and provides instrumental 

resources for successful case prosecution. 

Why Evaluate SANE Programs’ Criminal Justice System Impact? 

The positive results from the NIJ study highlight the potential beneficial impact that 

SANE programs can have on prosecution rates in their communities. However, it’s 

important to keep in mind that there are over 400 SANE programs in existence in the 

United States and Canada, but only about 10 have been carefully evaluated (with the 

findings published or shared at professional conferences). We need to know more about 

the other 300+ SANE programs! 

Program evaluation can help SANE programs examine what kind of impact they are 

having on their local legal communities. If an evaluation shows a positive impact, this 

can help SANEs to garner support from their community and from funders. If an 

evaluation shows a lack of impact or a negative impact, this can help the SANE 

program to identify what needs to be modified in order to make improvements. 

Conducting program evaluation on SANE programs and the legal system has several 

benefits. For one thing, simply documenting how many cases make it to each stages of 

the criminal justice process (e.g., how many cases are referred by the police to the 

prosecutor’s office, etc.) gives you a basic understanding of where your community is 

at. Are you happy with how many cases are making it to the final cases of prosecution 

or do you think that there is something missing in your community that means that too 

many cases drop out of the system early on? 

In addition, documenting your program’s impact on legal outcomes helps you 

understand how your program is affecting your community. If it is a programmatic goal 

to increase the number of sexual assaults cases that are prosecuted you can identify if 

you have met this goal. If it this is not an explicit goal, it is still beneficial to understand 

how your program is and is not affecting the community around you. If you find that your 

program is affecting prosecution rates, this can help you to think about what your 

program is doing well that should be continued and institutionalized. 

If you find that prosecution rates haven’t been impacted by the presence of your 

program, or have been negatively impacted by your program, you may want to think 

about whether there is something missing from the response to sexual assault in your 

community (e.g., are the evidentiary findings from SANE exams being utilized by the 

criminal justice system? does the presence of your program lead police and prosecutors 

to expect evidentiary findings, and in their absence, reject cases as unsubstantiated? 

do police officers utilize suspect exams?) Again, it is important to keep in mind that 

while SANEs work may affect legal outcomes, there are also a variety of factors outside 

32

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 control of a SANE program that also affect the processing of a case through the 

criminal justice system. Are there other parts of the system (besides the work of 

SANEs) that aren’t working optimally? (e.g., detectives need more training on 

investigating sexual assault; there needs to be more education of juries on the 

dynamics of sexual assault; victims are afraid to report the assault for fear that they will 

be blamed for what happened to them). 

In other words, program evaluation allows you to step back and reflect on the work that 

you are already doing, the impact that you are having, and what steps need to be taken 

next to improve your program’s activities and the response to sexual violence in your 

community. The remainder of this Toolkit is designed to help you achieve this type of 

reflection. In the next section we take you through a step-by-step guide to evaluating the 

impact of your program on how far sexual assault case progress through the criminal 

justice system. We conclude with ideas for utilizing the findings of your evaluation to 

inform your work in your community. 

33

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.
SECTION THREE: 

Evaluating a SANE Program’s Impact on Sexual Assault Case 

Progression Through the Criminal Justice System 

34

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.
STEP ONE: WHERE DO I BEGIN? 

Objectives: 

To review how sexual assault cases progress through the criminal 

justice system 

To focus the evaluation and develop evaluation questions 

Sexual assault cases go through multiple stages in the criminal justice system. Your 

program may have affected one or more of these stages, which could ultimately affect 

how far cases progress through the system in your community. Each stage is described 

in Table 1. 

Purpose of the Evaluation: 

To understand how many cases made it to each 

stage in the process of prosecution. Or, put 

another way, to understand how far cases are 

progressing through the criminal justice system. 

Finding that most cases make it to the final stages 

of prosecution would be encouraging. Finding that 

many cases drop out of prosecution early in the 

process would be an indication that something is 

not working. Evaluation will help you discover the 

“somethings” that are not working as well. 

You will need to examine each of these stages in order to evaluate if and how your 

program has affected the progression of sexual assault cases through the criminal 

justice system in your community. It may seem difficult or overwhelming to evaluate 

each of these stages, but we have developed a streamlined evaluation process to make 

it much easier. 

Table 1 on the next page provides a summary of the criminal justice system process 

and sample evaluation questions that are appropriate for each stage. 

Evaluation questions are the questions 

that you want your evaluation to be able 

to answer. They reflect the focus of an 

evaluation. 

Why Evaluate Each Stage of the Criminal Justice System Process? 

Answering each of these evaluation questions will help you to track how many cases 

reach each stage in the process. This information is important to help you pinpoint 

exactly where there may be problems in the criminal justice system process. 

35

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 1: Stages of the Criminal Justice System and Corresponding 

Evaluation Questions 

Stage: What this involves: 

Evaluation 

Questions: 

Warranting 

aka: 

Authorizing 

or 

Charging 

A prosecutor decides whether or not 

to bring formal criminal charges 

against the suspect, based on the 

evidence of the case. 

In some communities, this is referred 

to as authorizing or charging a 

case. 

How many cases 

were warranted by 

the prosecutor’s 

office? 

How many were 

not warranted? 

Dismissal 

After warranting, the judge may 

determine that probable cause (a 

reasonable belief that the defendant 

has committed a crime) does not 

exist and dismiss the case. 

The prosecutor may also decide to 

dismiss the case for various reasons, 

including the victim requesting to no 

longer participate in prosecution. 

How many cases 

were dismissed 

after warranting? 

How many 

continued on in the 

legal process? 

Plea 

Bargaining 

A plea bargain is a negotiated 

agreement between the defense and 

the prosecution. Typically the 

defendant agrees to plea guilty to a 

specified charge(s) in exchange for a 

lower sentence. 

How many cases 

ended with a plea 

bargain? 

How many went to 

trial? 

Trial 

During the trial, the prosecution and 

defense provide evidence to support 

their case. A judge or jury considers 

the evidence and reaches a decision 

of guilty (termed conviction) or not 

guilty (termed acquittal). Sometimes 

jurors cannot reach a decision 

(termed hung jury) and the case is 

resolved through a plea bargain, 

dismissal, or second trial. 

How many cases 

were acquitted? 

How many were 

convicted? 

Looking ahead: 

In step 3 you will 

learn how to 

obtain the 

information 

needed to 

answer these 

evaluation 

questions. 

36

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.
STEP TWO: HOW DO I DESIGN THE EVALUATION? 

Objectives: 

To explain the two different ways that the evaluation can be 

designed 

To discuss the resources that will be needed for each of the 

evaluation design options 

To help you choose the design that is best for your program 

There are many different ways you could design an evaluation project to figure out 

whether your program has affected the progression of sexual assault cases through the 

criminal justice system. This Toolkit provides step-by-step directions for two of the most 

common and easiest evaluation designs: 

1) Pre-SANE/ Post-SANE Design 

Compares the proportion of cases that make it to each stage in the criminal 

justice system process in your community BEFORE (pre) your SANE program 

was implemented to AFTER (post) the implementation of your program. 

2) Post-SANE Only Design 

Compares the proportion of cases that make it to each stage in the criminal 

justice system to published national norms. 

In this Toolkit, we will outline the advantages and disadvantages of each design option 

so that you can select the design that best fits your resources and your program needs. 

Both designs will help you figure out what kind of impact your program is having by 

making an appropriate comparison. 

Why Make A Comparison? 

Making a comparison allows you to find out if your program has improved the proportion 

of sexual assault cases that are successfully prosecuted. To be able to say that your 

program has improved the progression of cases, you need to be able to say that the 

number of cases that make it to each step in the system is different now that your 

program is in place. In the end, if your evaluation does find a difference, you will want to 

be as certain as possible that the difference was because of your program. 

The two evaluation designs that we offer in this Toolkit are based on two different ways 

to make these comparisons. Both comparisons are useful, but the pre-SANE/postSANE gives you more certainty that the change was due to your program. 

37

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 pre-post-SANE comparison 

If you choose the pre-SANE/post-SANE design, you will find out from your local 

prosecutor’s office how many of your patients’ cases made it to each stage in the 

criminal justice system. You will also need to “go back in time” to find out what 

happened to victims who were assaulted before your program was implemented. In 

most communities, “pre-SANE” meant that victims were treated in hospital emergency 

rooms by non-SANE personnel. In this evaluation design, you need to find out what 

happened in the prosecution of those cases. 

You will find out how many of the pre-SANE hospital’s patients’ cases (from before your 

program was implemented) made it to each stage. By using a fairly straightforward 

statistical analysis, you will test whether the proportion of cases that make it to each 

stage is different before and after the implementation of your program. Because you are 

comparing case progression before your program started and after your program was 

up and running, you can be more certain that if you find a change, it is due to your 

program. You can’t be 100% certain that your program caused the change, since time 

has passed and some things that may affect the criminal justice system in your 

community may have changed. 

For example, as more people learn about sexual assault, juries may be more likely to 

convict defendants. However, because you are comparing progression of cases in your 

community to progression of cases in your community a few years later, there are fewer 

explanations, other than the presence of your program, as to why prosecution may rates 

may have changed. Therefore, the pre-post design gives you more certainty that any 

change in how far cases progress in the system that you find is due to your program. 

The post-SANE only comparison 

If you choose the post-SANE design, you will find out from your local prosecutor’s office 

how many of your patients’ cases made it to each stage in the criminal justice system 

process. You do not track down what happened to victims who were assaulted before 

the implementation of your SANE program. However, you still need to find a basis of 

comparison for your program. Researchers throughout the United States have 

conducted studies on how sexual assault cases progress through the criminal justice 

system. In this Toolkit, we will provide those results so that you can use them as a 

benchmark to see how your community’s rates compare. Finding that more cases make 

it to the final stages of prosecution would be encouraging. Finding that, in comparison, 

more cases drop out of the criminal justice system early in the process would be an 

indication that something is not working in your community. 

Unfortunately, in this design, you won’t be able to conclude that your program caused a 

change in how far cases make it in the criminal justice system process. There are many 

explanations for why your community’s and the nation’s rates may be different, besides 

the presence of your SANE program. For example, you may have an exceptionally good 

prosecutor that gives sexual assault cases a high priority. 

38

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.
Choosing the Design For Your Evaluation 

There are advantages and disadvantages to each design and there is no one “right” 

way. The following tables and figures can help you decide which design is best for your 

evaluation. Table 2 below summarizes the strengths and weaknesses of the two 

designs. 

Table 2: Comparing the Designs 

Pre-SANE/Post-SANE Post-SANE Only 

What is it? 

Compares how far cases 

progress in the criminal justice 

system in your community 

before and after the 

implementation of the SANE 

program. 

Compares how far cases progress in 

the criminal justice system in your 

community after implementation of the 

SANE program to published national 

norms (national norms are provided in 

Appendix A of this Toolkit). 

How would 

you do the 

evaluation? 

1) Identify cases from hospital 

records before your program 

was implemented (preSANE) and your own records 

(post-SANE). 

2) Look up the cases in the 

prosecutor’s office to find out 

how many cases made it to 

each stage in each group. 

3) Using statistical analyses 

compare the two groups. 

1) Identify cases from your program’s 

files. 

2) Look up the cases in the 

prosecutor’s office to find out how 

may cases made it to each 

stage(SANE). 

3) Compare these to published 

national norms of sexual assault 

case progression through the 

criminal justice system (nonSANE). 

Advantages 

Because the comparison is the 

same community—before and 

after the SANE program was 

implemented—you can be more 

certain that the differences in 

how far cases progress are due 

to your SANE program. 

Requires fewer resources. 

Limitations 

Requires more resources. Because you are comparing your 

community’s rates to national rates, 

you cannot be certain that the 

differences in how far cases progress 

are due to your program. 

Now that you have had a brief introduction to the two designs, it is time to consider the 

resources required for each option. Table 3 outlines what each type of evaluation would 

involve. How to complete each task will be presented in much greater detail later on in 

the Toolkit. 

39 

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 3: Implementation and Resources Needed to Conduct Each Design 

Implementation 

and Resources 

needed for 

each Task 

For the Pre-SANE/ Post-SANE 

Design: 

For the Post-SANE 

Only Design: 

TASK: 

Select individual 

cases to include 

in the evaluation 

Identify cases from your 

program’s records (post-SANE) 

and from hospital records before 

your program was implemented 

(pre-SANE). 

Write down information that 

identifies these cases (patient’s 

first and last name and date of 

the exam or assault). 

Identify cases from 

your program’s 

records. 

Write down 

information that 

identifies these 

cases (patient’s first 

and last name and 

date of the exam or 

assault). 

YOU NEED: 

Your program’s patient files 

and hospital files from sexual 

assault victims examined 

before the implementation of 

your program. Both files will 

need to have documented the 

patients’ names and the dates 

of their forensic exams and/or 

their assaults. 

and 

Access to the information in the 

hospital’s records (in 

compliance with HIPAA). 

Staff time to copy hospital 

records. 

You may need money for 

copying hospital records. 

 Your patient files. 

You will need to 

have documented 

the patients’ 

names and the 

dates of their 

forensic exams 

and/or their 

assaults. 

TASK: 

Collect 

information 

about how far 

cases made it in 

the process of 

prosecution. 

Look up the cases in the 

prosecutor’s office to find out 

cases’ outcomes. 

This tells you how far cases 

progress in the system from 

before and after the 

implementation of your program. 

Look up the cases 

in the prosecutor’s 

office to find cases’ 

outcomes, which 

will tell you how far 

cases progress in 

the system in your 

community (SANE). 

Looking ahead: 

More information 

on how to do the 

evaluation will 

be provided 

once you have 

chosen a 

design. 

40

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.
YOU NEED: 

A relationship with the 

prosecutor’s office.

Access to the information in the 

prosecutor’s case records.

Prosecutor records that detail 

cases’ outcomes (that is if the 

case was warranted, dropped 

after warranting, ended in a 

plea bargain, or went to trial 

and was convicted or 

acquitted). 

 A relationship with 

the prosecutor’s 

office. 

 Access to the 

information in the 

prosecutor’s case 

records. 

 Prosecutor 

records that detail 

cases’ outcomes 

(that is if the case 

was warranted, 

dropped after 

warranting, ended 

in a plea bargain, 

or went to trial and 

was convicted or 

acquitted). 

TASK: 

Calculate and 

compare how 

many cases 

made it to each 

stage. 

Calculate how many cases 

made it to each stage in the 

criminal justice system 

process. 

Using an online calculator, 

conduct statistical analyses to 

compare how far cases 

progressed in the system preSANE and post-SANE. 

 Calculate how 

many cases made 

it to each stage in 

the criminal justice 

system process. 

 Compare these 

rates to published 

national rates 

(non-SANE). 

YOU NEED: 

Staff time to obtain, and 

analyze the information from 

the prosecutor’s office. 

Staff time to obtain 

and analyze the 

information from 

the prosecutor’s 

office. 

The decision tree on the next page will help you to decide if you will be able to do the 

post-only evaluation, the design that requires the least resources. 

41

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.
Figure 1: Decision Tree—Can You Conduct the Post-Only Evaluation? 

Does your program have patient files that contain patients’ names 

and the dates of their forensic exams or assaults? 

Do you have staff time to obtain and perform simple analyses on 

the information from the prosecutor’s office? 

YES NO 

Will you be able to access information from the prosecutor’s case 

records of sexual assault cases? 

YES NO 

Do you have, or can you develop, a relationship with the 

prosecutor’s office in the county that your program serves? 

YES NO 

YES NO 

You will be able to do the post-only 

design. Go to the next page to find out 

Right now it does not seem feasible 

if you can do the pre-post design. evaluation. We recommend that you 

that your program can do a post-only 

re-consider whether your program is 

ready for evaluation. 

If you have the resources to do the Post-SANE Only design, but are unsure about 

whether you could do the Pre-SANE/Post-SANE design, the decision tree on the next 

page will help you to decide if you if you are able to meet the additional resources 

needed to conduct the pre-post evaluation. 

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.
Figure 2: Decision Tree—Can You Conduct the Pre-Post Evaluation? 

Hospital 

based 

programs: 

begin here 

If you are part of a community-based program, do you have, or 

can you develop, a relationship with the hospital in the community 

that your program serves? 

YES NO

See Appendix B to 

explore the possibility 

of utilizing police 

records for conducting 

a pre-post 

comparison. If this is 

not feasible, try a postonly design. 

In consideration of HIPAA regulations, will you be able to access 

information in the hospital’s patient files of sexual assault victims 

examined before the implementation of your program? 

YES 

Do you have additional staff or volunteer time that can be used to 

obtain and copy hospital records from before the creation and 

implementation of your program? 

YES 

Do you have, or can you get, additional money that can be used 

for copying hospital records from before the creation and 

implementation of your program? 

YES 

NO 

NO 

NO 

Community 

based 

programs: 

begin here 

Try the

PREPOSTDESIGN 

43

Try the

POSTONLY 

DESIGN 

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.
Choose Your Design: Pre-Post or Post-Only? 

If neither design is feasible: Reconsider your evaluation 

If both designs require more resources than you have available, you should reconsider 

your evaluation. You may want to consider partnering with other agencies in your 

community and sharing the financial and time burden. If lack of time is the only issue, 

you may want to consider hiring an independent evaluator (see tips for collaborating 

with outside evaluators in Appendix B). 

If neither of these options is feasible, you may want to conduct an evaluation of a 

different aspect of your program and postpone evaluating your program’s impact on 

how sexual assault cases progress through the criminal justice system until more 

resources are available. 

If only the post-only design is feasible: Choose the post-only design 

The post-only allows you to compare your community’s rates to a good benchmark, 

national rates of sexual assault criminal justice system progression. In Appendix A of 

this Toolkit, you will find a summary of national rates that you can use as the basis of 

your comparison. If your community’s rates are higher than national rates, this would 

suggest that your community is moving in the right direction, BUT you cannot conclude 

that this is absolutely because of your program. If the rates in your community are not 

higher than national rates, this information can help inform efforts to affect the 

progression of cases through the criminal justice system. 

If both designs are feasible: Choose the pre-post design 

If it is feasible for your program to meet the additional requirements of the pre-post 

design, you should choose this option. This design is more resource-intensive, but it 

does a better job helping you figure out if any changes in how far cases progress in the 

criminal justice system were because of your program. If your results show there has 

been a change, your conclusion that this was an impact of your program is stronger 

than if you used the post-only design. Again, because you are comparing the same 

community before and after the implementation of the SANE program, you can be more 

certain that any changes or differences that you find are attributable to your program. 

WHAT’S NEXT? 

The next step, “How do I Begin the Evaluation?” applies to both 

designs. At the end of that step, you will skip to the section that applies 

to the design you chose. 

44 

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.
STEP THREE: HOW DO I BEGIN THE EVALUATION? 

Objectives: 

To help you reach an agreement with the prosecutor’s office 

about accessing their case records 

To provide tips/guideline for approaching a prosecutor’s office 

about an evaluation. 

The next step is to work with the prosecutor’s office to reach a mutually agreeable 

approach for accessing the information you need from their records. The prosecutor’s 

office should have files or a computer database that stores information about all of the 

criminal cases that were prosecuted in the county. Most likely, the database or files will 

contain information about case progression through the legal system. This is the 

information you need to answer your evaluation questions. 

When approaching a prosecutor’s office about an evaluation project, we recommend the 

following process: 

 If you don’t have an established relationship, introduce 

yourself and your program; Looking ahead: 

 Introduce and explain the evaluation; In the next step, 

o Communicate that your goal is to evaluate the SANE you will decide 

program, not the prosecutor’s performance. exactly which 

cases you will o Help the prosecutor understand that evaluation need to look up efforts can help SANEs to improve their programs at the and possibly access more funding. prosecutor’s

 Give examples of other evaluation projects your program office. If you feel 

has been involved in; you need more 

o Discuss how these projects have been helpful to your information 

program and the population you serve. before working 

with the  Determine if you can get the information that you need from prosecutor, you

the prosecutor’s office. can read ahead. 

o Do their case records have the information you need 

to answer your evaluation questions (for example, if 

cases were warranted, went to trial, etc.?) 

o Will the prosecutor’s office grant you access to the case files or database? 

If not, are they willing to give you the information that you need from their 

files/database? 

45

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.
 Be prepared to discuss confidentiality and privacy of the information you wish to 

obtain 

o The prosecutor’s database may contain information regarding the 

defendant that is confidential. If you or someone from your program is 

looking up case information, you will need to assure the prosecutor that 

you are only interested in what happens to cases and will not document 

any of the other information. You may need to offer to sign a confidentiality 

agreement. 

o If the prosecutor’s office looks up the case information, you may want to 

ask them to agree to keep the names of your patients confidential by only 

allowing the person who is searching the database access to their names. 

WHAT’S NEXT? 

From here on, the steps for each design are separated into two different 

sections. The steps are fairly similar, but there are important differences 

between the two designs. The post-only evaluation begins on the next 

page and the pre-post evaluation comes after the post-only section. 

Learn how to conduct the post-only evaluation on page 47. 

Learn how to conduct the pre-post evaluation on page 70. 

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.
SECTION THREE A: 

Conducting the Post-Only Evaluation 

47 

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.
POST-ONLY STEP FOUR: WHAT CASES SHOULD I LOOK UP

AT THE PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE?

Objectives: 

To introduce the concepts of sampling cases 

To provide guidelines for choosing sampling criteria 

Sampling is the 

process of 

choosing which 

cases to include 

in your evaluation. 

To answer your evaluation questions, you will need to look up individual sexual assault 

cases and find out how far these cases made it in the criminal justice system. This step 

will help you to decide which cases to include in your evaluation. This process is known 

as sampling. Sampling helps you limit the number of cases you include in your 

evaluation so that the process is feasible for both your program 

and the prosecutor’s office. In the end, the cases that are 

included in an evaluation, collectively, are known as a sample. 

Because you are trying to figure out whether your program has 

had an impact on case progression through the system, you 

want to choose cases that were examined by your SANE 

program (as opposed to exams conducted by non-SANE 

personnel). BUT, not all of the patients treated in your program may be in your 

evaluation sample. 

Should you find that you have too many cases to go through (e.g., you are a SANE 

program from a large, urban jurisdiction that has been in operation for decades), you 

may need to first choose a random sample of cases to make the project more 

manageable. A random sample allows every case within this population (in this instance 

all the cases on file) an equal chance of being selected. You can use a random number 

table to pick a subset of cases for your project. 

Table 4 on the next two pages provides a set of criteria to help you to determine which 

cases treated by your program should be included in your evaluation. We recommend 

using all of these criteria, but you can eliminate or adapt some of them as needed so 

that they are suitable for your program and your community. 

48 

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 4: Post-Only Design Sampling Criteria 

Criterion Rationale for this criterion 

Choose a time 

period: 

(1) Exclude 

cases from 

just after 

your program 

was 

implemented. 

(2) Don’t include 

cases that 

haven’t gone 

through the 

entire 

criminal 

justice 

system 

process. 

(1) You need to give your program some “up & running time” 

and give it a chance to affect how far cases progress in the 

criminal justice system. For example, if your program 

launched in January 2000, it is unlikely that you would see 

immediate changes in case progression through the system. 

It would likely take one year to see any changes. So, if your 

program was implemented in January 2000, select cases 

that were treated in your program starting in January 2001. 

(2) This will depend on how long it takes to prosecute sexual 

assault cases in your community. You may want to ask the 

prosecutor’s office about the length of the process. If it takes 

a year for cases to complete prosecution, don’t include 

patients examined in the past year because you won’t be 

able to find out what happened to their cases. 

Choose an age 

subgroup: 

children, 

adolescents, or 

adults. 

The factors that influence criminal justice system process decisions 

vary among age groups. If you combine these three age groups into 

one evaluation sample, it may make it more difficult to see changes 

or differences in how far cases progress in the system. 

Use your state’s legal definitions to determine the age range of the 

group you chose. 

The patient 

reported the 

assault to the 

police. 

Because you want to know if your program affected progression in 

the criminal justice system, patients that did not report should NOT 

be included in your evaluation sample—they never entered the 

criminal justice system in the first place because the patient chose 

not to report to the police. 

The patient had 

a full forensic 

exam. 

Patients who declined a forensic exam may be less likely to report 

to the police and/or participate in the criminal justice process. If you 

include patients who did not have an exam in your evaluation 

sample, you could underestimate the impact of your program. 

49 

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 person was You will have to look up prosecutor records for each case in your 

assaulted in the evaluation sample. It’s a lot easier if all of the cases are from the 

county that your same county and therefore would be at the same prosecutor’s 

program office. It would take much more time to obtain information from 

primarily serves. multiple counties prosecutor’s offices. 

If your program serves multiple counties, you may want to conduct 

separate evaluations for each county. It is possible that one county 

may show an improvement, but another county didn’t. If you 

combined information from both counties into one evaluation 

sample, it would underestimate the beneficial impact of your 

program (because the lack of improvement in one county would 

“cancel out” the improvement in the other county). 

Exclude post- Homicide cases (even if they involve sexual assault) are likely to be 

mortem cases. prosecuted differently than sexual assault cases. Therefore, 

including post-mortem cases could make it harder to find 

differences in how far sexual assault cases progress in the criminal 

justice system. Or, including post-mortem cases could cause you to 

find changes or differences that are due to changes in prosecution 

of homicide, not sexual assault. 

Select the sampling criteria that are appropriate and feasible for your program. We 

recommend that you follow all of these criteria but realize that each program and county 

is unique. For example, if your patient files don’t document what county the patient was 

assaulted in, you would not be able to use this criterion. Next, you will compare each of 

your patient files to this list of criteria to find out which patients’ information to include in 

the evaluation. 

We have created Table 5 as an example of a table that you can use when deciding which 

patients meet evaluation criteria. (A blank copy of the table is available in Appendix C.) 

Insert the specific criteria you have chosen into the columns of the table. For each case, 

document whether or not they meet each criterion, and finally, whether or not the case is 

eligible. You can make sure that you sampled accurately if you have someone else do 

the same, and check that you have the same results- you came up with the same 

patients being eligible. 

50 

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 5: Selecting Cases That Meet Criteria 

Year Criteria______________ Age Criteria______________ 

County______________ 

Patient Year 

Criteria: 

Age 

Criteria: 

Reported? Full 

Exam? 

County: Not 

homicide? 

Is the 

case 

eligible? 

1001 Y Y Y Y N Y No 

1002 Y N Y Y Y Y No 

1003 Y Y Y Y Y Y Yes 

1004 N Y N Y Y Y No 

e.g. 18 and 

over 

e.g. 1999-2005 

Using the table, pull program files for patients that meet your criteria. In the next steps 

you will find out how far each of these cases made it in the criminal justice process. 

51 

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.
POST-ONLY STEP FIVE: HOW SHOULD I COLLECT THE 

INFORMATION FROM THE PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE? 

Objectives: 

To define case outcomes 

To show what specific information you need from the prosecutor’s 

office 

To provide a table for documenting the information that you will 

collect 

The next step is to collect the information you need from the prosecutor’s office. 

Depending upon your arrangement with the prosecutor, they may grant you access to 

their case records or they may prefer to look up the information for you. (See Step 3). 

Although there are many ways to answer your evaluation questions and find out how 

many cases were warranted, how many cases were convicted at trial, etc., we 

recommend documenting the final outcome of each of your cases. A case outcome is 

the end result the case reaches in the criminal justice system. 

Documenting case outcomes streamlines the processing of 

collecting information. Later on, you will still be able to use this 

information to find out how many cases made it to each step in 

the process. Table 6 (on the next page) will be useful to help 

record each case’s outcome as accurately as possible. You can use this table “as is” or 

modify as needed for your project. A blank copy of the table is available in Appendix D. 

Case outcomethe end result of a 

case. 

52 

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.
Insert identifying information 

about the cases you pulled 

from your files into the first 

four columns. Put an X next to the final 

case outcome for each 

case. 

Table 6: Information Collection Table 

Patient’s 

Last 

Name 

Patient’s 

First 

Name 

Complaint 

Number 

(if known) 

Date of 

Exam 

Case 

Outcome 

______ Not warranted 

______ Warranted, but later dismissed 

______ Pled/Plea Bargain reached 

______ Trial/Acquittal 

______ Trial/Conviction 

______ Unknown 

______ Not warranted 

______ Warranted, but later dismissed 

______ Pled/Plea Bargain reached 

______ Trial/Acquittal 

______ Trial/Conviction 

______ Unknown 

______ Not warranted 

______ Warranted, but later dismissed 

______ Pled/Plea Bargain reached 

______ Trial/Acquittal 

______ Trial/Conviction 

______ Unknown 

How to fill out the table: 

Before going to the prosecutor’s office, you would fill out identifying 

information in the first four columns for each of the patients whose 

files you pulled from your records. Next, put an X next to the final 

outcome of each case. Prosecutors’ files may be easier to search by 

suspect name, so it may be useful to record this information for every 

case that it is available. 

Looking ahead: 

In the next step, 

you will analyze 

the information 

that you collect 

in this table by 

doing some 

simple 

calculations. 

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.
How to determine a case outcome 

To review, often cases will reach multiple stages in prosecution. A case that is convicted 

at trial was also warranted. The case outcome is the final result the case reaches in the 

criminal justice system. Therefore, in this instance, conviction at trial is the case 

outcome- conviction, not warranting. 

The important thing is to remember that cases go through many stages; a case may go 

through plea bargaining but that is not necessarily its outcome. If a bargain was not 

reached and the defendant did not plea to a charge, the case would have gone to trial. 

Either conviction or acquittal at trial would be the final outcome. Reviewing the order of 

the stages of the criminal justice system process may also help you to identify final case 

outcomes. 

You may need help from someone at the prosecutor’s office to read some of the legal 

terms that they use to designate case outcomes. Also, you will need to decide whether 

you want to include cases where the sexual assault cases were dismissed because the 

defendant pled to a lower (non-sexual assault) charge as dismissed (because of the 

sexual assault charge) or as pled guilty (because they were still convicted of a crime). 

Either is fine. It is most important that you make a decision, know how you classified the 

cases when you are interpreting and reporting your findings, and do so consistently. 

What do I do when cases are missing information? 

We have included “unknown” as an option in case you find there is not enough 

information in the prosecutor’s database to identify a particular case outcome. By 

having an answer choice for “unknown” information, if you find any places that have not 

been filled out, you know that you accidentally skipped these cases and you can go 

back and fix the errors. 

Case Examples 

Case examples are given below; Table 7 shows how these cases could be documented 

using the “Information Collection Table.” 

Examples

 Case number 0001 was warranted, but later the judge dropped the case. 

 Case 0002 was acquitted at trial. 

 The prosecutor warranted case 0003. The defendant pled to lesser charges in 

ordered to receive a lighter sentence. 

 Case 0004 was sent to the prosecutor, but never warranted. 

Next, you or someone at the prosecutor’s office can fill out the information collection 

table, using the prosecutor’s case records. 

54 

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 7: Examples Completed in the Information Collection Table 

Patient’s 

Last 

Name 

Patient’s 

First 

Name 

Complaint 

Number 

(if known) 

Date of Exam Case Outcome 

Doe Jane 05-0001 01/01/06 

______ Not warranted 

__X__ Warranted, but later dismissed 

______ Pled/Plea Bargain reached 

______ Trial/Acquittal 

______ Trial/Conviction 

______ Unknown 

Smith Mary 05-0002 01/01/06 

______ Not warranted 

______ Warranted, but later dismissed 

______ Pled/Plea Bargain reached 

__X__ Trial/Acquittal 

______ Trial/Conviction 

______ Unknown 

Brown Suzy 05-0003 01/01/06 

______ Not warranted 

______ Warranted, but later dismissed 

__X__ Pled/Plea Bargain reached 

______ Trial/Acquittal 

______ Trial/Conviction 

______ Unknown 

Johnson Elizabeth 05-0004 01/01/06 

__X__ Not warranted 

______ Warranted, but later dismissed 

______ Pled/Plea Bargain reached 

______ Trial/Acquittal 

______ Trial/Conviction 

______ Unknown 

55

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.
POST-ONLY STEP SIX: HOW DO I CALCULATE ANALYSES

 ON THE INFORMATION I HAVE COLLECTED?

Objectives: 

To provide simple steps for calculating frequencies and 

percentages 

In order to use the information you collect to answer your evaluation questions, you will 

need to do some simple analyses. These computations are straightforward enough that 

you can do them “by hand” with a calculator. This step will take you step-by-step 

through calculating frequencies and percentages by hand. If you would prefer to 

calculate the percentages by using a Excel see Appendix E for more information; 

however, this is likely to be more time-consuming that calculating by hand. 

Frequencies are a count of how many times something happens. 

In this evaluation, they are a count of the number of cases that had Frequency- a 

a certain outcome. An example of a frequency count is: “25 cases count of how many 

were dismissed after warranting.” A frequency is used to calculate times something 

a percentage. occurs. 

Percentages are proportions. In this evaluation, they are the proportion of cases 

that had a certain outcome. This is calculated by: 

The frequency of that outcome with that outcome / the total 

number of cases × 100 = % of all cases with this outcome. Percentage- a 

proportion; how 

Example: 25 out of 250 cases were dropped after warranting. many times 

something occurs 

divided by a total. The percentage = 25 / 250 x 100 = 10% of all cases were 

dropped after warranting. 

Percentages are often more useful than frequencies because they give a 

proportion. Reporting that 25 cases were dropped by the prosecutor may be 

useful, but reporting that 25 out of 25 cases (100%) or 25 out of 250 cases (10%) 

were dropped after warranting gives more meaningful information. 

56

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.
Calculating Frequencies and Percentages by Hand 

Preparation 

Make a copy of your completed information collection table. Lock up your original 

copy to protect confidentiality and keep your information and patients’ names 

secure. The second copy will be used as your working copy for analyses. This way, 

if you choose to make any markings on it, or the document gets damaged, you still 

have your information and don’t have to collect it again. Remove your patients’ 

names from your copy of the information collection table. This helps to protect 

patients’ confidentiality. You can remove that column from your paperwork and 

shred it, or use a permanent black marker or white out to cover their names. If you 

use a marker to remove identifying information, photocopy the de-identified version, 

place it in a secure file, and use the photocopy because you can still read the 

identifying information through the marker. 

Calculating Frequencies 

Here are the steps for calculating frequencies. 

1) Keep track of your results in Table 8 below. You will need them to conduct 

percentages. A blank copy of the table is provided in Appendix F. 

2) Count the total number of cases that you collected information about. 

3) Choose a case outcome (not warranted, warranted but later dismissed, pled/ 

plea bargain reached, trial/acquittal, trial/conviction, or unknown). 

4) Count up the number of cases with that outcome. 

5) Repeat this for each outcome, including “unknown” cases. 

6) Check your work by adding up the frequencies for each outcome. If you counted 

correctly, this number should be equal to the total number of cases that you 

collected information about. 

57 

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 8: Frequency Results 

Final Case Outcome Number of Cases 

Not warranted 

Warranted but later dismissed 

Pled/ Plea bargain reached 

Trial/ Acquittal 

Trial/ Conviction 

Unknown 

Total Number of Cases 

Calculating Percentages 

Again, percentages are proportions. Although there are multiple ways 

that you can calculate a proportion using the information that you 

collected, we recommend calculating percentages based on the total 

number of cases that were included in your evaluation. This 

percentage is useful because it tells you where cases are dropping out 

of the system. For example, you may find that 50% of cases are not 

warranted, 25% are warranted but later dismissed, 23% are plea 

bargained, 1% are acquitted at trial and 1% are convicted at trial. 

This percentage is equal to the frequency of a certain outcome divided 

Turn to 

Appendix E 

if you prefer 

to use Excel 

to calculate 

percentages 

by all the cases that you have information about. The cases that had an unknown 

outcome cannot be included in your calculations. 

o Percentage = Frequency ⁄ # of cases 

58 

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.
Steps to Calculate a Percentage 

1) Using your frequency results, add up the number of cases that you have 

information about. 

o # of cases = Total # of cases - # of unknown cases 

2) Choose one of the case outcomes. Using your frequency results, divide the 

frequency for that outcome by the number of cases that you have information 

about. 

o = Frequency ⁄ # of cases 

3) Multiply by 100 and add a percent sign (%). This gives you your percentage for 

that outcome. 

o = (Frequency ⁄ # of cases) X 100% 

4) Repeat for each outcome. 

5) Check your work by adding up all of your percentages. They should add up to 

100% unless you rounded. If they don’t, check your calculations. 

Example Percentage Calculation 

Below we repeat these instructions and go through an example percentage 

calculation step-by-step. Here are the frequency results for this example. . 

Final Case Outcome Number of Cases 

Not warranted 

Warranted but later dismissed 

Pled/ Plea bargain reached 

Trial/ Acquittal 

Trial/ Conviction 

Unknown 

Total Number of Cases 

50 

30 

20 

2 

18 

10 

130 

Check your work: 

50 + 30 + 20 + 2 + 

18 + 10 = 130 

59 

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) Using your frequency results, add up the number of cases that you have 

information about. 

o # of cases = Total # of cases - # of unknown cases 

Final Case Outcome Number of Cases 

Not warranted 50 

Warranted but later dismissed 30 

Pled/ Plea bargain reached 20 

Trial/ Acquittal 2 

Trial/ Conviction 18 

Unknown 10 

Total Number of Cases 130 

Number of Cases that you 

have information about 120 

130 – 10 = 120 

2) Choose one of the case outcomes. Using your frequency results, divide the 

frequency for that outcome by the number of cases that you have information 

about. 

o = Frequency ⁄ # of cases 

Final Case Outcome Frequency/ 

Number of Cases 

Divide by number 

of cases that you 

have information 

about (120) 

Not warranted 50 .42 

Warranted but later dismissed 30 

Pled/ Plea bargain reached 20 

Trial/ Acquittal 2 

Trial/ Conviction 18 

= 50 / 120 

= 0.41666 

60

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) Multiply by 100 and add a percent sign (%). This gives you your percentage for 

that outcome. 

o = (Frequency ⁄ # of cases) X 100% 

Final Case Outcome 

Frequency/ 

Number of 

Cases 

Divide by number 

of cases that you 

have information 

about (120) 

Multiply 

by 100 

Not warranted 50 .42 42% 

Warranted but later 

dismissed 30 

Pled/ Plea bargain 

reached 20 

Trial/ Acquittal 2 

Trial/ Conviction 18 

4) Repeat for each outcome. 

Final Case Outcome 

Frequency/ 

Number of 

Cases 

Divide by number 

of cases that you 

have information 

about (120) 

Multiply 

by 100 

Not warranted 50 .42 42% 

Warranted but later 

dismissed 30 .25 25% 

Pled/ Plea bargain 

reached 20 .17 17% 

Trial/ Acquittal 2 .02 2% 

Trial/ Conviction 18 .15 15% 

= 18 / 120 = .15 

.15 x 100 = 15% 

= 0.42 x 100 = 42% 

= 50 / 120 = .42 

.42 x 100 = 42% 

= 30 / 120 = .25 

.25 x 100 = 25% 

= 20 / 120 = .17 

.17 x 100 = 17% 

= 2 / 120 = .02 

.02 x 100 = 2% 

61

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) Check your work by adding up all of your percentages. They should add up to 

100% unless you rounded. If they don’t, check your calculations. 

Final Case Outcome 

Frequency/ 

Number of 

Cases 

Divide by number 

of cases that you 

have information 

about (100) 

Multiply 

by 100 

Not warranted 50 .42 42% 

Warranted but later 

dismissed 30 .25 25% 

Pled/ Plea bargain 

reached 20 .17 17% 

Trial/ Acquittal 2 .02 2% 

Trial/ Conviction 18 .15 15% 

Check your work/Totals 101% 

A blank copy of this table is provided in Appendix G for you to 

use when calculating percentages. 

Check your Work 

Ask someone else to calculate the frequencies and percentages 

again. If your results don’t match, you can recalculate to find out 

where there error was made. 

= 42% + 25% + 17% + 

2% + 15% = 101% 

Since we rounded in 

steps 2 and 4, it’s ok 

that this doesn’t add up 

to exactly 100%. 

62 

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.
A Few More Calculations by Hand 

The percentages you just calculated give you a good way to communicate to others 

(e.g., community partners, funders, etc.) how many SANE cases make it to each stage 

in the criminal justice system in your community. However, it may also be helpful to 

make a comparison between the data you collected, and what other studies/evaluations 

have found with regard to criminal justice system case progression and outcomes (i..e., 

are we doing better, worse, or about the same as what has been found in other 

evaluations?). In Appendix A, we provide a table that lists the rates that have been 

found in previous studies/evaluations. Because different studies lump together different 

stages in the criminal justice system, you will have to conduct a few more simple 

calculations by hand, so that you can compare your results with the national data 

presented in Appendix A. 

These calculations will allow you to compare your results to two different rates that are 

reported in national studies of sexual assault case progression: 

1. The percentage of cases that are warranted vs. not warranted 

2. The percentage of cases that are successfully prosecuted, i.e., resulted in 

a guilty plea or conviction at trial vs. the percentage of cases that were not 

successfully prosecuted. 

To be able to make these comparisons, you will have to compute some totals. A set of 

tables is provided in Appendix H for you to use to keep track of the totals you compute. 

You will have to compute totals based on the percentage tables you just filled out 

1. Not Warranted vs. Warranted 

You already have the percentage of cases pre-SANE and post-SANE that were 

not warranted in your frequency tables. 

Compute the total percentage of cases that were warranted, i.e., their case 

outcome was warranted but later dismissed, or one of the outcomes that 

represents progressing farther in the criminal justice system. 

Total % of cases that were warranted = % of cases that were dismissed + 

% of cases that resulted in a plea bargain + % of cases that were 

acquitted at trial + % of cases that were convicted at trial 

63 

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.
Final Case Outcome 

Frequency/ 

Number of 

Cases 

Divide by number 

of cases that you 

have information 

about (120) 

Multiply 

by 100 

Not warranted 50 .42 42% 

Warranted but later 

dismissed 30 .25 25% 

Pled/ Plea bargain 

reached 20 .17 17% 

Trial/ Acquittal 2 .02 2% 

Trial/ Conviction 18 .15 15% 

Percentage of not warranted cases =42% 

Percentage of warranted cases =25%+17%+2%+15%=59% 

Enter into the appropriate table provided in Appendix H. 

2. Not Prosecuted vs. Prosecuted 

First, compute the total percentage of cases that were not prosecuted, i.e., their 

case outcome was not warranted or warranted but later dismissed. 

Total % of cases that were not prosecuted = % of cases that were not 

warranted + % of cases that were warranted but later dismissed. 

Final Case Outcome 

Frequency/ 

Number of 

Cases 

Divide by number 

of cases that you 

have information 

about (120) 

Multiply 

by 100 

Not warranted 50 .42 42% 

Warranted but later 

dismissed 30 .25 25% 

Pled/ Plea bargain 

reached 20 .17 17% 

Trial/ Acquittal 2 .02 2% 

Trial/ Conviction 18 .15 15% 

Percentage of not prosecuted cases =42%+25%=67% 

64 

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.
Next, compute the total percentage of cases that were prosecuted, i.e., their case 

was not dismissed and made it to plea bargaining or trial. 

Total % of cases that were prosecuted = % of cases that resulted in a plea 

bargain + % of cases that were acquitted a trail + % of cases that were 

convicted at trial. 

Final Case Outcome 

Frequency/ 

Number of 

Cases 

Divide by number 

of cases that you 

have information 

about (120) 

Multiply 

by 100 

Not warranted 50 .42 42% 

Warranted but later 

dismissed 30 .25 25% 

Pled/ Plea bargain 

reached 20 .17 17% 

Trial/ Acquittal 2 .02 2% 

Trial/ Conviction 18 .15 15% 

Number of prosecuted cases = 17%+2%+15%=34% 

Enter these totals into the appropriate table provided in Appendix H. 

3. Not Successfully Prosecuted vs. Successfully Prosecuted 

First, compute the total percentage of cases that were not successfully 

prosecuted, i.e., their case outcome did not result in a plea bargain or conviction 

at trial. 

Total % of cases that were not prosecuted = % of cases that were not 

warranted + % of cases that were warranted but later dismissed + % of 

cases that were acquitted a trial. 

65 

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.
Final Case Outcome 

Frequency/ 

Number of 

Cases 

Divide by number 

of cases that you 

have information 

about (120) 

Multiply 

by 100 

Not warranted 50 .42 42% 

Warranted but later 

dismissed 30 .25 25% 

Pled/ Plea bargain 

reached 20 .17 17% 

Trial/ Acquittal 2 .02 2% 

Trial/ Conviction 18 .15 15% 

Percentage of not successfully prosecuted cases =42%+25%+2%=69% 

Then, compute the total percentage of cases that were successfully prosecuted, 

i.e., their case resulted in a guilty plea or conviction at trial. 

Total % of cases that were successfully prosecuted = % of cases that 

resulted in a plea bargain + % of cases that were convicted at trial. 

Final Case Outcome 

Frequency/ 

Number of 

Cases 

Divide by number 

of cases that you 

have information 

about (120) 

Multiply 

by 100 

Not warranted 50 .42 42% 

Warranted but later 

dismissed 30 .25 25% 

Pled/ Plea bargain 

reached 20 .17 17% 

Trial/ Acquittal 2 .02 2% 

Trial/ Conviction 18 .15 15% 

Percentage of successfully prosecuted cases =15%+17%=32% 

Enter into the appropriate table provided in Appendix H. 

66 

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.
Compare Your Results to National Rates 

Using the table in Appendix A, compare your results with national studies of the 

progression of sexual assault cases through the criminal justice system. Cases 

progressing further would mean a higher percentage of cases are warranted and a 

higher percentage of cases are prosecuted successfully (i.e., end in conviction at trial 

and plea bargains). Hopefully your community will have more cases make it further in 

the criminal justice system than studies of communities without a SANE program. The 

data on communities with SANE programs is limited, so don’t base your success solely 

on whether your percentages are as high as prior evaluations of SANE programs. 

There is no right or wrong amount of difference in the number of cases who made it to a 

certain step. Just use this table as a benchmark to get a feel for how you are doing 

compared to other communities. Go to the next section on page 100, where you will be 

able to use this information to work on improving your community’s response to sexual 

assault. 

67 

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.
SECTION THREE B: 

Conducting the Pre-Post Evaluation

68 

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.
PRE-POST STEP FOUR: WHAT CASES SHOULD 

I LOOK UP AT THE PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE? 

Objectives: 

To introduce the concepts of sampling cases 

To provide guidelines for choosing sampling criteria 

Sampling is the 

process of 

choosing which 

cases to include 

in your evaluation. 

To answer your evaluation questions you will need to look up individual sexual assault 

cases and find out how far these cases made it in the criminal justice process. This step 

will help you to decide which cases to include in your evaluation. This process is known 

as sampling. Sampling helps you to limit the number of cases you include in your 

evaluation so that the process is feasible for your program, the hospital, and the 

prosecutor’s office. In the end, the cases that are included in an evaluation, collectively, 

are known as a sample. 

Because you are trying to figure out Look familiar? 

whether your program has had an This step is very 

impact on case progression through the similar to step four 

system in your community, you want to in the post-only 

compare cases that were examined by section but there 

your SANE program to cases that were are a few 

examined by the hospital before the differences 

implementation of your program. From because of the 

here on, these will be referred to as SANE and pre-SANE nature of the 

patients or cases respectively. design. As such, 

the material 

BUT, not all of these patients may be in your evaluation presented here 

sample. By not including certain patients and their cases, you overlaps 

can be more likely to find a difference in how far cases substantially with 

progress in the criminal justice system that is due to your that in step 4 of the 

program and less likely to find a difference that is caused by post-only design. 

something other than the presence of your program. 

If you find that you have too many cases to go through (e.g., you are a SANE program 

from a large, urban jurisdiction that has been in operation for decades), you may need 

to first choose a random sample of cases to make the project more manageable. A 

random sample allows every case within this population (in this instance all the cases 

on file) an equal chance of being selected. You can use a random number table to pick 

a subset of cases for your project. 

If multiple hospitals provided medical/forensic services to patients prior to the 

implementation of your program, you would want to include cases from each of these 

hospitals. If this is not feasible, it would be best to work with the hospital or hospitals 

that saw the most patients. 

69 

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 9 on the next page provides a set of criteria to help you to determine which cases 

treated by your program should be included in your evaluation. We recommend using all 

of these criteria, but you can eliminate or adapt some of them as needed so that they 

are suitable for your program, the hospital, and your community. 

70 

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 9: Pre-Post Design Sampling Criteria 

Criterion Rationale for this criterion 

Choose a time 

period for the 

SANE sample 

(1) Exclude cases 

from just after 

your program 

was 

implemented. 

(2) Don’t include 

cases that 

haven’t gone 

through the 

entire criminal 

justice system 

process. 

(1) You need to give your program some “up & running time” 

and give it a chance to affect how cases progress through 

the system. For example, if your program launched in 

January 2000, it is unlikely that you would see immediate 

changes in how far cases progress. It would likely take one 

year to see any changes. So, if your program was 

implemented in January 2000, select cases that were 

treated in your program starting in January 2001. 

(2) This will depend on how long it takes to prosecute sexual 

assault cases in your community. You may want to ask the 

prosecutor’s office about the length of the process. If it 

takes a year for cases to complete prosecution, don’t 

include patients seen in the past year because you won’t 

be able to find out what happened to their cases. 

Choose a time 

period for the preSANE sample 

The length of the time period that you choose for your pre- SANE 

sample should be the same as the length of the time period that 

you just established for the SANE sample. For example, if you 

were going to select 5 years of cases for your SANE sample from 

January 2001 through December 2006, your pre-SANE sample 

should also include 5 years of hospital files. 

The pre-SANE sample time period should end at the 

implementation of your program. So, if your program began in 

2000 and you are including 5 years of cases in your pre-SANE 

sample, you should select hospital cases from January 1995 

through December 1999. 

The patient 

reported the 

assault to the 

police. 

Because you want to know if your program affected how cases 

progress through the system, patients that did not report should 

NOT be included in your evaluation sample—they were never a 

part of the criminal justice system in the first place because the 

patient chose not to report to the police. 

Choose an age 

subgroup: children, 

adolescents, or 

adults. 

The factors that influence criminal justice system processes vary 

among age groups. If you combine these three age groups into 

one evaluation sample, it may make it more difficult to see 

changes or differences in case progression through the system. 

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.
Use your state’s legal definitions to determine the age range of 

the group you chose. 

The patient had a 

full forensic exam. 

Patients who declined a forensic exam may be less likely to 

report to the police and/or participate in the criminal justice 

process. If you include patients who did not have an exam in your 

evaluation sample, you could underestimate the impact of your 

program. 

The person was 

assaulted in the 

county that your 

program primarily 

serves. 

You will have to look up prosecutor records for each case in your 

evaluation sample. It’s a lot easier if all of the cases are from the 

same county and therefore would be at the same prosecutor’s 

office. It would take much more time to obtain information from 

multiple counties’ prosecutor’s offices. 

If your program serves multiple counties, you may want to 

conduct separate evaluations for each county. It is possible that 

one county may show an improvement, but another county didn’t. 

If you combined information from both counties into one 

evaluation sample, it would underestimate the beneficial impact 

of your program (because the lack of improvement in one county 

would “cancel out” the improvement in the other county). 

Exclude postmortem cases. Homicide cases (even if they involve sexual assault) are likely to 

be prosecuted differently than sexual assault cases. Therefore, 

including post-mortem cases could make it harder to find 

differences in how far sexual assault cases progress in the 

system. Or, including post-mortem cases could cause you to find 

changes or differences in case progression that are due to 

changes in prosecution of homicide, not sexual assault. 

Select the sampling criteria that are appropriate and feasible for your program. We 

recommend that you follow all of these criteria but realize that each program and county 

is unique. For example, if your patient files don’t document what county the patient was 

assaulted in, you would not be able to use this criterion. 

Create a list of all the criteria that you will use for your evaluation and for now, set it 

aside. In the next step, we will discuss getting access to the hospital’s files from before 

the implementation of your program. Then, you will pull cases from your files and the 

hospital’s files using your list of criteria so that you can find out how far each of these 

cases made it in the criminal justice system process. 

72 

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.
PRE-POST STEP FIVE: HOW DO I COLLOBORATE WITH THE 

HOSPITAL? 

Objectives: 

To help you reach an agreement with the hospital about 

accessing case records from before (pre) the implementation 

of your program 

To provide tips/guidelines for approaching hospital personnel 

about an evaluation 

The next step is to come to an agreement with the hospital about getting the information 

you need from their records. For hospital-based programs, this may be a relatively 

simple task. On the other hand, it may present more of a challenge for communitybased programs. 

You will need to go through the appropriate channels to get access to the hospital’s 

information because they are subject to HIPAA regulations. Many hospitals have their 

own Institutional Review Board (IRB). (An IRB is a board that is responsible for 

reviewing and approving any evaluation/research projects and making sure that ethical 

standards are met. If the hospital you are collaborating with does not have an IRB, you 

do not need to apply for IRB approval if you are only intending to use this project for 

evaluation purposes. If you do need IRB approval, the hospital should be able to 

provide you with instructions and guidelines and any training. The Federal Office for 

Human Research Protection also has resources available at 

http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/education/#materials ). Or, the hospital may have a HIPAA 

committee. Contacting either of these entities would be a good place to start. 

When approaching the hospital, or someone within the hospital about an evaluation 

project, we recommend the following process: 

 Introduce and explain the evaluation; 

o Communicate that your goal is to evaluate the SANE program, not the 

hospital. 

o Help them to understand that evaluation efforts can help SANEs to 

improve their programs and possibly access more funding. 

 Give examples of other evaluation projects your program has been involved in; 

o Discuss how these projects have been helpful to your program and the 

population you serve. 

 Determine if you can get the information that you need from the hospital’s case 

files from before your program started; 

o Discuss specifically which files you need to access- the files that meet 

your sampling criteria. 

73 

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.
o Discuss the information that you will need from each file: 

 The patient’s first and last name 

 Date of the exam or the assault 

 Police complaint number, if known 

o Discuss how information will be retrieved from the files. 

 Who will go through patient files and select the cases that meet 

your criteria? 

o We recommend that someone from your program selects the 

files that you need because they will be more familiar with 

your sampling criteria; however, to protect the privacy of 

patients that don’t meet your criteria, it may be preferable to 

the hospital that they select the appropriate files for you. 

 How will you get the information that you need from each file? 

o We recommend that you make copies of the pages in the 

hospital file that you need. This will prevent potential errors 

in writing down the information by hand. However, the 

hospital may ask you to only write down the minimal 

information that you need or the hospital may choose to 

write down the requested information from the files for you. 

That way, you don’t see any more of the patients’ 

information than is necessary. 

 Be prepared to discuss how you will protect patients’ confidentiality and privacy; 

o Once you have the hospital’s patients’ names, who within your program 

and within the prosecutor’s office will have access to them? 

 This will depend upon your arrangement with the prosecutor’s 

office, but generally it is preferable to have as few people as 

possible have access to patients’ names. 

o Storage and destruction of evaluation files containing patients’ names 

 We recommend storing patients’ names in a locked file cabinet and 

limiting access to the key. 

 When the evaluation is over, we recommend shredding any 

identifying information as long as it is no longer needed. 

 Be prepared to discuss compensation for the hospital; 

o Will you reimburse the hospital for any expenses related to copying the 

files for your evaluation? 

o Will you reimburse the hospital for staff time if they are responsible for 

pulling files and writing down case information? 

74 

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.
Using the list of criteria you created in step four, pull cases that meet criteria from your 

SANE files and from the hospital’s pre-SANE files. Make sure that you use the same 

criteria for selecting all cases. Also, keep your program’s files and the pre-SANE files 

separate. It is very important to be able to distinguish which cases came from your 

program and which came from the hospital. 

Select the sampling criteria that are appropriate and feasible for your program. We 

recommend that you follow all of these criteria, but realize that each program and 

county is unique. For example, if your patient files don’t document what county the 

patient was assaulted in, you would not be able to use this criterion. Next, you will 

compare each your patient files to this list of criteria, to find out which patients to include 

in the evaluation. 

We have created Table 10 as an example of a table that you can use when deciding 

which patients meet evaluation criteria. (A blank copy of the table for you to copy and 

use is available in Appendix C.) Make sure to have one table for your pre-SANE cases 

and one table for your post-SANE cases, and label them clearly. 

Insert the specific criteria you have chosen into the columns of the table. For each case, 

document whether or not they meet each criterion, and finally, whether or not the case 

is eligible. You can make sure that you sampled accurately if you have someone else 

do the same, and check that you have the same results- you came up with the same 

patients being eligible. 

Table 10: Selecting Cases that Meet Criteria e.g. 18 and 

over 

Year Criteria______________ Age Criteria______________ 

County______________ 

Patient Year 

Criteria: 

Age 

Criteria: 

Reported? Full 

Exam? 

County: Not 

homicide? 

Is the 

case 

eligible? 

1001 Y Y Y Y N Y No 

1002 Y N Y Y Y Y No 

1003 Y Y Y Y Y Y Yes 

1004 N Y N Y Y Y No 

e.g. 1999-2005 

Using the table, pull program files for patients that meet your criteria. In the next steps 

you will find out how far each of these cases made it in the process of prosecution. 

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.
PRE-POST STEP SIX: HOW SHOULD I COLLECT THE 

INFORMATION FROM THE PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE?

Objectives: 

To define case outcomes 

To show what specific information you need from the prosecutor’s 

office 

To provide a table for documenting the information that you will 

collect 

The next step is to collect the information you need from the prosecutor’s office. 

Depending upon your arrangement with the prosecutor, they may grant you access to 

their case records or they may prefer to look up the information for you. (See Step 3) 

To make sure the information is as complete and accurate as 

possible, we have created a table for recording information Look familiar? 

about each case. Although there are many ways to answer This step is very 

your evaluation questions and find out how many cases were similar to step five 

warranted, how many cases were convicted at trial, etc., we in the post-only 

recommend documenting the final outcome of each of your section. The key 

cases. A case outcome is the end difference is 

Case outcome- result the case reaches in the criminal keeping track of 

the end result of a justice system. Documenting case pre-SANE vs. 

case. outcomes streamlines the information SANE cases. 

you have to collect. Later on, you will 

still be able to use this information to find out how many cases made it to each step in 

the process. We have provided Table 11 on the next page for you to use when 

documenting cases’ outcomes. You can use this table “as is” or modify as needed for 

your project. (A blank copy of the table is available in Appendix D.) 

Important Note: We recommend using one copy of the table for cases from your 

program and one copy for cases seen by the hospital and labeling them accordingly. It 

is very important to be able to distinguish which cases came from which program. 

76 

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.
Insert into the first four 

columns identifying information 

about the cases you pulled from 

your files into one table and 

information about the cases you 

pulled from the hospital’s files 

into another table. Put an X next to the final 

case outcome for each 

case. 

Table 11: Information Collection Table 

Patient’s 

Last 

Name 

Patient’s 

First 

Name 

Complaint 

Number 

(if known) 

Date of 

Exam 

Case 

Outcome 

______ Not warranted 

______ Warranted, but later dismissed 

______ Pled/Plea Bargain reached 

______ Trial/Acquittal 

______ Trial/Conviction 

______ Unknown 

______ Not warranted 

______ Warranted, but later dismissed 

______ Pled/Plea Bargain reached 

______ Trial/Acquittal 

______ Trial/Conviction 

______ Unknown 

______ Not warranted 

______ Warranted, but later dismissed 

______ Pled/Plea Bargain reached 

______ Trial/Acquittal 

______ Trial/Conviction 

______ Unknown 

77

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.
How to fill out the table: 

Before going to the prosecutor’s office, you would fill out identifying information in the 

first four columns for each of the patients whose files you pulled from your records. This 

will allow you to look up the cases in the prosecutor’s database. Next, you or someone 

from the prosecutor’s office would put an X next to the final outcome of each case. 

Prosecutors’ files may be easier to search by suspect name, so it may be useful to 

record this information in the table as well for every case that it is available. 

How to determine a case outcome 

To review, often cases will reach multiple stages in prosecution. A case that is convicted 

at trial was also warranted. The case outcome is the final result the case reaches in the 

criminal justice system. Therefore, in this instance, conviction at trial is the case 

outcome- conviction, not warranting. 

The important thing is to remember that cases go through many stages; a case may go 

through plea bargaining but that is not necessarily its outcome. If a bargain was not 

reached and the defendant did not plea to a charge, the case would have gone to trial. 

Either conviction or acquittal at trial would be the final outcome. Reviewing the order of 

the stages of the criminal justice system process may also help you to identify final case 

outcomes. 

You may need help from someone at the prosecutor’s office to read some of the legal 

terms that they use to designate case outcomes. Also, you will need to decide whether 

you want to include cases where the sexual assault cases were dismissed because the 

defendant pled to a lower (non-sexual assault) charge as dismissed (because of the 

sexual assault charge) or as pled guilty (because they were still convicted of a crime). 

Either is fine. It is most important that you make a decision, know how you classified the 

cases when you are interpreting and reporting your findings, and do so consistently. 

What do I do when cases are missing information? 

We have included “unknown” as an option in case you find there is not enough 

information in the prosecutor’s database to identify a particular case outcome. By 

having an answer choice for “unknown” information, if you find any places that have not 

been filled out, you know that you accidentally skipped these cases and you can go 

back and fix the errors. 

Case Examples 

Case examples are given below; Table 12 illustrates how these cases could be 

documented using the “Information Collection Table.” 

 Case number 0001 was warranted, but later the judge dropped the case. 

 Case 0002 was acquitted at trial. 

 The prosecutor warranted case 0003. The defendant pled to lesser charges in 

ordered to receive a lighter sentence. 

 Case 0004 was sent to the prosecutor, but never warranted. 

78 

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 12: Examples Completed in the Information Collection Table 

Patient’s 

Last 

Name 

Patient’s 

First 

Name 

Complaint 

Number 

(if known) 

Date of Exam Case Outcome 

Doe Jane 05-0001 01/01/06 ______ Not warranted 

__X__ Warranted, but later dismissed 

______ Pled/Plea Bargain reached 

______ Trial/Acquittal 

______ Trial/ Conviction 

______ Unknown 

Smith Mary 05-0002 01/01/06 ______ Not warranted 

______ Warranted, but later dismissed 

______ Pled/Plea Bargain reached 

__X__ Trial/Acquittal 

______ Trial/ Conviction 

______ Unknown 

Brown Suzy 05-0003 01/01/06 ______ Not warranted 

______ Warranted, but later dismissed 

__X__ Pled/Plea Bargain reached 

______ Trial/Acquittal 

______ Trial/ Conviction 

______ Unknown 

Johnson Elizabeth 05-0004 01/01/06 __X__ Not warranted 

______ Warranted, but later dismissed 

______ Pled/Plea Bargain reached 

______ Trial/Acquittal 

______ Trial/ Conviction 

______ Unknown 

79

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.
Next, you or someone at the prosecutor’s office can fill out the information collection 

table, using the prosecutor’s case records. 

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.
PRE-POST STEP SEVEN: HOW DO I CALCULATE ANALYSES 

ON THE INFORMATION I HAVE COLLECTED? 

Objectives: 

To provide simple steps for calculating frequencies and 

percentages 

Now that you have collected your information, you may be wondering about what 

statistics are going to be involved. In order to use this information to answer your 

evaluation questions, you will need to do some simple analyses. These computations 

are straight-forward enough that you can do them “by hand” with a calculator. We will 

take you step-by-step through calculating frequencies and percentages by hand. If you 

would prefer to calculate the percentages by using a Excel see Appendix F for more 

information, however, this is likely to be more time-consuming than calculating by hand. 

Frequencies are a count of how many times something 

happens. In this evaluation, they are a count of the number Frequency- a 

of cases that had a certain outcome. An example of a count of how many 

frequency count is: “25 cases were dismissed after times something 

warranting.” A frequency is used to calculate a percentage. occurs. 

Percentages are proportions. In this evaluation, they are the proportion of cases 

that had a certain outcome. This is calculated by: 

The frequency of that outcome with that outcome / the Percentage- a 

total number of cases × 100 = % of all cases with this proportion; how 

outcome. many times 

something occurs 

Example: 25 out of 250 cases were dropped after divided by a total. 

warranting. 

The percentage = 25 / 250 x 100 = 10% of all cases were dropped after 

warranting. 

Percentages are often more useful than frequencies because they give a 

proportion. Reporting that 25 cases were dropped by the prosecutor may be 

useful, but reporting that 25 out of 25 cases (100%) or 25 out of 250 cases (10%) 

were dropped after warranting gives more meaningful information. 

Look familiar? 


This step is very similar to step six in the postonly section. However, this section prepares 

you for testing whether the proportion of cases 

that makes it to each criminal justice stage is

different from pre to post.

81 

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.
Calculating Frequencies and Percentages By Hand 

Preparation 

Make a copy of your completed information collection tables. Lock up your original 

copies to protect confidentiality and keep your information and patients’ names 

secure. The second copy will be used as your working copy for analyses. This way if 

you choose to make any markings on it, or the document gets damaged, you still 

have your information and don’t have to collect it again. 

Remove your patients’ names from your copies of the information collection table. 

This helps to protect patients’ confidentiality. You can remove that column from your 

paperwork and shred it, or use a permanent black marker or white out to cover their 

names. If you use a marker to remove identifying information, photocopy the deidentified version, place it in a secure file, and use the photocopy because you can 

still read the identifying information through the marker. 

Calculating Frequencies 

Here are the steps for calculating frequencies. First calculate frequencies for your preSANE cases. 

1) Keep track of your results in Table 13 below. You will need them to conduct 

percentages. A blank copy of the table is provided in Appendix F. 

2) Count the total number of cases that you collected information about. 

3) Choose a case outcome (not warranted, warranted but later dismissed, pled/ 

plea bargain reached, trial/acquittal, trial/conviction, or unknown). 

4) Count up the number of cases with that outcome. 

5) Repeat this for each outcome, including “unknown” cases. 

6) Check your work by adding up the frequencies for each outcome. If you counted 

correctly, this number should be equal to the total number of cases that you 

collected information about. 

82 

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 13: Frequency Results 

Final Case Outcome Number of Cases 

Not warranted 

Warranted but later dismissed 

Pled/ Plea bargain reached 

Trial/ Acquittal 

Trial/ Conviction 

Unknown 

Total Number of Cases 

Calculating Percentages 

Again, percentages are proportions. Although there are multiple 

ways that you can calculate a proportion using the information that 

you collected, we recommend calculating percentages based on the 

total number of cases that were included in your evaluation. This 

percentage is useful because it tells you where cases are dropping 

out of the system. For example, you may find that 50% of cases are 

not warranted, 25% are warranted but later dismissed, 23% are plea 

bargained, 1% are acquitted at trial and 1% are convicted at trial. 

This percentage is equal to the frequency of a certain outcome 

divided by all the cases that you have information about. The cases 

that had an unknown outcome cannot be included in your 

calculations. 

o Percentage = Frequency ⁄ # of cases 

Turn to 

Appendix F 

if you prefer 

to use Excel 

to calculate 

percentages 

83 

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.
First, calculate percentages for your pre-SANE cases. 

Steps to Calculate a Percentage 

1) Using your frequency results, add up the number of cases that you have 

information about. 

o # of cases = Total # of cases - # of unknown cases 

2) Choose one of the case outcomes. Using your frequency results, divide the 

frequency for that outcome by the number of cases that you have information 

about. 

o = Frequency ⁄ # of cases 

3) Multiply by 100 and add a percent sign (%). This gives you your percentage for 

that outcome. 

o = (Frequency ⁄ # of cases) X 100% 

4) Repeat for each outcome. 

5) Check your work by adding up all of your percentages. They should add up to 

100% unless you rounded. If they don’t, check your calculations. 

This gives you the proportion of cases with that outcome, out of all the cases you have 

information about. 

Example Percentage Calculation 

Below we repeat these instructions and go through an example percentage 

calculation step-by-step. Here are the frequency results for this example. 

84 

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.
Final Case Outcome Number of Cases 

Not warranted 

Warranted but later dismissed 

Pled/ Plea bargain reached 

Trial/ Acquittal 

Trial/ Conviction 

Unknown 

Total Number of Cases 

50 

30 

20 

2 

18 

10 

130 

Check your work: 

50 + 30 + 20 + 2 + 

18 + 10 = 130 

1) Using your frequency results, add up the number of cases that you have 

information about. 

o # of cases = Total # of cases - # of unknown cases 

Final Case Outcome Number of Cases 

Not warranted 50 

Warranted but later dismissed 30 

Pled/ Plea bargain reached 20 

Trial/ Acquittal 2 

Trial/ Conviction 18 

Unknown 10 

Total Number of Cases 130 

Number of Cases that you 

have information about 120 

130 – 10 = 120 

85 

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) Choose one of the case outcomes. Using your frequency results, divide the 

frequency for that outcome by the number of cases that you have information 

about. 

o = Frequency ⁄ # of cases 

Final Case Outcome Frequency/ 

Number of Cases 

Divide by number 

of cases that you 

have information 

about (120) 

Not warranted 50 .42 

Warranted but later dismissed 30 

Pled/ Plea bargain reached 20 

Trial/ Acquittal 2 

Trial/ Conviction 18 

3) Multiply by 100 and add a percent sign (%). This gives you your percentage for 

that outcome. 

o = (Frequency ⁄ # of cases) X 100% 

Final Case Outcome 

Frequency/ 

Number of 

Cases 

Divide by number 

of cases that you 

have information 

about (120) 

Multiply 

by 100 

Not warranted 50 .42 42% 

Warranted but later 

dismissed 30 

Pled/ Plea bargain 

reached 20 

Trial/ Acquittal 2 

Trial/ Conviction 18 

= 50 / 120 

= 0.41666 

= 0.42 x 100 = 42% 

86

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) Repeat for each outcome. 

Final Case Outcome 

Frequency/ 

Number of 

Cases 

Divide by number 

of cases that you 

have information 

about (120) 

Multiply 

by 100 

Not warranted 50 .42 42% 

Warranted but later 

dismissed 30 .25 25% 

Pled/ Plea bargain 

reached 20 .17 17% 

Trial/ Acquittal 2 .02 2% 

Trial/ Conviction 18 .15 15% 

= 50 / 120 = .42 

.42 x 100 = 42% 

= 30 / 120 = .25 

.25 x 100 = 25% 

= 20 / 120 = .17 

.17 x 100 = 17% 

= 2 / 120 = .02 

.02 x 100 = 2% 

= 18 / 120 = .15 

.15 x 100 = 15% 

5) Check your work by adding up all of your percentages. They should add up to 

100% unless you rounded. If they don’t, check your calculations. 

Final Case Outcome 

Frequency/ 

Number of 

Cases 

Divide by number 

of cases that you 

have information 

about (100) 

Multiply 

by 100 

Not warranted 50 .42 42% 

Warranted but later 

dismissed 30 .25 25% 

Pled/ Plea bargain 

reached 20 .17 17% 

Trial/ Acquittal 2 .02 2% 

Trial/ Conviction 18 .15 15% 

Check your work/Totals 101% 

A blank copy of this table is provided in Appendix G for you to use 

when calculating percentages. = 42% + 25% + 17% + 

2% + 15% = 101% 

Since we rounded in 

steps 2 and 4, it’s ok 

that this doesn’t add up 

to exactly 100%. 

87

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.
Repeat Calculations for Post-SANE Cases 

Now calculate frequencies and percentages for your post-SANE cases. Make sure that 

you label your frequency and percentage tables so that you can tell which are your preSANE rates, and which are post-SANE rates. 

Check Your Work 

Ask someone else to calculate the frequencies and percentages again. If your results 

don’t match, you can recalculate to find out where there error was made. 

Testing for Pre-Post Change 

The percentages you just calculated give you a good way to communicate to others 

(e.g., community partners, funders, etc.) how many cases make it to each stage in the 

criminal justice system. However, often it is useful to know if there was a “significant” 

change pre to post. In this situation, it may be useful to test whether you did or did not 

find a significant change in case progression through the criminal justice system. While 

it may be possible for you to compare rates from pre-SANE and post-SANE by 

“eyeballing it” and deciding whether or not rates improved “enough,” evaluators, and 

people who rely on evaluation findings (e.g., funders) tend to rely on whether a change 

is “significant.” Significance, as we are using it, means that it is unlikely to have 

occurred by chance. "A statistically significant difference" means there is statistical 

evidence of a difference. Significance, again, as we are using it, does not mean large, 

important, or other words commonly associated with the traditional meaning of 

significance. 

In order to find out if there is a statistically significant difference in prosecution rates 

from pre-SANE to post-SANE, you have to conduct further analyses. Again, they do not 

require any pre-existing statistical expertise; they will be conducted by hand and by 

using an online calculator. These analyses will tell you whether you can conclude that 

there is a low likelihood that any change in prosecution rates is due to chance 

fluctuation. 

The analyses we will guide you through will answer three specific ways of examining 

whether cases were more likely to progress farther in the criminal justice post-SANE: 

1. Was there a significant difference in the number of cases that were warranted 

from pre-SANE to post-SANE? 

2. Was there a significant difference in the number of cases that were prosecuted 

(i.e. cases that made it to trial or plea bargain) from pre-SANE to post-SANE? 

3. Was there a significant difference in the number of cases that were successfully 

prosecuted (i.e., cases that were resulted in a guilty plea or conviction a trail) 

from pre-SANE to post-SANE? 

88 

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.
A Few More Calculations by Hand 

To be able to make these comparisons, you will have to compute some totals. A set of 

tables is provided in Appendix I for you to use to keep track of the totals you compute. 

You will need to compute these totals twice, once for the pre-SANE cases and once for 

the post-SANE cases. You will have to compute totals based on the frequency and 

percentage tables you just filled out for each of the three questions above. 

1. Not Warranted vs. Warranted 

Frequencies 

You already have the number of cases pre-SANE and post-SANE that were not 

warranted in your frequency tables. 

For the pre-SANE cases, compute the total number of cases that were 

warranted, i.e., their case outcome was warranted but later dismissed, or one of 

the outcomes that represents progressing farther in the criminal justice system. 

Total # of cases that were warranted = # of cases that were dismissed + # 

of cases that resulted in a plea bargain + # of cases that were acquitted at 

trial + # of cases that were convicted at trial 

Final Case Outcome Number of 

Cases 

Not warranted 50 

Warranted but later 

dismissed 30 

Pled/ Plea bargain 

reached 20 

Trial/ Acquittal 2 

Trial/ Conviction 18 

Unknown 10 

Total Number of Cases 130 

Number of not warranted cases =50 

 Number of warranted cases =30+20+2+18=70 

89 

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.
Percentages 

You already have the percentage of cases pre-SANE and post-SANE that were 

not warranted in your frequency tables. 

For the pre-SANE cases, compute the total percentage of cases that were 

warranted, i.e., their case outcome was warranted but later dismissed, or one of 

the outcomes that represents progressing farther in the criminal justice system. 

Total % of cases that were warranted = % of cases that were dismissed + 

% of cases that resulted in a plea bargain + % of cases that were 

acquitted at trial + % of cases that were convicted at trial 

Final Case Outcome 

Frequency/ 

Number of 

Cases 

Divide by number 

of cases that you 

have information 

about (120) 

Multiply 

by 100 

Not warranted 50 .42 42% 

Warranted but later 

dismissed 30 .25 25% 

Pled/ Plea bargain 

reached 20 .17 17% 

Trial/ Acquittal 2 .02 2% 

Trial/ Conviction 18 .15 15% 

Percentage of not warranted cases =42% 

Percentage of warranted cases =25%+17%+2%+15%=59% 

Repeat for the post-SANE cases and enter into the appropriate table provided in 

Appendix I. 

2. Not Prosecuted vs. Prosecuted 

Frequencies 

For the pre-SANE cases, compute the total number of cases that were not 

prosecuted, i.e., their case outcome was not warranted or warranted but later 

dismissed. 

Total # of cases that were not prosecuted = # of cases that were not 

warranted + # of cases that were warranted but later dismissed. 

90 

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.
Final Case Outcome Number of Cases 

Not warranted 50 

Warranted but later dismissed 30 

Pled/ Plea bargain reached 20 

Trial/ Acquittal 2 

Trial/ Conviction 18 

Unknown 10 

Total Number of Cases 130 

Number of not prosecuted cases =50+30=80 

For the pre-SANE cases, compute the total number of cases that were 

prosecuted, i.e., the case was not dismissed and made it to plea bargaining or 

trial. 

Total # of cases that were prosecuted = # of cases that resulted in a plea 

bargain + # of cases that were acquitted a trail + # of cases that were 

convicted at trial. 

Final Case Outcome Number of Cases 

Not warranted 50 

Warranted but later dismissed 30 

Pled/ Plea bargain reached 20 

Trial/ Acquittal 2 

Trial/ Conviction 18 

Unknown 10 

Total Number of Cases 130 

Number of prosecuted cases =20+2+18=40 

91 

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.
Percentages 

For the pre-SANE cases, compute the total percentage of cases that were not 

prosecuted, i.e., their case outcome was not warranted or warranted but later 

dismissed. 

Total % of cases that were not prosecuted = % of cases that were not 

warranted + % of cases that were warranted but later dismissed. 

Final Case Outcome 

Frequency/ 

Number of 

Cases 

Divide by number 

of cases that you 

have information 

about (120) 

Multiply 

by 100 

Not warranted 50 .42 42% 

Warranted but later 

dismissed 30 .25 25% 

Pled/ Plea bargain 

reached 20 .17 17% 

Trial/ Acquittal 2 .02 2% 

Trial/ Conviction 18 .15 15% 

Percentage of not prosecuted cases =42%+25%=67% 

For the pre-SANE cases, compute the total percentage of cases that were 

prosecuted, i.e., case was not dismissed and made it to plea bargaining or trial. 

Total % of cases that were prosecuted = % of cases that resulted in a plea 

bargain + % of cases that were acquitted a trail + % of cases that were 

convicted at trial. 

Final Case Outcome 

Frequency/ 

Number of 

Cases 

Divide by number 

of cases that you 

have information 

about (120) 

Multiply 

by 100 

Not warranted 50 .42 42% 

Warranted but later 

dismissed 30 .25 25% 

Pled/ Plea bargain 

reached 20 .17 17% 

Trial/ Acquittal 2 .02 2% 

Trial/ Conviction 18 .15 15% 

Number of prosecuted cases = 17%+2%+15%=34% 

92 

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.
Repeat for the post-SANE cases and enter into the appropriate table provided in 

Appendix I. 

3. Not Successfully Prosecuted vs. Successfully Prosecuted 

Frequencies 

For the pre-SANE cases, compute the total number of cases that were not 

successfully prosecuted, i.e., their case outcome did not result in a plea bargain 

or conviction at trial. 

Total # of cases that were not prosecuted = # of cases that were not 

warranted + # of cases that were warranted but later dismissed + # of 

cases that were acquitted a trial. 

Final Case Outcome Number of Cases 

Not warranted 50 

Warranted but later dismissed 30 

Pled/ Plea bargain reached 20 

Trial/ Acquittal 2 

Trial/ Conviction 18 

Unknown 10 

Total Number of Cases 130 

Number of not successfully prosecuted cases =50+30+2=82 

For the pre-SANE cases, compute the total number of cases that were 

successfully prosecuted, i.e., the case resulted in a guilty plea or conviction at 

trial. 

Total # of cases that were successfully prosecuted = # of cases that 

resulted in a plea bargain + # of cases that were convicted at trial. 

93 

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.
Final Case Outcome Number of Cases 

Not warranted 50 

Warranted but later dismissed 30 

Pled/ Plea bargain reached 20 

Trial/ Acquittal 2 

Trial/ Conviction 18 

Unknown 10 

Total Number of Cases 130 

Number of successfully prosecuted cases =20+18=38 

Percentages 

For the pre-SANE cases, compute the total percentage of cases that were not 

successfully prosecuted, i.e., their case outcome did not result in a plea bargain 

or conviction at trial. 

Total % of cases that were not prosecuted = % of cases that were not 

warranted + % of cases that were warranted but later dismissed + % of 

cases that were acquitted a trial. 

Final Case Outcome 

Frequency/ 

Number of 

Cases 

Divide by number 

of cases that you 

have information 

about (120) 

Multiply 

by 100 

Not warranted 50 .42 42% 

Warranted but later 

dismissed 30 .25 25% 

Pled/ Plea bargain 

reached 20 .17 17% 

Trial/ Acquittal 2 .02 2% 

Trial/ Conviction 18 .15 15% 

Percentage of not successfully prosecuted cases =42%+25%+2%=69% 

94 

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.
For the pre-SANE cases, compute the total percentage of cases that were 

successfully prosecuted, i.e., the case resulted in a guilty plea or conviction at 

trial. 

Total % of cases that were successfully prosecuted = % of cases that 

resulted in a plea bargain + % of cases that were convicted at trial. 

Final Case Outcome 

Frequency/ 

Number of 

Cases 

Divide by number 

of cases that you 

have information 

about (120) 

Multiply 

by 100 

Not warranted 50 .42 42% 

Warranted but later 

dismissed 30 .25 25% 

Pled/ Plea bargain 

reached 20 .17 17% 

Trial/ Acquittal 2 .02 2% 

Trial/ Conviction 18 .15 15% 

Percentage of successfully prosecuted cases =15%+17%=32% 

Repeat for the post-SANE cases and enter into the appropriate table provided in 

Appendix I. 

Check your Work 

Have someone else double check the percentage and frequency totals that you 

calculated and entered into the tables in Appendix J. 

Testing for a Statistically Significant Difference from Pre- to Post-SANE 

In this step, you will use an online calculator to test whether there is a statistically 

significant difference in: 1) the number of cases that were warranted vs. not warranted 

2) the number of cases that were prosecuted vs. not prosecuted; and 3) the number of 

cases that were successfully prosecuted vs. not successfully prosecuted from pre- to 

post-SANE. 

Note that these analyses will tell you whether there was a statistically significant 

difference from pre-SANE to post-SANE. They do not tell you whether case progressed 

further or dropped out sooner in the criminal justice system post-SANE. Look at the 

percentage totals you just entered into the table from Appendix J. For each question, 

examine whether the percentage of cases with the “better” outcome (i.e., warranted, 

prosecuted, or successfully prosecuted) is higher post-SANE than pre-SANE. If the 

95 

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.
proportion of cases with the better outcome is lower post-SANE, or post-SANE and preSANE are equal, then case progression in the criminal justice system did not improve in 

that way. If that’s what happened in your situation, it may not be useful to you to test for 

a statistically significant difference, but you can use the steps that follow to do so if you 

wish. If there are not increases in any of the three questions, you do not need to 

conduct any further analyses unless you wish to do so. Instead, you can skip ahead to 

page 99 to discuss how to utilize these findings, as there was not an increase in how far 

cases make it in the criminal justice system. 

If there are a higher proportion of cases with the better outcome post-SANE for any of 

the three questions, then there was some increase in how far cases made it in the 

criminal justice system. Now it is time to determine whether the increase was 

statistically significant: whether the increase was enough to suggest that the 

improvement was related to your program, rather than chance fluctuation in case 

progression. Remember to only test for significance on the questions where you find a 

higher percentage of cases with the better outcome post-SANE. 

The online calculator is located at: 

http://www.graphpad.com/quickcalcs/contingency1.cfm 

To answer each of the three questions, you will use the default calculator that comes up 

on the webpage. Under “which test” choose the Fisher’s exact test, and select onetailed. Although the website recommends two-tailed, we recommend one-tailed for this 

specific evaluation because you are only conducting this if more cases made it farther in 

the system post-SANE. 

1. Was there a significant difference in the number of cases that were warranted 

from pre-SANE to post-SANE? 

• In place of Group 1, enter pre-SANE and in place of group 2, enter postSANE. In place of outcome 1, enter not warranted and in place of Outcome 2 

enter warranted. 

• Enter the corresponding numbers from the appropriate table you filled out in 

Appendix J. Make sure to use the number/frequency table, not the 

percentage table. 

• Click calculate. 

96 

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.
On the results screen, it will give you the “p-value.” The p-value tells you how likely it 

is that the difference between pre-SANE and post-SANE is due to chance 

fluctuations. The higher the difference between pre-SANE and post-SANE, the lower 

the likelihood that the difference between pre-SANE and post-SANE is due to 

chance, and therefore the lower the p-value. A p-value of 0.05 means that there is a 

5% chance that the difference pre-SANE to post-SANE was due to chance 

fluctuation in case progression through the criminal justice system. The established 

standard for statistical significance is p<.05. This means, if your p-value is less than 

0.05, there is a statistically significant difference from pre-SANE to post-SANE. If 

your p value is equal to 0.05 or greater, there is not a statistically significant 

difference from pre-SANE to post-SANE. The website also tells you in words 

whether or not there was a statistically significant difference. 

• Record the p-value and whether or not there was a statistically significant 

difference from pre-SANE to post-SANE underneath the appropriate table. 

Repeat this for questions 2 and 3. See below. 

2. Was there a significant difference in the number of cases that were prosecuted 

(i.e., cases that made it to trial or plea bargain) from pre-SANE to post-SANE? 

• In place of Group 1, enter pre-SANE and in place of group 2, enter postSANE. In place of outcome 1, enter not prosecuted and in place of Outcome 

2 enter prosecuted. 

• Enter the corresponding numbers from the appropriate table you filled out in 

Appendix J. Make sure to use the number/frequency table, not the 

percentage table. 

• Click calculate. 

3. Was there a significant difference in the number of cases that were 

successfully prosecuted (i.e., cases that were resulted in a guilty plea or 

conviction a trail) from pre-SANE to post-SANE? 

• In place of Group 1, enter pre-SANE and in place of group 2, enter postSANE. In place of outcome 1, enter not successfully prosecuted and in place 

of Outcome 2 enter successfully prosecuted. 

• Enter the corresponding numbers from the appropriate table you filled out in 

Appendix J. Make sure to use the number/frequency table, not the 

percentage table. 

• Click calculate. 

97 

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.
Interpreting Your Results 

When interpreting these results, it is important to keep two key things in mind. First, the 

fact that there is a statistically significant difference does not mean that prosecution 

rates increased pre-SANE to post-SANE. You had to have examined the percentage 

totals and determined whether there was a higher proportion of cases that were 

warranted (or prosecuted or successfully prosecuted) and a lower proportion of cases 

that were not warranted (or not warranted or not successfully prosecuted) post-SANE 

when compared to pre-SANE. 

Second, we should re-iterate that statistical significance does not mean practical 

significance. It is up to your program and your community to determine whether the 

increase in prosecution rates, and for matter, the post-SANE prosecution rates are 

“good enough.” 

98 

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.
SECTION FOUR: 

Taking Stock—Now That We Know What’s Happening in Our 

Community, Where Do We Go From Here? 

99 

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 section is intended to provide you with ideas for utilizing your evaluation findings to 

inform your community work. We provide ideas for working with community partners to 

further address the systemic response to sexual assault. 

Go to page 101 if you did not find any significant improvements or you are not satisfied 

with the changes you found in case progression through the criminal justice system. 

Go to page 120 if you are satisfied with the significant improvements you found in case 

progression through the criminal justice system. 

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.
SECTION FOUR A: 

If You Did Not Find A Significant Improvement In Case 

Progression Through The Criminal Justice System 

101 

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.
Overview 

If you did not find a significant improvement in case progression through the criminal 

justice system, you may be disappointed, but remember that there may be a variety of 

factors that contribute to these findings. In every community, a variety of stakeholders, 

processes, and other factors play into the prosecution of a sexual assault case. For a 

sexual assault case to be prosecuted successfully, each part of this complex system 

must be working. SANEs are only one part of this system, so do not feel discouraged if 

your evaluation did not show the impact of your program on sexual assault case 

progression through the criminal justice system. Fortunately, you can use your 

evaluation results to inform your next steps: 

In your evaluation, it is possible that you identified a clear “breakdown” in the 

system. Go back and look at your percentages. Is there one step where the vast 

majority of cases are dropping out of the system? For example, you may find that over 

75% of cases are not warranted. This suggests that there might be problems affecting 

referrals of cases to the prosecutor or prosecutors’ warranting of cases. 

If you feel that your evaluation findings show one clear-cut breakdown in the system, 

you should strategically focus your community change efforts on factors that will be 

related to that particular problem. In the example of too few cases being warranted, you 

may want to make sure that rape kits are being submitted to the crime lab and the chain 

of evidence is properly maintained so that evidence can be utilized in police and 

prosecutors’ decisions to refer and warrant cases. (Although we recommend focusing 

on the problem area identified by your evaluation findings, if you are interested, you can 

read on for strategies to “diagnose” ways that the system might not be operating as well 

as you would like it to.) 

It is also possible that your evaluation findings are not so clear cut. It could be that 

a number of cases drop out of the system at each step and ultimately too few cases 

make it to the final stages of prosecution. If this is the case, you will need to look for 

multiple places where the system might not be functioning properly. 

In this section, we will help you to pinpoint specifically what might not be working in your 

community. By working in collaboration with other stakeholders, you can “diagnose” 

what might not be working optimally in order to focus and inform your efforts to create 

community change around the criminal justice system response to sexual assault. 

102 

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.
Conducting Focus Groups to Understand a “Breakdown” in the System 

There are a variety of methods that you could use to understand why your system is not 

functioning optimally. We recommend focus groups because they are a great way to 

bring together people with diverse perspectives to discuss an issue and to 

systematically investigate what people believe is and is not working in your community. 

Focus groups can be used for two main purposes: planning and evaluation. You can 

utilize a focus group to plan the next steps that you and other community stakeholders 

should take in order to improve the response to sexual assault in your community. Or 

you can use a focus group to evaluate how well the system is working. Given that you 

have just completed an evaluation of your program’s impact on legal outcomes, we 

suggest that you utilize this as an opportunity to inform your future efforts, but this 

section also provides information for conducting focus groups for evaluation purposes. 

STEP ONE: PREPARATION FOR CONDUCTING FOCUS GROUPS 

Objectives: 

To help you plan what needs to be done before you are ready to 

conduct your focus groups 

Invite community stakeholders to be a part of the group 

Invite the key systems players who you feel should be a part of this discussion. This 

may include police, prosecutors, the victim’s witness unit in your prosecutor’s office, 

advocacy groups for sexual assault victims (e.g., local rape crisis center), any other 

medical professionals that respond to sexual assault, and you may even want to 

consider inviting someone from the crime lab that analyzes evidence from your 

community’s sexual assault cases. 

Decide on how many focus groups you need to conduct 

We recommend that your focus groups only consist of 6-8 persons. If you think that 

more people should be a part of the discussion, then you should consider conducting 

more than one group. Generally, once more than 6-8 people are part of the group, 

certain individuals’ opinions may not be heard. You can have mixed groups with many 

types of stakeholders present in one group (e.g., one group would have a police officer, 

a prosecutor, a SANE nurse etc.) If you have a lot of people that you want to be 

involved, you can hold separate focus groups, one for each type of stakeholder (e.g., 

one group of just police officers, one group of just SANE nurses). Unless you are 

worried that people will be afraid to discuss these issues with other types of 

stakeholders, we suggest having a mixed group. Having separate focus groups will 

mean more groups to conduct and more data to analyze, whereas having mixed groups 

encourages community dialogue around these issues. 

103 

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.
Get a commitment from participants that they will be part of the focus group 

It is important that participants clearly state that they will participate in the group. If 

someone is unwilling to make this commitment, then it is unlikely that they will be there. 

Send follow-up letters to participants 

After participants agree to be involved in a focus group, if you need to, ask for their 

mailing or email address. Explain that you will use it only to send any additional 

information about the focus group. 

Within a couple of days after a person agrees to participate in your group, you should 

send a follow-up letter. Make sure to include a general description of the reason you 

want to hold the focus group, directions to the focus group, and a reminder of the date, 

time, location, and incentive (e.g., opportunity to improve how our community responds 

to sexual assault). 

Consider making a reminder call to all participants the day before the focus group 

This reminder call will help to make sure you have enough participants for your focus 

group. In addition to reminding participants of the time and location of the group, you 

can also answer any questions or address any concerns they might have. 

Design a focus group guide 

Think about what topics you want to cover during the focus group and what types of 

questions will help generate discussion about these issues. Questions may range from 

more general (e.g., what do we think should be improved about our response to sexual 

assault?) to more specific parts of the system that you think should be discussed (e.g., 

are there any barriers to utilizing the evidence that SANE programs collect?). Here are 

some tips for designing questions for your focus group guide: 

• General questions are a good way to stimulate conversation. Open with your 

more general questions and save the more specific questions for last (they may 

cover these topics when answering your general questions). 

• You may want to ask more specific questions about the major ways the system 

can break down in responding to sexual assault (see list below). Ask questions to 

see if these problems are occurring in your community, and if so, what can be 

done to change them. 

o Evidence is not sent to the crime lab 

o Cases are not referred to the prosecutor’s office 

o Cases are not being warranted 

o Poor evidence quality or analysis 

o Victims are not engaging in the criminal justice process (e.g., they don’t 

report the assault to the police, don’t go to the SANE program, or don’t 

participate in prosecution). 

104 

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.
• Ask open-ended questions (i.e., questions that can’t simply be answered with a 

yes/no). For example, 

 Close-ended Question 

You: Is our system responding well to sexual assault victims? 

Participant 1: Not really 

Participant 2: Yes, for the most part. 

Open-ended Question 

You: How well do you think our system is responding to sexual assault 

victims needs? 

Participant 1: I don’t think we are responding very well because many 

victims are still afraid to report the assault. 

Participant 2: That’s true, but I think that something we are doing well is 

providing victims with information about reporting while they are at the 

SANE program. I think we are doing well because victims are receiving 

medical care more quickly now that we have a SANE program. 

Open-ended questions will elicit more meaningful answers to help you identify 

places to improve your system’s response to sexual assault. 

• Create a safe atmosphere with the types of questions that you prepare. You have 

to continue to work with the participants once the focus group is over, so keep it 

professional and comfortable. 

o Don’t just ask negative questions about things that you think are problems. 

Remember the focus group is about learning what others believe is going 

on with the system, not to point fingers and not to get others to agree with 

your own perspective. 

o Ask neutral questions (How well are police, prosecutors, advocates, and 

medical personnel, able to coordinate their efforts?) 

o Ask questions about what is not working well in a positive way (e.g., What 

can we improve about our case review process vs. what is not going well 

with case review?) 

o Balance negative questions with a positive question. (If you need to ask 

what is not going well, also ask what is going well that should happen 

more often). 

• Prioritize! You shouldn’t plan on your focus group lasting any longer than 2 

hours. Think about what is most important and what topics can fit in this time 

frame. 

105 

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.
• Design a guide, not a script. You want the conversation to flow fairly naturally. 

While there will need to be someone to moderate the focus group (more on this 

later) and keep the discussion on topic, you want to have some flexibility. Don’t 

feel the need to ask the questions exactly as you wrote them, but rather use 

them as a guide for what topics you want to make sure get covered at some point 

during the discussion. 

• Have someone else look over your guide (but not someone who you hope will be 

a participant). Find out if any questions seem unclear or would be difficult to 

answer. 

Decide who will moderate the focus group 

If you are designing the focus group guide, it is likely that you are also planning on 

facilitating the focus group. However, keep in mind that your role as a moderator means 

that you have to be neutral. The moderator does not get to participate and answer 

questions like the others in the room do. Choose a focus group moderator who will be 

able to act neutrally and help guide the conversation so that people participate and the 

conversation stays on topic. They should have enough knowledge about the topic of the 

focus group so they know when to ask participants to provide more detail or to clarify 

their answers. Some people also have an assistant moderator who also plays a neutral 

role by assisting the moderator and taking notes during the discussion. 

Plan out the logistics 

Where should it be held? When? Do we have equipment to record the conversation? 

106 

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.
STEP TWO: CONDUCTING THE FOCUS GROUPS 

Objectives: 

To provide information about the role of the moderator and 

assistant moderator in conducting the focus groups 

The moderator should: 

Arrive early to check the room set-up 

Tables and chairs should be arranged so that all participants can see and hear each 

other. 

Test the recording equipment 

Set your tape recorder in the middle of the room, start recording, and walk around the 

room talking. Then rewind the tape and make sure everything you said was recorded 

and understandable. 

Prepare mentally before the group begins 

Go to another room where it is quiet and you can think over the questions and how you 

envision the focus group unfolding. 

Greet the participants as they arrive 

It is important that each participant feel comfortable with the moderator and the other 

participants. Consider having snacks available at this time. The assistant moderator can 

also greet participants if the moderator is busy. 

Start the group at the scheduled time 

To make participants feel more comfortable, arrange place cards with participants’ first 

names at seats around the able. This will keep participants from trying to figure out who 

to sit next to and will also give you the most control over initial group dynamics. 

It is useful for the moderator to have the names of participants visible during discussion. 

If you are concerned about having participants’ first names visible to the rest of the 

group, you can create a seating chart for just the moderator and assistant moderator. 

Having the names of participants will help the assistant moderator take notes. 

107 

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.
Deliver a prepared welcome and introduction 

The introduction should include information on the purpose of the focus group, an 

overview of the topics to be discussed, how the results will be used, and the ground 

rules for the group. 

Some common ground rules include: 

• Respect all participants. The intent of the group is to hear as many opinions as 

possible and not to convince others or reach an agreement. 

• Everything said during group should not be discussed outside the group 

(especially if sensitive information may be discussed or disclosed). Stay focused 

on the topic of discussion. 

During the introduction, encourage the participants to ask questions. Remind the 

participants, once the group begins, that any questions asked during the focus group 

time itself may distract from the topics you are there to discuss and as such should be 

held until the end of the session. 

Immediately after the introduction, ask your opening question 

Ask questions in the order that you have prepared and probe when necessary 

When necessary, ask probing questions for more information or to clarify a statement. 

Knowing when to ask a probing question is a skill developed through experience. 

Asking too many probing questions will result in excessive detail on minor issues. 

Asking too few probing questions will lead to a lack of information to draw from in your 

analysis. 

The moderator must consider many factors when deciding whether or not to ask a 

probing question. 

• The importance of the information to the purpose of the focus group 

• The time needed to respond to the probe versus the time needed for other 

scripted questions 

• The possibility of disrupting the group’s dynamics 

One suggestion is to ask probing questions early in the focus group to let participants 

know the amount of detail for which you are looking. In addition, pausing after a 

comment is made by a participant will give that participant time to expand on their initial 

thought or will allow another group member to speak. This will reduce your number of 

probing questions and also help the flow of conversation. 

108 

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.
Remain aware of group dynamics throughout the process. 

Be aware of problematic participants and how to manage their behavior. 

Examples include: 

• Someone who believes his/her answers are “correct” and belittles those who 

disagree 

o For this participant, emphasize that everyone’s opinion is valid and that 

participants do not need to agree with each other 

• Someone who dominates the conversation 

o Limiting eye contact with this person may help curb the frequency of their 

comments 

• Someone who is shy and/or unwilling to contribute to the discussion 

o Establish eye contact with this participant and specifically ask them for a 

response to a questions 

• Someone who continues talking for several minutes on topics not closely related 

to your purpose 

o Limiting eye contact with this person may help curb the frequency of their 

comments. If they continue, interrupt and remind the group of your limited 

time and the need to hear from everyone. 

Also, be aware of any existing relationships among participants. When possible, make 

sure that participants who are closely acquainted with each other sit separately because 

this can lead to side conversations. If acquaintances share a set of assumptions about 

the discussion topic that they take for granted, make sure to ask probing questions that 

require these assumptions to be explained to the rest of the group. 

Remain aware of your behavior 

Remember to limit head nodding and short verbal responses that indicate approval or 

acceptance because participants need to believe that you are impartial. Remember to 

listen and not talk, just probe to understand the participants responses. 

End the focus group on time 

It is important that you keep an eye on the clock for the entire group so that all 

questions are asked and discussed. 

If necessary, ask participants to each complete a Post-Discussion Comment Sheet 

Post-Discussion Comment Sheets can be used to collect additional data from 

participants. This can include demographic data, satisfaction data, and additional 

qualitative data that were not collected during the focus group. These should be 

completed by each participant at the end of the group and returned to the moderator or 

assistant moderator. This activity should take place during the allotted time for the focus 

group and the moderator should plan accordingly. 

109 

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.
Debrief with the assistant moderator immediately following the session 

It is important that you debrief while details of the conversation are fresh in your 

memory. Even waiting until the next day might mean forgetting important details and 

information. Consider recording this conversation on the same tape as the focus group. 

If a Post-Discussion Comment Sheet was completed by each participant, review these 

and discuss this data as well during group debriefing. For more information, see 

“Analyzing & Reporting Focus Group Data.” 

The assistant moderator should: 

Help the moderator with any preparation 

The moderator and assistant moderator should discuss their roles and responsibilities 

prior to the focus group. It is important that they both know and understand each other’s 

responsibilities. This will ensure that tasks are not overlooked or forgotten. 

Greet any participants who arrive after the group has started 

Before the group starts, discuss this possibility with the moderator and decide if late 

arrivals will be allowed to join the group. If you decide to allow late arrivals, greet them 

at the door and take them outside the room to provide a summary of the welcome and 

information provided to the rest of the group. Then bring this individual back to the room 

and direct them to their assigned seat. 

Take comprehensive notes of the group 

While a tape recorder can catch everything that is said, a recording can not indicate 

who was speaking or the body language of the participants. While you need to record 

key phrases and comments, it’s also important to note which participants were 

speaking. 

Also, it can be valuable to record noticeable changes in body language throughout the 

group when a point is made. This can tell you if participants agree or disagree with the 

statement, even if they never give their opinion verbally. 

Make sure you record the number of participants in the group and the stakeholder group 

each participant belongs to (e.g., police, prosecutor, etc.). 

110 

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.
Final logistical considerations for planning and conducting the focus groups 

• Have you selected a moderator who has the necessary moderating skills? 

The Social Sciences Department at a local college and/or university should be 

able to put you in touch with a professor or researcher familiar with qualitative 

research. Though this contact may not have the time available to be a moderator 

themselves, they would most likely be able to refer you to someone who would 

be qualified and who would better meet your organizational needs. 

• Have you identified times and locations appropriate for your target population(s)? 

• Did you send follow-up letters with directions to the focus group to confirmed 

participants? 

• Do you have a list of questions prepared? 

• Have you tested your questions to see if they are clear? 

• Is the room for the focus group set up in an appropriate way? 

• Do you have the equipment necessary to record the session? 

• Do the moderator and assistant moderator understand their own and the other’s 

responsibilities? 

111 

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.
STEP THREE: ANALYZE THE DATA FROM YOUR FOCUS GROUPS 

Objectives: 

To provide the skills to analyze qualitative focus group for 

planning and evaluation purposes 

The analysis of focus group data can range from simple to complex. Focus groups yield 

great amounts of qualitative data (i.e., data in the form of words, not numbers). 

Qualitative data analysis involves examining, synthesizing, comparing, contrasting, 

and interpreting meaningful patterns and themes. In focus group research, the person 

responsible for analyzing the data is usually the moderator or the assistant moderator. 

However, an individual who was not present at the group could analyze the data using a 

full transcript of the discussion. 

Qualitative analysis differs from quantitative data analysis (data in the form of numbers). 

There are no statistical formulas to apply to the data. The products of the qualitative 

analysis of focus groups are summaries of themes, interpretations of what findings 

mean, and supporting quotations. 

Whether your analysis is simple or complex, there is a continuum of activities for 

analyzing focus group data: collecting raw data, description, interpretation, and 

recommendation. There are no clear boundaries between these activities and an 

analyst may float between activities freely. Nevertheless, this distinction is helpful in 

seeing the big picture of analysis. 

In this continuum an analyst, the individual analyzing the data, starts with raw data that 

may include everything that has been gathered relating to the focus group (notes, tapes, 

transcripts, etc.). A system is used to draw out themes and quotations to describe these 

data. The analyst then must interpret what the findings mean in relation to the goals and 

objectives or research questions. Usually, more than one interpretation is presented. An 

analyst then looks at the description and interpretation of the findings as well as the 

context of the program and resources in order to offer recommendations for action. 

There are challenges to working with focus group data that should be noted and 

considered during each step of the analysis and reporting process. Participants answer 

questions in their own words and from their own frame of reference. Two people can 

use completely different words to mean the exact same thing. Furthermore, focus 

groups provide the unique opportunity for people to consider their own views in the 

context of other people’s views, and their opinions can change over the course of the 

discussion. For these reasons, it is important for qualitative analysts to do everything 

they can to try to interpret what a participant truly means-putting aside their own 

opinions and biases as much as they can. This is a skill of a good qualitative analyst 

and must be practiced at every step of analysis. Throughout the following steps, tips will 

be provided that may help you maintain this objectivity. 

112 

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 steps that follow are to be used as a guide in the analysis and reporting of focus 

group findings. They are not rigid procedures and can overlap. 

Begin analysis during the focus group discussion 

Whether your overall analysis will be simple or complex, the analysis process begins 

during a focus group. It is always important for the moderator to listen for inconsistent, 

vague, or cryptic comments and follow them up with probing questions. The moderator 

should be sure to keep an open mind and probe beyond what she/he expects or would 

like to hear. When you begin to actually analyze and interpret comments, you will be 

thankful if the information is clear, meaningful, and related to the questions asked. It is 

also important for the moderator and assistant moderator to take notes on their 

observations of participants’ body language, tone of voice, and intensity of comments. 

This information will help in the interpretation of findings. 

Conduct a debriefing 

Immediately following a focus group, it is a good idea to conduct a debriefing that 

includes the moderator and assistant moderator. Before the debriefing begins, spot 

check the recording device to be sure that the focus group was recorded well. If there is 

a problem with the recording, you will want to immediately reconstruct as much of the 

conversation as you can from memory. Use the recording device or a notepad to record 

a brief summary of the group, your impressions of the group, and any themes that 

emerged. If possible, compare and contrast the group with other focus groups you may 

have already conducted on your topic. 

Decide on an analysis plan 

Generally, if the purpose of the focus group is to gather information that will help in 

program planning, analysis can be less complex. (This would be the path to take if you 

want to plan how to improve your community’s response to sexual assault). If a focus 

group is being used to evaluate the effectiveness of a program, a higher level of 

complexity is usually necessary. (This would be the path to take if you want to 

systematically evaluate how well your system is operating according to the systems 

players). With this in mind, we have made distinctions in several of the steps that follow 

that are based on the purpose of the focus group: planning or evaluation. 

Table 14 (next page) presents four analysis choices: memory based, note based, tape 

based, and transcript based. These techniques can be used for any focus group. 

However, note based analysis is generally used most often when a focus group is 

conducted for planning purposes and tape-based analysis is used most often for 

evaluative purposes. 

113 

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 14: Analysis Choices 

ANALYSIS 

TYPE 

Memory 

Based 

Analysis 

Note Based 

Analysis 

Tape Based 

Analysis 

Transcript 

Based 

Analysis 

DESCRIPTION Moderator 

analyzes 

based on 

memory and 

gives an oral 

debriefing to 

the people 

who need the 

information 

Analyst 

prepares a 

brief written 

description 

based on 

summary 

comments, 

notes, and 

selective 

review of 

tapes 

Analyst 

prepares a 

written report 

based on an 

abridged 

transcript after 

listening to 

tapes plus 

notes and 

moderator 

debriefing 

Analyst 

prepares 

written report 

based on 

complete 

transcript. 

Some use 

notes and 

moderator 

debriefing. 

REPORTING Usually oral 

report only 

Usually oral 

and written 

report 

Usually oral 

and written 

report 

Usually oral 

and written 

report 

ANALYSIS 

TIME 

REQUIRED 

PER GROUP 

Very Fast 

Within 

minutes 

following the 

discussion 

Fast 

Within 1-3 

hours per 

group 

Fast 

Within 4-6 

hours per 

group 

Slow 

About 2 days 

per group 

PERCEIVED 

LEVEL OF 

RIGOR 

Minimal Moderate Moderate to 

High 

High 

RISK OF 

ERROR 

High Moderate 

(depends on 

the quality of 

field notes) 

Low Low 

TYPICALLY 

USED FOR 

Planning Planning Evaluation Evaluation 

114 

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.
Memory based analysis 

Memory based analysis is almost exclusively used in marketing research when 

the sponsors are able to watch a focus group from behind a one-way mirror. This 

type of analysis is conducted by the moderator and is typically only done if a 

sponsor/funder requests it. 

Note based analysis 

In note based analysis, the tape of the discussion is used only to verify quotes 

and the moderator debriefing is the only thing that is transcribed. The quality of 

this type of analysis depends heavily upon the quality of the field notes. This level 

of analysis may be sufficient for most planning purposes. 

Tape based analysis 

In this type of analysis, the tape is listened to by the moderator and comments 

that directly relate to the research questions are transcribed verbatim, yielding an 

abridged transcript that could range anywhere from 3-15 pages. Rather than 

creating a true abridged transcript, some analysts will listen to the focus group 

tape while their notes are in front of them on a computer screen and augment 

their notes with quotations that relate to the questions. This type of analysis is 

usually sufficient for most program evaluation purposes. 

Transcript based analysis 

A full transcript is used for this type of analysis. Usually a focus group dialogue is 

transcribed verbatim into an electronic format with a word processing program. 

One focus group can yield up to 50 pages of verbatim transcript. Full transcript 

based analysis is the best option if the analysis is going to be done by someone 

other than the moderator or assistant moderator. 

Return to the goals and objectives/research questions of the focus group 

If you decide to use a note, tape, or transcript based analysis, a process should be 

followed in order to analyze and interpret your findings. First, it is important to return to 

the original agreed upon goals and objectives to guide you in the analysis process. The 

way you bring order to your raw data will depend on the goals of the analysis. 

Skim the raw date for main ideas, themes, and patterns 

Gather all of the raw data you have accumulated. The data you have gathered may vary 

depending on the purpose of your focus group. Table 15 lists the data that you will most 

likely be working with for planning and evaluative purposes. 

115 

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 15: Raw Data 

For Planning Purposes For Evaluative Purposes 

Raw Data Notes Notes 

Tapes (to verify 

quotations) 

Tapes 

Debriefing forms/notes Debriefing forms/notes 

 Post-discussion comment 

sheets 

 Abridged transcripts 

Skim the raw data and begin thinking of ways to identify main ideas, themes, or ideas 

that go together. Think of ways of indexing what you see in a way that will make 

answering your research questions easier. Most people refer to the process of labeling 

their raw data as coding. Coding brings order to your data and is a creative process 

dependent upon your goals and objectives/research questions. 

Create codes to label your raw data 

Codes can be words, phrases, or abbreviations. As you skim the data, start jotting down 

a list of codes that you may want to use to identify your data. 

“Codes are organizing principles that are not set in stone. They are our own 

creations in that we identify and select them ourselves. They are tools to think 

with. They can be expanded, changed, or scrapped altogether as our ideas 

develop after repeated interaction with the data. Starting to create categories is a 

way of beginning to read and think about data in a systematic way.” 

Code chunks of raw data 

The level of detail you look for in your data depends on your needs and resources. 

Coding for planning purposes may be as simple as recognizing the major themes from 

the discussion, labeling them, and organizing them based on your goals and objectives. 

Return to your raw data and begin to assign these key words to data chunks so that the 

information can be organized, summarized, and interpreted. Write the codes in the 

margins of the transcript of notes. 

Coding for evaluation purposes may be more involved than just finding the main 

themes. A more detailed picture may be needed because you will be using this 

information to determine the effectiveness of your program. Looking at an abridged 

focus group transcript may be necessary to get this level of detail. When analyzing 

focus group data for evaluation, if time and resources allow, it is always best to have 

two or more people independently code the same raw data. When this is done, 

differences and discrepancies between codes should be discussed and resolved. This 

will help improve the objectivity of the findings. 

116 

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.
Organize coded data 

After the raw data is coded, it should be organized so it can be easily described. This 

can involve physically cutting and pasting coded data chunks. Data can be organized by 

focus group question, by research question or objective, by theme/big idea, category, or 

a combination of those. Furthermore, data within these categories can be organized by 

respondent type if you have conducted more than one group (youth, parents, teachers, 

etc.), or points of view. The idea is that organizing your data helps you answer your 

research questions in a comprehensive and accurate way that is systematic and 

replicable. 

Describe and interpret findings 

Once findings have been organized, you will need to describe and interpret what you 

have gathered. Describing your data involves synthesizing what you have organized 

into summary statements and verbatim quotations. The purpose of describing the data 

is to reduce it and simplify it for your audience- a description does not include every 

response. Depending on the needs of the primary audience, some analysts will stop the 

analysis after they have described the data. 

Some analysts will go beyond just describing the data to trying to consider what it 

means. This may be done by only the analyst or by a team of people. For planning 

purposes, consider the following questions while keeping in mind the resources 

available for a potential program or service and the environment in which the program 

or service will be operating. 

• What do your findings mean for improving your system? 

• What strategies do you propose based on the findings? 

• What are the potential outcomes of these strategies? 

Going beyond a description of the data is particularly important when you are using a 

focus group for evaluation purposes. The analyst, or a team of people, must look at the 

data and decide what it is saying about the strengths and weaknesses of their program. 

Consider the following questions when trying to interpret evaluative focus group data. 

• In what ways did your findings support and/or refute your goals and objectives? 

• Is there more than one way to interpret your findings? 

Create a report 

Besides sharing the report with the other systems players, you may wish to share it with 

other audiences such as funders, or the general public. The type of report you generate 

depends on the information needs of your audience. Generally, a report generated from 

a planning focus group will need to be less detailed than one from an evaluation focus 

group. 

117 

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 primary goal of any focus group report should be to make the explicit link between 

the findings of the focus group and your specific goals and objectives for that group. A 

report should provide new information and strive to enlighten the audience. 

It is important to use verbatim quotations to enhance the main points in your report. 

However, remember to adhere to the promises of confidentiality that were made to 

participants. Do not provide any potentially identifying information about your focus 

group participants in a report. It is usually okay to use some non-identifying information 

when it is enlightening (female, male, school teacher, high school student, parent, 

community leader, etc.). 

Consider the following questions as you write a report: 

• What was known and then confirmed or challenged by the focus group data? 

• What was suspected and then confirmed or challenged by the focus group data? 

• What was new that wasn’t previously suspected? 

One way that has been suggested to help analysts be sure they are reflecting the 

correct themes of a group is to involve the participants in reviewing drafts of a report. 

While involving participants in reviewing the report does take additional time, it can be 

very helpful when an accurate depiction of what was learned is otherwise difficult to 

create. 

Create an action plan 

Using your findings from the focus group, get stakeholders together and develop an 

action plan to improve your community’s response to sexual assault. This is a great time 

to re-visit the National Sexual Violence Resource Center’s SART manual and consider 

how the strategies they recommend may address the “breakdowns” in your system. 

As you create your action plan, consider the following things: 

• What strategies will be the most likely to affect positive change? 

• What resources do we have in our community to help us accomplish our goals? 

• What are feasible short-term goals to accomplish now? 

• What are long-term goals that we want to work toward even if we can’t reach 

them right away? 

• To accomplish each goal, what tasks need to be carried out? When do they need 

to be carried out? Who needs to carry them out? 

• Finally, consider how you will know when you have reached our goal. Part of 

your action plan may mean that you need to conduct further evaluations to 

document the progress you have made. For example, you may want to use this 

Toolkit to conduct the same evaluation several years down the road to see if you 

have made any improvements after implementing your action plan. 

118 

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.
Summary Checklist 

• Spot check the recording device before the debriefing. 

• Conduct a debriefing with the moderator, assistant moderator, and the analyst. 

• Decide on an analysis plan. 

• Gather your raw data together. 

• Skim raw data for main ideas, themes, and patterns. 

• Make a list of codes you may use to identify your data. 

• Write codes in the margins of your transcript or notes. 

• Organize your coded data chunks so that they can be easily described. 

• Describe your data by creating summary statements and pulling verbatim 

quotations. 

• Interpret your findings. Decide what the findings mean for your program or 

service. 

• Create a report for your audience (funder, program staff, public). 

119 

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.
SECTION FOUR B: 

If You Did Find A Significant Improvement In Case 

Progression Through The Criminal Justice System 

120 

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.
Overview 

Congratulations, you have been able to document your program’s impact on legal 

outcomes! This remaining section is designed to help you utilize the information you 

have acquired to continue to improve your community’s response to sexual assault. 

Keep in mind that your program (and its impact) is one small part of an entire system 

that responds to sexual assault in your community. To keep it so that sexual assault 

cases continue to make it to the final stages of prosecution, all parts of the system need 

to be working smoothly. The findings from your evaluation show you that the system’s 

parts are working well for now. 

But the work SANEs do is ever-changing and so are the communities they work within. 

This step requires you to think about whether the improvements that have been made 

are sustainable. Will these positive legal outcomes last or will they start to fade away 

over time? What can be done to maintain these positive changes in your community? 

Consider what would happen to your community’s response to sexual assault if some of 

the key leaders left the community. What would happen if there was turnover at one of 

the agencies that is critical to keeping the system running smoothly? Or, what if 

gradually, people start to slide back into their old habits? What if resources are allocated 

differently? Turnover and other changes are unavoidable, but you can work to make 

sure that the system continues to work smoothly even when changes occur. Consider 

the following strategies to help you increase sustainability. 

Documentation: Policies and Memorandums of Understanding 

A key way that many communities make sure that their system’s work will be 

sustainable is to institutionalize the response to sexual assault in their community. In 

other words, they create paperwork that documents what the appropriate response to 

sexual assault is for each agency/organization. That way, organizations ensure the 

appropriate response is taken, rather than one person or a few key people who must 

eventually leave the system. 

For some communities, this paperwork takes the form of an overarching policy or 

protocol that lays out the various responsibilities and actions to be taken by each 

stakeholder group. Other communities develop “memorandums of understanding” that 

state how each agency/organization agrees to respond. The form that this paperwork 

takes doesn’t make a great deal of difference. What matters is putting down on paper 

and agreeing to adhere to a response that has been developed by the different systems 

players. That way, when a new staff person takes another’s place, they too are bound 

by these agreements and understand what the expectations are for responding to 

sexual assault in this community. Or, when an agency starts to “slip” and not respond as 

they once did, there is a paper trail that can be used to remind them of the appropriate 

response that has been agreed upon by the entire community. 

121 

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.
Building and Strengthening Your Relationships With Community Partners 

Another way to keep the system working well is to build and strength your own 

relationships with other members of the system. By increasing your interactions and 

communication and using each other as a resource, you build positive, trusting 

relationships with other systems players. These positive relationships are a resource to 

be called upon when working together to make sure that no cases “fall through the 

cracks”. 

Some ideas that may be used to strengthen your community partnerships: 

• Conducting cross-trainings where different stakeholder groups train each other 

about their work as it pertains to sexual assault 

• Attending conferences together helps you to learn more about the issue and 

about each other’s work 

• Sharing program evaluation findings with other stakeholders to show them how 

your program operates and how it is impacting the community. 

Developing Ongoing Evaluation Processes 

Finally, the last strategy that we present for increasing the sustainability of your 

community’s response to sexual assault is continuous evaluation. Think of further 

evaluation as “check ups” to make sure the system is running smoothly. If you conduct 

regular evaluation, you can identify and address problems more quickly, before they 

become major crises. You can see if cases continue to make it to the final stages of the 

prosecution process or if they tend to drop out more quickly and if they drop out, you 

can identify why. 

One way to work program evaluation into routine SANE operation is to conduct the 

evaluation in this Toolkit on a regular basis. By adding cases and their outcomes every 

year or two years and reanalyzing the information you have collected, you can keep an 

eye out for further changes in prosecution rates. Another way that some programs 

conduct continued evaluation is to work with volunteers or an outside evaluator to 

design future evaluation efforts that would be particularly useful to your program in 

monitoring and understanding the impact of your community’s response to sexual 

assault. 

122 

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.
REFERENCES 

123

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.
American Nurses Association (1997). Scope and standards of forensic nursing 

practice. Waldorf, MD: American Nurses Publishing. 

Aiken, M.M., & Speck, P.M. (1995). Sexual assault and multiple trauma: A sexual 

assault nurse examiner (SANE) challenge. Journal of Emergency Nursing, 2 , 466-468. 

Amey, A.L., & Bishai, D. (2002). Measuring the quality of medical care for women who 

experience sexual assault with data from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical 

Care Survey. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 39, 631-638. 

Bouhours, B., & Daly, K. (2008). Attrition study technical report (ASTR) no. 5: Rape and 

attrition in the legal process: a comparative analysis of five countries. Brisbane, 

Queensland: School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Griffith University. Available at 

www.griffith.edu.au/professional-page/professor-kathleen-daly/publications. 

Burt, M. R., Harrell, A. V., Newmark, L. C., Aron, L. Y., Jacobs, L. K. (1997). Evaluation 

Guidebook: For projects funded by S.T.O.P. formula grants under the Violence Against 

Women Act. Washington, D. C: Urban Institute. 

Campbell, R., Bybee, D., Ford, J.K., Patterson, D., & Ferrell, J. (2008). A systems 

change analysis of SANE programs: Identifying the mediating mechanisms of criminal 

justice system impact. Final report from NIJ Award 2005-WG-BX-0003. Washington, 

DC: NIJ. 

Campbell, R. (2004). Sexual assault nurse examiner programs: evidence of 

psychological and legal effectiveness. VAWNet Document, National Online Resource 

Center on Violence Against Women, Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota. 

Campbell, R., Davidson, W.S., Ahrens, C., Aponte, G., Dorey, H., Grubstein, L., 

Naegeli, M., & Wasco, S. (1998). Introduction to Evaluation Training and Practice for 

Sexual Assault Service Delivery. Okemos, MI: Michigan Public Health Institute. 

Campbell, R., Davidson, W. S., Dorey, H., Bennett, K., Hagstrom, J., & Bonter, F. 

(2000). Resources for Evaluating Sexual Assault Service Delivery Programs. Okemos, 

MI: Michigan Public Health Institute. 

Campbell, R., Davidson, W.S., Dorey, H., Grubstein, L., & Naegeli, M. (1999b). 

EvaluationTraining and Practice for Sexual Assault Service Delivery, Part Two (Data 

Analysis). Okemos, MI: Michigan Public Health Institute. 

Campbell, R., Patterson, D., Adams, A., Diegel, R., & Coats, S. (2008). A participatory 

evaluation project to measure SANE nursing practice and adult sexual assault patients’ 

psychological well-being. Journal of Forensic Nursing, 4, 19-28. 

124 

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.
Campbell, R., Patterson, D., & Lichty, L. F. (2005). The Effectiveness of Sexual Assault 

Nurse Examiner (SANE) Programs: A review of psychological, medical, legal, and 

community change outcomes. Trauma Violence & Abuse, 6, 313-329. 

Campbell, R., Townsend, S.M., Long, S.M., Kinnison, K.E., Pulley, E.M., Adames, S.B., 

& Wasco, S.M. (2006). Responding to sexual assault victims’ medical and emotional 

needs: A national study of the services provided by SANE programs. Research in 

Nursing & Health, 29, 384-398. 

Campbell, R., Wasco, S.M., Ahrens, C.E., Sefl, T., & Barnes, H.E. (2001). Preventing 

the “second rape”: Rape survivors’ experiences with community service providers. 

Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16, 1239-1259. 

Chandler, S.M., & Torney, M. (1981). The decisions and the processing of rape victims 

through the criminal justice system. California Sociologist, 4, 155-169. 

Ciancone, A., Wilson, C., Collette, R., & Gerson, L. W. (2000). Sexual assault nurse 

examiner programs in the United States. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 35, 353-357. 

Cornell, D. (1998). Helping victims of rape: A program called SANE. New Jersey 

Medicine, 2, 45-46. 

Crandall, C. & Helitzer, D. (2003). Impact evaluation of a Sexual Assault Nurse 

Examiner (SANE) Program. NIJ Document No: 203276; Award Number 98-WT-VX0027. 

DiNitto, D., Martin, P.Y., Norton, D.B., & Maxwell, M.S. (1986). After rape: Who should 

examine rape survivors? American Journal of Nursing , 538-540. 

Ellsberg, M., and Heise, L. Researching Violence Against Women: A Practical Guide for 

Researchers and Activists. Washington, D.C., United States: World Health 

Organization; PATH; 2005. 

Emergency Nurses Association (2007). Care of sexual assault and rape victims in the 

emergency department. Position paper retrieved June 17, 2007, from 

http://www.ena.org/about/position/PDFs/21A9D5D9F4C549DE9EE8B7156F45C040.pdf 

Ericksen, J., Dudley, C., McIntosh, G., Ritch, L., Shumay, S., & Simpson, M. (2002). 

Client's experiences with a specialized sexual assault service. Journal of Emergency 

Nursing, 28 , 86-90. 

Frazier, P.A., & Haney, B. (1996). Sexual assault cases in the legal system: Police, 

prosecutor, and victim perspectives. Law and Human Behavior, 20 , 607-628. 

125 

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.
Galvin, J., & Polk, K. (1982). Attrition in case processing: Is rape unique? Journal of 

Research in Crime and Delinquency, 20 , 106-154. Hutson, L.A. (2002). Development of 

sexual assault nurse examiner programs. Emergency Nursing, 37 , 79-88. 

LaFree, G. (1980). Variables affecting guilty pleas and convictions in rape cases: 

Toward a social theory of rape processing. Social Forces, 58 , 833-850. 

Ledray, L. (1992). The sexual assault nurse clinician: A fifteen-year experience in 

Minneapolis. Journal of Emergency Nursing, 18 , 217-222. 

Ledray, L. (1999). Sexual assault nurse examiner (SANE) development & operations 

guide. Washington DC: Office for Victims of Crime, U.S. Department of Justice. 

Ledray, L. E., Faugno, D., & Speck, P. (2001). SANE: Advocate, forensic technician, 

nurse? Journal of Emergency Nursing, 27 , 91-93. 

Ledray, L., & Simmelink, K. (1997). Efficacy of SANE evidence collection: A Minnesota 

study. Journal of Emergency Nursing, 23 , 75-77. 

Littel, K. (2001). Sexual assault nurse examiner programs: Improving the community 

response to sexual assault victims. Office for Victims of Crime Bulletin, 4, 1-19. 

Lynch, V.A. (2006). Forensic nursing. St. Louis, MO: Elsevier Mosby. 

Malloy, M. (1991). Relationship of nurse identified therapeutic techniques to client 

satisfaction reports in a crisis program. Unpublished master's thesis, University of 

Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN. 

Patterson, D., Campbell, R., & Townsend, S.M. (2006). Sexual assault nurse 

examiner programs’ goals and patient care practices. Journal of Nursing 

Scholarship, 38, 180-186. 

Resnick, H.S., Holmes, M.M., Kilpatrick, D.G., Clum, G., Acierno, R., Best, C.L., et al., 

(2000). Predictors of post-rape medical care in a national sample of women. American 

Journal of Preventive Medicine, 19, 214-219. 

Rossi, P. H., Freeman, H. E., Lipsey, M. W. (2003). Evaluation: A Systematic Approach 

(7th Ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. 

Rovi, S. & Shimoni, N. (2002). Prophylaxis provided to sexual assault victims seen at 

US emergency departments. Journal of American Medical Women’s Association, 57, 

204-207. 

Seneski, P. (1992). Multi-disciplinary program helps sexual assault victims. The 

American College of Physician Executives , 417-418. 

126 

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.
Sievers, V., Murphy, S., & Miller, J. (2003). Sexual assault evidence collection more 

accurate when completed by sexual assault nurse examiners: Colorado's experience. 

Journal of Emergency Nursing, 29 , 511-514. 

Solola, A., Scott, C., Severs, H., & Howell, J. (1983). Sexual assault: Management in a 

noninstitutional setting. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 61, 373-378. 

Sullivan, C. M. (1998). Outcome evaluation strategies for domestic violence programs: 

A practical guide. Harrisburg, PA: Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence. 

Sullivan, C. M., & Alexy, C. (2001). Evaluating the outcomes of domestic violence 

service programs: Some practical considerations and strategies. “Applied Research 

Forum” document for the National Electronic Network on Violence Against Women. 

http://www.vaw.umn.edu/. 

Sullivan, C.M. & Coats, S. (2000). Outcome evaluation strategies for sexual assault 

service programs: A practical guide. Okemos, MI: Michigan Coalition Against Domestic 

and Sexual Violence. 

W.K. Kellogg Foundation (2004). Logic model development guide. Battle Creek, MI: 

Author. 

127 

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.
APPENDICES 

128

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.
APPENDIX A: 

NATIONAL PUBLISHED RATES OF SEXUAL ASSAULT CASE

PROGRESSION THROUGH THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

Studies of Communities Without Studies of Communities With a 

a SANE Program SANE Program 

Percentage of 

Cases Warranted 

Out of All 

Reported Cases 

Percentage of 

Cases Prosecuted 

Out of All 

Reported Cases 

Percentage of 

Cases 

Successfully 

Prosecuted 

Out of All 

Reported Cases 

34% (Campbell et al., 2008) 

16% (Frazier & Haney, 1996) 

17% (Galvin & Polk, 1982) 

18% (Chandler & Torney, 1981) 

38% (Crandall & Helitzer, 2003)* 

7% (Galvin & Polk, 1982) 

12% (LaFree, 1980) 

12% (Frazier & Haney, 1996) 

17% (Chandler & Torney, 1981) 

24% (Campbell et al., 2008) 

42% (Campbell et al., 2008) 

(Note that this community also 

had higher rates before the 

SANE program was 

implemented) 

50% (Crandall & Helitzer, 2003)* 

(Note that this community also 

had higher rates before the 

SANE program was 

implemented) 

29% (Campbell et al., 2008) 

(Note that this community also 

had high rates before the SANE 

program was implemented.) 

* Crandall & Helitzer reported on the number of cases that were presented to grand jury 

and presented to district court, which we classified as the number of cases that were 

prosecuted. 

129 

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.
APPENDIX B: 

TIPS FOR WORKING WITH AN OUTSIDE EVALUATOR/RESEARCHER 

A good evaluator should: 

• understand the dynamics of rape 

• understand the work of SANE programs 

• share your values/philosophy/perspective on the issue (e.g., treating 

survivors with dignity and respect, believing in the importance of 

empowerment, etc.) 

• care about the well-being of survivors and have ideas for protecting their 

safety and privacy 

• have a plan to obtain Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval when 

appropriate. (IRB approval is not required for some internal evaluations 

but may be required if you and the evaluator want to present, publish, or 

disseminate your findings). 

• value the perspective and participation of survivors in the evaluation of 

your program 

• be willing to plan and adapt an evaluation/research project in such a way 

that it will be useful to your program 

• encourage your involvement (and the involvement of other community 

partners as appropriate) in the evaluation/research project 

• value your feedback on the evaluation plan and take your 

recommendations seriously 

• provide you with information about the evaluation process 

• have a plan for sharing the findings of the evaluation with your program 

• be willing to work with your program to utilize the findings of the evaluation 

• offer you the opportunity to provide feedback and give approval for any 

grant applications, conference presentations, and publications 

• offer you shared authorship on conference presentation and organizations 

• protect the privacy/confidentiality of your organization 

130 

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.
APPENDIX C: SELECTING CASES

Year Criteria______________ Age Criteria______________ County______________ 

Patient Meets 

Year 

Criteria: 

Y/N 

Meets 

Age 

Criteria: 

Y/N 

Reported? 

Y/N 

Full Exam? 

Y/N 

County: 

Y/N 

Not 

homicide? 

Y/N 

Is the 

case 

eligible? 

Y/N 

131

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.
APPENDIX D: INFORMATION COLLECTION TABLE

Patient’s Last 

Name 

Patient’s 

First Name 

Complaint 

Number 

(if known) 

Date of Exam Case 

Outcome 

______ Not warranted 

______ Warranted, but later dismissed 

______ Pled/Plea Bargain reached 

______ Trial/Acquittal 

______ Trial/Conviction 

______ Unknown 

______ Not warranted 

______ Warranted, but later dismissed 

______ Pled/Plea Bargain reached 

______ Trial/Acquittal 

______ Trial/Conviction 

______ Unknown 

______ Not warranted 

______ Warranted, but later dismissed 

______ Pled/Plea Bargain reached 

______ Trial/Acquittal 

______ Trial/Conviction 

______ Unknown 

132

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.
APPENDIX E: 

ENTERING DATA AND CONDUCTING PERCENTAGES IN EXCEL

Entering your Data 

Entering your data involves two steps: 

1) Assigning each of your cases a unique identification number to replace their 

names. This process is necessary to protect survivors’ confidentiality and will 

remove their names from your lists. 

2) Next comes coding. Coding is the process whereby you transform your 

information (currently in word form) into numbers so that it can be entered into a 

database and analyzed by a computer program. 

1) Assigning identification numbers 

Assigning an ID number removes your patient’s name from the tables you are working 

with. This helps to protect patients’ confidentiality and privacy. This way, you don’t need 

to enter patients’ names into your computer database. However, if you ever need to 

check the information that has been entered into your database, you still have a link 

between cases in the database and their case information in your information collection 

table. 

On a separate piece of paper or in a new electronic file, enter the names of all the 

patients included in the evaluation, using your information collection table. Next to each 

name, assign a distinct ID number that is different from their patient record number. It 

helps if the ID number you assign is meaningful. For example, you may want to use the 

last four numbers of the patient’s case number or the last four numbers of their social 

security number. 

Once you are done with this ID list, it needs to be stored separately and locked up. If 

you created a computer file, print a copy, and delete the electronic version. Again, this 

helps to protect the confidentiality of your clients. Only those people with access to both 

files will be able to link their names with case information in your database. 

2) Coding 

To code the information you have collected, you need a codesheet. In a codesheet,

you assign a numerical value to every possible response to an evaluation question. 

Then, you record the code, or the number that corresponds to the information you 

collected for each case. We have provided a codesheet for you to use for this 

evaluation at the end of this section (see page 139). 

133 

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.
Using your information collection table and your ID list, enter each case into the 

codesheet. Enter the cases’ ID number and the codes that correspond to that case’s 

outcome. If you are conducting the pre-SANE post-SANE evaluation, complete one 

codesheet for pre cases and one for post cases. 

Check your Work 

If your program has the time and resources, have another person separately code 

approximately 30% of your cases. Then compare their coding to the original coding; 

make sure that each case has the same code selected for each case in both 

codesheets. If you find any discrepancies, check your original information collection 

table to find out which response is correct. Fix any errors in your original codesheet. If 

you find a lot of errors and are concerned about the accuracy of your original coding, 

you should check more than 30%, perhaps all of your cases, again correcting errors as 

you find them. The original codesheet will still be the one that is used during analyses. 

The secondary coding is only used to ensure accuracy. 

Creating a Database 

If you are unfamiliar with using Excel, here are directions for creating a database. These 

tips were created based on MS Excel (99-2003). The steps may differ slightly if you are 

using a different version of Excel. 

a) Save and name your file. 

Open Microsoft Excel>> 

File>> 

Save As>> 

Choose a location for your file (for example, My Documents or the 

Desktop.)>> 

Enter a name in the File Name box (for example, prosecution_rates)>> 

Save. 

b) Password Protect your file. 

File>> 

Save As>> 

Tools>> 

General Options>> 

Enter a password in “password to open”>> 

Re-enter your password>> 

Save>> 

If “replace existing file” comes up, choose yes. 

Make sure you keep track of your password. The computer will ask you for 

this password every time you open the file and you won’t be able to open 

the file without it. 

134 

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.
Creating your 

c) Label your columns. Database: 

 Your first row will be used to label your columns. Each 

subsequent row will be the data for one case. Horizontal Rows = 

 Type ID into the first column in the first row\ Individual cases 

 Type case outcome into the second column in the first First Row = Labels row 

for each column 

d) If you are doing the pre-SANE/post-SANE evaluation:

 Each Excel file has multiple worksheets. They are 

represented by tabs that say “Sheet 1”, “Sheet 2” and 

“Sheet 3”. Right click on Sheet 1 and Label that 

PreSANE. Right click on Sheet 2 and Label 

PostSANE. Repeat steps a-c in the PostSANE 

worksheet. 

e) Using your codesheet, enter one case at a time into the database.

 Enter your first case’s ID number in the first column of the second row 

(labeled ID). Then, using your codesheet, enter the code for that 

case’s outcome in the second column. 

 So that you don’t lose any of your work, you should save frequently. 

(Go to File>>Save) It is also recommended that you save your 

database in another place (for example, on another computer or on a 

zip or floppy disk that you lock up). This way, if your computer crashes, 

you don’t lose all of your work

 If you are using the pre-SANE/post-SANE design, enter the pre-SANE 

cases into the PreSANE worksheet and the post-SANE cases into the 

PostSANE worksheet. 

f) Check your work for errors. 

This step helps you check how accurate you were when you entered your 

information from your codesheet into your database. Go through your 

database and look for numbers that don’t belong, that is, numbers other 

than the ones you used as codes. In our codesheet, only 1-5 and 99 are 

numbers that were used as codes. If you find a 6 or an 11, you would 

need to go back to your codesheet to find the correct value and enter the 

correct number into the database. 

If you have the staff time, you may want to have someone Reminder: 

else (other than the person who did the original entering) After 

take your codesheet and check the accuracy of checking approximately 30% of the cases in your database. If you your work find any errors, correct them in the database. If you find a for errors,

lot of errors, you may want to check more of the cases, save and 

perhaps all of them. This is a strategy to make sure that back-up your information was entered correctly. your work. 

135

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.
g) Remove cases whose outcome was unknown 

Generally, it is most useful to calculate percentages based on the total 

number of cases that have a known outcome. Therefore, save your 

working file as a new file again (e.g., “prosecution rates_analyses_no 

unknowns”) and delete all of the cases that have a code for unknown, in 

our codesheet, all of the 99’s. 

Calculating Percentages 

Step 8a: Creating a Working Database 

Soon, you will be able to conduct frequencies and percentages in Excel, using the 

information that you entered into your database. First, to protect your work, you will 

want to begin by creating a working database. A working database is a duplicate 

database that you will use solely for conducting analyses. Having a separate database 

for conducting your analyses protects the integrity of your work. If you accidentally 

change your working database during analyses, you can always go back to your original 

database to find the correct information rather than having to re-enter information from 

your codesheet. 

Here are the steps for creating a working database: 

1) Open your original file 

2) Save as a new file name 

File>> 

Save As>> 

Enter a different name in the file name box (for example, 

prosecution_rates_analyses)>> 

Save 

Step 8b: Prepare your database for analyses. 

1) Download the Excel Analysis ToolPak 

Go to Tools>> 

Add-Ins>> 

Make sure the “Analysis ToolPak” box is checked>> 

Select “OK.” 

2) Insert a “bin” column. This tells the computer the possible codes for each 

evaluation question.

 Label the third column in your database “bin” (that is, type “bin” into the 

first cell of each of your new columns.)

 In this column, type all the possible codes, one code per cell. For this 

example, you would type 1,2,3,4, and 5. 

 Note the location of your bin column. This is denoted by the letter of the 

column and the numbers of the rows that contain the values you entered. 

136 

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.
If your bin column is C, and the codes are in rows 2 through 6, you would 

note C2:C6. 

 If you conducting the pre-SANE/post-SANE evaluation, complete this step 

in both worksheets. 

Step 8c: Conducting Frequency and Percentage Analyses 

Chart a Histogram. (A histogram is used to display frequencies.) 

Go to Tools>> 

Data Analysis>> 

Under “Analysis Tools” scroll down and select Histogram>> 

Select “OK”. 

A histogram box will appear. 

Under “Input”:

 In the input range enter the location of the information for the question you 

want to analyze, in this evaluation, the location of the case outcome 

data>> 

o This is denoted by the letter of the column and the row number 

of the first and last cell that contains case information for that 

question. (For example B2:B98)

 In the output range enter the location of the values in your bin column, 

which you wrote down in the previous step>> 

o If you used our codes, it would be C2:C7.

 Leave labels blank. 

Under “Output options”:

 Select New Worksheet Ply. (Selecting New Worksheet Ply will place your 

histogram in a new worksheet within the same file.)>> 

 Select “Cumulative Percentages.”>> 

 Select “OK.” 

Label your Output (Aka your results) 

 You may need to increase the width of your columns in order to view all of 

your results.

 Insert a new column at the beginning of the worksheet containing your 

histogram results.

 In the first cell of the new column, type case outcome. 

 Beneath this label, type the responses that correspond to each of the codes 

in the bin column (for example, next to 1 type in not warranted, next to 2 type 

in warranted, but later dismissed, etc.)

 This output gives you cumulative percentages- it does not give you your final 

results. Each cell shows you what percentage of cases had that outcome or 

any of the outcomes in the rows below. The next section enables you to 

calculate for each response, the actual percent of cases with that response. 

137 

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.
Calculate Percentages 

 In the same worksheet, go to the next blank column and type “percent” in the 

first row. 

 Copy the first value from “cumulative percent” into the first cell under the new 

percent column.

 The next cell, C2 is it’s actual percentage, so it should be left alone. In next 

cell, C3 type “=B3-B2” and hit enter on your keyboard. This is the actual 

percentage for this row.

 Click in this cell again. Click on the small black box in the bottom right corner 

of the cell, and drag it down through the all of the remaining cells, except the 

last cell. These give you the percentages for the remaining rows. The second 

cell should still be left alone, the next should be B3-B2, the next should read 

B4-B3 and so on. 

Check your work 

Click in the last row. Highlight the percentages that you have calculated. On the 

toolbar, choose the sigma symbol (Σ), which stands for sum. If your work has 

been correct, your percents should add up to 100. If not, you need to go back 

and check your work for errors. 

Reminder: 

Name, Save, and Interpret your Results After 

 Name your worksheet. We suggest using percentages or checking 

results. Save your database. your work 

 If you are conducting the pre-SANE/post-SANE evaluation, for errors, 

complete this step for the pre-SANE worksheet, then again save and 

for the post-SANE worksheet. Make sure to label your results back-up 

so that you can tell which are pre-SANE and which are post- your work. 

SANE. 

 Return to the body of the toolkit to compare your results to national norms or 

to compare pre-SANE and post-SANE data. 

138 

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 16: Codesheet 

ID Case 

Outcome Code 

______ Not warranted = 1 

______ Warranted, but later dismissed = 2 

______ Pled/Plea Bargain reached = 3 

______ Trial/Acquittal =4 

______ Trial/Conviction =5 

______ Unknown = 99 

______ Not warranted = 1 

______ Warranted, but later dismissed = 2 

______ Pled/Plea Bargain reached = 3 

______ Trial/Acquittal =4 

______ Trial/Conviction =5 

______ Unknown = 99 

______ Not warranted = 1 

______ Warranted, but later dismissed = 2 

______ Pled/Plea Bargain reached = 3 

______ Trial/Acquittal =4 

______ Trial/Conviction =5 

______ Unknown = 99 

139 

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.
APPENDIX F: FREQUENCY TABLE

Final Case Outcome Number of Cases 

Not warranted 

Warranted but later dismissed 

Pled/ Plea bargain reached 

Trial/ Acquittal 

Trial/ Conviction 

Unknown 

Total Number of Cases 

Final Case Outcome Number of Cases 

Not warranted 

Warranted but later dismissed 

Pled/ Plea bargain reached 

Trial/ Acquittal 

Trial/ Conviction 

Unknown 

Total Number of Cases 

140 

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.
APPENDIX G: PERCENTAGE TABLE

Final Case Outcome 

Frequency/ 

Number of 

Cases 

Divide by 

number of cases 

that you have 

information 

about (100) 

Multiply by 100 

Not warranted 

Warranted but later 

dismissed 

Pled/ Plea bargain reached 

Trial/ Acquittal 

Trial/ Conviction 

Check your work/Totals 

Final Case Outcome 

Frequency/ 

Number of 

Cases 

Divide by 

number of cases 

that you have 

information 

about (100) 

Multiply by 100 

Not warranted 

Warranted but later 

dismissed 

Pled/ Plea bargain reached 

Trial/ Acquittal 

Trial/ Conviction 

Check your work/Totals 

141 

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.
APPENDIX H: POST-ONLY TOTALS TO BE COMPARED TO RATES FROM 

NATIONAL STUDIES 

1. Percentage of Cases Not Warranted vs. Warranted. 

Percent of Cases 

 Not Warranted Warranted 

Your Totals % % 

2. Percentage of Cases Prosecuted vs. Not Prosecuted 

Percent of Cases 

 Not Prosecuted Prosecuted 

Your Totals % % 

3. Percentage of Cases Not Successfully Prosecuted vs. Successfully Prosecuted 

Percent of Cases 

Not Successfully Prosecuted Successfully Prosecuted 

Your Totals % % 

142 

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.
APPENDIX I: COMPARING YOUR RATES FROM PRE- TO POST-SANE 

1. Was there a significant increase in the number of cases that were warranted from 

pre-SANE to post-SANE? 

Number/Frequency of Cases

 Not Warranted Warranted 

Pre-SANE 

Post-SANE 

p-value _____________ 

Statistically significant difference? _____________ 

Percent of Cases 

 Not Warranted Warranted 

Pre-SANE % % 

Post-SANE % % 

2. Was there a significant increase in the number of cases that were prosecuted (i.e., 

cases that made it to trial or plea bargain) from pre-SANE to post-SANE? 

Number/Frequency of Cases

 Not Prosecuted Prosecuted 

Pre-SANE 

Post-SANE 

p-value _____________ 

Statistically significant difference? _____________ 

143 

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.
Percent of Cases 

 Not Prosecuted Prosecuted 

Pre-SANE % % 

Post-SANE % % 

3. Was there a significant increase in the number of cases that were successfully 

prosecuted (i.e., cases that were resulted in a guilty plea or conviction a trail) from 

pre-SANE to post-SANE? 

Number/Frequency of Cases 

Not Successfully Prosecuted Successfully Prosecuted 

Pre-SANE 

Post-SANE 

p-value _____________ 

Statistically significant difference? _____________ 

Percent of Cases 

Not Successfully Prosecuted Successfully Prosecuted 

Pre-SANE % % 

Post-SANE % % 

144 

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.