Throughout the United States, hundreds of thousands of sexual assault kits (SAKs; also termed “rape kits”) have never been submitted by law enforcement personnel to a crime laboratory for forensic DNA testing. Prior research indicates that negative stereotypes about victims influence police decisions to submit kits for testing, but forensic crime laboratory personnel may also be involved in SAK submission decisions. The purpose of the current study was to explore the communication and collaboration between police and crime lab personnel regarding SAK submissions within a community with large numbers of unsubmitted rape kits. Drawing from 3 years of ethnographic observations and longitudinal qualitative interviews, we found that the police department’s crime lab did not have sufficient resources to test all rape kits in police custody, which is a problem forensic laboratories are facing throughout the United States. However, we also found that access to this limited resource was controlled by crime lab personnel and their rape myth beliefs about which victims and which cases were considered worthy of the time, effort, and attention of the criminal justice system. Lab personnel emphasized that police should only submit “real” cases for forensic DNA testing, which they typically defined as physically violent stranger-perpetrated sexual assaults; “shady” cases did not merit testing, which they defined as known-offender assaults, reports made by adolescent victims, and cases in which the victim may have been engaged in sex work. We noted marked similarities in police and lab personnel’s rape myth acceptance, and stakeholders readily agreed that they did have a common understanding about which victims were not credible and therefore which SAKs did not merit testing. We discuss these findings in light of recommendations from the National Academy of Sciences for the independence and autonomy of the forensic sciences from law enforcement.
AldagR. J.FullerS. R. (1993). Beyond fiasco: A reappraisal of the groupthink phenomenon and a new model of group decision processes. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 533–552.
2.
AndersonJ. M.MatthiesC.GreathouseS.ChariA. V. (2018). The unrealized promise of forensic science—An empirical study of its production and use. RAND Working Paper, SSRN 3178156.
3.
BouffardJ. A. (2000). Predicting type of sexual assault case closure from victim, suspect, and case characteristics. Journal of Criminal Justice, 28, 527–542.
4.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2002). Census of publicly funded forensic crime laboratories, 2002. U.S. Department of Justice.
5.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2005). Census of publicly funded forensic crime laboratories, 2005. U.S. Department of Justice.
6.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2009). Census of publicly funded forensic crime laboratories, 2009. U.S. Department of Justice.
7.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2014). Publicly funded forensic crime laboratories: Resources and services, 2014. U.S. Department of Justice.
8.
BurtM. R. (1980). Cultural myths and supports for rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 217–230.
9.
ButlerJ. M. (2005). Forensic DNA typing: Biology, technology, and genetics of STR markers. Elsevier.
10.
ButlerJ. M. (2014). Advanced topics in forensic DNA typing: Interpretation. Elsevier.
11.
CampbellR. (2008). The psychological impact of rape victims’ experiences with the legal, medical, and mental health systems. American Psychologist, 68, 702–717.
12.
CampbellR. (2017). Qualitative fieldwork within the criminal justice system: Emotions, advocacy, and the pursuit of social justice for untested sexual assault kits (SAKs). Qualitative Psychology, 4, 315–325.
13.
CampbellR.BybeeD.KelleyK. D.DworkinE. R.PattersonD. (2012). The impact of Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE) program services on law enforcement investigational practices: A mediational analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39, 169–184.
14.
CampbellR.FeeneyH.Fehler-CabralG.ShawJ.HorsfordS. (2017). The national problem of untested sexual assault kits (SAKs): Scope, causes, and future directions for research, policy, and practice. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 18, 363–376.
15.
CampbellR.Fehler-CabralG. (2017). Accountability, collaboration, and social change: Ethical tensions in an action research project to address untested sexual assault kits (SAKs). American Journal of Community Psychology, 60, 476–482.
16.
CampbellR.Fehler-CabralG. (2018). Why police “couldn’t or wouldn’t” submit sexual assault kits (SAKs) for forensic DNA testing: A focal concerns theory analysis of untested rape kits. Law & Society Review, 52, 73–105.
17.
CampbellR.Fehler-CabralG.PierceS. J.SharmaD.BybeeD.ShawJ.HorsfordS.FeeneyH. (2015). The Detroit sexual assault kit (SAK) action research project (ARP) (NIJ 2011-DN-BX-0001). National Institute of Justice.
18.
CampbellR.Goodman-WilliamsR.FeeneyH.Fehler-CabralG. (2020). Assessing triangulation across methodologies, methods, and stakeholder groups: The joys, woes, and politics of interpreting convergent and divergent data. American Journal of Evaluation, 41, 125–144.
19.
CampbellR.JohnsonC. R. (1997). Police officers’ perceptions of rape: Is there consistency between state law and individual beliefs?Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12, 255–274.
20.
CampbellR.ShawJ.Fehler-CabralG. (2015). Shelving justice: The discovery of thousands of untested rape kits in Detroit. City & Community, 14, 151–166.
21.
ColeJ. (2018). Structural, organizational, and interpersonal factors influencing interprofessional collaboration on sexual assault response teams. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 33, 2682–2703.
22.
ColeJ.LoganT. K. (2008). Negotiating the challenges of multidisciplinary responses to sexual assault victims: Sexual assault nurse examiner and victim advocacy programs. Research in Nursing & Health, 31, 76–85.
23.
CorbinJ.StraussA. (2008). Basics of qualitative research (3rd ed.). SAGE.
24.
CorriganR. (2013). Up against a wall: Rape reform and the failure of success. New York University Press.
25.
CreswellJ. W. (2012). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). SAGE.
26.
Department of Justice. (2000). The FBI’s combined DNA index system program: CODIS.
27.
Department of Justice. (2013). A national protocol for sexual assault medical forensic examinations: Adults & adolescents (2nd ed.).
28.
EdwardsK. M.TurchikJ. A.DardisC. M.ReynoldsN.GidyczC. A. (2011). Rape myths: History, individual and institutional-level presence, and implications for change. Sex Roles, 65, 761–773.
29.
EmersonR. M.FretzR. I.ShawL. L. (2011). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press.
30.
EpsteinD.GoodmanL. A. (2019). Discounting women: Doubting domestic violence survivors’ credibility and dismissing their experiences. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 167, 399–461.
31.
EricksonF. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In WittrockM. C. (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 119–161). Macmillan.
32.
EsserJ. K. (1998). Alive and well after 25 years: A review of groupthink research. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 73, 116–141.
33.
EstrichS. (1987). Real rape. Harvard University Press.
34.
FeildH. S. (1978). Attitudes toward rape: A comparative analysis of police, rapists, crisis counselors, and citizens. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 156–179.
35.
FrazierP.HaneyB. (1996). Sexual assault cases in the legal system: Police, prosecutor and victim perspectives. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 607–628.
36.
GarzaA. D.FranklinC. A. (in press). The effect of rape myth endorsement on police response to sexual assault survivors. Violence Against Women. https://doi.org/1077801220911460
37.
GlaserB. G. (2007). Doing formal theory. In BryantA.CharmazK. (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of grounded theory (pp. 97–113). SAGE.
38.
GlaserB. G.StraussA. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine.
39.
Goodman-DelahuntyJ.GrahamK. (2011). The influence of victim intoxication and victim attire on police responses to sexual assault. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 8, 22–40.
40.
Government Accountability Office. (2019). DNA: DOJ should improve performance measurement and propert design controls for national wide grant program.
41.
GreesonM. R.CampbellR. (2013). Sexual assault response teams (SARTs): An empirical review of their effectiveness and challenges to successful implementation. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 14, 83–95.
42.
GreesonM. R.CampbellR. (2015). Coordinated community efforts to respond to sexual assault: A national study of Sexual Assault Response Team (SART) implementation. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30, 2470–2487.
43.
GuestG.BunceA.JohnsonL. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18, 59–82.
44.
HenningsenD. D.HenningsenM. L. M.EdenJ.CruzM. G. (2006). Examining the symptoms of groupthink and retrospective sensemaking. Small Group Research, 37, 36–64.
45.
Human Rights Watch. (2009). Testing justice: The rape kit backlog in Los Angeles City and County. Author.
46.
Human Rights Watch. (2010). I used to think the law would protect me” Illinois’s failure to test rape kits. Author.
47.
JanisI. (1972). Victims of groupthink. Houghton Mifflin.
JanisI. (1989). Crucial decisions: Leadership in policymaking and crisis management. Free Press.
50.
JohnsonD.PetersonJ.SommersI.BaskinD. (2012). Use of forensic science in investigating crimes of sexual violence: Contrasting its theoretical potential with empirical realities. Violence Against Women, 18, 193–222.
KaiserK. A.O’NealE. N.SpohnC. (2017). “Victim refuses to cooperate”: A focal concerns analysis of victim cooperation in sexual assault cases. Victims & Offenders, 12, 297–322.
53.
KelleyK. D.CampbellR. (2013). Moving on or dropping out: Police processing of adult sexual assault cases. Women & Criminal Justice, 23, 1–18.
54.
KerstetterW. (1990). Gateway to justice: Police and prosecutor response to sexual assault against women. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 81, 267–313.
55.
KramerM. W.DoughertyD. S. (2013). Groupthink as communication process, not outcome. Communication & Social Change, 1, 44–62.
56.
LincolnY. S.GubaE. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE.
57.
LonswayK. A.ArchambaultJ. (2012). The “justice gap” for sexual assault cases: Future directions of research and reform. Violence Against Women, 18, 145–168.
58.
LonswayK. A.FitzgeraldL. F. (1994). Rape myths. In review. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18, 133–164.
59.
LonswayK. A.WelchS.FitzgeraldL. F. (2001). Police training in sexual assault response: Process, outcomes, and elements of change. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 28, 695–730.
60.
LuminaisM.LovellR.FlanneryD. (2017). Perceptions of why the sexual assault kit Backlog exists in Cuyahoga County, Ohio and recommendations for improving practice. Begun Center for Violence Prevention Research and Education.
61.
MaddoxL.LeeD.BarkerC. (2012). The impact of psychological consequences of rape on rape case attrition: The police perspective. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 27, 33–44.
62.
MartinP. Y. (2005). Rape work: Victims, gender, and emotions in organization and community context. Routledge.
63.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M.SaldanaJ. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A method sourcebook (3rd ed.). SAGE.
64.
MorabitoM. S.PattavinaA.WilliamsL. M. (2019). It all just piles up: Challenges to victim credibility accumulate to influence sexual assault case processing. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 34, 3151–3170.
65.
MoylanC. A.LindhorstT.TajimaE. A. (2017). Contested discourses in multidisciplinary sexual assault response teams (SARTs). Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 32, 3–22.
66.
MullaS. (2014). The violence of care: Rape victims, forensic nurses, and sexual assault intervention. NYU Press.
67.
MurphyS. B.EdwardsK. M.BennettS.BibeauS. J.SichelstielJ. (2014). Police reporting practices for sexual assault cases in which “the victim does not wish to pursue charges..”Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29, 144–156.
68.
National Academy of Sciences. (2009). Strengthening forensic science in the United States: A path forward.
69.
O’NealE. N. (2019). “Victim is not credible”: The influence of rape culture on police perceptions of sexual assault complainants. Justice Quarterly, 36, 127–160.
70.
O’NealE. N.SpohnC. (2017). When the perpetrator is a partner: Arrest and charging decisions in intimate partner sexual assault cases—A focal concerns analysis. Violence Against Women, 23, 707–729.
71.
PackerD. J. (2009). Avoiding groupthink: Whereas weakly identified members remain silent, strongly identified members dissent about collective problems. Psychological Science, 20, 546–548.
72.
PageA. D. (2007). Behind the blue line: Investigating police officers’ attitudes toward rape. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 22, 22–32.
73.
PageA. D. (2008). Gateway to reform? Police implications of police officers’ attitudes towards rape. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 33, 44–58.
74.
PageA. D. (2010). True colors: Police officers and rape myth acceptance. Feminist Criminology, 5, 315–334.
75.
ParkW. W. (2000). A comprehensive empirical investigation of the relationships among variables of the groupthink model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 873–887.
76.
PattavinaA.MorabitoM.WilliamsL. M. (2016). Examining connections between the police and prosecution in sexual assault case processing: Does the use of exceptional clearance facilitate a downstream orientation?Victims & Offenders, 11, 315–334.
77.
PattersonD. (2011a). The linkage between secondary victimization by law enforcement and rape case outcomes. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 328–347.
78.
PattersonD. (2011b). The impact of detectives’ manner of questioning on rape victims’ disclosure. Violence Against Women, 17, 1349–1373.
79.
PattersonD.CampbellR. (2012). The problem of untested sexual assault kits: Why are some kits never submitted to a crime laboratory?Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27, 2259–2275.
80.
PinchevskyG. M. (2018). Criminal justice considerations for unsubmitted and untested sexual assault kits: A review of the literature and suggestions for moving forward. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 29, 925–945.
81.
RichK.SeffrinP. (2012). Police interviews of sexual assault reporters: Do attitudes matter?Violence and Victims, 27(2), 263–279.
82.
RitterN. (2011). The road ahead: Unanalyzed evidence in sexual assault cases. The National Institute of Justice.
83.
SandelowskiM. (1995). Sample size in qualitative research. Research in Nursing & Health, 18, 179–183.
84.
ShawJ.CampbellR. (2013). Sexual assault kit (SAK) submission among adolescent rape cases treated in forensic nurse examiner programs. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28, 3400–3417.
85.
ShawJ.CampbellR.CainD. (2016). The view from within the system: How police explain their response to sexual assault. American Journal of Community Psychology, 58, 446–462.
86.
ShawJ.CampbellR.CainD.FeeneyH. (2017). Beyond surveys and scales: How rape myths manifest in sexual assault police records. Psychology of Violence, 7, 602–614.
87.
ShawJ.CoatesV.JanulisP. (in press). High rates of sexual assault kit submission and the important role of place. Journal of Criminal Justice. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2020.101671
88.
ShawJ.LeeH. (2019). Race and the criminal justice system response to sexual assault: A systematic review. American Journal of Community Psychology, 64, 256–278.
89.
SimsR. R.SauserW. I. (2013). Toward a better understanding of the relationships among received wisdom, groupthink, and organizational ethical culture. Journal of Management Policy and Practice, 14, 75–90.
90.
SleathE.BullR. (2012). Comparing rape victim and perpetrator blaming in a police officer sample: Differences between police officers with and without special training. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39, 646–665.
91.
SleathE.BullR. (2015). A brief report on rape myth acceptance: Differences between police officers, law students, and psychology students in the United Kingdom. Violence and Victims, 30, 136–147.
92.
SpohnC. (2020). Sexual assault case processing: The more things change, the more the stay the same. International Journal for Crime, Justice, and Social Democracy, 9, 86–94.
93.
SpohnC.BeichnerD.Davis-FrenzelE. (2001). Prosecutorial justifications for sexual assault case rejection: Guarding the “gateway to justice.”Social Problems, 48, 206–235.
94.
SpohnC.TellisK. (2010). Justice denied? The exceptional clearance of rape cases in Los Angeles. Albany Law Review, 74, 1379–1421.
95.
SpohnC.TellisK. (2012). The criminal justice system’s response to sexual violence. Violence Against Women, 18, 169–192.
96.
SpohnC.TellisK.O’NealE. N. (2014). Policing and prosecuting sexual assault. Critical Issues on Violence Against Women: International Perspectives and Promising Strategies, 3, 93–103.
97.
SpohnC.WhiteC.TellisK. (2014). Unfounding sexual assault: Examining the decision to unfound and identifying false reports. Law and Society Review, 48, 161–192.
98.
StromK. J.HendrixJ. A.ParishW. J.MeltonP. (2017). Efficiency in processing sexual assault kits in crime laboratories and law enforcement agencies. U.S. Department of Justice.
99.
StromK. J.HickmanM. J. (2010). Unanalyzed evidence in law-enforcement agencies: A national examination of forensic processing in police departments. Criminology & Public Policy, 9, 381–404.
100.
SuarezE.GadallaT. M. (2010). Stop blaming the victim: A meta-analysis on rape myths. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 2010–2035.
101.
TascaM.RodriguezN.SpohnC.KossM. P. (2012). Police decision making in sexual assault cases: Predictors of suspect identification and arrest. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28, 1157–1177.
102.
ValentineJ. L.SekulaK.CookL. J.CampbellR.ColbertA.WeednV. W. (2019). Justice denied: Low submission rates of sexual assault kits and the predicting variables. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 34, 3547–3573.
103.
ValentineJ. L.ShawJ.LarkA.CampbellR. (2016). Now we know: Assessing sexual assault criminal justice case processing in an urban community using the SANE (Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner) practitioner toolkit. Journal of Forensic Nursing, 12, 133–140.
104.
VenemaR. M. (2016). Police officer schema of sexual assault reports: Real rape, ambiguous cases, and false reports. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 31, 872–899.
105.
VenemaR. M. (2018). Police officers’ rape myth acceptance: Examining the role of officer characteristics, estimates of false reporting, and social desirability bias. Violence and Victims, 33, 176–200.
106.
VenemaR. M. (2019). Making judgments: How blame mediates the influence of rape myth acceptance in police response to sexual assault. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 34, 2697–2722.
107.
WentzE.ArchboldC. A. (2012). Police perceptions of sexual assault victims: Exploring the intra-female gender hostility thesis. Police Quarterly, 15, 25–44.
