Investigators’ and Prosecutors’ Perceptions of Collaborating With Victim Advocates on Sexual Assault Casework

Abstract

Despite the importance of strong partnerships between victim advocates and criminal justice officials, few studies have examined criminal justice officials’ perspectives on collaborating with victim advocates. Officials’ perspectives on advocates’ roles in the investigation and prosecution of sexual assaults are measured to understand the barriers to collaboration and strengths that can be capitalized upon. A sample of sexual assault investigators from a large police department were interviewed using a structured questionnaire. A sample of prosecutors from the jurisdiction, experienced in processing sexual assault cases, responded to paper-and-pencil surveys. Findings reveal that officials believe advocates make positive contributions to the justice system process through effective communication and by supporting victims and their families. Barriers to strong partnerships include concerns about role conflicts and advocate involvement in criminal investigations. Reform efforts can use these findings through explicit work to capitalize on perceived strengths and overcome barriers.

Keywords

victim advocacy violence against women rape criminal court

Introduction

Rape crisis centers (RCCs) provide a variety of services to sexual assault victims, including legal advocacy. Legal advocacy includes efforts aimed at preventing secondary victimization during the justice process and supporting victims during interviews with criminal justice system officials. Victim cooperation greatly affects officials’ decisions to investigate sexual assaults and to arrest and charge offenders (Beichner & Spohn, 2005; Bouffard, 2000; Frazier & Haney, 1996; Kingsnorth, Lopez, Wentworth, & Cummings, 1998; Kingsnorth, MacIntosh, & Wentworth, 1999; LaFree, 1981; Rose & Randall, 1982; Spohn & Holleran, 2001).

Legal advocacy also includes advocates’ collaboration with criminal justice officials to support victims as their cases proceed through the justice process. Studies have identified the positive impact of collaboration between advocates and officials on enforcement and prosecution of sexual assaults (Campbell, 2006; Reuland, Morabito, Preston, & Cheney, 2006). However, studies have also identified friction between advocates and law enforcement officials. Advocate and police relationships can be characterized by contrasting perspectives and beliefs (Saunders & Size, 1986; Sudderth, 2006) and “negative stereotyping” (Saunders & Size, 1986, p. 25). Sadusky (2001) states that this conflict arises from the male dominance and culture of police organizations. Sudderth (2006) explains that conflict arises from the contrast between advocacy organizations’ feminist values and police organizations’ militaristic structure, as well as the lack of avenues for redressing conflicts between these organizations.

The current study examines prosecutors’ and sexual assault investigators’ perceptions of their collaboration with victim advocates. It is important to note that criminal justice officials’ perspectives on this topic have not received significant attention from researchers. Officials may often determine how sexual assault cases are processed and are a powerful vehicle for identifying problems and implementing reforms in local contexts. The valuation of advocates’ services, as perceived by criminal justice system actors, may inform the development of collaborative policies and working relationships between the groups when responding to sexual assaults.

Literature Review

The range of services provided by victim advocate organizations may be categorized into care work and legal work (Kolb, 2011). Care work refers to services that assist sexual assault survivors in emotionally coping with their victimization, the criminal justice process, and the community’s reaction to the event (Ericksen et al., 2002; Gillis et al., 2006; Hamilton & Coates, 1993; Ullman, 1996). Legal work entails the delivery of services that assist survivors in navigating the legal process. Advocates’ support for victims yields a variety of benefits, including enhanced cooperation, improved treatment of victims by criminal justice officials, and improved recovery for victims (Campbell, 2006; Ullman, 1996).

Research shows that advocates affect victims’ experiences with the criminal justice process (Campbell, Wasco, Ahrens, Sefl, & Barnes, 2001; Cattaneo, Goodman, Epstein, Kohn, & Zanville, 2009; Erez & Belknap, 1998; Ullman, 1996; Wasco et al., 2004) and victim’s participation with justice system officials (Campbell, 2006; Dawson & Dinovitzer, 2001; Erez & Belknap, 1998; Goodman, Bennett, & Dutton, 1999; Hotaling & Buzawa, 2003). Victims’ interactions with criminal justice officials (see Spohn & Tellis, 2012, for a review; Patterson, 2011a, 2011b) and medical staff (Maier, 2008) appear to influence victims’ cooperation with officials during the criminal justice process. Advocates improve victim participation by providing tangible support (Goodman et al., 1999), reducing “secondary victimization” (Campbell et al., 2001; Patterson, 2011a, 2011b), improving victims’ knowledge of and autonomy within the legal system (Maier, 2008), and linking victims to available services (Campbell, 2006; Campbell & Martin, 2001; Maier, 2008; Wasco et al., 2004). For these reasons, there have been many attempts to create closer working relationships between victim advocates and criminal justice system agencies. Some successful examples have been highlighted by Cattaneo and colleagues (2009)¹ as well as Zweig and Burt (2007).²

The Context of Collaboration

Potential partnerships between victim service providers and justice system agencies are embedded within the context of the criminal justice system and criminal justice workgroups. Processing sexual assault cases requires actions by medical staff—including specially trained nurse examiners—as well as patrol officers, investigators, prosecutors, and victim advocates. Those who promote Sexual Assault Response Teams (SARTs) recommend officials form a workgroup that comprehensively responds to sexual assaults (Kykindall, 2013). This workgroup context shapes advocates’ roles, the operations of collaborative partners, and the impact of services on victims’ well-being and justice system outcomes.

The courtroom workgroup and police investigation framework allow for an understanding of the contexts that may shape collaborations and ultimately determine the chances that collaborations succeed. The courtroom workgroup refers to the informal collaboration and shared norms between courtroom actors (i.e., judges, prosecutors, and defense counsels) in managing caseloads on a daily basis (Eisenstein & Jacob, 1991). Workgroup members operate under mutually agreeable, informal rules when making decisions and processing cases. These rules reflect a shared expectation that conflict will be minimized and case processing expedited. Thus, the workgroup reflects typical administrative and organizational goals, such as maximizing efficiency (Eisenstein & Jacob, 1991; Lipetz, 1980; Nardulli, 1978).

To maximize the chances of a conviction, prosecutors adopt a downstream orientation to judges’ and jurors’ perceptions of a case, such that prosecutorial decision making seeks to maximize conviction rates, by charging cases where judges and jurors are likely to perceive victims as credible (Frohmann, 1997). Police officers may also adopt a downstream orientation by considering aspects of the case when making decisions about how to proceed (Lord & Rassel, 2000). The likelihood of a conviction is impacted not only by the seemingly objective characteristics of the case but also by workgroup members’ perceptions of other case elements, such as victim credibility. Understandably, the courtroom workgroup’s focus on maximizing convictions and efficiency may conflict with advocates’ objectives. For example, research has found that “police officers’ mission to establish a good case interferes with their ability to treat victims with sensitivity” (Maier, 2008, p. 789).

Workgroup dynamics may enhance or detract from the quality of responses and services provided to victims. Unaddressed role conflict between law enforcement officials and advocates may compromise the potential value of collaborations. Police officers may pursue the evidence needed to obtain a conviction to the exclusion of advocates (Lonsway & Archambault, 2012). Advocates interviewed by Kolb (2011) reported that police officers were more concerned with legal work and were dismissive of care work (see also Campbell, 2006). Victims receive better services when those services are coordinated, although, it may be that services are frequently uncoordinated (Campbell & Ahrens, 1998; Cattaneo et al., 2009). A study of police responses to domestic violence in 11 sites examined the characteristics of police–social service agency collaborations. Interviews with police personnel and personnel from social service agencies in the community, such as advocates and shelter directors, revealed that one of the important barriers to successful partnerships was “poor officer attitudes about the partnership, domestic violence, or both” (Reuland et al., 2006, p. 34).

Research on collaborations between advocates and criminal justice officials has not frequently applied the courtroom workgroup concept (Carmody, 2006; Martin & Powell, 1994; Patterson, 2011a, 2011b). Furthermore, most research on this topic has focused on victims’ perspectives (Campbell, 2006; Campbell et al., 2001; Cattaneo et al., 2009; Erez & Belknap, 1998; Ericksen et al., 2002; Gillis et al., 2006; Goodman et al., 1999; Hamilton & Coates, 1993; Hotaling & Buzawa, 2003; Patterson, 2011a, 2011b; Ullman, 1996; Wasco et al., 2004; Zweig & Burt, 2007) or advocates’ perspectives (Kolb, 2011; Maier, 2008; Schmitt & Martin, 1999) about how the criminal justice system handles sexual assault cases. Criminal justice officials are important actors in a community’s response to sexual assault, but few studies have considered law enforcement officials’ and prosecutors’ perspectives on collaborating with advocates (Campbell & Ahrens, 1998; Lord & Rassel, 2000) and considered the effects of the courtroom workgroup on this collaboration (Carmody, 2006; Martin & Powell, 1994). The current study seeks to begin filling this gap in the existing knowledge base.

Data and Method

Data were collected from two samples of criminal justice professionals. The first is a sample of Houston Police Department (HPD) detectives assigned to investigate sexual assaults committed against adult and juvenile victims. Interviews were conducted with 44 investigators, including 13 investigators (29.5%) assigned to adult victimization cases and 31 investigators (70.5%) assigned to juvenile victimization cases. A total of 49 investigators were approached for interviews and 44 participated, resulting in an 89.8% response rate.

Interview data were collected as part of a larger action-research project and included a broad range of questions about the investigative process, the use of forensic evidence, and the prioritization of cases. The purpose of the larger project influenced the questions about collaborations with advocates. Face-to-face interviews were conducted with a semi-structured interview protocol that was developed with input from researchers, investigators, and investigative-unit supervisors. One question for investigators asked, “Do you think that advice/collaboration with a victim advocate would be helpful to the process of contacting victims in cold cases so you can work on their case again?” Another question asked, “What role should victim advocates, like [local community victim advocate organization and criminal justice system victim advocates], play in decreasing the difficulties for victims associated with sexual assault victimization and with reporting?” This question attempted to identify ways advocates could be integrated into the criminal justice system response to improve services. The responses to these two questions were analyzed for the current study.

Prosecutors’ responses were collected with a paper and pencil survey. The questionnaire was developed by researchers and an administrator in the Harris County District Attorney’s Office (HCDAO) who had experience prosecuting sexual assault cases. This HCDAO administrator identified 45 prosecutors in the HCDAO who were experienced in sexual assault casework and distributed surveys to them. Thirty-five surveys were returned, resulting in a 78% response rate. Prosecutors were asked to respond to the following items about victim advocates’ work: “Please describe the role that victim advocates play in the prosecution of sexual assaults”; “Is there a different role they can play to improve the prosecution process”; “How might victim advocates improve the prosecution of sexual assault cases”; “In your opinion, what are the biggest challenges faced by victims when working with prosecutors on sexual assault cases”; and “What can be done to reduce these challenges that victims face.” The survey included several lines of space so respondents could provide written responses. These questions address “advocates” in a very general sense rather than differentiating between, for instance, system and community advocates. This limits the opportunity to understand potential differences between types of advocates and advocacy, but it allows for a generalized understanding of advocacy.

The qualitative data were analyzed with an iterative process. Each data source was analyzed independently so results are presented separately for investigators and prosecutors. The first author read prosecutors’ responses to the four survey items, developed themes to summarize responses, and then used the themes to code the responses. The second author independently coded the survey responses using the identified themes. The first and second authors then identified discrepancies and resolved coding differences. The second author read all responses to the two investigators’ interview items, created summary codes, and coded the interview responses. A graduate research assistant independently coded the interview data using the summary codes. The second author and graduate research assistant resolved coding discrepancies.

Findings

Prosecutors

Advocates’ roles in the prosecution of sexual assaults

Prosecutors hold positive views about victim advocates: Approximately half (n = 18) reported that advocates are important, helpful, or excellent. A single respondent noted that advocates provide little or no assistance. Six prosecutors reported that advocates are uniquely important in child-victim cases. One prosecutor wrote, “advocates help children navigate the process and cope with the trauma of testifying.”

According to prosecutors, advocates fulfill two specific roles. First, many (n = 19) prosecutors observed that advocates provide emotional support and reduce victims’ stress throughout the criminal justice processes. Specifically, advocates help victims understand court processes, prepare victims for trial, and are available for victims when prosecutors are not available. One prosecutor noted that “[advocates are] very helpful in providing emotional support to the victim during the process. They allow the prosecutor to focus on prosecuting the case.” The last part of this response was noted by another prosecutor: Advocates’ work allows prosecutors to focus on their responsibilities. The second common role prosecutors described was that of a liaison. Advocates communicate with victims, help coordinate meetings and appointments, assist victims with court appearances, and keep victims informed about the legal process. One prosecutor wrote,

Children’s Court Services (for child cases) and the DA’s Office Victim Witness Division (for adult cases) do an excellent job of guiding victims through the pre-trial/trial process by keeping in constant contact with them and making sure they understand each step along the way.

More specific responses from prosecutors indicated that advocates accompany victims through the criminal justice process, are helpful when approaching victims after a long time has elapsed since the criminal event, and refer victims to appropriate therapeutic services.

Improving the prosecution of sexual assault cases

Several prosecutors (n = 13) observed that advocates’ current work is effective and improvements are not needed. As noted above, prosecutors made special mention of the strong advocacy work in child-victim cases. However, two prosecutors indicated that they had never collaborated with an advocate in an adult case or were unaware of advocates being involved in adult cases. Four respondents reported they would like to see advocates involved in a greater number of cases and a greater number of advocates or staff fluent in Spanish. Two prosecutors indicated a need to set clearer role boundaries. They recommended that advocates focus on victims’ needs and not become overly involved in the prosecution.

Prosecutors offered these additional recommendations for ways advocates may improve prosecutions: provide support for victims, help prepare victims for trial, communicate regularly with victims and stay in contact throughout the case, describe court settings to victims, continue working with victims through the trial phase, and improve victims’ understanding of plea bargains. One prosecutor seemed to offer a degree of skepticism about advocates’ work by reporting that “no one needs to be encouraged to prosecute a rape case.”

Reducing the challenges victims face

Two survey items asked what could be done to reduce challenges victims face when working with prosecutors. One of the biggest challenges victims face, according to prosecutors, is a negative emotional response that occurs when following through with a criminal case. Based on their experiences, prosecutors reported that victims face the challenge of re-telling their stories and reliving the crime multiple times, fear the judgments of others and testifying in front of strangers, and fear they will not be believed.

Improve victims’ experiences with the court process

Prosecutors reported challenges associated with court processes. Several prosecutors noted that court processes are lengthy; one prosecutor reported that victims feel a lack of control over the timeline. In addition, six prosecutors noted that different prosecutors may work on a single case and this can create challenges for victims. One explained that lengthy case processing times results in several different prosecutors working the case. Another indicated that it is difficult for the victim to develop trust and become comfortable when multiple prosecutors work the case. Finally, prosecutors reported that victims face the challenge of understanding court proceedings. Specifically, they reported victims are challenged in understanding the burden of proof, having expectations about sentencing, comprehending what they can expect in court, and understanding that the defendant has rights. Prosecutors also noted that victims do not have the time necessary to participate in court processes and that prosecutors are unable to maintain sufficient contact with victims.

Improve victims’ communication with prosecutors

Twelve prosecutors (34.3%) indicated that improved communication between victims and prosecutors could help reduce challenges for victims. Prosecutors recommended the following: “communicate as regularly as possible (victim advocate helps here)”; “encourage victims to use email to communicate and tell them to be patient, all calls will be returned. Victims have to trust us that we’re always here for them”; and “prep them for what will happen in court.” Three of the 12 prosecutors emphasized the value of educating victims about the court process. Five prosecutors specifically mentioned that victim advocates can provide assistance in general and with communication. Communication emerged as a major theme in prosecutors’ responses to questions about improving the prosecution of sexual assaults and victims’ ability to overcome challenges to participation in the criminal justice process.

Investigators

Collaborating with advocates when contacting victims in cold cases

Investigators were asked if it would be helpful to get advice from advocates or collaborate with advocates when contacting victims in cold cases. Four categories summarized most responses: (a) support for the idea, (b) moderately supportive, (c) not supportive of the idea, and (d) unsure. Responses to this question differed among investigators in the unit that responds to adult victims and the unit that responds to juvenile/child victims.

Two of 13 adult-victim investigators were supportive of advocate involvement, none were moderately supportive, 7 were not supportive, 2 were unsure, and 2 did not provide a response. In contrast, 12 out of the 31 juvenile-victim investigators were supportive of advocate involvement, 10 were moderately supportive, 5 were not supportive, and 4 were unsure. Investigators were asked to elaborate on their responses to the questions and the sections below summarize their responses. It is important to note that explanations about why investigators felt advocate involvement would or would not be beneficial are not available from 23 of the respondents; others did not offer an explanation. Investigators’ explanations may have included multiple themes, so portions of responses were coded if they reflected multiple themes identified.

Enhanced communication

Seven juvenile investigators offered explanations that emphasized elements of communication, including substance and style. Investigators indicated that victims feel comfortable talking to someone who is not a criminal justice official, advocates help build rapport with victims, they can help explain the process to victims, and that advocates are compassionate and have a ‘softer touch.’

Support for the victim and family

Three adult investigators and two juvenile investigators reported that advocates generally support victims and their families. Other investigators indicated that advocates provide more specific forms of support and their responses are described in the sections below. One stated, “ . . . these groups are crucial in support for the victim and support for the victim’s family.” Another offered cautious support for the idea of involving advocates when contacting victims: “I haven’t had many dealings with them [advocates] so I don’t know if that would help them [victims] out very much. It might be nice for them to have someone to talk to about it though.”

Provide assistance through court proceedings

Five juvenile investigators indicated that advocates can accompany victims through court proceedings in addition to the police investigation. One investigator said, “ . . . I know that the advocacy groups guide the children through the system. They [advocates] have a closer relationship with them [victims] because they are with them through the whole process from beginning to end.”

Advocates can be helpful, but after the investigation has started

One adult investigator and four juvenile investigators noted that advocates can be helpful after the initial contact. One investigator stated, “ . . . They should be involved after the investigation . . . ” and another said,

I think that the contact of an initial investigator would be the best way to approach it. Maybe they [the advocate] could play a role later on, but it would create too much pressure on the victim to bring them in right off.

Additional benefits

Investigators offer additional explanations about why advocate involvement might be helpful that did not fit into the themes listed above. One investigator stated that advocates are helpful because they understand victimization better than investigators; two investigators suggested that advocate involvement can reduce work tasks for investigators; another investigator reported that advocates may be able to provide better services for victims because the advocate has a clear role to fill.

Over-involvement

Investigators also explained why it may not be beneficial to involve advocates in the process of contacting victims. One frequently stated reason (by seven investigators) focused on the idea that investigators have responsibility for conducting investigations and advocates may become overly involved. One investigator stated that “ . . . an advocate’s job is different than ours, we do the criminal side . . . The objective of the advocate is to help the victim, not to investigate.” Another said, “I haven’t had to deal with them currently, but it seems like they play too much of a role in the investigation.” Finally, one investigator said, “ . . . these officers here are in control of the investigation and we like to do that ourselves.” This theme appeared in Carmody’s (2006) interviews with advocates when they reported about their experiences working with law enforcement.

Different/conflicting objectives

Similar to the idea of “over-involvement,” four investigators explained that advocates and investigators have different objectives and this is why advocate involvement may not be beneficial. One investigator said, “Their [advocates’] job is to make the complainant feel better at that moment by telling them that they need to deal with themselves and not worry about our objectives.”

Unbalanced approaches

Four investigators suggested that advocate involvement is not beneficial because advocates do not always communicate accurate information to victims and investigators’ objectives are undermined. One investigator stated that “ . . . they [advocates] have an agenda and take the woman’s side immediately. And they [victims] don’t need to be coerced into reporting.” Another noted,

. . . They [advocates] lead the woman to believe things that aren’t true. They [advocates] tell them that the suspect will get charged if they follow through with the case, but if they don’t want to go through with it they don’t have to.

Additional concerns

Investigators stated additional concerns about advocate involvement that were not summarized in the broader themes described above. One investigator observed that contacting victims in cold cases does not tend to open old wounds, making advocate involvement less necessary. Another stated concern over the potential for information about the case to be leaked. Finally, one investigator reported that advocates do not necessarily work with victims throughout court proceedings and this has a detrimental effect on victims.

Limiting the negative impact of victimization and reporting

Interviewers asked investigators about the role that advocates can play in reducing the challenges victims face when reporting a crime. Five adult investigators indicated that advocates can, in a general sense, be helpful or help victims as they proceed through the criminal justice system process. For example, one investigator said, “They are great. They help the victims when going through the process.” Another indicated, “I have great success with [community advocacy organization]. I’ve had victims call here who have not reported. They want to know what would happen if they report. This happens somewhat frequently. I refer them to [community advocacy organization].”

Four adult investigators provided less optimistic views about the extent to which advocates can limit the negative impact of victimization and reporting. Two referred to the role conflicts that exist between investigators and advocates, one observed that advocates do not serve as good liaisons between victims and police, and the last indicated that advocates would not be helpful to complainants or when prosecuting the case.

Investigators from the juvenile sex crimes unit offered positive views. Many investigators in the juvenile unit (n = 16) indicated that advocates can and do aid the victim and family members through good communication and by helping victims and families to navigate the court process, by accompanying victims to court, and serving as a liaison between the victim and criminal justice officials.

Discussion

The results show that it may be possible to implement reforms by building on solid support from prosecutors and investigators. The survey data show that prosecutors hold positive opinions about the value advocates add to justice system processes. Prosecutors believe advocates facilitate court proceedings by providing emotional support for victims and reducing stress that results from justice system processes. On a more practical level, prosecutors recognize that advocates fill roles that allow prosecutors to focus on specific tasks. Advocates provide emotional support for victims and serve as liaisons by communicating with victims and prosecutors, coordinating meetings, and helping to ensure victims attend meetings and make court appearances. Prosecutors reported that, through their communication with victims, advocates can reduce the challenges that victims face in court proceedings.

Investigators recognized the contributions that advocates make to justice system processes. These are perspectives and strengths that can be built upon when attempting to create closer collaborations between advocates and justice system personnel. Prosecutors and investigators alike reported that advocates possess strong communication skills and can provide assistance to victims during the investigation and into the court processes.

Themes also emerged about important barriers that must be overcome to facilitate closer working relationships between advocates and investigators. Similar to previous studies characterizing police–advocate relationships as clashes of opposing perspectives and beliefs (Saunders & Size, 1986; Sudderth, 2006), one of the most significant barriers to emerge from interviews concerned role conflicts. Investigators, particularly those in the adult investigative unit, frequently expressed concerns about the fact that advocates have different roles and objectives and they may become over-involved in the criminal investigation. Two prosecutors made similar reports and indicated that advocates should not become overly involved in the prosecution. Investigators also reported concerns about advocates providing inaccurate information to victims regarding the criminal justice process. Written policies or procedures should be carefully crafted with the involvement of multiple stakeholders. Other steps may include cross-training so criminal justice system actors understand how cooperating with victim advocates can improve services (Campbell, 2006; Campbell et al., 2001; Patterson, 2011a, 2011b; Zweig & Burt, 2007).

The analysis highlighted differences between the investigative units that investigate crimes involving adult victims and those that investigate crimes involving children and adolescents. Casual conversations with personnel in the juvenile investigative unit indicate the unit has a history and tradition of working closely with advocates because of the nature of the offenses and victims. Over time a close and positive working relationship has developed between the juvenile investigators and advocates. The adult investigative unit is situated, organizationally, in a distinct investigative division. This organizational arrangement kept the operation of these units distinct and they had different norms and expectations for advocates’ roles. In 2014, HPD made the decision to combine both units together into a single division under the direction of a single captain.

The primary purpose of the data collection described here was to understand the local context so appropriate reforms could be designed and implemented. Reforms most likely to succeed have designs grounded in a solid understanding of the local context surrounding the problems targeted by the reforms; this is nothing new for police agencies (see, for instance, Goldstein, 1990). The results described above have been used for this purpose. A multidisciplinary group of stakeholders worked on the larger project from which these data emanated and used these results to make changes in the adult sex crimes investigative unit. The larger project studied the existence of large numbers of sexual assault kits that had been collected and stored in a police property room but were never submitted to a crime laboratory for analysis. The project was not only focused on the sexual assault kits, but took a broad look at local responses to sexual assaults. One objective was to improve police responses to sexual assaults and this led the multidisciplinary group to consider different reforms. Through detailed discussions with investigators, it became clear that victim cooperation with the investigation played an important role in case progression (and the converse, case attrition). In response, the multidisciplinary group made plans to integrate the work of a victim advocate more closely into the investigation of sexual assaults involving adult victims.³ The intent was to ensure victims received high quality services and increase the chances that victims would communicate and cooperate with investigators. A new Justice Advocate position was created in April 2013 and is housed within the Adult Sex Crimes Investigative Unit (Lentschke, 2014). The perceptions held by investigators and prosecutors that have been described here were used to plan for the new Justice Advocate position.⁴ Yet the substantive findings reported here may not exist to the same extent in other locations.

Study Limitations

One of this study’s primary limitations is that it did not include advocates’ perspectives in its analyses, preventing a more comprehensive understanding of perspectives. Without advocates’ perspectives, this study’s results and policy recommendations may only be partially understood. In addition, the data described here were collected in a single, large, urban jurisdiction. The findings reported may or may not generalize well to other jurisdictions and the analysis does not simultaneously report on advocates’ perspectives. Jurisdictions considering similar reforms may benefit by collecting local data that can provide information for use in designing and implementing those reforms. Individuals and groups working to reform local practices may be able to use the findings and process described here to more fully understand their local context. When armed with this information it may be possible to design interventions that stand the best chances of succeeding. For instance, it was important to understand that investigators were concerned about role conflicts. This information meant that it would be important to clearly communicate information about roles and responsibilities to investigators and advocates.

The analysis did not seek to understand the organizational or cultural factors that may give rise to barriers that inhibit close working relationships (see Maier, 2008; Sadusky, 2001). The current analysis uncovered basic, yet valuable information suggesting that investigators and prosecutors view collaborations more or less positively. The analysis did not investigate the underlying sources of these perspectives. If reforms will seek to build sustainable and effective collaborations between community and system advocates and criminal justice system agencies, then it will be important to study, for example, the organizational arrangements that promote and inhibit these outcomes. This line of research can yield information with practical value that may ultimately improve a communities’ response to sexual assault.

In conclusion, this study sought to contribute new information about sex crime investigators’ and prosecutors’ perceptions about working with victim advocates. The findings show there is reason to be optimistic about efforts to build strong collaborations that can aid victim healing and offender accountability; findings also pinpoint barriers that must be overcome. The study demonstrates why it is important to collect local data that can yield an understanding of existing strengths and barriers. The findings described here were used when HPD created and staffed a new victim advocate position.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the members of the Houston Police Department Special Victims Division for their assistance in collecting the data summarized here and for their commitment to studying responses to sexual assault.

Authors’ Note

The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department of Justice.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This project was supported by the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, and the United States Department of Justice (Award No. 2011-DN-BX-0002).

Notes

Author Biographies

D. Cody Gaines is a doctoral student at the Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology at Sam Houston State University. His scholarly interests include policing, research methods, and policy analysis. His work has appeared in Police Quarterly.

William Wells is a professor in the Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology at Sam Houston State University. His research interests include police practices to prevent and reduce crime and police uses of forensic evidence. Dr. Wells is working on a National Institute of Justice-funded research project with the Houston Police Department that seeks to reduce the problem of unanalyzed sex assault kits. In 2014, he collaborated with the Houston Police Department on an experiment that tested different methods of administering photo spreads and lineups to witnesses.

References

Beichner

Spohn

(2005). Prosecutorial charging decisions in sexual assault cases: Examining the impact of a specialized prosecution unit. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 16, 461-498.

Bouffard

(2000). Predicting type of sexual assault case closure from victim, suspect, and case characteristics. Journal of Criminal Justice, 28, 527-542.

Campbell

(2006). Rape survivors’ experiences with the legal and medical systems: Do rape victim advocates make a difference? Violence Against Women, 12, 30-45.

Campbell

Ahrens

C. E.

(1998). Innovative community services for rape victims: An application of multiple case study methodology. American Journal of Community Psychology, 26, 537-571.

Campbell

Martin

P. Y.

(2001). Services for sexual assault survivors: The role of rape crisis centers. In Renzetti

C. M.

Edleson

J. L.

Bergen

R. K.

(Eds.), Sourcebook on violence against women (pp. 227-241). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Campbell

Wasco

S. H.

Ahrens

C. E.

Sefl

Barnes

H. E.

(2001). Preventing the “second rape”: Rape survivors’ experiences with community service providers. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16, 1239-1259.

Carmody

D. C.

(2006). Sexual assault victim advocates in Virginia: Challenges faced in the field. Journal of Health and Human Services Administration, 29, 191-208.

Cattaneo

L. B.

Goodman

L. A.

Epstein

Kohn

L. S.

Zanville

H. A.

(2009). The victim-informed prosecution project: A quasi-experimental test of a collaborative model for cases of intimate partner violence. Violence Against Women, 15, 1227-1247.

Dawson

Dinovitzer

(2001). Victim cooperation and the prosecution of domestic violence in a specialized court. Justice Quarterly, 18, 593-622.

10.

Eisenstein

Jacob

(1991). Felony justice: An organizational analysis of criminal courts. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

11.

Erez

Belknap

(1998). In their own words: Battered women’s assessment of the criminal processing system’s responses. Violence and Victims, 13, 251-268.

12.

Ericksen

Dudley

McIntosh

Ritch

Shumay

Simpson

(2002). Clients’ experiences with a specialized sexual assault service. Journal of Emergency Nursing, 28, 86-90.

13.

Frazier

P. A.

Haney

(1996). Sexual assault cases in the legal system: Police, prosecutor, and victim perspectives. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 607-628.

14.

Frohmann

(1997). Convictability and discordant locales: Reproducing race, class, and gender ideologies in prosecutorial decisionmaking. Law & Society Review, 31, 531-556.

15.

Gillis

J. R.

Diamond

S. L.

Jebely

Orekhovsky

Ostovich

E. M.

MacIsaac

. . . Mandell

(2006). Systemic obstacles to battered women’s participation in the judicial system: When will the status quo change? Violence Against Women, 12, 1150-1168.

16.

Goldstein

(1990). Problem-oriented policing. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

17.

Goodman

Bennett

Dutton

M. A.

(1999). Obstacles to victims’ cooperation with the criminal prosecution of their abusers: The role of social support. Violence and Victims, 14, 427-444.

18.

Hamilton

Coates

(1993). Perceived helpfulness and use of professional services by abused women. Journal of Family Violence, 8, 313-324.

19.

Hotaling

G. T.

Buzawa

E. S.

(2003). Forgoing criminal justice assistance: The non-reporting of new incidents of abuse in a court sample of domestic violence victims. Washington, DC: National Criminal Justice Reference Service, U.S. Department of Justice.

20.

Kingsnorth

R. F.

Lopez

Wentworth

Cummings

(1998). Adult sexual assault: The role of racial/ethnic composition in prosecution and sentencing. Journal of Criminal Justice, 26, 359-371.

21.

Kingsnorth

R. F.

MacIntosh

R. C.

Wentworth

(1999). Sexual assault: The role of prior relationship and victim characteristics in case processing. Justice Quarterly, 16, 275-302.

22.

Kolb

K. H.

(2011). Victim advocates’ perceptions of legal work. Violence Against Women, 17, 1559-1575.

23.

Kykindall

(2013). Break the silence: Sexual assault and the SART solution [Video]. Retrieved from from http://www.sane-sart.com/breakthesilence/

24.

LaFree

(1981). Official reactions to social problems: Police decisions in sexual assault cases. Social Problems, 28, 582-594.

25.

Lentschke

(2014). Enhancing sexual assault investigations through cultural change: A case study [Webinar]. The National Center for Victims of Crime. Retrieved from http://www.victimsofcrime.org/our-programs/dna-resource-center/training/archived-webinars/2014/03/26/default-calendar/enhancing-sexual-assault-investigations-through-cultural-change-a-case-study

26.

Lipetz

M. J.

(1980). Routine and deviations: The strength of the courtroom workgroup in a misdemeanor court. International Journal of the Sociology of Law, 8, 47-60.

27.

Lonsway

K. A.

Archambault

(2012). The “justice gap” for sexual assault cases: Future directions for research and reform. Violence Against Women, 18, 145-168.

28.

Lord

V. B.

Rassel

(2000). Law enforcement’s response to sexual assault: A comparative study of nine counties in North Carolina. Women & Criminal Justice, 11, 67-88.

29.

Maier

S. L.

(2008). “I have heard horrible stories . . . ”: Rape victim advocates’ perceptions of the revictimization of rape victims by the police and medical system. Violence Against Women, 14, 786-808.

30.

Martin

P. Y.

Powell

R. M.

(1994). Accounting for the “second assault”: Legal organizations’ framing of rape victims. Law & Social Inquiry, 19, 853-890.

31.

Nardulli

P. F.

(1978). Courtroom elite: An organizational perspective on criminal justice. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

32.

Patterson

(2011a). The impact of detectives’ manner of questioning on rape victims’ disclosure. Violence Against Women, 17, 1349-1373.

33.

Patterson

(2011b). The linkage between secondary victimization by law enforcement and rape case outcomes. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 328-347.

34.

Reuland

Morabito

Preston

Cheney

(2006). Police-community partnerships to address domestic violence. Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice.

35.

Rose

V. M.

Randall

S. C.

(1982). The impact of investigator perceptions of victim legitimacy on the processing of rape/sexual assault cases. Symbolic Interaction, 5, 23-36.

36.

Sadusky

(2001). Working effectively with the police: A guide for battered women’s advocates. Retrieved from http://www.bwjp.org/assets/documents/pdfs/working_effectively_with_police.pdf

37.

Saunders

D. G.

Size

P. B.

(1986). Attitudes about woman abuse among police officers, victims, and victim advocates. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1, 25-42.

38.

Schmitt

F. E.

Martin

P. Y.

(1999). Unobtrusive mobilization by an institutionalized rape crisis center: “All we do comes from victims.” Gender & Society, 13, 364-384.

39.

Spohn

Holleran

(2001). Prosecuting sexual assault: A comparison of charging decisions in sexual assault cases involving strangers, acquaintances, and intimate partners. Justice Quarterly, 18, 651-688.

40.

Spohn

Tellis

(2012). The criminal justice system’s response to sexual violence. Violence Against Women, 18, 169-192.

41.

Sudderth

L. K.

(2006). An uneasy alliance: Law enforcement and domestic violence victim advocates in a rural area. Feminist Criminology, 1, 329-353.

42.

Ullman

S. E.

(1996). Do social reactions to sexual assault victims vary by support provider? Violence and Victims, 11, 143-157.

43.

Wasco

S. M.

Campbell

Howard

Mason

G. E.

Staggs

S. L.

Schewe

P. A.

Riger

(2004). A statewide evaluation of services provided to rape survivors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 252-263.

44.

Zweig

J. M.

Burt

M. R.

(2007). Predicting women’s perceptions of domestic violence and sexual assault agency helpfulness: What matters to program clients? Violence Against Women, 13, 1149-1178.