Abstract
One of the first people a sexual assault survivor will encounter in the emergency room is a specially trained rape victim advocate. Along with rape victim advocates, many survivors will come across law enforcement in the emergency room. This study explores rape victim advocates perception of how survivors are treated in the emergency room by law enforcement. Data from interviews with 23 female advocates indicate a complex relationship that includes positive interactions with police as well as victim blaming and a lack of knowledge about how sexual assault affects survivors. Suggestions for future research are provided.
According to the National Violence Against Women Survey (NVAWS), one of every six women in the United States has been raped at some point during her lifetime (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2006). Many of the women who have been victimized will seek support and assistance in the emergency room (ER) after a sexual assault. One of the first people a sexual assault survivor will encounter in the ER is a specially trained rape victim advocate. These advocates provide emotional support, crisis intervention, and resources for victims of sexual assault (Carmody, 2006).
Along with rape victim advocates, many survivors will come across law enforcement in the ER. During this encounter, they are asked to give their account of the incident. Advocates often witness victims being treated poorly by police officers as their demeanor can appear to be insensitive and can cause further victimization (Maier, 2012). Prior research also shows that survivors often experience distress after contact with law enforcement (Campbell, 2006, 2008). Referred to as secondary victimization, law enforcement often revictimizes survivors due to their insensitivity, victim blaming, or lack of communication (Maier, 2012; Payne & Thompson, 2006; Ullman, 2010).
Because of this interaction, oftentimes the roles of law enforcement and advocate can be at odds (Martin, 2005; Payne & Thompson, 2006). The goal of rape victim advocates is to follow the wishes of the survivor. Often, the survivor does not want to make a report and does not want to talk with law enforcement (Alderden & Long, 2016; Maier, 2008; Payne & Thompson, 2006). In certain states, the hospital is mandated to notify law enforcement when a rape has been reported. However, survivors who go to the hospital after a rape has occurred may not want to speak with the police. This behavior is perceived as a lack of cooperation from police officers. Usually, survivors who want to report the assault are seeking to hold the offender accountable and want to further the case through the justice system (Maier, 2014). In addition, law enforcement may be suspicious of survivors’ stories and may be reluctant to gather information for a case (Payne & Thompson, 2006). For example, police may be hesitant to believe a survivor’s story if the survivor used alcohol or illegal drugs or delayed reporting the incident (Maier, 2014; Spohn & Tellis, 2014).
Perceived insensitivity by law enforcement may be due to police officers’ lack of awareness on issues related to sexual victimization as well as organizational concerns such as a lack of clear policies as how police officers should respond to rape (Payne & Thompson, 2006). This lack of awareness and/or training is especially important because police officers are the gateway to opening a case that potentially could be investigated by detectives and prosecutors (Maier, 2008), and their demeanor often determines whether or not a victim will go forward with a case (Spohn & Tellis, 2014). Furthermore, it is possible that police may not be aware of the emotional and psychological harm they inflict on survivors. Campbell’s (2005) study with formal support providers (e.g., police, medical staff) and rape survivors found that police underestimated the distress they inflicted on survivors. While police officers may see their methods of interacting with survivors as standard protocol, the survivors see the interaction as brash, and not believing their account of the assault.
This research sought to understand the dynamics between law enforcement, rape victim advocates, and survivors in the ER. Rape victim advocates provide support to survivors in navigating the legal system and medical avenues available to them (Maier, 2008; Payne & Thompson, 2006). Advocates also work to empower survivors and help them regain a sense of control (Maier, 2008). Not only do medical advocates provide legal and medical guidance throughout the ER experience, they are also there to make sure that survivors are treated fairly and protocol is done correctly, and to provide comfort to the survivor (Martin, 2005). Using interviews with current rape medical advocates at a rape advocacy center, the goal is to further knowledge on an understudied topic, which is the experiences of advocates and their perception of survivors’ encounters with law enforcement.
Police and Perceptions of Rape
Police subculture has often been described as that which is based on skepticism and mistrust (Rich & Seffrin, 2013). This mistrust is often exacerbated when it comes to sexual victimization. During interviews with police, victims have stated they felt as though the officers were attempting to catch them in a lie or to disprove their statements (Jordan, 2004; Maier, 2012). Advocates often comment on police abruptness with victims during the interview process, which may be due to how they normally treat suspects and witnesses for a crime (Maier, 2008). Often, when police do not believe a rape victim, it is based on their ideas of who are “credible” victims (Jordan, 2004; Lonsway, Welch, & Fitzgerald, 2001). Credible victims (often considered “real rape”) for law enforcement would include cases of stranger rapes, sexual assaults that are accompanied by physical injuries, and/or a weapon was used during the assault (Campbell & Johnson, 1997; Maier, 2012; Spohn & Tellis, 2012). At times, survivors may not be completely honest about the assault. Survivors may feel that they will not be believed by law enforcement if they were intoxicated and used drugs and may omit this information. However, to law enforcement this is perceived as lying and will compromise the survivor’s credibility (Maier, 2014).
Understanding police officer’s view of rape is multifaceted. On one hand, due to rape law reforms, which puts attention on the behavior of the assailant and not the victim (Campbell & Johnson, 1997), they understand how sexual assault should be viewed. However, their personal feelings about particular rape situations may differ from what has been taught in the police academy and are often shaped by extralegal factors such as the survivors’ appearance, or if they knew their assailant (Campbell & Johnson, 1997). In Page’s (2010) study with law enforcement officers, she found while officers did not endorse some rape myths (e.g., victim is promiscuous, or women want to be raped) they did adhere to others, particularly behavior that they felt could be controlled (e.g., women should be aware of their surroundings and avoid dangerous places). For officers, this may not appear as victim blaming, but rather as a way to rationalize why sexual victimization occurs as it is usually not whether police deem sexual assault as a serious crime, but the circumstances behind the assault. Maier (2014), in her book, Rape, Victims, and Investigations, interviewed detectives about their perceptions of rape. While most believe that rape is a serious crime, they also believed that “rape is caused by situations women put themselves in . . .” (p. 49). Although attempts have been made through laws and training initiatives to change the behavior of police officers toward rape victims, it may rest on the officer’s own belief about rape.
In addition to police perceptions of rape and rape victims, there are varied findings on policewomen and their treatment of rape victims (Wentz & Archbold, 2012). While the general consensus is that female police officers are more sympathetic to rape victims (Page, 2007; Wentz & Archbold, 2012), there are some studies that suggest the opposite (Alderden & Ullman, 2012; Wentz & Archbold, 2012). Some female officers may be more inclined and enthusiastic to work with advocates and rape victims. Rich and Seffrin (2014) found that policewomen were not only more likely to have positive feelings about collaborating with victim advocates, but they were also more likely to have direct contact with advocacy organizations and more likely to have sexual assault training. However, in Wentz and Archbold’s (2012) study, female officers held similar stereotypical beliefs about rape as their male counterparts. Wentz and Archbold (2012) offered several explanations for this finding, including the socialization process that occurs in police departments. Because they are a part of an organization that expects conformity in behaviors and attitudes, it is possible that female officers adopt similar views and biases about rape as their male counterparts (Wentz & Archbold, 2012).
Advocates’ Interactions With Police Officers
Rape victim advocates’ first priority is to the survivor which includes providing support to survivors as well as helping them navigate the legal and medical system (Maier, 2008; Patterson & Tringali, 2014; Payne & Thompson, 2006) and regain a sense of control over their lives (Maier, 2008). Although research is limited on the effectiveness of rape victim advocates, they are seen as essential in helping rape survivors (Campbell, 2006; Patterson, 2011). Survivors reported that they were less likely to be treated badly by police and that police were more likely to take a report when advocates were involved in the process (Campbell, 2006). In spite of this, law enforcement may perceive the presence of rape advocates as a hindrance to their case, either because they feel as though advocates are ready to challenge them if they say or do something that may be perceived as insensitive or because advocates are not seen as part of the “team” (Lonsway & Archambault, 2008). Other studies also suggest that advocates can experience burnout and vicarious trauma when dealing with law enforcement (Carmody, 2006; Maier, 2008). This trauma can lead to a heightened sense of one’s own vulnerability, but can also lead advocates to exercise their dominance in situations where they may feel threatened by officers in the ER (McCann & Pearlman, 1990). However, due to their negative interactions with police, advocates may refrain from challenging officers for fear of retaliation and jeopardizing the case for the survivor (Lonsway & Archambault, 2008).
Feminist Standpoint Theory and Gendered Institutions
In accordance with feminist standpoint theory, two goals emerged: (a) to produce research that focuses on power relations, in this case between law enforcement, advocates, and rape survivors; and (b) using the knowledge gained from female advocates to change how rape survivors are viewed and treated by law enforcement (Collins, 2004; Harding, 2004). To understand the dynamics of what occurs in the ER, one must include power dynamics of officers, survivors, and advocates but also understand the experiences of advocates and officers as a group (Collins, 2004). By looking at group dynamics, one is able to analyze multiple realities that exist for everyone in the ER. Often, women have been at the periphery of scientific knowledge (Harding, 2004). However, to explore the interactions between advocates and law enforcement as they try to help survivors, often with diverging opinions, one must have women at the center of the conversation.
In addition, it is important to acknowledge that a woman’s situation and standpoint in society will influence and dictate how she responds to issues such as sexual victimization. Most rape victim advocates are women and most advocacy organizations are led by women. This gendered structure often influences how advocates are trained and how they interact with law enforcement and survivors. In terms of advocacy, many organizations use a feminist advocacy approach (Nichols, 2011), which includes helping victims make their own decisions and choices as they navigate law enforcement and medical staff in the ER. However, this can clash with the male-dominated profession of law enforcement, which does not always embrace feminist practices and relies on a paramilitaristic hierarchy.
Using in-depth interviews with rape victim advocates, this article focuses on the relationship between advocate, victim, and officer in the ER. Specifically, what do advocates experience with law enforcement while assisting victims of sexual assault? How do they handle conflict that may occur between law enforcement officers and rape survivors? These questions helped to explore and understand the dynamics of the ER between these three groups and how these interactions can impact them.
Method
In-depth interviews were chosen as my method of data collection, because it provided a setting that created a nonhierarchical, comfortable atmosphere where both the interviewer and interviewee can have a dialogue about the topic (Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2011; Tracy, 2013). Twenty-three female medical advocates from one rape crisis center were interviewed in a large Midwestern city. Fifteen were White, three were Black, one was Hispanic, one was Asian, and three were mixed race. The age range was between 22 and 63 years; the average age was 32 years. Primary duties for the advocates were to assist rape victims in the ER and to help negotiate interactions with law enforcement and medical staff. Although some advocates encountered Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE) nurses in the ER (registered nurses specially trained to assist rape victims), it was rare as advocates responded to calls from various hospitals in the city, some of which do not have trained SANE nurses. At times, advocates will accompany survivors to police stations but majority will only assist victims in the ER. For the most part, advocates will only encounter patrol officers. Detectives may be called if the incident is deemed serious (e.g. child sexual assault from someone in the home, violent stranger assault.)
Purposive sampling allowed volunteers to be recruited with the help of the volunteer coordinator at the organization. With approval from the institutional review board at my institution and approval of interview questions by the rape advocates’ organization, an email was sent out to a subset of advocates (chosen by the organization) detailing the purpose of my study. My study was limited to a subset of advocates due to multiple research projects being done with volunteers and the organization not wanting to saturate volunteers with research requests. To be eligible for this study, medical advocates had to have completed the 56-hr training and completed a minimum of one call to the ER. The number of calls received ranged between two and 100 calls with an average of 21 calls. The length of their volunteer service ranged from 4 months to 13 years.
Procedure
Twenty-three interviews were conducted in total and ranged in time from 45 min to 2 hr. Interviews were audio recorded (with their permission) and were conducted in my office or in a convenient location for the participant (e.g., home, their place of employment.) One interview was conducted via Skype. Participants were given $30 for this study. All interviews were transcribed verbatim, and each participant was assigned a pseudonym. Interview participants were asked about their experiences with law enforcement in the ER. This question was further probed by asking participants to give a personal narrative of positive and negative encounters with police to further illustrate their experience. Next, advocates were asked to talk about how survivors were treated by police and specifically how they handled conflict with law enforcement.
The analysis of the qualitative data consisted of three steps: (a) reviewing the transcripts and memos and providing a narrative analysis of the case studies, (b) data coding, and (c) extracting lessons learned from the sample of advocates. In accordance with narrative analysis, themes were established after coding. Part of the analysis of transcripts included reviewing the memos conducted after each interview. Coding of key concepts and ideas were identified from the transcription of interviews with the help of NVivo software. This software helps to code and sort transcriptions into themes (Tracy, 2013). This includes looking for repetition of certain themes and making note of any similarities and differences in comments made by interviewees (Ryan & Bernard, 2003).
My experiences as a medical advocate for a year influenced my research. As a former medical advocate for this rape crisis center and in accordance with feminist standpoint theory, self-reflexivity was applied in the interview and analysis process (Rouse, 2004). This included the acknowledgment of personal beliefs and feelings through memoing, which allowed me to be cognizant of my own beliefs and background while listening to participants’ points of view (Tracy, 2010, 2013). Through the initial correspondence about the study, advocates were informed that they would be interviewed by a fellow advocate; however, out of the 23 advocates, only one advocate had a previous encounter with me. Participants being aware that I was an advocate helped to establish rapport, which is important in qualitative research (Dickson-Swift, James, Kippen, & Liamputtong, 2007).
Results
Most rape advocates reported mixed experiences with police. Of the 23 advocates who had encounters with police while assisting survivors in the ER, 14 reported positive experiences with the police and 17 of the 23 advocates reported negative encounters. A detailed examination of both positive and negative experiences with police are examined, including how advocates manage to challenge law enforcement in the ER.
Positive Experiences With Police
When asked about their experiences with police, some advocates exclaimed, “surprisingly, really good. I’ve had all good experiences” and “pretty darn good for the most part.” Some experiences were general interactions where officers were understanding of the advocates’ role. One advocate described her interaction with a police officer: One call I took, it was a trans woman, and the officer was just amazing. He was continuously checking back in to the hospital room to see if she was okay. And when he saw that I was in the room with her he was like, “Oh my god I’m so sorry. Her role is more important than mine. I’ll step out.” It was really different and I was shocked by that. (Angie, advocate for 1 year)
The advocates’ shock often comes from knowing the tumultuous relationship between many inner-city communities and police officers as well as their perception of sexual assault. Cindy, an advocate who has been with the organization for a year, works in a predominantly African American community. In the interview, she stated that she consistently hears about bad encounters with police in general. However, she recalled a good experience: They were just super sweet and they made me feel like a person. They weren’t belittling and they were really great to the survivor. But they were also really friendly to me and amicable which I found refreshing since the history that the police have had interacting with civilians in general hasn’t been the best. It was really refreshing.
General conversations about the organization seemed to solicit good responses and mutual respect, which in turn proved beneficial for survivors as officers were more likely to empathize with survivors. Penny who has volunteered with the organization for five months felt her conversation with an officer helped to educate the officer about rape victim advocates: I had a conversation with a police officer. He said, “You’re staff, right?” I’m like, “No, I volunteer.” I explained exactly what we do, and I explained the training that we go through. He was like, “Wow. I had no idea.” I was like, “All the advocates typically are volunteers.” He was like, “Wow. I have a new found respect for them.”
Although some advocates in general talk about positive encounters with police officers, they also acknowledge that they felt the presence of female officers often made a difference in how survivors were treated in the ER.
Presence of female officers
Even though participants were not specifically asked about female officers, several advocates talked about their experiences with them. While one advocate stated that the female officer who responded was “an absolute asshole,” five advocates stated that their experience with female officers was positive. A general consensus is demonstrated in Patricia’s experience: “She (the officer) went above and beyond what I think she needed to do or what she was required to do. She ended up being more helpful than I thought. It was good.” Female detectives have also been seen as helpful in the ER. Angie interacted with a female detective who had been trained by the organization on sexual victimization: Because she [the victim] was raped in jail they couldn’t send out a beat officer because it was an internal investigation. So they had to send out a special detective who handled internal affairs. It was a female detective and she actually said that she had gone through the training a few years before, and so she was wonderful. It helped. She was very supportive and she was very knowledgeable. (Angie, advocate for 1 year)
Similarly, Rachel talked about a positive experience working with a female detective: I believe three female detectives came to the hospital to talk to a survivor. They were really friendly. And as a matter of fact as the detectives were exiting the hospital room and I was getting ready to enter, one of the detectives turned to me and said, “It’s great work that you are doing.” (Rachel, advocate for 1 year)
From the responses of these advocates, the combination of establishing a relationship with the officer coupled with officers, particularly female officers, receiving sexual assault training benefitted survivors in the ER.
However, one advocate did comment on the need for more female officers to be dispatched to the ER, because usually victims are women. Ashley had a survivor who required pictures to be taken of her injuries that resulted from the sexual assault. However, there were no female officers available: So I stepped out and she [the nurse] went through the kit and everything, but then she [the survivor] had lots of injuries where pictures had to be taken, and the hospital didn’t have a camera. So the police had to come out and take pictures, and it was a male officer and there weren’t any females on staff or on call, and there wasn’t going to be any females on this next shift. (Ashley, advocate for 1 year)
Having a male officer take pictures of the injuries may further traumatize a survivor after an assault. Given the encounters between advocates, female officers, and survivors, it implies a need for more female officers in general due to the sensitivity of having male officers present after rape, but also continuous training of female officers so that they can be sensitive to the needs of survivors in the ER.
Finding a connection
Similar to the positive interactions with female police officers, it appears that when police officers were able to connect with either the advocate or survivor on a personal level, it was more likely that the survivor’s needs would be met. Overall, having a rapport in some way can make the interaction easier. Patricia, an advocate for 1 year, believed that if she, “had a chance to talk to the officer and not talk about the case, I almost think it goes better.” This interaction helped both advocate and officer relate to each other on a personal level. Five advocates stated that when officers were able to talk with advocates about survivors and relate it to their own lives, they were more likely to treat survivors in a positive manner. At times, the connection involved the officer thinking about their own children being in a similar situation: I knew that his heart was in the right place. He [the officer] was like, “I just can’t imagine, I have a daughter,” because the perpetrator was her father. He was like, “I have a daughter and I can’t imagine how anyone . . . ” He was like really concerned about her. (Gloria, advocate for 1 year)
For Nora, an advocate of 2 years, it was a combination of the officer’s age and being a father and grandfather that precipitated how he approached the survivor: I had a more experienced detective, he was about 60. He was brilliant actually. He was a dad and a grandfather, he really put the survivor at ease, because I stood outside. I wasn’t in the room, but I could hear everything. He was the best, like, “Oh honey, it’s not your fault. Now, let’s hear what happened.” He did it in that tone. He put the survivor at ease.
Indeed, establishing rapport with officers can make the job of advocates easier and, in turn, help survivors as well, but it is possible that the age of the officer may be a factor. Similar to Nora’s comment, Danielle, an advocate for 9 months, stated, “Cops in their late 50s or 60s are better. The younger cops are more insensitive.” In this situation, the officer’s personal life experiences (e.g., married, children) may help to foster empathy and understanding of the survivor.
However, for some advocates, this rapport turned into a counseling moment between advocate and officer. Nora spoke about a child survivor who came into the ER and the affect it had on the rookie officer: I had one police officer actually cry on my shoulder about a kid case. The kid was undocumented, it was a very, very tricky situation. This police officer was a mom and came from the same culture as the kid, and so very much identified. She was new to the force. Then after the kid was gone, the police officer just started crying and crying and said, “Oh my god I leave my kid with babysitters.” Basically, I told her to think about going to a counselor. I gave her some stuff about our organization and said, “If you ever just want to talk . . . ” She really appreciated it.
Roxanne, an advocate for 2 years, suggested counseling after the officer discussed work-related events they experienced: I even had a couple of officers that when they found out what I did they’re like, “Oh, that’s so interesting that you do that kind of work. I have all these stories.” They were telling me all these stories about other calls that they had been on and other things that they had seen, almost like I was counseling them. I was like, “You guys need to go to counseling.”
Previous literature on police subculture suggest that it is often difficult for officers to acknowledge job stressors due to the belief that they must maintain an image of being strong and that they can handle anything, including traumatic experiences they endure as police officers (Malmin, 2012; National Institute of Justice Journal, 2000). This includes the fear of stigmatization for seeking mental health services (National Institute of Justice Journal, 2000). However, given that advocates are in a setting where they are advocating on someone’s behalf, it is possible that officers take the moment to talk about their own issues with someone who is not associated with the police department and they have little chance of encountering again.
Negative Experiences With Police
While many advocates reported positive interactions with police, they were also likely to describe negative encounters. As one advocate said, “If I had to make a general statement, I’d say that our survivors, in general, do not have a positive experience with law enforcement.” There were a multitude of encounters with police officers that were inappropriate toward the advocates. Several women spoke about advances made by some police officers while they were attending rape survivors in the ER. One advocate stated, “I’ve had a couple cops ask me out.” Another advocate, Laura, stated that she was propositioned for a date after accompanying a survivor to the police department and the officer insisted on giving her a ride home, This is all happening while I’m in the car and I can’t get out of the police car. He starts hitting on me. If there was any way that situation could have left a worse taste in my mouth with the police, that was it.
Not only can this behavior make advocates feel uncomfortable, it can influence their perception of officers.
One of the main complaints against police officers by advocates is the lack of compassion and their demeanor when engaging both advocate and survivor in the ER. This includes body language that suggests disinterest, using intimidation, rushing the survivor, and not believing the victim (Rich & Seffrin, 2013). Advocates felt as though police officers were “cold, uninterested” in their interactions with the survivors. For one advocate, the cold demeanor of officers has led her to file complaints against them: I found that even when the officers think they are being helpful I don’t think they are. The language they use, and even the tone of their voice, how close they stand to the bed or being in the room alone with them, I think it makes the survivor uncomfortable. It’s the little things they do that they are not aware of are harmful. I’ve had to file a couple of complaints against officers. (Patricia, advocate for 1 year)
In her encounter with a detective, Ashely noticed that the disposition of the officer made the survivor reluctant to give a statement.
The detective was a man, and he was very large. I don’t know if he was aware of the space he took up in the room, and she already didn’t have a good history with law enforcement. This man was very imposing and wasn’t very friendly, he was blunt. Ultimately she gave her statement, but he was very rude. (Ashley, advocate for 1 year)
A common statement from advocates was that it was “more about them getting their information and not about making sure the person doesn’t have a psychological break down” (Laura, advocate for 1 year). However, some advocates were more sympathetic to officers, believing it was due to the stressors of being a police officer in a large urban city. For example, one advocate felt that police officers had “so much on their plate that they are really just trying to get in and out as quickly as possible.” Laura, who talked about the abruptness of officers and being concerned with getting information also stated, “there’s a lot of things going on in this city and I get being tired, and not wanting to get shot at, but you signed up for this job, this is a part of it.” Angie, whose survivor was given medicine for her anxiety, talks about the officer’s reaction: The hospital gave her medicine and so she was sort of out of it. And she wanted to report it, and so she told the officer, “I can’t do this right now,” and he said, “Okay, well then we’re not going to make a report because you are refusing to cooperate so just sign off here saying you don’t want to make a report.” You could tell he just wanted to get out of there as quickly as possible. I understand that they are dealing with a lot. But that’s been the biggest obstacle I think, getting them to slow down enough to make sure that the survivor is okay with what is happening, is ready to talk to them, isn’t feeling too pressured or too rushed.
From the experience of the advocates, it suggests that the goals of police officers are often at odds with advocates and survivors. This includes inappropriate and questionable behavior from officers in a setting where sensitivity and compassion is needed. Together, this makes for a difficult setting to navigate for advocates and for survivors to endure.
Not believing the victim
Much research that focuses on advocates’ experiences with law enforcement in the ER states that a significant issue is that they do not believe the victim (Jordan, 2004; Lonsway et al., 2001). Ten of the 23 advocates experienced officers either blaming the victims and/or not believing them. Some advocates believed that it was inherent in police work to have doubt, “I’ve dealt with suspicion from them. I think they’re sort of oriented to doubt everything they hear” (Ericka, advocate for 4 years). Other advocates commented on blatant victim blaming and feel that sexual assault survivors are “not taken as credible.” Roxanne, an advocate for 2 years, remembers an officer telling a survivor he did not believe her: I also have plenty of experiences where police officers have their own ideas about the way things went, they’re making judgments just based on what the person looks like, blaming the victim, telling them they don’t believe them.
Advocates also seem to feel that there was a lack of knowledge about sexual assault in general: Across the board, problematic understanding of sexual assault. I hear, “of course it’s not her fault, but she could’ve or she should’ve” or “why wouldn’t she . . . ” More times than not, I think that they don’t really know what they’re doing when it comes to these cases. I don’t think for many it comes from a case of mal-intentions towards people. I really think it’s a lack of understanding about the realities of sexual violence. (Laura, advocate for 1 year) The default is, let me find out how you’re lying as opposed to, you’ve been a victim of a crime and let me take down that report. Which is frustrating because that only happens with sexual assault. (Jennifer, advocate for 2 years)
Although there has been a push to educate and train law enforcement officers about sexual victimization and its impact on survivors, advocates report that police continue to blame the victim, either due to lack of knowledge or passing judgment on rape survivors or from the inherent nature of police work which is to question motives. These comments often lead advocates to challenge law enforcement and how they treat rape survivors.
Advocates challenging law enforcement
Daly (1994) argued that victim advocacy is not only about advocates assisting victims, but includes working toward changing patriarchal power dynamics and privileges. While advocating for survivors, medical advocates often found themselves challenging officers on their views about sexual victimization. At times, it is a difficult balancing act between supporting the victim, which in some cases means challenging law enforcement while maintaining good communication between the advocate and police officer (Lonsway & Archambault, 2008). As one advocate stated, “It is not to the survivor’s benefit to go off on people.” However, five advocates specifically talked about how they have found a way to challenge law enforcement on their perception of sexual assault while assisting the survivor in the ER. Samantha, who has been with the organization for over a year, describes the reluctance of police officers to file a report but also her challenging their way of thinking.
This was an underage girl. I hear them talking about it because her mother didn’t believe her and they were talking about how her mother says she lies about this all the time and she hangs out with guys and that she wanted it. I had to go up to them and explain to police officers, “If a 15-year old girl engages in sexual activity with a 20 something year old man it is rape no matter what, do you know that?’ And literally the reaction was like, “Oh, well yeah.” They weren’t planning on taking her report or anything. And I had to tell them she has every right to report and the mother does not decide for her whether she reports.
In fact, those with strong personalities coupled with a sense of fighting for the rights of others may feel empowered to challenge law enforcement. Samantha who has been with the organization for almost 2 years stated, “I’m very aggressive. When I have a strong opinion about something, I’m very aggressive. When I know my job is to fight for someone whose rights are being stepped on I have no problem stepping in.” For one advocate, the interview focused on police officers who were not willing to file a report because they did not believe the victim was raped. When asked how she handles officer who do not want to file a report, Cindy replied, I kind of played dumb because he said that there wasn’t any evidence. I said, “Oh, you’re a detective?” he said no. I asked his position and he said he was a beat officer. I said, “Wait a minute, I’m sorry, I’m just a little confused. I’m a little new at this. So if I were to call you and say that my apartment had been broken into, and you came and it didn’t appear to you that my apartment had been broken into, you wouldn’t file the report?” He said he would. I asked, “Well, how is this different?” Other times, I’ve had to say “No, you have to do it. A kit has been done, you need to file [a report].” Then they get an attitude.
While encounters with police were both positive and negative, advocates were able to challenge officers’ perception of not only the survivor but their way of thinking about sexual assault. Although various techniques were used to handle officers, the overall goal was to fight for the rights of the survivor.
Discussion and Future Research
The focus of this study was to qualitatively explore interactions in the ER between rape survivors, rape advocates, and law enforcement. The results of this study suggest that there is a combination of positive and negative encounters and both can have lasting repercussions for all parties involved. Finding a connection with police officers seemed to make a difference in how victims were treated. However, when a connection is not established it can lead to misconceptions and further traumatization. Similar to Maier’s (2008) research with advocates, many advocates found officers’ lack of communication skills problematic and further traumatized survivors. Indeed, body language, tone of voice, and disengagement can discourage a victim from reporting or going further with a case. However, given that this crime involves the invasion of the body, it should not be surprising that victims would be sensitive to the body cues that they are receiving from officers.
In addition, it is possible that officers are not aware of their insensitivity toward rape victims. As noted by Patricia, there are times when officers believe they are being helpful to survivors when they are inflicting more harm due to their demeanor (e.g., abrupt, cold) in the ER. Considering that this study was conducted in a large metropolitan city, officers are often confronted with violence and have learned strategies to obtain the truth (Martin, 2005). However, the type of tactics that may work in interviewing other types of violent crime may appear abrasive in the context of sexual victimization (Maier, 2008). This lack of sensitivity can put advocates at odds with law enforcement. The officer’s objective is to evaluate the case to determine whether there is enough evidence to go forward. However, the objective of a rape victim advocate is to ensure the mental, physical, and emotional well-being of the rape survivor (Maier, 2008). This often leads to survivors not wanting to engage in the criminal justice system process.
The issue of not wanting to file a report has also been noted in previous research. In research with survivors, Campbell (2006) found that some police officers were reluctant to file a report. This is supported in my research when Ashley was asked about her encounters with police: “I’ve had a number of police officers not want to file anything because they don’t believe anything happened.” The reluctance to file a report was connected to not believing the survivor, which is constantly seen as an issue in previous literature focusing on advocates’ experiences with law enforcement (Carmody, 2006; Maier, 2008; Ullman, 2010). Several reasons given by officers as to why they may not believe survivors include revenge seeking by the victim, wanting attention from family and friends, not wanting their significant other to know they cheated, and mental health issues (Maier, 2014). Together, the perceptions of law enforcement heavily influence treatment of sexual assault survivors and in turn makes the interaction between advocate and officer challenging.
Several advocates reported being asked out on dates by officers. While this behavior in any setting would be seen as unprofessional, given that advocates are there to assist survivors of rape this is highly disrespectful. Prior research on the experiences of rape medical advocates does not address this issue. However, research shows that sexual harassment in various forms is common in male-dominated professions, especially law enforcement (Lonsway, Paynich, & Hall, 2013), and this often clashes with female-centered ideology (Kraska & Kappeler, 1995). Clearly, in this setting there is a power difference that can foster inappropriate behavior from male officers (Kraska & Kappeler, 1995). Given that all advocates who assist women in the ER are women, there is opportunity for inappropriate gestures from officers who come to the ER who are predominantly male. It is possible for advocates to make complaints against officers; however, there is always a delicate balance between challenging this behavior and wanting to maintain an atmosphere of civility for the survivor.
While this study found that most advocates looked favorably upon having female officers in the ER, it is important to note the wide variety of outcomes in several studies. Alderden and Ullman’s (2012) study on gender differences in arrests for sexual assault cases found that women were less likely than their male counterparts to treat rape victims better than their male counterparts (Alderden & Ullman, 2012). This may be due to wanting to establish rapport with their male counterparts in an atmosphere where hegemony is more important than individuality (Brown & King, 1998). Other studies suggest that female officers may want to work in an atmosphere that is not male dominated and provides an opportunity to work with other women (Rich & Seffrin, 2014). It is possible that sexual assault training, as stated by Angie, was beneficial in establishing better treatment of survivors in the ER. Training, coupled with their own understanding of being a woman, may give policewomen more empathy toward female rape survivors. Given the variety in findings, it is important that future research focus on whether gender differences impact how rape victims are treated.
An important finding in my study was that advocates were able to channel their anger and frustration into challenging preconceived beliefs about rape and rape victims by police officers. Rape victim advocates are often angry with the criminal justice system itself and with police officers in how they respond to victims (Wasco & Campbell, 2002), but several advocates have established methods of challenging officers while maintaining a cordial relationship with them.
Limitations in this study must be addressed to avoid overgeneralization as well as to aid future research. First, the advocacy organization is very selective about access to advocates and confidentiality. Therefore, it is not known how many advocates were specifically given the notification about my research. Nevertheless, those who did respond provided insight into the dynamics between police officers and advocates in the ER. In addition, there was a lack of diversity in terms of who decided to participate in this study. Having a more diverse sample could shed light on interactions between advocate, survivor, and law enforcement and how the intersections of race, class, and gender may play a role in how survivors are treated in the ER.
Furthermore, this study is limited to one Midwestern city, which means the results may not be representative of other regions and what medical advocates experience with law enforcement. Thus, replication studies should focus on other regions, including rural and suburban areas to gain fuller insight into what advocates and survivors experiences with officers. Finally, victims were not interviewed and therefore it is based on the perspective of the advocates. Future research should include the perceptions of victims and their feelings about their interactions with law enforcement as their view of what happens in the ER can be different from advocates.
Given that police officers are the first contact victims will have with the criminal justice system (Wentz & Archbold, 2012), it is important that the initial contact be as encouraging as possible as it may impact whether the victim will go further with the case (Lonsway et al., 2001; McMillan, 2015). There needs to be more specific training about how to effectively communicate with rape victims as well as challenge preconceived notions about rape and how a victim will respond after victimization (Campbell & Johnson, 1997; Javaid, 2015; Wentz & Archbold, 2012). This type of training may help officers understand that their tone and demeanor when talking to a survivor can make a difference in them wanting to cooperate in an investigation. The training should expand to topics about sensitivity, sexual harassment, and other issues closely related to sexual assault (Maier, 2012; Page, 2008). Rich and Seffrin’s (2013) study of police officers’ interactions with rape crisis advocates found that those who had sexual assault training were more willing to collaborate with advocates than those who did not. It is important to note that some officers may find it difficult to balance supporting the victim while doing police work. McMillan’s (2015) study of officers who were specially trained in handling sexual assault often felt conflicted about whether their role was to support the victim or to conduct an investigation where they are encouraged to question and challenge the interviewee.
Nevertheless, various benefits could be gained from training of officers on sexual victimization including better interviewing skills, a comfort level with sexual victimization, and perhaps better treatment of survivors (Kinney, Bruns, Bradley, Dantzler, & Weist, 2008; Lonsway, Welch, & Fitzgerald, 2001; Patterson, 2011). It may also be beneficial to have seasoned officers to handle sexual assault cases (Page, 2007). Many advocates’ experiences suggested that age and knowledge helped in terms of providing a safe environment for the survivor. College education may also help to alleviate misconceptions about sexual assault. Page’s (2007) research with law enforcement officers found that those who were college educated and had more experience as a police officer were less likely to endorse rape myths. It is my hope that these findings will lead to more studies on rape victim advocates and the balancing act they must do in order to support the survivor while encountering law enforcement.
Footnotes
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: The author received a research grant through Roosevelt University.