Reporting rape: Victim perspectives on advocacy support in the criminal justice process

Introduction

The failure of conventional criminal justice systems to address the needs of those who have experienced sexual violence is well documented (McGlynn et al., 2016) and there are several longstanding concerns about the criminal justice response to rape in particular. Key among these are the ‘secondary victimization’ experienced by victims ¹ arising as a result of the investigative, prosecution and court room processes, which can exacerbate the trauma of the rape (Brown et al., 1993; Burman, 2009; Kelly et al., 2005; Maier, 2008); high levels of case attrition (Brown, 2011; Daly and Bouhours, 2010; Lovett and Kelly, 2009); and low or declining levels of conviction (Hohl and Stanko, 2015; Kelly et al., 2005). Since the 1970s, problematic police attitudes which privilege a ‘real rape’ construct (Estrich, 1987) over other rape contexts, and which cast doubt on the veracity or credibility of the victim’s account, have been subjected to intense feminist critique (Gregory and Lees, 1999; Jordan, 2001). Research internationally has found the ‘attrition problem’ (Brown, 2011) to be particularly high at this early reporting stage due to a variety of reasons: the suspect cannot be located or identified; the police believe there is insufficient evidence; or the victim decides to withdraw the complaint (Daly and Bouhours, 2010; Harris and Grace, 1999; Lea et al., 2003; Lovett and Kelly, 2009). The statement provided to the police by the victim is crucially important at this point; as part of this victims may be asked to recount the minutiae of the rape, their dress, lifestyles and their behaviour towards the suspect (Jordan, 2001, 2011; McMillan and Thomas, 2009). Unsurprisingly, many victims find these early encounters traumatic and are reluctant to engage with the criminal justice system or seek further help (Campbell, 2006; Campbell and Raja, 1999, 2005).

In response to criticism, police in many jurisdictions have introduced improvements to their response to rape, including specialist policing roles and teams (McMillan, 2014; Westmarland et al., 2012). Additionally, concerns about responses to violence against women more generally have provided the impetus for developing advocacy services to assist victims in their interactions with criminal justice, health and other agencies. Kelly (2005) has described the use of advocates as promising practice. However, there are differing definitions, understandings and purposes of advocacy, each with distinctive characteristics relating to the nature of work undertaken and the organizations that advocacy services are located within. Existing research evidence, and the case for advocates, is based primarily on the success of advocacy in domestic violence cases (Howarth et al., 2009; Parmar et al., 2005; Sullivan, 1991; Taylor-Dunn, 2016; Vallely et al., 2005) and, with few exceptions (e.g. Campbell, 2006; Robinson, 2009), there is limited research evidence about the value and efficacy of advocacy support in relation to rape (Daly, 2011; Rich, 2014). Moreover, there is a lack of research from the perspective of victims exploring the implications of advocacy, differences in its provision and, specifically, whether it is important for advocacy services provided to victims of sexual violence to be independent of police and other statutory partners (Robinson and Hudson, 2011).

This article examines these questions from the under-researched perspective of rape victims. It draws on empirical material from an evaluation of the pilot phase of a rape advocacy service, ‘Support to Report’ (S2R), which was introduced in Scotland to ‘assist male and female victims at the initial stage of making a report to the police’ (Brooks et al., 2015). Rather than simply addressing the question of whether advocacy work is of any intrinsic value to rape victims, this article examines why and in what context, and by so doing considers the wider implications of advocacy for the criminal justice response to rape.

The article is in three sections: the first considers the differing meanings of advocacy in the context of criminal justice responses to violence against women; the second reviews developments in the provision of specialist responses to rape as a means of contextualizing the increased range and use of advocacy services; and the third draws on qualitative interview data with S2R users to highlight their perceptions of the advocacy and criminal justice process. We argue that rape advocacy is particularly important for enabling informed choices by victims and for ameliorating ‘secondary victimization’ at the reporting stage and beyond. In this context we understand ‘secondary victimization’ to mean the additional trauma experienced by rape victims due to victim blaming or otherwise insensitive responses within the criminal justice system (Jordan, 2001; Skinner and Taylor, 2009). We conclude with a discussion of the benefits of rape advocacy independent of criminal justice agencies for engagement with victims, which is consistent with research on advocacy in other criminal justice contexts (Hucklesby and Worrall, 2007; Robinson, 2009; Taylor-Dunn, 2016), and for meeting victims’ conceptions of justice (McGlynn et al., 2016). Finally, we highlight the implications of this analysis for future research and practice.

Understanding Advocacy

Drawing upon data from several jurisdictions (including Australia, New Zealand, Canada, South Africa, the UK and the USA), Daly (2011) provides a four-part inventory of conventional and innovative responses to sexual violence comprising of: specialization; offender focus; legal reform; and victim advocacy and participation. Of particular relevance here is the provision of specialized services and victim advocacy. Advocacy services exist worldwide, although their nature and provision is varied and they are relatively scarce in less affluent states (Rich, 2014). Within the EU, specialist advocates for victims of sexual violence are known to exist in 14 countries, including the UK, Austria, Denmark, France, Germany and Ireland (Walby et al., 2015). Meanwhile, Victim Advocate Officers and Victim Advocates exist in South Africa and the USA respectively (Campbell, 2006; Sadan et al., 2001). In the context of criminal justice and other agency responses to victims of violence against women, however, the term ‘advocacy’ has varied meanings across differing jurisdictions and settings and there is a relative lack of research evidence about their operation.

According to Kelly and Humphreys (2000) it is the emphasis on rights and entitlements which distinguishes advocacy from other forms of support. The term ‘victim advocacy’ is used, particularly in the USA, to denote services provided by organizations that emerged from the women’s movement such as Women’s Aid and Rape Crisis (Campbell, 2006) where feminist advocates developed principles and practices based on ideologies of collaboration and empowerment. Conceptions of advocacy situated at the level of individual support describe the role of victim advocates as providing information and advice, making referrals, explaining options and accompanying victims to police stations or medical examinations, and/or providing support during court and post-court processes (Parkinson, 2010). By contrast, some organizations define advocacy primarily in terms of political activism; the feminist network Women Against Violence Europe (WAVE), for example, describe the advocacy work that they do as, ‘Influencing policy makers to promote, protect and strengthen the human rights of women and children in Europe’ (Blank et al., 2014: 4).

Further distinctions can be drawn according to the organizations within which advocates are located. The terms ‘community-based advocacy’ and ‘system-based’ advocacy are used to differentiate between independent advocates and those employed by statutory law enforcement agencies or who work in close collaboration with them as part of a multi-agency approach (Coy and Kelly, 2010; Rich, 2014; Robinson, 2009). Victim advocacy providers have evolved to include more organizations, notably health, social service and criminal justice agencies, with whom they work collaboratively; a development which has attracted criticism on the basis that this represents an erosion of independence and feminist ideals (Nichols, 2014). Careful consideration of how rape advocacy is defined and understood is therefore required, both in terms of the implications for policy and practice in different contexts, and also for how services may be experienced by victims.

Developments in Specialist Support for Victims of Rape in the UK

In the UK, all jurisdictions have recognized the need to increase access to support and health services for rape victims (see Home Office, 2007, 2011; Scottish Government, 2009); key provisions, discussed below, include dedicated support services such as Rape Crisis Centres (RCCs) and Sexual Assault Referral Centres (SARCs) and the development of specialist support and advocacy roles, including Independent Sexual Violence Advisers (ISVAs) in England and Wales. RCCs and SARCs both provide specialist support, but operate different models of service provision and have different origins. While RCCs have grown out of the women’s movement, SARCs are government-led multi-agency initiatives and are far more prominent in England and Wales; currently only one SARC exists in Scotland (Archway in Glasgow, introduced in 2007).

Since the 1970s, RCCs have operated as independent voluntary sector organizations offering services, primarily to women who have experienced rape or sexual assault. They may work with police to provide support to those going through the criminal justice system, however, they also have an autonomous role in providing support for victims who choose not to report to the police (Daly, 2011; Westmarland et al., 2012). Crucially, they have been at the forefront of raising awareness of sexual violence and influencing the public and statutory response to victims (Brindley and Burman, 2012; Jones and Cook, 2008). This work is underpinned by a feminist analysis of sexual violence and the associated belief that violence against women is a consequence of structural inequality (Nichols, 2013). SARCs, on the other hand, tend to involve a partnership approach between police and health services, offering a ‘one-stop shop’ providing both immediate and long-term support for victims (Robinson et al., 2008); indeed the provision of ‘an interface between two large, bureaucratic systems: health and criminal justice’ is seen as an important feature (Robinson and Hudson, 2011: 523).

In the UK, between 2011/12 to 2014/15, the Government provided £1.72m p.a. to part fund 87 ISVA posts in England and Wales, to be located within both SARCs and in Rape Crisis to provide a point of contact and co-ordination of services for victims. While ISVAs do not currently exist in this form in Scotland, their role is akin to that of the ‘advocacy worker’ within the S2R advocacy service which forms the basis of the current study. The support provided by an ISVA is determined by the individual needs of the victim, however key elements of this support include advice on availability of counselling and other services, and information on the criminal justice process. Following an examination of specialist support, including that provided by ISVAs, within the setting of SARCs compared to voluntary sector organizations in England and Wales, Robinson and Hudson (2011) conclude that while there were distinct challenges and benefits associated with service provision in both settings, they should be viewed as complementary approaches. Service providers in their study expressed support for SARCs on the one hand, but felt that independence from statutory partners was required for the delivery of effective services for victims.

In summary, within the UK, the range of specialized and dedicated services available has expanded to include specialist policing roles, ISVAs, dedicated support organizations such as RCCs and SARCs. It is within the context of these developments, and an appreciation of the limitations of the criminal justice response to rape, that the Support to Report (S2R) pilot advocacy service was launched in Scotland.

Support to Report (S2R)

S2R was launched as a new model of 24-hour advocacy support in December 2013 to assist rape victims at the initial stage of reporting to police. Its objectives were to improve the support available to victims of rape, to improve their experience of the criminal justice process and reduce levels of rape attrition. Unlike some advocacy services, where advocacy workers are based within a referral centre, S2R is based in Glasgow Rape Crisis Centre and was initially designed to be offered by the police to those reporting rape with an on-call advocacy worker called out to attend within an hour. However, in response to victim needs, the service quickly evolved to encompass support delivered before, during and after reporting to police (up to and including at trial). The S2R pilot received joint funding from the Scottish Government via Rape Crisis Scotland and Police Scotland, though its delivery by Rape Crisis trained workers informs the non-judgemental, empowering, survivor-led approach to service delivery.

The evaluation of S2R was conducted over a 12-month period from February 2014. Findings presented here draw on qualitative semi-structured interviews conducted with nine adult female rape victims who used the service; though this represents a small sample, valuable insights were gleaned from a particularly sensitive and difficult to reach population. This process was facilitated by adopting a qualitative research strategy to ‘access the world in terms of those people being researched’ (Stroh, 2000: 197). Interviews were used to ascertain victims’ experiences of receiving advocacy support, and the impact this had on their experience and engagement with the criminal justice process. Recruiting victims for interview was particularly important, but also challenging due to the sensitive nature and timing of the advocacy support offered; S2R staff provided invaluable assistance in informing service users about the evaluation at a point deemed appropriate by the relevant advocacy worker. Victims who consented to have their contact details passed on to the evaluation team were then invited to participate in interview. It is acknowledged that there could have been reluctance on the part of advocacy workers to pass on the contact details of any individual deemed likely to give negative feedback about the project, however, the sensitive nature and timing of the research precluded other recruitment strategies.

Of the nine interviews, six related to recent incidents and three to historical incidents. In four cases the perpetrator was a partner/ex-partner and, in five cases, known to the victim. The small sample size precludes any meaningful analysis of how views may vary according to age, gender, disability or sexual orientation; however, it is acknowledged these factors are known to impact upon the specific needs of victims (Rich, 2014). All interviews were fully transcribed and analysed thematically. During analysis a Framework matrix-based approach (Ritchie et al., 2003) was adopted, thus allowing data to be synthesized and charted in a way that enabled the researchers to ‘read across’ data without losing sight of individual participants. Using this method was particularly important for highlighting connections both within and across participants’ accounts.

Findings

Key themes that emerged in relation to victims’ views and experiences of accessing advocacy support were: victim participation and ability to make informed choices about engagement in the criminal justice process; independence of advocacy support to address needs throughout and beyond the criminal justice process; and provision of practical and emotional support in coping with the criminal justice process and the reactions of others. These themes are discussed in detail below, using anonymized verbatim extracts from interviews for illustrative purposes.

Discussion and Conclusions

These findings make an important contribution to understanding the nature, meaning and value of advocacy work from the perspective of victims who have accessed advocacy services when reporting rape to the police. As such, this work builds upon existing knowledge gleaned in relation to domestic abuse (Howarth et al., 2009; Parmar et al., 2005; Sullivan, 1991; Taylor-Dunn, 2016) and addresses the relative lack of research evidence specific to rape advocacy, particularly from the perspective of victims (Robinson and Hudson, 2011). This is significant in view of the distinctive nature of rape and the well-documented challenges associated with its reporting and prosecution (Brindley and Burman, 2012; Daly and Bouhours, 2010; Kelly et al., 2005).

Findings indicate the undisputed value of advocacy support when reporting rape to the police. Not only did advocacy support improve victims’ experience of the criminal justice process and assist sustained engagement in this process, in some cases it also facilitated making a report of rape to the police in the first instance. This is in keeping with research from other jurisdictions confirming that rape survivors’ experiences with medical and legal systems are improved if additional support is provided by victim advocates (see Campbell, 2006; Rich, 2014; Robinson and Hudson, 2011). While the emotional recovery of victims and the conventional aims of the criminal justice system may appear, at first sight, to be diametrically opposed (Herman, 2001), this finding also concurs with evidence that supporting victims of sexual violence throughout the criminal justice process reduces the likelihood of withdrawal from the process and therefore increases conviction rates (Lovett et al., 2004; Robinson, 2009). However, it is necessary to understand not just if, but why, advocacy support is of benefit to victims and their engagement with the criminal justice system.

In this study, key features included the independence of the advocacy worker from both the investigation and prosecution process, and continuity of support throughout the process. Independence forms an important context and value-base for the work. Relatedly, the dedicated nature of the advocacy worker’s role in tending to the needs of the victim was of central importance. This is in line with conclusions from other research in relation to the dedicated role adopted by ISVAs in England and Wales, whereby they are able to prioritize the welfare of victims and coordinate services to meet their needs (Robinson and Hudson, 2011; Taylor-Dunn, 2016).

The advocacy worker was described by victims as providing a counter-balance to the formal, sometimes intimidating, role of criminal justice agencies. Of particular value, was the ability to understand the emotions that accompany rape and the reporting process. It is important to note that this understanding should not be confused with the provision of a ‘sympathetic’ response; reflecting the ethos of Rape Crisis, it was an understanding grounded in a feminist appreciation of the dynamics of sexual violence as rooted in gendered inequalities and the exercise of power and control (Nichols, 2013). Thus, Rape Crisis trained advocacy workers with an appreciation of the potentially revictimizing and disempowering nature of interactions with the criminal justice system, were able to tend to the emotional and other needs of victims in a way that is different and additional to responses that criminal justice agencies are able to provide.

Nonetheless, echoing the call made by McMillan (2014) and Stern (2010), these findings also highlight the continuing need for a positive police response to reports of rape. While victims acknowledged competing police priorities within the investigation process and did not expect police officers to provide emotional support, it was apparent that the police response to their disclosure impacted significantly on their sense of justice and the validation of their experience. Similarly, Elliott et al. (2014) contend that the processes associated with reporting crimes to the police may be essential for the victims’ recovery from their experiences; specifically, that police validation of a victim’s experiences can have a vital impact upon their sense of closure, empowerment and safety. Thus, the use of advocacy workers should not mitigate police responsibility to provide an appropriate and sensitive response to disclosures of rape. As argued by McMillan (2014) in the UK and Corrigan (2013) in the USA, the provision of independent victim advocacy should complement rather than replace specialist police responses if an effective response is to be made to victims of rape. In a similar vein, given that much of the secondary victimization reported by rape victims occurs within the context of the trial (Burman, 2009), there is also an ongoing need to develop sensitive and specialist responses at the later stages of the criminal justice process. In addition to training for key criminal justice personnel, it has been argued that the provision of independent legal representation during trial is an effective way to meet the needs of the victim in the courtroom (Raitt, 2010).

Our findings indicate that advocacy support is of clear value to those reporting rape although they also raise broader questions about the outcomes sought by victims of rape. While prosecution and conviction may represent a positive criminal justice outcome and go some way to redressing the harms associated with rape, these findings highlight the importance of victims’ experience of the criminal justice process and the agencies they encounter on this journey. Hence, the consistent finding that while the criminal justice process is important, belief, recognition, support, validation, voice and control remain key to recovery from rape and other forms of sexual violence (Herman, 2005; Jones and Cook, 2008; McGlynn et al., 2016; Stern, 2010). Arguably, these issues are of crucial importance to those reporting rape and other sexual offences; crimes described by McMillan (2014: 5) as those ‘that fundamentally challenge a victim’s sense of dignity and autonomy’. In essence, this points to the importance of procedural justice and fairness of process. This broader sense of justice can be particularly difficult to achieve within conventional criminal justice responses to sexual violence given the process of marginalization described by victims in their peripheral role as witness or sources of evidence within proceedings (Herman, 2005; McGlynn et al., 2016). Moreover, findings indicate that a sense of fairness of process is especially important when cases do not proceed ‘successfully’ in legal terms. While such support was not included within the initial remit of S2R, this highlights the merits of independent advocacy provided by Rape Crisis and other voluntary sector organizations whereby the support provided is not contingent upon a report being made to the police, nor the stage a case may reach within the criminal justice process.

Further, current shortcomings in the criminal justice response to rape point to the ongoing need for forms of advocacy that move beyond that provided at an individual case level, to challenge social and cultural structures that exacerbate the trauma of rape. This concurs with the call by McGlynn et al. (2016) to understand victims’ conceptualizations of justice as ‘kaleidoscopic’; that is, as incorporating a wide-ranging, ongoing and continually shifting sense of justice that includes social and cultural change, thus moving beyond conventional criminal justice outcomes as embodying justice. This is a pertinent issue given that despite substantial law reform and encouraging developments in support for victims of rape, scepticism remains about the extent to which law reform alone can improve the experiences of victims (Burman, 2009; Daly, 2011; Westmarland et al., 2012), or the effectiveness of the criminal justice response to rape when it is situated within persistent discriminatory ‘cultural mythologies’ about women (Stubbs, 2003). Indeed, regardless of international efforts to improve the treatment of rape victims, the discretion exercised by human agents with ‘attitudinal biases’ is often able to subvert these efforts (Rich, 2014; Walby et al., 2015).

In conclusion, the provision of independent advocacy support is fundamental to ameliorating any ‘secondary victimization’ which may arise as a result of the investigative and prosecution process (Burman, 2009; Kelly et al., 2005). Going forward in the context of austerity and evidence of cuts to advocacy services (Towers and Walby, 2012), lack of investment in advocacy is a false economy. The benefits of advocacy extend well beyond the emotional recovery of victims; advocacy also assists engagement in the criminal justice process. However, the provision of this form of support should not substitute or diminish the need for legal reform or for agencies involved in this process to continually review and develop their practices to prevent secondary victimization occurring in the first instance. Hence the continuing importance of specialist independent services, such as Rape Crisis, in both service provision and influencing social, legal and cultural change (Martin, 2005; Patterson, 2009). In essence, the boundaries drawn between advocacy at an individual and societal level represents a false dichotomy; both forms of advocacy are inter-related and fundamental to improving responses to rape and the experiences of victims within the criminal justice system.