Here’s One Way Sexual Assault Victims Are Actually Being Helped

Most victims who get rape kits don’t pay for them. But, according to a new study, there are still major failings — especially for minorities.

NEW YORK, NY: Protesters stand outside of a Manhattan court as former IMF director Dominique Strauss-Kahn, who was accused of sexual assault, exits on August 23, 2011 in New York City.
National Journal
Elahe Izadi
See more stories about...
Elahe Izadi
May 14, 2014, 1 a.m.

There’s been much at­ten­tion lately on the huge back­log of rape kits in the U.S., with forensic evid­ence sit­ting on shelves and the vic­tims of sexu­al as­sault mis­takenly think­ing their cases were be­ing in­vest­ig­ated.

But at least when it comes to get­ting those rape kits to vic­tims in the first place, there is one pos­it­ive de­vel­op­ment: Most sexu­al-as­sault vic­tims who get med­ic­al forensic ex­ams (called rape kits) ap­pear to be get­ting them free of charge and without hav­ing to re­port a crime to the po­lice.

That’s ac­cord­ing to a new, 118-page Justice De­part­ment-fun­ded re­port that sheds light on the ways states are im­ple­ment­ing the Vi­ol­ence Against Wo­men Act, and how they are pay­ing for rape kits.

The re­port found that two-thirds of states pay for rape kits us­ing vic­tim com­pens­a­tion funds, which are in­ten­ded to off­set costs for vic­tims of all types of crimes, not just sexu­al as­sault. The oth­er 11 states pay for rape kits us­ing law-en­force­ment or pro­sec­u­tion funds.

The pay­ment piece is im­port­ant, be­cause there is a policy and philo­soph­ic­al de­bate about how to pay for rape kits, says the Urb­an In­sti­tute’s Jan­ine Zweig, the lead au­thor of the re­port.

“What we found for the states us­ing [vic­tim] com­pens­a­tion funds, the pay­ment pro­cess is quite seam­less; very few stor­ies about vic­tims be­ing in­ap­pro­pri­ately billed,” she said. “But the de­bate is about wheth­er a fund that’s in­ten­tion is to dir­ectly be­ne­fit vic­tims should cov­er forensic evid­ence.”

Law en­force­ment and pro­sec­utors be­ne­fit from the evid­ence from rape kits, so some be­lieve that law-en­force­ment funds should be used to pay for them. The latest it­er­a­tion of VAWA, passed in 2013, for­bids the prac­tice of char­ging vic­tims and then re­im­burs­ing them the full cost.

Some states have caps on the amount that the ex­ams can cost; if hos­pit­als con­duct ex­ams at a cost that ex­ceeds that cap, some­times they take a loss. Hos­pit­al of­fi­cials are wor­ried about the sus­tain­ab­il­ity of such a prac­tice,and ser­vice pro­viders are also wor­ried about the fu­ture of rape-kit fund­ing.

The re­port, con­duc­ted by the Urb­an In­sti­tute us­ing a $525,464 award from the DOJ’s Na­tion­al In­sti­tute of Justice, also found there are still bar­ri­ers to rape-kit ac­cess for Nat­ive Amer­ic­ans, im­mig­rants, and non-Eng­lish speak­ers.

For ex­ample, in one state with mul­tiple In­di­an re­ser­va­tions, only one re­ser­va­tion had sexu­al-as­sault nurse ex­am­iners. Cul­tur­al bar­ri­ers are also a big prob­lem, and non-Eng­lish speak­ers face a lack of trans­lat­ors — par­tic­u­larly when they of­ten have to rely on fam­ily to trans­late in oth­er situ­ations.

The 2005 ver­sion of VAWA man­dated that for states to be eli­gible for grant money, they have to provide free ex­ams re­gard­less of wheth­er vic­tims re­port crimes to po­lice. That’s im­port­ant, be­cause there is a short peri­od of time to col­lect evid­ence, yet the de­cision of wheth­er to press charge can take time.

“The de­coup­ling of those two things was very im­port­ant in 2005, but what we haven’t seen is large num­bers of vic­tims get­ting those ex­ams and then not go­ing to the po­lice,” Zweig said. “Most people went to get ex­ams and were re­port­ing to the po­lice.”

That means there could be many vic­tims who aren’t get­ting rape kits, and then miss­ing out on the oth­er as­pects of the ex­am, in­clud­ing STD test­ing and get­ting linked to crisis coun­selors and ser­vice pro­viders.

“The pay­ment is­sues are ob­vi­ously very im­port­ant, to make sure that the vic­tims that get these ex­ams, that there are sys­tems in place so that they’re not saddled with a bill after the most trau­mat­ic event in their lives,” Zweig said.

But she cited Bur­eau of Justice stat­ist­ics that show only one-third of vic­tims re­port rape, and less than a quarter seek help from rape crisis cen­ters or loc­al ad­vocacy groups. Giv­en the re­port’s find­ings, it stands to reas­on many of those vic­tims aren’t get­ting ex­ams and are los­ing out on both as­sist­ance and the op­por­tun­ity to see as­sail­ants pro­sec­uted.

“The lar­ger con­text is there are many vic­tims who are not get­ting any help,” Zweig said.

What We're Following See More »
1.5 MILLION MORE TUNED IN FOR TRUMP
More People Watched Trump’s Acceptance Speech
14 hours ago
THE DETAILS

Hillary Clinton hopes that television ratings for the candidates' acceptance speeches at their respective conventions aren't foreshadowing of similar results at the polls in November. Preliminary results from the networks and cable channels show that 34.9 million people tuned in for Donald Trump's acceptance speech while 33.3 million watched Clinton accept the Democratic nomination. However, it is still possible that the numbers are closer than these ratings suggest: the numbers don't include ratings from PBS or CSPAN, which tend to attract more Democratic viewers.

Source:
×