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
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 »
DEMOCRATS WILL INTRODUCE RESOLUTION ON FRIDAY
Pelosi Pushing Legislation to End National Emergency
9 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"Speaker Nancy Pelosi is throwing her muscle behind a legislative effort to block President Donald Trump’s national emergency declaration, the first formal step to counter Trump and squeeze Republicans on the border wall. Democrats will introduce legislation Friday to terminate the emergency proclamation and Pelosi is urging House colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the resolution, according to a letter obtained by POLITICO on Wednesday."

Source:
IT IS A PUBLIC HEARING
Cohen Testifying at House Oversight Feb. 27
11 hours ago
THE LATEST
AVOIDS SHUTDOWN WITH A FEW HOURS TO SPARE
Trump Signs Border Deal
5 days ago
THE LATEST

"President Trump signed a sweeping spending bill Friday afternoon, averting another partial government shutdown. The action came after Trump had declared a national emergency in a move designed to circumvent Congress and build additional barriers at the southern border, where he said the United States faces 'an invasion of our country.'"

Source:
REDIRECTS $8 BILLION
Trump Declares National Emergency
5 days ago
THE DETAILS

"President Donald Trump on Friday declared a state of emergency on the southern border and immediately direct $8 billion to construct or repair as many as 234 miles of a border barrier. The move — which is sure to invite vigorous legal challenges from activists and government officials — comes after Trump failed to get the $5.7 billion he was seeking from lawmakers. Instead, Trump agreed to sign a deal that included just $1.375 for border security."

Source:
COULD SOW DIVISION AMONG REPUBLICANS
House Will Condemn Emergency Declaration
5 days ago
THE DETAILS

"House Democrats are gearing up to pass a joint resolution disapproving of President Trump’s emergency declaration to build his U.S.-Mexico border wall, a move that will force Senate Republicans to vote on a contentious issue that divides their party. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) said Thursday evening in an interview with The Washington Post that the House would take up the resolution in the coming days or weeks. The measure is expected to easily clear the Democratic-led House, and because it would be privileged, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) would be forced to put the resolution to a vote that he could lose."

Source:
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login