Like many other crime victims, sexual assault victims experience anxiety about engaging with the criminal justice system and feel a loss of control as they move through it.⁶ There are, however, many dynamics unique to sexual assault that exacerbate the experience for survivors of these crimes. While we know that the justice system is a critical component of a comprehensive response to sexual violence,⁷ many cases still go unreported. Two-thirds of sexual assault victims do not report their assault to police for reasons that include fear, embarrassment, loyalty towards the perpetrator, or belief that the criminal justice system cannot or will not help them.⁸  Many victims do not view the criminal justice system as an appropriate vehicle for resolving their experiences of violence.⁹

Negative experiences with police or prosecutors discourage many victims from proceeding with the process. Their reports may be viewed with skepticism or outright victim-blaming. Victims may be cross-examined the first time they sit down for an interview, or asked to explain themselves and their actions to the satisfaction of the officer or prosecutor. Why did they go to the attacker’s home? Why did they wait so long to report? Why did they have so much to drink? Any discrepancies in their accounts, even in the wake of deeply traumatic events, may be seized upon and picked apart. They may be accused of not being able to “get their story straight.” Such experiences cause many to feel disbelieved or blamed.

Believing that everyone, including a jury, will have the same reaction, many victims conclude it isn’t worth going through the ordeal of a trial. Similarly, a victim’s criminal conduct, whether committed around the time of their assault or long prior — particularly arrests for prostitution-related crimes — may be used as a basis to dismiss their allegations, causing further  mistrust of the system. Such grounds for discounting the victim’s report overlook the fact that perpetrators commonly select victims for their particular vulnerabilities, which they then exploit. To the extent perpetrators intentionally target “imperfect” victims, justice is foreclosed for those victims and the attackers escape accountability, remaining free to victimize others.

On the criminal justice side of the equation, there is an evident disparity between the number of sexual assaults reported and the number actually prosecuted. Regardless of our intentions as prosecutors to do good and despite our belief in the strength of our office’s response to these crimes, the research, both direct¹⁰ and indirect,¹¹ reveals that reporting rates,¹² arrest rates, prosecution rates,¹³ and conviction rates for crimes of sexual violence are, overall, staggeringly low.¹⁴ In a six-site study, researchers found that between 80 and 89 percent of cases reported to the police were either never referred to the prosecutor’s office or were declined for prosecution.¹⁵ Additional research shows that “[o]ne of the most enduring realities of sexual assault is that very few cases result in arrest, prosecution, and conviction of [perpetrators].”¹⁶

What causes this gap between reports of sexual assault and actual prosecutions? Is law enforcement failing to investigate or refer cases for prosecution? Are officers “exceptionally clearing” these cases¹⁷ based on perceptions about downstream decision-making?¹⁸ Are cases being referred for prosecution but then declined based on inadequate or inaccurately analyzed investigations? Are triable cases being declined for some other reason? Answers to these questions can be gleaned from attrition studies,¹⁹ reports from untested sexual assault kits,²⁰ investigative reports,²¹ victim feedback,²² and anecdotal evidence, such as multidisciplinary participant feedback at trainings. Among the likely explanations are uninformed credibility assessments of victims (e.g., those who are intoxicated, substance abusers, or involved in commercial sexual exploitation are unworthy of belief);²³ lack of information and training about sexual violence perpetration, victimization, and trauma; agency resource shortages; and concerns over conviction rates.²⁴

Collectively, these factors paint an unacceptable picture of the criminal justice response to sexual assault — a picture that is likely distressing and discouraging for the countless prosecutors dedicated to justice and victims and community safety. Improving the response to sexual violence will not only increase the number of cases investigated and prosecuted, but will encourage more survivors to report their assaults, and reduce the occurrence of these crimes as communities identify more perpetrators.

Our dedication to seeking justice can make it difficult to see and accept our failures. When we hear survivors say that they feel ignored or abandoned by the system, our defenses kick in. We stubbornly insist that survivor perceptions are not accurate — not in our jurisdictions. However, a better response is to hear survivors’ feedback, review the research, acknowledge the fact that our approach to prosecuting sexual violence may not be fully achieving its goal of protecting victims and communities, and revise our strategies accordingly.

AEquitas has partnered with the Justice Management Institute and the Urban Institute in an effort to improve the response of prosecutors to sexual violence committed against adult victims.²⁵ SAJI²⁶  challenged prosecutors to look beyond conviction rates as the primary measure of success or effectiveness and identified other factors that serve as the hallmarks of an effective criminal justice response. In celebrating the culmination of our pilot initiative, we are re-releasing the Model Response to Sexual Violence for Prosecutors (RSVP Model), now rebranded as the RSVP Model Volume I: Prosecution Practices. This Model, along with Volume II on performance management, provides the foundation for implementation, continual evaluation, and refinement of sustainable prosecution practices that will advance the prosecution goals of justice, victim safety, and offender accountability.

RSVP Volume I is a collection of office- and case-level promising practices, identified through the research and experience of AEquitas staff and partnered prosecutors and allied professionals, to produce more positive case outcomes.²⁷ It links specific prosecution practices to outcomes identified as consistent with, and integral to, prosecution goals.

RSVP Volume II provides performance management systems with a tool for offices and individual prosecutors to measure their effectiveness in achieving intended outcomes, and proposes a methodical, routine evaluation of prosecution practices that can be refined as necessary in response to evolving research, emerging issues, or changing conditions in a jurisdiction. Performance management can help us understand the extent to which prosecutors are employing promising practices (e.g., the use of expert testimony to explain victim behavior at trial; litigating motions in limine to exclude irrelevant evidence of the victim’s past sexual conduct), and whether the resulting outcomes (e.g., an increase in percentage of cases charged, increase in victim satisfaction with the criminal justice process) correlate with improved victim safety and offender accountability.

The RSVP Model is intended to serve as a comprehensive tool for making decisions on office policy and individual cases of sexual violence. When implemented, the policies and practices described will allow for all adult sexual assault victims who interact with prosecutors across the United States to experience prosecution practices that are trauma-informed, victim-centered, offender-focused, informed by research, and sustainable over the course of changes in administration and personnel.