Testing the Efficacy of SANE/SART Programs: Do They Make a Difference in Sexual Assault Arrest & Prosecution Outcomes?

• NCJ Number: 214252
• Author(s): M. Elaine Nugent-Borakove; Patricia Fanflik; David Troutman; Nicole Johnson; Ann Burgess; Annie Lewis O'Connor
• Date Published: January 2006
• Length: 223 pages
• Grant Number(s): 2003-WG-BX-1003
• Agencies: NIJ-Sponsored
• Publication Type: Program/Project Evaluation
• Award: Testing the Efficacy of the Sane-Sart Programs

Annotation

This study examined the effectiveness of SANE (Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners)/SART (Sexual Assault Response Teams) programs as a tool in the criminal justice system, specifically the impact of sexual assault case outcomes.

Abstract

Findings examining the effectiveness of Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners (SANE) and Sexual Assault Response Teams (SART) were quite supportive of SANE/SART interventions as valuable tools in the criminal justice system's ability to respond to adult female sexual assault cases. SANE/SART interventions are effective tools in collecting and preserving valuable evidence for prosecution, including DNA evidence. An important finding is that SANE/SART interventions significantly increase the likelihood that charges will be filed in sexual assault cases. Additionally, even though a combined SANE and SART response yielded higher levels of participation than non-SANE/SART cases, SANE only cases showed the lowest levels of participation. Overall, the results are in favor of SANE/SART programs and help establish their effectiveness as a tool in the criminal justice system. This study supported by the U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice focused on the impact of SANE/SART interventions on the formal criminal justice response, specifically the outcomes of sexual assault cases. The American Prosecutors Research Institute (APRI) and Boston College examined five primary research questions: (1) was the arrest rate higher in cases where a SANE/SART exam was performed as compared with cases in which no exam was performed; (2) was the indictment/charging rate higher in such cases; (3) were guilty pleas more likely to be entered in such cases; (4) was the conviction rate higher in such cases; and (5) was the sentence more severe in such cases. Exhibits, references, appendixes A-B, datasets (case processing summary and case summaries), and codebook