ABSTRACT

Sexual assault (SA) remains a pervasive issue in the United States, marked by low reporting rates, inconsistent investigations, and limited convictions. In response, researchers and practitioners have promoted a range of best practices aimed at improving law enforcement and prosecutorial responses. Yet, the adoption and implementation of these practices vary widely across jurisdictions. This qualitative study draws on interviews with 13 law enforcement agencies and 12 prosecutors' offices to explore how recommended practices—such as victim advocacy, specialized units, interagency collaboration, and case reviews—are interpreted and operationalized in the field. Findings reveal substantial variability, shaped not only by resource availability but also by leadership priorities, organizational culture, and the ambiguity of guidance documents. Rather than functioning as standardized protocols, best practices are filtered through internal logics, resulting in inconsistent and sometimes superficial implementation. Leadership emerged as a critical determinant of whether reforms were meaningfully enacted. These findings contribute to broader theoretical discussions of institutional discretion, highlighting how implementation is a socially constructed process influenced by perceived legitimacy and organizational norms. The study underscores the need for implementation frameworks that clarify key components while allowing for contextual adaptation. Policymakers should prioritize trauma-informed leadership development, strengthen interagency coordination, and establish clearer guidance for evaluating practice fidelity. Addressing both structural and interpretive challenges is essential for improving consistency, advancing victim-centered responses, and enhancing public trust in the criminal justice system.

Keywords: Sexual Assault (SA), Best Practices, Victim Advocacy

"These [sexual assault] cases are messy. They are difficult to investigate and difficult to prosecute. Many times, the victim doesn't report right away, and when they finally do, there isn't physical evidence. Or the memory of the event isn't clear. Victims may be hesitant to cooperate with an investigation or prosecution because of the relationship with the perpetrator and pressure from family members. The truth is we need to be able to prove that a crime has been committed, and we can only go as far as the evidence will take the investigation."

Interview with Police Sergeant, November 5, 2020

Sexual assault (SA) remains a pervasive issue in the United States. According to the 2023 National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), there were an estimated 481,020 rape or SA victimizations, equating to a rate of 1.7 per 1,000 persons aged 12 or older (Tapp & Coen, 2024).. While this figure represents a decrease from 2022, it remains consistent with the overall rates from the past five years. Encouragingly, the percentage of rape or SA victimizations reported to law enforcement increased from 21% in 2022 to 46% in 2023, suggesting possible improvements in reporting behavior or support systems, though underreporting remains a significant concern. Research shows that this lack of reporting is just one of many barriers to successfully prosecuting SA cases. Even among the cases that are reported, only a small fraction leads to arrest, prosecution, and conviction. Spohn and Tellis (2014) noted that one of the enduring realities of SA is the extremely low rate of perpetrator conviction. A review by Lonsway and Archambault (2012) found that only 0.2% to 2.8% of SA cases reported to police result in incarceration. Further, data from Los Angeles between 2008 and 2010 indicated that just 18.8% of reported cases resulted in arrest, with only 53.4% of those cases ending in a guilty verdict (Morabito, Williams, & Pattavina, 2019).

The complexity of SA investigations lies in the multitude of factors that influence case outcomes, from the initial report through prosecution. These challenges include the availability of physical evidence, the willingness of victims to engage with the legal process, and societal or familial pressures. Recognizing these complexities, researchers and practitioners have identified best practices to guide law enforcement agencies and prosecutors in handling SA cases. These practices, promoted by professional associations (e.g., IACP, NDAA), advocacy organizations, and policy guidelines, include early involvement of victim advocates, the use of specialized units, interagency collaboration, and systematic case reviews (Campbell et al., 2017; IACP, 2015; NDAA, 2018). While some are grounded in empirical research, others rely primarily on practitioner consensus and have not yet been rigorously evaluated (Lonsway & Archambault, 2012). Before assessing their effectiveness, it is necessary to first examine whether these practices have been adopted in the field—and if so, how they are being implemented across different jurisdictions.

This study provides an in-depth examination of the variability in the adoption and implementation of best practices for SA case handling by law enforcement and prosecutorial offices across the United States. A mixed-methods approach was employed, combining survey data from a representative sample of agencies with follow-up interviews. The interviews aimed to explore how these practices were interpreted, adopted, and implemented in real-world settings, providing insights into the nuanced ways organizations address SA cases. By examining the gap between policy and practice, this paper sheds light on how law enforcement and prosecutorial practices diverge from recommended standards. This exploration offers essential insights into the variability in SA case handling and identifies opportunities to improve consistency, victim support, and justice outcomes across jurisdictions.

Background

Despite the limited empirical base, researchers and practitioners have identified several best practices for handling SA cases. However, some practices have received more attention than others. For example, the use of Sexual Assault Response Teams (SARTs) has been studied more extensively than specialized SA units. Even where research exists, little is known about how these practices work together to influence case outcomes. Furthermore, variability in adoption and implementation complicates efforts to assess the overall effectiveness of these practices.

SARTs were first developed in the 1970s to provide coordinated, multidisciplinary responses to SA cases. These teams typically involve law enforcement, victim advocates, Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners (SANEs), forensic labs, and prosecutors, working together to support victims, hold offenders accountable, and promote public safety (NSVRC, 2018). However, the composition and goals of SARTs vary across jurisdictions, complicating evaluations of their effectiveness. Some studies have reported positive outcomes, such as increased arrests and charges filed in cases where SARTs and SANEs were involved (Nugent-Borakove et al., 2006). Other studies, however, have found no significant effect on conviction rates (Wilson & Klein, 2005). Beyond measurable outcomes, SARTs have been linked to improved communication among stakeholders (Campbell & Ahrens, 1998). Yet, inconsistent team structures and goals hinder efforts to draw generalizable conclusions about their impact.

The guidelines for SA investigations developed by the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) aim to standardize investigative practices. These guidelines emphasize thorough documentation to support successful prosecutions and offer recommendations that agencies can adapt to fit local contexts (IACP, 2015). However, the voluntary nature of these guidelines has resulted in varying degrees of adoption across departments. While flexibility allows for local adaptation, it also introduces inconsistency, making it difficult to evaluate the impact of the guidelines on case outcomes systematically.

Prosecutorial practices also vary considerably, with models such as the Response to Sexual Violence for Prosecutors (RSVP) and the National District Attorneys Association’s (NDAA) best practices guide offering different frameworks. The RSVP model emphasizes a trauma-informed, victim-centered approach, measuring not only legal outcomes such as conviction rates but also the quality of the victim’s experience with the legal process (AEquitas, 2017). Research has shown that trauma can significantly impact how survivors of SA recall and report their experiences. The neurobiology of trauma explains how the brain’s response to stress may result in fragmented or nonlinear memory, dissociation, or delayed disclosure—often misunderstood by law enforcement and prosecutors as indicators of deception (Campbell, 2012; Hopper, 2017). To address these gaps, trauma-informed approaches have gained traction within criminal justice settings. These frameworks emphasize understanding trauma's effects, reducing re-traumatization, and fostering survivor-centered interactions (SAMHSA, 2014). In law enforcement, trauma-informed training programs aim to improve officers’ ability to recognize trauma responses, shift credibility assessments, and build trust with survivors (Rich & Seffrin, 2012; Jordan, 2004). However, the implementation of such practices remains uneven across jurisdictions. Similarly, the NDAA’s guide draws on insights from police agencies, health care providers, and legislators, yet it lacks the rigorous evaluation needed to be classified as evidence-based (NDAA, 2018). Despite the promise of these frameworks, little is known about how widely they have been implemented or the degree to which they adhere to intended practices.

In addition to these frameworks, several best practices have been consistently recommended to improve SA case handling. These include the early involvement of victim advocates, the use of specialized units, interagency collaboration, and systematic case reviews. Victim advocates play a crucial role in encouraging victims to report SA and engage with the legal process, thereby increasing the likelihood of arrest and prosecution (Seidman & Pokorak, 2011). Advocates also help ensure that a victim-centered approach is maintained throughout the investigation. However, the roles of advocates vary: some focus on helping victims navigate the legal system, while others prioritize the victim’s overall wellbeing (Kristiansson, 2013). This dual role, though valuable, introduces potential challenges. Advocates employed by police departments may prioritize investigative needs, while those from community organizations might prioritize the victim’s emotional wellbeing, potentially creating tension between advocacy goals and investigative outcomes (Gaines & Wells, 2017).

Specialized units within law enforcement and prosecutorial offices are another key recommendation for improving case outcomes. These units enable personnel to develop expertise in SA cases, which differ from other types of crimes in that victims often know their perpetrators. The IACP (2015) emphasizes the importance of selecting officers for these units based on their experience and communication skills. Similarly, the RSVP model suggests vertical prosecution, where one attorney handles a case from start to finish, to foster rapport with victims and reduce trauma (AEquitas, 2017). However, not all agencies have the resources to establish specialized units, and research has shown mixed results regarding their effectiveness (Beichner & Spohn, 2005).

Evidence procurement and processing also play a critical role in SA investigations. Best practices emphasize maintaining the chain of custody, using DNA evidence, and conducting comprehensive forensic exams (IACP, 2015). However, challenges remain, particularly regarding untested sexual assault kits (SAKs). Although forensic science has advanced, many SAKs remain untested due to resource constraints or doubts about the victim’s credibility (Campbell et al., 2017). This backlog highlights the persistent gap between policy and practice in handling evidence.

Interagency collaboration has been identified as another essential component of effective SA case handling. Research highlights how decisions made by one agency directly shape the decisions of another. For instance, Spohn and Tellis (2012) found that early prosecutorial screening often influences police decisions on arrest, case classification, and whether to forward a case for prosecution. Similarly, Pattavina et al. (2016) found that prosecutorial input during investigations can significantly affect police actions. Collaborative models like vertical prosecution and SARTs are designed to facilitate more seamless coordination across agencies. In these contexts, victim advocates often act as crucial connectors, helping survivors navigate law enforcement and prosecutorial systems while also relaying critical information between institutions. However, the effectiveness of these partnerships varies considerably. Advocates’ placement—whether embedded in law enforcement or independent—can shape how well agencies work together and whether a survivor-centered approach is truly maintained (Campbell, 2006). Where regular communication and shared goals are lacking, cases may be more likely to fall through the cracks.

Systematic case reviews are often recommended to monitor performance and identify areas for improvement. The RSVP model suggests tracking data on case attrition, complexity, and outcomes to inform policy decisions (AEquitas, 2017). However, many agencies lack the resources to conduct regular reviews or collect detailed data. While multidisciplinary case reviews, such as those conducted by SARTs, offer valuable insights, much of the existing research focuses on stakeholder perceptions rather than measurable outcomes.

Despite the development of these best practices, their adoption and implementation remain inconsistent. Each agency has discretion over which practices to adopt and how to implement them, resulting in significant variability. This variability makes it difficult to assess the effectiveness of individual practices or their combined impact on case outcomes. Given these challenges, this study aims to explore how law enforcement and prosecutors interpret, adopt, and implement best practices for SA case handling. Specifically, it seeks to document the most common strategies used by these agencies and compare them with established best practices to identify gaps and opportunities for improvement.

Methods

Participant Recruitment and Data Collection

FForty potential participants (20 from law enforcement agencies and 20 from prosecutors' offices) were contacted via email and invited to participate in the study’s interview phase. These individuals were drawn from a larger national survey on SA case-handling practices conducted earlier in 2020. Only those who had indicated interest in a follow-up interview were eligible. From this pool, a purposive sample was selected to ensure diversity in geographic region, jurisdiction size, and organizational structure. While not statistically representative, the sample was constructed to capture variation in how agencies interpret and implement recommended practices. By the end of November 2020, 25 participants had completed interviews: 13 from law enforcement agencies and 12 from prosecutors' offices.

All interviews were conducted under the oversight of the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the RAND Corporation, ensuring that ethical standards for research involving human participants were upheld. Participants provided informed consent before each interview, and all responses were anonymized to protect confidentiality.

The interviews were designed to gather detailed information about how organizations approach SA case handling. Although the same set of core topics was addressed across interviews, questions were adjusted slightly to reflect the participants' roles as either law enforcement officers or prosecutors. Interviews ranged in length from 40 to 80 minutes, with an average duration of one hour. Given the semi-structured format, the interviews often evolved beyond the prepared questions, allowing participants to elaborate on issues relevant to their specific contexts.

Typical interviews with law enforcement participants covered topics such as the structure of their organization, the communities they serve, the process of handling reported SA incidents, participation in Sexual Assault Response Teams (SARTs), and the role of victim feedback. Additional areas of discussion included SA-specific training, internal case reviews, collaboration with prosecutors, and the use of victim support services. For prosecutors, interviews addressed similar themes, with additional focus on decision-making processes related to charging cases, the role of case complexity, involvement in SARTs, and their experiences working with victim advocates. These interviews allowed participants to elaborate on their responses to the survey, providing more nuanced information on the length, content, and implementation of training programs, among other topics.

Data Analysis

The interviews were analyzed using qualitative content analysis, focusing on how participants described the adoption, implementation, and use of various best practices. The analysis also explored participants' perceptions of the efficacy and limitations of these practices, as well as their general views on SA case handling. Given the exploratory nature of the study, the primary goal was to document consistency and variability in the interpretation, adoption, and execution of best practices across agencies.

The data analysis was conducted using Atlas.ti, a qualitative data analysis software. Interview transcripts were uploaded to the software, and coding was applied based on predefined themes aligned with the best practices under investigation. For instance, questions regarding the use of victim advocates were coded under the theme “victim advocacy.” Within this theme, subcodes were applied to capture variations in how victim advocates were employed, including the point at which advocates were introduced to victims and whether they were employed by law enforcement or external organizations.

A similar coding process was followed for all other best practices discussed in the interviews, such as specialized SA units, interagency collaboration, evidence collection, and systematic case reviews. Each theme was compared across interviews to identify patterns and differences in implementation. For example, in analyzing responses related to victim advocacy, the study explored how different agencies utilized advocates, whether they prioritized investigative goals or victim wellbeing, and how these differences affected outcomes.

The qualitative analysis provided insights into both the successes and challenges encountered by agencies in implementing best practices. By identifying these patterns, the study offers valuable information that can inform future research and guide the development of more consistent and effective SA case-handling strategies.

The interviews were conducted by a researcher with training in trauma-informed qualitative methods and extensive experience studying institutional responses to gender-based violence. This background informed the development of interview questions and shaped the analytic lens used to interpret participant responses, particularly regarding power dynamics, procedural discretion, and systemic challenges. Reflexive memos were maintained throughout data collection and analysis to critically assess how the researcher’s positionality may have influenced data interpretation. These practices supported analytic transparency and helped ensure that findings remained grounded in participants’ perspectives.

Findings

The interviews provided an opportunity for participants to describe how their organizations implemented various best practices—or chose not to implement them. The following sections highlight key themes that emerged from the data, focusing on variability in the use of victim advocates.

Victim Advocates

The role and involvement of victim advocates varied significantly across agencies, revealing differences in the timing of their involvement, the organizations responsible for employing them, and the extent to which victims could access their services.

Timing of Victim Advocate Contact

Participants described notable variation in the point at which victim advocates engaged with victims during the case-handling process. Some agencies reported that advocates were involved from the very beginning. For instance, a representative from one law enforcement agency explained that victim advocates accompanied responding officers during the initial contact with the reporting party. In these cases, the advocate was the first to engage with the victim, offering information and support while the officer stood back. The responding officer only intervened if the victim agreed to proceed with police involvement.

However, most agencies described a different approach, where victim advocates did not engage with victims until after the initial police interview. In these instances, the responding officer took the initial report and later referred the case to victim advocates, who would typically contact the victim later the same day or the following day. One respondent explained that advocates were only engaged if victims explicitly requested their involvement. Officers would provide victims with a pamphlet and contact card for advocate services, leaving it up to the victim to initiate contact. If the victim chose not to call, services were not provided.

Another participant noted that their agency’s protocol included asking victims if they would like to have a victim advocate present during formal interviews. However, the decision to engage advocate services was again left entirely to the victim. This variation in practices reflects differences in agency protocols and the degree to which services are actively offered or passively made available, underscoring the complexity of ensuring consistent victim support across jurisdictions. (See Figure 1 for variation in the timing of victim advocate involvement.)

Victim Advocate Relationship to the Agency

Participants described variations in how victim advocates were associated with law enforcement agencies, highlighting differences in their roles, priorities, and impact on investigations. Some victim advocates were directly employed by law enforcement agencies, while others were contracted through external organizations or worked with a variety of community-based groups. These differing affiliations influenced the priorities and objectives of the advocates, which in turn shaped how law enforcement personnel perceived their effectiveness. (Figure 2 illustrates these distinctions in victim advocate affiliation and perceived roles.)

Victim advocates employed by law enforcement agencies typically prioritized supporting the investigative process. Their role focused on assisting officers by encouraging victim cooperation, gathering relevant information, and facilitating interactions between victims and investigators. As salaried employees, these advocates were integrated into the agency’s operations, aligning their work with the goals of the investigation.

In contrast, community-based victim advocates often focused more on the emotional wellbeing and broader needs of the victim, rather than the investigation itself. These advocates, many of whom were volunteers, prioritized providing emotional support, connecting victims with resources, and advocating for their interests throughout the legal process. Because their primary responsibility was to the victim rather than law enforcement, their involvement was sometimes viewed by officers as secondary to the goals of the investigation.

Some participants suggested that the affiliation of victim advocates affected law enforcement’s perception of their usefulness. In particular, advocates employed directly by law enforcement were often seen as more helpful, given their alignment with investigative priorities. In contrast, community-based advocates, with their focus on victim support, were sometimes perceived as less effective from the perspective of law enforcement officers, despite their critical role in supporting victims’ emotional and psychological recovery.

Perceptions of Victim Advocates

Most participants across both law enforcement and prosecutorial offices viewed victim advocates as beneficial to the investigative and legal processes. Victim advocates were recognized for their role in helping victims navigate the often-confusing criminal legal system, keeping victims engaged in investigations, and guiding them toward available resources and services. A representative from one law enforcement agency explained,

Victim advocates are helpful in providing support for the victim, we as law enforcement agents aren’t the best at doing. And they can help refer the victim to resources that we don’t know about to help the victim. They also can help get the victim on board with the investigation.

However, some law enforcement participants expressed concerns that victim advocates occasionally acted as obstacles to the investigation. These participants noted that advocates, by informing victims of their rights—including the right not to speak with investigators—could inadvertently impede progress. As one respondent remarked,

Well, they [victim advocates] are helpful to the victim. They [ victim advocates] can tell them [victims] about resources, including financial assistance. But are they helpful in the investigation [sigh] no, not always. Sometimes they [victim advocates] tell them [victims] that they don’t have to talk to us. And if they [victims] don’t cooperate then the investigation can’t move forward.”

This sentiment was more common in agencies where the primary focus was on securing convictions and punishing perpetrators, rather than prioritizing the victim’s wellbeing or achieving a positive resolution for the victim. In prosecutors' offices, all interviewees reported using victim advocates for SA cases, with most offices employing their own advocates. These advocates typically differed from those used by the law enforcement agencies involved in the same case. Prosecutors emphasized the importance of having their own advocate to guide victims through the complexities of the legal process, including court procedures, plea negotiations, and other trial-related events. One respondent explained,

Not only do victim advocates offer support, but our victim advocate is also very familiar with our offices processes and lets the victim know what to expect. But they [victim advocates] are always checking in and getting their [the victim's] consent in every step of the way.

While some victims worked with multiple advocates—such as those employed by law enforcement agencies or community-based organizations—prosecutors emphasized the importance of having at least one advocate with specialized legal knowledge. This familiarity with the legal process was seen as essential in helping victims navigate complex procedures and remain informed about the status of their case. In one prosecutor’s office, advocates were contracted through a community organization that also worked with local law enforcement agencies. This arrangement was chosen due to resource limitations but had the added benefit of continuity: victims who engaged with the advocate early in the investigation continued working with the same advocate throughout the legal process.

Specialized Units

The interviews revealed that the implementation of specialized SA units varied based on the size and resources of the agencies. Smaller law enforcement agencies generally did not have dedicated SA units. In these agencies, investigators responsible for handling SA cases also managed other types of crimes, often as part of a general crime investigation unit. These smaller agencies were typically organized into two main divisions: a patrol unit and a crime investigation unit. Respondents from smaller agencies cited limited resources as the primary impediment to establishing specialized units. Regardless of agency size, however, patrol officers were the first point of contact when an SA report was received. After taking the initial report, the responding officer would assign the case either to a specialized SA unit, if available, or to the general crime investigation unit.

Although interviewees indicated that all responding officers had undergone some form of SA-specific training, not all agencies required this training. Many respondents viewed the training as beneficial, especially for changing officers' perceptions of sex crimes and improving their understanding of how victims might respond to trauma. However, participants also noted that SA cases vary significantly, and much of the necessary knowledge is acquired through experience on the job. As one respondent explained, "cases are all different and complicated" therefore, it is hard to have a standard or step-by-step guide they can follow when handling SA cases Respondents emphasized that while SA training provided a foundation, many skills—particularly those related to handling complex or sensitive cases—were developed over time through practice..

The size of the prosecutors’ offices also influenced whether specialized units were implemented. Larger offices were more likely to have dedicated units for handling SA cases, while smaller offices managed these cases within general crime units. Regardless of the presence of specialized units, participants described two primary approaches to assigning SA cases. In some offices, SA cases were viewed as something prosecutors worked toward over time. These offices required attorneys to gain experience with misdemeanor and less complex cases before being assigned to SA cases. As one interviewee from a prosecutor’s office noted,

SA felony cases are some of the most difficult and complex cases. Therefore a more seasoned prosecutor will most often get assigned these cases.

In contrast, one office employed a rotation system in which prosecutors rotated through different types of cases every three years. The goal of this system was to provide prosecutors with broad experience across various areas of criminal law. Similar to other offices, prosecutors following the rotation system began with lower-grade criminal charges and moved toward more complex cases as they progressed. However, the rotation system appeared to be an outlier, as most respondents indicated that prosecutors generally specialized in certain types of cases over time, often by requesting assignments in specific units. In many offices, attorneys who worked with SA cases had actively requested the position.

More generally, it seems that attorneys requested to work in specific units, and thus prosecutors that worked with SA cases had requested the position. Frequently, respondents noted that prosecutors were required to meet specific criteria before being assigned to SA cases. These requirements often included a minimum length of service as a prosecutor and the completion of specialized training. However, the training was generally described as a one-time requirement, with no formal follow-up or continuing education. (See Figure 3 for how implementation of specialized units varies across agencies.)

Interagency Communication/Collaboration

Both law enforcement and prosecutorial interviewees described generally positive relationships, emphasizing the importance of open communication throughout the investigative and legal processes. Law enforcement respondents noted that, although they did not always receive regular updates on SA cases referred to prosecutors, they could easily obtain information if needed. Detectives and investigators reported feeling that they had ready access to feedback from prosecutors as they worked on cases. Several interviewees described instances where prosecutors actively collaborated with law enforcement, guiding investigative efforts.

One law enforcement respondent provided an example of this collaboration, explaining that detectives would meet with prosecutors to review cases. During these meetings, prosecutors might suggest gathering additional evidence or conducting follow-up interviews with specific individuals to strengthen the case. Participants from law enforcement emphasized that the ability to consult with prosecutors at any time was critical, describing communication between the two entities as a two-way exchange. They also highlighted the ease with which prosecutors could contact them for additional information as cases progressed. Many respondents felt that these collaborative efforts contributed to building stronger cases, improving the likelihood of successful prosecution. Figure 4 presents examples of the varied interagency collaboration structures described by participants.

Prosecutors shared similar sentiments regarding their communication with law enforcement investigators. Most interviewees from prosecutorial offices reported that they could contact investigators whenever needed and maintained communication throughout the life of a case. However, several prosecutors admitted that they did not consistently notify law enforcement of case outcomes, citing a lack of time and resources as the primary reason for this gap. One prosecutor explained,

We don't always notify them [the referring law enforcement agency] about outcomes, but we always make the victim the priority, and we try to make sure that they [the victims] are kept in the loop of any decisions and developments in their case.

While communication between law enforcement and prosecutors was described as generally positive, prosecutors emphasized that their primary focus was maintaining open communication with victims. They acknowledged that resource constraints sometimes limited their ability to provide timely updates to law enforcement. However, they stressed the importance of keeping victims informed about case developments and ensuring that victims remained engaged throughout the legal process. This focus on victim communication reflects the prosecutorial commitment to victim-centered approaches, even when agency collaboration may be constrained by workload pressures.

Case Reviews

The interviews revealed significant variation in how SA case reviews were conducted across law enforcement agencies and prosecutorial offices. (See Figure 5 for examples of variation in case review structures.) The size of the agency often played a determining role in the type and scope of the review process. Smaller law enforcement agencies, constrained by limited resources, tended to rely on individual officers or supervisors to review SA cases. In contrast, larger agencies were more likely to engage in structured, collaborative reviews, often involving multiple stakeholders through Sexual Assault Response Teams (SARTs).

In smaller agencies, case reviews were typically conducted by a single individual, often the supervisor overseeing SA investigations. In one interview, the participant shared personal opinions that suggested a problematic perspective on some victims of sexual assault. The respondent remarked,

A lot of these reported “rapes” are actually women that, you know put themselves in situations, like they went out and maybe drank too much and something happens, but they can’t just lead a guy on. And then have regrets and they don’t want to get in trouble with their boyfriend or husband so maybe what they tell us happened isn’t the truth.”

This participant’s role as the direct supervisor of investigators, coupled with the apparent bias expressed during the interview, highlights potential challenges in ensuring objective reviews within smaller agencies. Furthermore, the participant framed their review process as largely a formality, stating,

I have total confidence in my investigators, and I back their choices. They know what they are doing [investigating SA cases].

In contrast, larger law enforcement agencies conducted more formal and collaborative case reviews, often involving both supervisors and investigators. Many interviewees described systematic reviews where all SA cases, or a sample from a specific period, were examined collectively by the team. Many agencies also conducted case reviews through their involvement in SARTs, which facilitated collaboration among various professionals, including prosecutors, community victim advocates, social work or psychology researchers, and medical professionals such as Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners (SANEs). Law enforcement participants noted that participation in SARTs provided valuable insight into how different organizations contributed to the handling of SA cases. As one law enforcement representative explained,

Being part of it [SART meetings] like let me see the whole team that is working on the cases to help the victim, you know. And you see that you are not working alone, and you can see how everyone contributes to the case in one way or another.

In addition to improving collaboration, SART involvement allowed for the development of strategic plans to address challenges identified during case reviews.

Among the prosecutor offices interviewed, many acknowledged that they did not conduct regular, in-office SA case reviews. While some reported holding meetings to discuss complicated or challenging cases, formal retrospective reviews were uncommon. Resource limitations and heavy caseloads were frequently cited as barriers to conducting regular reviews. Most prosecutors admitted that their offices did not routinely seek feedback from victims regarding their experiences with the legal process. As one respondent explained, “We just don’t have the resources to follow up with victims.” Others assumed that victims would voice dissatisfaction if necessary, placing the burden on victims to initiate feedback. However, one prosecutor's office provided an example of proactive victim engagement. This office conducted regular case reviews and routinely solicited feedback from victims, using the insights to improve their handling of cases. As the representative explained,

We’ve made changes based on what we’ve learned from reviews and feedback. It’s been incredibly helpful in improving how we handle cases.

Participants also expressed discomfort with the outcomes of reviews that focused on conviction rates and the number of cases not pursued. Both law enforcement and prosecutors emphasized that pursuing a case required sufficient evidence, which was often difficult to obtain in SA cases. The absence of physical evidence, common in many cases, made it challenging to move forward, as accusations alone were often deemed insufficient. Several interviewees referenced the "CSI effect," noting that juries now expect forensic evidence to secure convictions. One prosecutor reflected this challenge, stating,

It is simply unethical to bring a case that you know you cannot win. It is also a waste of taxpayer resources.”

Another prosecutor emphasized the distinction between believing a victim and having enough evidence to proceed, explaining,

It’s not [taking a case to court] about whether we believe the victim or the amount of work, the real issue is what can be proved to a jury and if we can justify proceeding with a case.

Discussion

Researchers and practitioners have developed a range of best practices for law enforcement agencies and prosecutors handling SA cases. However, as this study demonstrates, the implementation of these practices is often inconsistent, with significant variability in how they are adopted across organizations. The flexibility built into these best practices, intended to allow agencies to adapt them to their unique contexts, has also led to inconsistent execution. This variability raises important questions about whether organizations are truly adhering to the intended practices or merely interpreting them in ways that fit their existing frameworks.

For example, some law enforcement agencies consider it sufficient to ask victims if they want to speak to a victim advocate, while others make the advocate the first point of contact with the victim. These different approaches reflect vastly different interpretations of the same recommendation. It is unclear which version aligns with the original intention behind the recommendation to involve victim advocates, as insufficient guidance exists to ensure consistent implementation. A similar pattern is observed in case review practices: some agencies conduct reviews internally, with a single supervisor evaluating cases, while others engage in multi-agency reviews involving external stakeholders. Without clear standards for how these practices should be implemented, there is a risk of superficial or ineffective adoption.

The variability in implementing SA practices mirrors challenges seen with other criminal justice reforms. For example, despite extensive research on eyewitness identification procedures that emphasize minimizing misidentification (Wells et al., 2020; Wells & Quinlivan, 2009), law enforcement agencies still differ widely in their practices. As the Innocence Project (2020) points out, “Despite solid and growing proof of the inaccuracy of traditional eyewitness ID procedures—and the availability of simple measures to reform them—traditional eyewitness identification remains among the most commonly used and compelling evidence brought against defendants.” Similarly, the adoption of SA case best practices appears to be inconsistent, not due to a lack of recommendations but because internal factors within organizations play a significant role in whether and how these practices are implemented.

A systematic review of promising practices found that successful adoption is more likely when an organization recognizes an internal need for the practice, rather than when the change is imposed by external pressures (Leseure et al., 2005). The review also suggested that universal, “one-size-fits-all” practices are often unsuccessful, as they fail to accommodate the unique needs of different organizations. This sentiment was echoed by several participants in this study. One law enforcement respondent explained,

Each sexual assault is unique, and each investigation [of a sexual assault] will have to be different. There can't be a one size fits all because these cases are not all one size.

This variability underscores the importance of developing practices that are flexible enough to address specific contexts but clear enough to maintain consistency in their implementation.

The lack of clear implementation guidelines makes it difficult to evaluate the effectiveness of these practices. With agencies interpreting and applying best practices differently, determining whether they improve case outcomes becomes nearly impossible. For meaningful evaluation to occur, agencies must first establish consistency and fidelity in their implementation. Key questions need to be addressed: What does it mean to use a victim advocate? At what point should the advocate be introduced? What qualifies as a specialized unit, and what training is required to participate in one? Is training ongoing or a one-time requirement? What constitutes a meaningful case review, and who should be involved? Without clarity on these and other questions, organizations are left to develop their own interpretations, resulting in significant variation and limited ability to assess the impact of these practices. Leadership emerged as a crucial factor influencing the adoption and implementation of best practices. Interviews revealed that leadership's attitudes toward SA cases directly impacted how practices were applied—or whether they were adopted at all. In one small law enforcement agency, a supervisor’s dismissive attitude toward SA cases was evident. The respondent remarked,

Most reported SAs are cases of women having regret. Maybe she drank too much because she was mad at her boyfriend and ended up having sex. Now her boyfriend is mad, so she says she was raped. It's stuff like that.

This agency did not employ victim advocates, nor did it conduct systematic case reviews, with the supervisor stating, "I trust the officers investigating the cases.” In hierarchical organizations like law enforcement agencies, leadership plays a key role in shaping the priorities and attitudes of personnel. If leaders are dismissive of SA cases or resistant to change, they may hinder the adoption of recommended practices or influence how these practices are implemented.

These findings highlight the importance of leadership in fostering a culture that prioritizes best practices and victim-centered approaches. Leadership’s role extends beyond policy adoption; it involves setting the tone for how personnel approach SA cases and ensuring that practices are implemented consistently and with fidelity. Without supportive leadership, even well-developed practices may be superficially adopted or ignored. Together, these findings contribute to broader theoretical conversations on discretion, implementation, and institutional culture. They demonstrate how loosely defined reforms—like best practices in SA case handling—are not simply adopted or rejected, but are interpreted through the lens of each organization’s leadership priorities, resource constraints, and internal norms. This aligns with prior work suggesting that implementation is not a linear or technical process but a socially constructed one shaped by organizational logics and perceived legitimacy (May & Winter, 2009; Sandfort & Moulton, 2015). By illustrating how even widely endorsed practices are variably operationalized, the study highlights the need for theoretical models that account for both discretion and institutional context—not just at the street level, but across administrative and leadership tiers.

Conclusion

This study sought to assess the extent to which best practices for handling SA cases have been implemented by law enforcement agencies and prosecutors' offices across the United States. What emerged from the findings, however, was less about strict adherence to prescribed practices and more about how organizations interpreted and operationalized them. Many agencies reported having adopted best practices, yet their definitions and applications varied significantly—reflecting a lack of clear, standardized guidance. Without consistent implementation frameworks, agencies defaulted to their own interpretations based on available resources, leadership priorities, and organizational culture, resulting in uneven practices across jurisdictions.

The flexibility built into these guidelines—intended to support local adaptation—had unintended consequences. While some variation is necessary to address the specific needs of different communities, the absence of clear parameters has led to inconsistencies that may compromise the goals of victim-centered care and accountability. For instance, the role of victim advocates ranged widely, from being involved at the earliest stages to only being offered if the victim specifically requested support. Such disparities raise important questions about what constitutes meaningful compliance with a best practice and whether divergent interpretations serve the same intended purpose.

These inconsistencies hinder both accountability and rigorous evaluation. When similarly labeled practices differ widely in form and function—for example, internal case reviews conducted by a supervisor versus multidisciplinary reviews involving external stakeholders—comparing effectiveness across agencies becomes nearly impossible. This variability underscores the need for clearer implementation frameworks that define not only the components of best practices, but also the conditions under which they are introduced, who delivers them, and how they are assessed.

The findings also highlight how discretion operates not just at the street level, but throughout institutional hierarchies. Leadership attitudes, in particular, played a decisive role in shaping how practices were implemented—or whether they were adopted at all. Some leaders embraced victim-centered reforms, while others dismissed SA cases as low priority. These organizational filters influence how reforms are interpreted, reinforcing the idea that implementation is not a technical process, but one shaped by internal logics, power structures, and perceived legitimacy.

Addressing these challenges requires more than better policies—it requires detailed, adaptable guidance that balances fidelity with flexibility. Implementation frameworks should specify when and how victim advocates are introduced, what constitutes a specialized unit, and what types of training are required, including their duration and frequency. These frameworks must also account for disparities in agency capacity by providing the resources—financial, structural, and human—needed to support implementation with integrity.

Ultimately, standardization is not about rigid conformity, but about ensuring equity. Without it, victims will continue to receive uneven responses depending on where their case is handled. Clearer guidelines also lay the foundation for systematic evaluation, allowing researchers and practitioners to assess whether reforms are working and where they fall short. By attending to both the interpretive nature of institutional implementation and the structural conditions that support or hinder reform, this study contributes to a growing body of research that views criminal justice reform as an ongoing negotiation between policy ideals and organizational realities. Achieving consistency in implementation is essential—not only for measuring outcomes, but for building a justice system that is transparent, accountable, and responsive to all survivors.

Limitations

There are several limitations to this study. First, the sample size was limited, with only 13 of 20 law enforcement agencies and 12 of 20 prosecutors' offices agreeing to participate in the interviews. While the study aimed for variation in geographic region, agency size, and structure, the sample was not statistically representative. Moreover, participants were drawn from a subset of agencies that had responded to an earlier national survey and indicated interest in a follow-up interview. As such, the sample may reflect self-selection bias, with more reform-minded or engaged agencies opting in. This could result in an overrepresentation of agencies that prioritize SA case handling and an underrepresentation of those that do not.

Second, the study relies on self-reported data, which may be influenced by social desirability bias. Participants may have portrayed their agency’s practices more favorably or described ideal policies rather than actual procedures. While the interviews were designed to elicit candid responses and included probing follow-ups, the data reflect participants’ perceptions rather than direct observation of organizational practices.

Lastly, this study was exploratory in nature and focused on understanding variability in interpretation and implementation rather than on evaluating effectiveness or outcomes. The findings are not generalizable but instead offer insight into how agencies conceptualize and apply best practices in real-world settings. Future research using mixed methods, including case audits or victim outcome data, could help validate self-reported practices and deepen understanding of what contributes to effective and equitable SA case handling.

Implications for Future Research and Practice

This study underscores the need for clearer implementation guidelines to address the variability in how SA cases are handled across jurisdictions. While best practices serve as important guiding principles, they often lack the specificity needed for consistent application. Future research should focus on developing detailed frameworks that provide clear guidance on key elements such as the roles of victim advocates, the structure and functioning of specialized units, and criteria for meaningful case reviews. These frameworks must balance fidelity with flexibility, allowing for adaptation to local contexts without compromising the core principles of victim-centered care.

Both qualitative and quantitative studies are needed to further explore how leadership, organizational culture, and resource availability affect the adoption and fidelity of these practices. Qualitative research can reveal the nuanced ways internal dynamics shape implementation, while quantitative research can assess how adherence to these practices impacts key outcomes such as victim cooperation, case attrition, and conviction rates. Comparative studies across jurisdictions could also identify which practices are most effective, guiding future policy, resource allocation and implementation efforts.

Policymakers and practitioners should prioritize leadership development programs that align supervisory practices with trauma-informed, victim-centered approaches. Leadership commitment plays a crucial role in the success of reforms and the consistent application of best practices. In addition, fostering collaboration between law enforcement agencies, prosecutors, and community-based organizations—such as victim advocacy groups—will enhance the effectiveness of interagency efforts.

Systematic data collection and routine case reviews are essential to monitor the effectiveness of practices, ensuring agencies can evaluate their adherence to recommended frameworks and make adjustments as needed. Establishing performance metrics that reflect both investigative and victim-focused outcomes will help guide continuous improvement. By addressing these challenges, agencies can work toward a more equitable, transparent, and effective response to SA cases, improving outcomes for victims and enhancing public trust in the criminal justice system.

Acknowledgments

This research was conducted as part of the RAND Corporation’s Graduate Summer Associate Program. The author gratefully acknowledges the support of the program and the participating law enforcement agencies and prosecutors' offices for their time and insights.

References

Abadinsky, Howard. Law and justice. Chicago: Nelson-Hall, 198.

AEquitas, Urban Institute, and The Justice Management Institute. (2017). Model response to sexual violence for rrosecutors. Report published by AEquitas.

Beichner, D., & Spohn, C. (2005). Prosecutorial charging decisions in sexual assault cases: Examining the impact of a specialized prosecution unit. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 16(4), 461-498.

Campbell, R. (2012, December). The neurobiology of sexual assault: Implications for first responders in law enforcement, prosecution, and victim advocacy. In NIJ Research for the Real World Seminar. National Institute of Justice Washington, DC.

Campbell, R., & Ahrens, C. E. (1998). Innovative community services for rape victims: An application of multiple case study methodology. American Journal of Community Psychology, 26(4), 537-571.

Campbell, R., Feeney, H., Fehler-Cabral, G., Shaw, J., & Horsford, S. (2017). The national problem of untested sexual assault kits (SAKs): Scope, causes, and future directions for research, policy, and practice. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 18(4), 363-376.

Gaines, D. C., & Wells, W. (2017). Investigators’ and prosecutors’ perceptions of collaborating with victim advocates on sexual assault casework. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 28(6), 555-569.

Hopper, J. Sexual Assault and the Brain.

Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority. (2003). The efficacy of Illinois’ sexual assault nurse examiner (SANE) pilot program. Chicago, IL: Author.

Innocence Project. (2020, December 17). Eyewitness identification reform. 

International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP). Investigating sexual assaults model policy. IACP, 2005.

Jordan, J. (2004). Beyond belief? Police, rape and women’s credibility. Criminal justice, 4(1), 29-59.

Kristiansson, Victoria. (2013). Walking A Tightrope: Balancing Victim Privacy and Offender Accountability in Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Prosecutions. The Prosecutor’s Newsletter on Violence Against Women, Issue 9.

Leseure, M. J., Bauer, J., Birdi, K., Neely, A., & Denyer, D. (2004). Adoption of promising practices: A systematic review of the evidence. International Journal of Management Reviews, 5(3‐4), 169-190.

Lonsway, K. A., & Archambault, J. (2012). The “justice gap” for sexual assault cases: Future directions for research and reform. Violence against Women, 18(2), 145-168.

Lonsway, K. A., Welch, S., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (2001). Police training in sexual assault response: Process, outcomes, and elements of change. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 28(6), 695–730.

May, P. J., & Winter, S. C. (2009). Politicians, managers, and street-level bureaucrats: Influences on policy implementation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(3), 453-476.

Menaker, T. A., Campbell, B. A., & Wells, W. (2017). The use of forensic evidence in sexual assault investigations: Perceptions of sex crimes investigators. Violence Against Women, 23(4), 399-425.

Morabito, M. S., Williams, L. M., & Pattavina, A. (2019). Decision making in sexual assault cases: Replication research on sexual violence case attrition in the US.

Morgan, R. E., & Truman J. L. (2020). Criminal victimization, 2019. Bureau of Justice Statistics.

National District Attorneys Association (NDAA). (2018) National sexual assault investigation and prosecution best practices guide. Report published by NDAA.

National Sexual Violence Resource Center (NSVRC), & United States of America. (2018). Sexual assault response team (SART) toolkit.

Noble, A., Brannon-Patel, E., & Tysoe, I. (2001). An evaluation of the sexual assault response team victim advocate program. Governor's Office of Criminal Justice Planning, Program Evaluation Division.

Nugent-Borakove, M. E., Fanflik, P. L., Troutman, D., Johnson, N., O’Connor, A. L., & Burgess, A. (2006). Testing the efficacy of SANE/SART programs: Do they make a difference in sexual assault arrest & prosecution outcomes? Report published by the American Prosecutors Research Institute.

Nugent-Borakove, M. E., Budzilowicz, L. M., & Rainville, G. (2007). Performance measures for prosecutors: Findings from the application of performance measures in two prosecutors’ offices. Report published by the National District Attorneys Association and American Prosecutors Research Institute.

Pattavina, A. Morabito, M. & Williams, L. (2016) Examining connections between the police and prosecution in sexual assault case processing: Does the use of exceptional clearance facilitate a downstream orientation? Victims & Offenders, 11: 2, 315-334.

Police Executive Research Forum (PERF). (2012). Improving the police response to sexual assault. Part of the Critical Issues in Policing Series published by PERF.

Rich, K., & Seffrin, P. (2013). Police officers' collaboration with rape victim advocates: Barriers and facilitators. Violence & Victims, 28(4).

Ritter, N. (2011). The road ahead: Unanalyzed evidence in sexual assault cases.

Sandfort, J., & Moulton, S. (2014). Effective implementation in practice: Integrating public policy and management. John Wiley & Sons.

Seidman, I., Pokorak, J. J. (2011). Justice responses to sexual violence. In Koss, M. P., White, J. W., Kazdin, A. (Eds), Violence against women and girls Volume II: Navigating the solutions (pp. 237-259). Washington, DC: American Psychological Books.

Spohn, C., & Tellis, K. (2012). The criminal justice system’s response to sexual violence. Violence Against Women, 18(2), 169-192.

Spohn, C., and Tellis, K.. (2014). Policing and prosecuting sexual assault: Inside the criminal justice system. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publisher.

Spohn, C., & Tellis, K. (2018). Sexual assault case outcomes: Disentangling the overlapping decisions of police and prosecutors. Justice Quarterly, 1-29.

Tapp, S. N., & Coen, E. J. (2024, September). Criminal victimization, 2023 (NCJ 309335). U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Wells, G. L., Kovera, M. B., Douglass, A. B., Brewer, N., Meissner, C. A., & Wells, G. L., & Quinlivan, D. S. (2009). Suggestive eyewitness identification procedures and the Supreme Court's reliability test in light of eyewitness science: 30 years later. Law and Human Behavior, 33(1), 1.

Wilson, C., & Ford, J. (2012). Concept of trauma and guidance for a trauma-informed approach. SAMHSA’s Trauma and Justice Strategic Initiative, 12, 7-9.

Wilson, D., & Klein, A. (2005). Document Title: An Evaluation of the Rhode Island Sexual Assault Response Team (SART).

Wixted, J. T. (2020). Policy and procedure recommendations for the collection and preservation of eyewitness identification evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 44(1), 3.

Contributor

Veronica Valencia Gonzalez, PhD, is a Research Assistant Professor in the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of South Carolina. Their research explores gender-based violence in marginalized communities, with a focus on survivor advocacy, institutional responses, and cross-cultural approaches to justice. Drawing from ethnographic methods and policy-oriented research, her work aims to inform equitable and survivor-centered interventions.