- FIND RESOURCES
- Survivors
- Friends & Family
- Advocates & Educators
- Media & Press
- OUR WORK
- SEXUAL ASSAULT AWARNESS MONTH
 |
 |
SARTs generally hold regularly scheduled meetings to develop relationships, discuss emerging issues, and monitor progress on outcomes. Meetings provide regular opportunities to further the team’s mission by creating space to make improvements, identify concerns, and celebrate successes. The regular pattern of communication provided by meetings is seen as an important component in effective teamwork. [33]
Some SART members may feel team meetings are too long or take them away from their work. To keep the meeting to a reasonable length, consider holding separate meetings for case reviews or conduct different meetings to discuss forensic, medical, and legal issues. The best meeting format is one that respects the time constraints that participants may have while budgeting adequate time to address agenda items.
Team meetings serve an important function in which teams can monitor progress, revisit mission and goals, assess changes in the larger community, ensure sufficient resources, and formulate strategy for addressing any remaining challenges. [34] Meetings can serve as a transitional space between SART response episodes, during which missions and goals can be revisited and strategies for improving response formulated. Engaging in this kind of transition process has been shown to increase overall team effectiveness. [35]
Purposeful meetings often include — [36]
As a statewide coordinator of the Kansas Sexual Assault Network put it — [37]
“Over the past seven years I have worked with professionals from all over the state who have come together to form SARTs. Some individuals come with an initial reservation; others come with drive and determination. The result of the meeting process is a strong team of community members willing to learn about and from one another, sift through challenges, overcome turf issues, commit to common goals, face the fear of change, build mutual respect and ultimately, decide to change the way victims’ access and receive services. I have seen team members argue, I have seen them laugh, I have seen tears, I have seen compassion, I have seen frustration, and I have seen systems change for the better.”
A SART can provide the space for successful collaboration between groups of professionals by implementing procedural and normative best practices. The following guidelines can help you achieve this success.
Procedurally, SARTs should —
As important as proper procedures, the following norms or standards within your SART are essential for success:
Some states have laws that specify how often a SART should meet. Consult your state statute or contact your state’s SART training and technical assistance (TA) advisor to ensure that your SART is meeting all jurisdictional requirements. Often your statewide sexual assault coalition can guide you to this information, if it exists. In other states, a coordinator may have recommendations or requirements. Yet in others, the SART can determine what works best for them.
There is no “best practice” for how often meetings should be held, as the frequency of meetings should match the amount of work the group needs to accomplish with individual member needs. SARTs function best when there is predictability regarding frequency and consistency with dates, times, and locations of meetings. In the beginning, SARTs often hold planning meetings weekly or biweekly.
Once a SART is established, you might move to monthly or quarterly meetings. More established SARTs may find that holding less frequent meetings strikes the right balance of maintaining channels of communication and ensuring smooth operations without burdening individuals. Some established SARTs hold more meetings to provide a continuation of communication or to complete a specific project.
It is important that meetings be experienced as meaningful [43] with the time used in a way that contributes to members’ abilities to effectively meet the needs of survivors. Meeting more often than necessary can lead to members losing enthusiasm and skipping meetings because meetings are not seen as a good use of limited time. Having some regular pattern of communication [44] is important for monitoring ongoing operations, engaging in cross-training, and revisiting mission and goals.
Regular communication may consist of in-person meetings, virtual meetings, group emails, or other shared virtual space. Although some SART members may see each other during service provision, regular, intentional communication focused on operations and the process of service provision is necessary.
If your SART is running well, you may want to shorten the meeting time, skip a month, or meet only when issues arise or not at all. Be careful, however, about interrupting the momentum of these meetings. Problems may develop, standards may shift, relationships may break down, and, ultimately, without team meetings, problems could go unresolved or pile up. Often, SART members can determine what works best for the group of people in the SART at any given time, but some states have laws that specify how often SARTs should meet. If meeting attendance declines, consider developing a meeting feedback survey to help identify ways to improve the meeting process.
Additional meeting opportunities include holding multiple day trainings. Some SARTs hold two-day meetings to launch the team or hold an annual half-day or daylong session to do more in-depth work or plan for the coming year. These meetings provide SART members the opportunity to spend significant time together focused on big-picture goals, such as strategic planning, evaluation, or other training. Some states hold yearly meetings for all SARTs. Other SARTs attend national training conferences as teams.
SARTs can increase attendance at meetings by holding them in a location that is accessible, convenient, and comfortably accommodates all participants. [45] SARTs may rotate meeting locations and times to accommodate different schedules and to give SART members a chance to become familiar with other agency settings. Details such as finding a comfortable location and offering food can increase meeting effectiveness. [46]
Thanks to emerging technology, video and conference calls may be an option for team members who live far from the meeting location. When considering remote meeting attendance, it is important that SARTs evaluate the technology and location of technology at each organization to ensure the device being used is private and safe and the location is private and safe without distractions. When hosting remote meetings, it is important to have a backup option for members who have technology concerns before or during the meeting.
Additionally, SARTs may want to consider what topics are appropriate for remote meetings. For example, SARTs may choose to delay more difficult conversations or case review for in-person meetings, both to preserve relationships and to keep survivors’ information private. Whenever your team considers the use of technology, ask: “Is it safe, is it private, what if it is not working, and are we causing unintended negative consequences?”
Agendas are critical meeting tools that — [47]
Creating and following an agenda can function as a strong tool in guiding productive meetings. Whether SARTs use formal agendas depends in large part on the facilitator’s and members’ willingness to follow an agenda and stay on topic.
SART members can use agendas as a tool to defuse heated disagreements that arise during meetings, as anyone at the meeting can interject mentioning something to the effect of, “While this is an important conversation, it is not on the agenda — we could be discussing the predetermined topic,” or “This is an important discussion. Can we add it to the next agenda so everyone on the team has time to learn more before we make any decisions?” or “[specific member] is not at the table and should be for this discussion. Let’s add this topic to a future agenda, when everyone is available.”
Alternatively, having an agenda allows SARTs to recognize a new topic when it arises, allowing for the team to decide if they would like to reorganize the meeting to discuss it when it arises and shift the current topic to a future agenda. Having a clear agenda that people use during meetings supports equity among members, as it encourages transparency among all and is not left up to any one member.
The meeting facilitator can bring an annotated agenda with notes about who will guide each section and what process will be used to ensure team members move smoothly through each agenda item.
SART members should decide who creates agendas and how they will be created. Possibilities include: setting the next agenda at the conclusion of each meeting, assigning agenda preparation to the facilitator or another team member, or giving agenda setting responsibility to the SART coordinator if there is one. Formal agendas should include information such as the time and place of the meeting and a list of topics scheduled to be discussed with a suggested length of time and assigned facilitator when appropriate.
Alternatively, SARTs may agree to have a meeting following the American Indian/Alaskan Native (AI/AN) tradition of holding a talking circle [48] where the agenda is to come together, possibly with a specific topic or question. The act of coming together to share may result in and develop relationships crucial to the SART’s success. SARTs may use this time to share, as they feel appropriate, about themselves, why they do this work, how this work impacts them, or recent events, or to see where the conversation flows.
Asking team members to share about their office culture — including how decisions are made, how complaints are filed, how training takes place, how new hires are trained, and what support exists — may provide members with an appreciation for different office styles and a wider toolbox as teams plan SART meetings.
Some SARTs may develop additional information to be sent with agendas, such as —
Having a written, transparent process accessible to all members and agencies creates a more balanced power dynamic. In some SARTs, members call or email SART coordinators with agenda topic suggestions, and coordinators share the lists during meetings for team members to determine future agenda items. In some SARTs, members may submit a specific form outlining the topic, a proposed facilitator, a date, and any additional information. These forms can be used to hold SART leadership accountable to members, especially in cases where there are perceived power imbalances.
Some topics — such as reviewing a strategic plan, considering evaluation data, reviewing roles, reviewing membership, and participating in cultural competency training — may appear on meeting agendas monthly or yearly. Some topics may be discussed over the course of several meetings or decided quickly. The speed with which a SART addresses a topic is not indicative of the quality of the team. Some teams quickly make decisions and need to revise those decisions months later. Other teams with members who have worked together in other capacities may be able to predict challenges or need to address past grievances before agreeing to move into a new agreement. Regardless of the process, it is important all members know how to add topics to the agenda and feel comfortable doing so.
The following is a list of example agenda items that SARTs often discuss. It is not an exhaustive list of topics for SARTs to discuss and is in no particular order. SARTs may revisit the following topics as they learn what does or does not work for their team. Click on the topics below for more specific information about a particular topic:
Established SART meeting agendas may include topics that cover multiple meetings and focus on completing large tasks such as —
Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault — Statewide Sexual Assault Response Team Manual Version I (PDF, 57 pages)
This manual, developed by the Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault, is a handbook and seeks to act as guidance to SARTs. It can be used by teams, using each section as an agenda item. It includes a number of useful questions for teams that can be used to guide discussions among SARTs.
Gaining Momentum for Unproductive Team Meetings (Microsoft Word, 4 pages)
Each member of the SART can answer this questionnaire individually, and then the responses can be tallied and discussed.
Mandatory Reporting Obligations by Provider or Type of Service (PDF, 2 pages)
This tool by the Victim Rights Law Center provides a chart for teams to fill out based on their local realities to increase provider awareness of survivors’ privacy rights across disciplines. This may be especially useful to teams during formation, when making referrals, and when directing survivors to resources.
Sample SART Meeting Agenda (Microsoft Word, 1 page)
This document is easily adaptable for any SART and is a highly formal version of an agenda. Agendas that clearly set expectations for upcoming meetings increase transparency, particularly around decision-making, that allow member organizations to make informed decisions about preparation and attendance.
Sample SART Meeting Minutes (Microsoft Word, 2 pages)
This document is easily adaptable for any SART and is a highly formal version of meeting minutes. Taking objective meeting minutes that are accessible to everyone in the SART supports buy-in and provides a historical record for decisions or concerns and follow-up tasks.
SART Agenda Topic Request Form (Microsoft Word, 1 page)
This document is easily adaptable for a SART that requires or chooses a formal way to submit meeting requests. Using something like this document or adapting this document to your local needs will ensure accountability and transparency to make sure all topics from all participants are included in a timely manner on agendas.
Meeting minutes, which are notes recording details about meetings, provide a record of who was at meetings, discussions, decisions made, actions determined necessary, and accountability.
Minutes should be recorded during meetings, not written after a meeting from memory. Some SARTs share this responsibility among multiple members, some SARTs include a support person who can take minutes, and other SARTs assign the duty at each meeting or for a period of meetings. Depending on who is taking minutes and agency habits, minutes may range from 3 sentences, recording only the largest of decisions, to 25-page transcriptions of meetings. While both extremes may be useful in particular instances, most SARTs settle in the middle.
Minutes should be shared with all members and approved by all members to ensure that an accurate record is being developed. Finalized, approved minutes should be shared with discipline-specific leadership to increase accountability, buy-in, and awareness. Coordinators or SART leaders can refer to the meeting minutes at the end of the year to emphasize or share all the work SARTs accomplished during the year. SARTs will likely be amazed at how far their team moved forward, even if they are often in the midst of what appear to be slow-moving conversations.
SARTs may also have meetings where minutes are intentionally not taken, such as during trainings, open discussion, or case review. When SARTs meet and do not take minutes, it should be recorded that minutes were intentionally not taken during a discussion or an entire meeting.
Team members should consult with counsel, likely the state’s attorney or public records officer, to consider whether meeting minutes and other documents generated by the SART and its members will be subject to disclosure pursuant to a request made under the jurisdiction’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Because these laws are complex, it makes sense to consult with an attorney or the jurisdiction’s public records officer for advice. Every state has some form of law that requires government agencies, departments, and boards to disclose records upon request. [50]
To encourage full government disclosure and accountability, the default position of every law is in favor of timely disclosure of requested information. The requestor does not have to justify the request for disclosure; there is no requirement as to the purpose of the request. All requests must be responded to, no matter what the requestor intends to do with the information. To further encourage timely disclosure, many laws have short timelines for response and harsh penalties for unjustified refusal to fully disclose the requested information.
State FOIAs vary considerably, so the SART must check its jurisdiction’s statutes to determine if it is an entity subject to the statute and whether any exceptions to disclosure apply to the SART. Some laws may require a representative of a covered entity to appoint a FOIA coordinator, who is in charge of addressing requests made under the law. The SART should also develop a written plan for handling requests made under FOIA.
The SART must first determine whether it is an entity covered under the jurisdiction’s FOIA. To do this, the SART should confer with local counsel, such as the state attorney general’s office. The definition of a covered entity can be quite broad. For example, Virginia’s FOIA applies to “public bodies,” defined as:
any legislative body, authority, board, bureau, commission, district or agency of the Commonwealth or of any political subdivision of the Commonwealth, including cities, towns and counties, municipal councils, governing bodies of counties, school boards and planning commissions; governing boards of public institutions of higher education; and other organizations, corporations or agencies in the Commonwealth supported wholly or principally by public funds… [51]
Under Virginia law, the Commonwealth’s attorney is obligated to establish a SART, making it a statutorily created body. [52] Because it is a statutorily created body, it is covered by Virginia’s FOIA and any record created and maintained by the SART is potentially subject to disclosure pursuant to a FOIA request. As of 2017, five states and the District of Columbia have state-mandated or statutorily created SARTs. [53]
However, like most FOIA laws, Virginia’s includes many exceptions. The Virginia law specifically addresses the portion of the minutes of meetings at which individual sexual assault cases are discussed. [54]
Other state FOIA laws may include exemptions based on the nature of the information as private, the disclosure of which would unduly embarrass the person whose private information is requested (see, New York’s Freedom of Information Law, N.Y. Pub. Law Sec. 89 [55]), or an exception for information expressly shared with the covered entity upon a promise to keep it confidential. In addition, exemptions from disclosure are sometimes created in different statutes, usually statutes that mandate the collection of certain private, privileged, or confidential information. (See Michigan’s Crime Victims’ Rights Act, MCL 780.818, [56] which exempts a crime victim’s identifying information from disclosure under the State’s FOIA.)
Determining whether the SART is subject to FOIA when not explicitly created as a government entity is more difficult. For example, Michigan’s FOIA has a detailed list of government bodies and agencies covered by FOIA, including a “catch-all” subsection that includes:
Any other body that is created by state or local authority or is primarily funded by or through state or local authority, except that the judiciary, including the office of the county clerk and its employees when acting in the capacity of clerk to the circuit court, is not included in the definition of public body. [57]
Whether a SART is covered by Michigan’s FOIA, or other state laws similar to it, depends upon how the term “primarily funded by state or local authority” is interpreted. A broad interpretation may include a SART that has a membership largely made up of government officials, or one led by a government official. Where a SART receives government grant funding, it is possible that grant award will bring a SART within the FOIA disclosure requirements.
To ensure that a SART complies with the law in its jurisdiction, the SART should consider the following:
Facilitating a SART meeting may mean educating SART members in new ways of thinking about sharing information and resources. Because the SART concept is one of an equal partnership among agencies, the meeting facilitator needs to commit to shared decision-making. Participatory decision-making increases member engagement [58] and overall meeting effectiveness. [59] [60]
One consideration in good facilitation is to ensure that the facilitator is not required to hold too many roles at one time. Consider the various roles of chair, facilitator, agency representative, presenter, notetaker, and team coordinator, and divide the roles up as much as possible. For example, if a member is facilitating the meeting, they may be so focused on actively facilitating that they may miss opportunities to contribute to a conversation based on their role. Alternatively, if the facilitator does most of the talking during discussions, members may not feel as though they are being heard.
One solution is to have more than one representative from an agency that is also sponsoring the facilitator, where the roles are clearly determined. Another solution is to trade facilitation between meetings or topics. When teams do not have alterative facilitators, the facilitator can clearly note when they are switching roles. Visually, a facilitator can take off a hat when speaking from their perspective as a team member and wear the hat when they are speaking from the point of view of a facilitator.
Skillful facilitation will help your SART define and reach its goals, assess needs, and manage interpersonal dynamics. Here are some tips to help you facilitate your team meetings:
Fostering healthy and agreed-upon team norms is important for SARTs. Norms are often thought of as accepted or consistent patterns of behavior within a particular group. In this case, norms may be thought of as the accepted or expected ways team members interact with one another. For instance, a successful team norm is one in which everyone feels they can participate and have open communication. For example, in Project Aristotle, researchers at Google found that high-performance teams typically had environments of “psychological safety … a sense of confidence that the team will not embarrass, reject, or punish someone for speaking up … a climate characterized by interpersonal trust and mutual respect in which people are comfortable being themselves.” [61]
While psychological safety may be an unfamiliar concept, SART members and coordinators can take concrete steps to introduce the idea and increase, monitor, and encourage psychological safety. Teams that engage in conversational turn-taking and social sensitivity promote psychological safety. [62] Two concepts that contribute to physiological safety are conversational turn-taking, where team members all participate the same amount by the end of the meeting, and social sensitivity, where team members know how their tone of voice, expressions, and non-verbal cues affect other members. These concepts may be useful for SARTs to incorporate into meetings. [63]
Other norms to consider discussing are —
In many ways, setting norms is a process of identifying a group consensus on how you show respect for each other’s time and ideas. It is highly encouraged to allow teams to define their norms, in the context of formal meeting tools. For example, teams that use meeting tools such as agendas and take meeting minutes are likely to be more successful. What the team decides is important to include on the agenda will vary based on local circumstances and membership. Teams may need to review, revisit, or change team norms with turnover.
SARTs can discuss and develop team norms that promote these behaviors. One way to introduce the concept is to ask SART members to think about other teams of which they have been a part — in work, volunteering, or any aspect of their lives where they felt all members’ concerns and ideas were heard and valued.
Many teams build opportunities directly into SART meetings to get to know one another beyond their roles, such as starting meetings with a personal check-in question or sharing food before or after the meeting. Discussing what works for your team will help you develop a structure and format that will make team meetings effective and comfortable. Some teams open with an icebreaker while others dive immediately into business items.
Many teams have found that joint training fosters teamwork. Team members who train together may find opportunities to discuss issues of mutual concern, both in the training itself and during breaks. Spending time together away from the immediate and constant demands of members’ jobs allows the team to focus on how it functions. Moreover, team members hear the same information, which improves their shared understanding of the challenges they face in their response to sexual assault and their ability to find solutions to those challenges.
Although not essential, social activities can strengthen your team. Simply combining lunch with a team meeting can serve this social purpose. Some teams sponsor picnics, awards banquets, and other activities to reinforce good working relationships. [64]
The very nature of a SART requires the team to discuss differing approaches to issues and policies. To ensure each member has an opportunity to be heard, you may need to brainstorm possible solutions. One of the primary benefits of brainstorming is that each team member can learn from the experiences and knowledge of other team members.
Team members can speak as ideas occur to them, through small-group breakouts that report back to the entire team, or in a round-robin format during which team members are each given opportunity to speak.
To facilitate brainstorming — [65]
An important component of any SART is agreeing on a decision-making process. Team members often come from agencies with very different cultures regarding authority and decision-making, elevating the importance of establishing how the SART will function. SARTs can discuss each agency’s decision-making processes and make a conscious determination of which style to implement. SARTs may revisit decision-making processes with turnover to ensure that the process continues to work for the existing team members. This may feel like a lot of unnecessary work; however, planning for difficult decisions before they arise may sustain a SART through difficult conversations.
Reaching decisions by consensus or through voting are the two primary options: [66]
Do not feel tied to one or the other ways to reach a decision. You could, for example, first try to reach a hard consensus. If that is unsuccessful, then the team can vote or study the issue further.
Many steps are involved in the decision-making process, some of which are discussed below: [67]
Make sure to include time for all SART members to discuss the impact of potential decisions on their individual organizations before finalizing any decisions. Also consider the likely outcomes, possible outcomes, and unintended consequences of each decision. Keep in mind —
Once a decision is made, it is essential to set a realistic timeframe and assign tasks and a method of follow-up to ensure the decision is being implemented. Groups easily lose momentum when they don’t see the results of their efforts or time being spent. [68] Having clearly defined assignments allows the group to ensure the implementation of the decision, especially long-term decisions, through turnover:
Despite the best intentions of SART members to cooperate with one another, disagreement among disciplines is inevitable. [69] Disagreements can be a sign your team is getting into important topics, or it could be a sign the team is stuck in a conflict. Conflict between SART members is well documented and SARTs should be prepared to manage disagreement when it arises. [70], [71], [72] Team members bring personal and professional experiences, agendas, beliefs, and perceptions into dialogues.
If you cannot resolve conflicts or disagreements, you could diminish your SART’s effectiveness. [73] Teams that have effective ways to manage conflict are more cohesive and more successful. [74], [75] Only 18 percent of SARTs reported that they have formal procedures for resolving conflict. [76]
SARTs may want to consider creating a formal process for addressing conflict, which everyone agrees to follow. It may be easiest to engage SART members in developing a protocol for how concerns or conflicts will be addressed during a time when there is no conflict.
For example, if a conflict emerges during service provision, efforts should be made to address the concern directly and in private (e.g., not in front of the survivor). Another question could center around how to address conflict between SART members. For example, should conflicts be addressed outside of SART meetings, involving only those directly involved and their supervisors (if necessary), or should conflicts be brought to the full SART to discuss?
Some SARTs recommend the SART coordinator work directly with the individual members involved first and brings the outcome or solution to the attention of the SART, with permission of all the parties involved.
The mix of different preferences, histories, communication patterns, and professional experiences in your SART is bound to cause disagreements. Several basic strategies can help you resolve conflicts:
To help overcome problematic disagreements, the following chart can help you evaluate the underlying causes and solutions: [77]
|
Reason for Disagreement |
Potential Underlying Cause |
Possible Solutions |
|
Need more information |
Repeated requests for additional detail could signal resistance rather than a need for more detail. |
Find out what level of detail is needed to make a decision. Record the questions or specific details the SART would like more information on in the minutes. Ask the notetaker to read their description back to the participants for accuracy. Assign a SART member the task of acquiring that information and assign a deadline. Follow up with that member prior to their deadline and the next meeting. |
|
Too many details |
During discussions, SART members may offer too many details that distract from or derail discussions. |
Ask individuals what is the most important issue to address, and focus on that issue. Set time limits on SART members’ contributions to discussions to ensure everyone has an opportunity to speak and allow folks a second opportunity once everyone has spoken. |
|
Not enough time |
Some team members may resist coming to a decision because there is not enough time for discussion. Although time is often a problem, a preoccupation with it can signal resistance. |
Ask the SART which topic should be given priority. Ask the SART if they would like more time or if they are ready to vote. Ask the SART if they would like more time during the current meeting or if they would like the item on a future meeting agenda. Use the SART’s preferred decision-making method to decide to vote or wait. |
|
Not practical |
Members may feel the process of reaching consensus never works because SART members have different roles and responsibilities that cannot be negotiated. |
Ask if there are important issues that have been overlooked. |
|
Confusion |
An inability to understand an issue under discussion can be a way to block the process. |
Clarify whether the confusion is about the issues or the process. |
|
Silence |
Silence among team members does not imply agreement; it can be a sign the process is not working and that members are refusing to participate. |
Encourage everyone to share his or her ideas and opinions. Check in with team members, especially if there is a rapid change in behavior — is that team member okay? Follow up with members who are constantly or unusually quiet during meetings to ensure the process is working for them. Silence or changes in behavior may be a sign it is time to discuss and change a process. |
|
Moralizing |
When discussing controversial topics, team members may start to lecture, which can offend and stifle others. |
When members of the group are locked in an “either/or” conflict, calling for a “third way” that bridges and blends opposing viewpoints can be helpful. Bring in an external facilitator for difficult discussions. Introduce a training on the topic that appears to be the challenge that may introduce a new framework and language for SART members to use during discussions. Develop a code word for “ready to move on,” such as the ELMO method. |
|
Push for solutions |
Some members may complain that the ideas being discussed are impossible or may demand solutions rather than ideas. This could be about what members are unwilling to do rather than what cannot be done. |
Reframing, or providing another perspective, can often help individuals move forward. Using the agenda to set clear expectations around time and topic can be helpful so members know when it is time to discuss the scope of the problem, brainstorm solutions, vote on solutions, and implement those solutions. Clearly laying out a timeframe for discussion and decisions can help balance the needs of members who are more action oriented with those who are more process oriented. |
|
Team member perpetuating rape myths |
Some members may be continuing to develop their understanding of sexual violence and use blaming language |
SART members can hold one another accountable during meetings. SARTs can schedule additional trainings so no one member is singled out. If this is not an isolated incident for that individual, SARTs may want to address this with their supervisor or request a new team member. |
Consistent follow-up from SART meetings is important to maintain member participation in team meetings. In one study, only 28.2 percent of SARTs reported that they have a mechanism for ensuring that SART members are accountable for completing tasks. [78] Follow-up from SART meetings also supports maintaining member participation in team meetings. [79] Reviewing next steps or specific action items at the end of meetings may be helpful to ensure accountability, completion, and engagement.
When creating the team’s process for completing tasks between meetings, it is important to talk about three things: Is the task reasonable to accomplish in this way and in this timeframe? What will you do if you cannot get the work done as agreed upon? Who or what process will check in on the member or members responsible for the task?
Recognize the reality that all team members are busy people who are often required to respond to immediate requests for service. At times, personal and professional situations may make it impossible to complete a task. If this happens, it is important that members know they can inform the team of their situation. If people do not feel safe to say this, members may end up skipping meetings to avoid facing the team or being assigned tasks to do as a SART member.
Below are some practice activities: [80]
SARTs may periodically struggle to keep up the momentum of team meetings, particularly when the team is at an impasse. Reasons for stagnation can include: losing momentum after significant success, unclear goals, inconsistent leadership, and high turnover.
Momentum can also be lost when SART members feel their system has improved its response to sexual assault. If the team created protocols and guidelines, team members may be tempted to consider their real work done, not understanding that the essential goal of establishing guidelines is to monitor and evaluate the sexual assault response over time. [81]
As teams reach goals, they can consider expanding membership to include new sectors of the community that can add vitality and new direction to the group. SARTs can seek training during voids or post on the SART listserv to ask what is trending or seek new resources and meaningful topics.
SARTs can plan for both long- and short-term goals, restructure how and when meetings are held, or form workgroups to address specific issues or projects. Sometimes planning for a short break from meetings after significant work will be achieved or during a particularly busy period in the life of member agencies can help sustain energy. Sometimes, when it is difficult to maintain momentum, SARTs must dissolve entirely or re-form as a cohesive working group around a specific task, such as developing protocol or improving referrals to member agencies, in order to achieve specific goals. SARTs that dissolve may re-form at a later time or use the momentum from the specific task to work out the problems that detracted from momentum.
SARTs can offset the challenge of maintaining momentum by rotating administrative responsibilities (e.g., taking meeting minutes, facilitating team discussions) and creating action plans so responsibilities do not fall on any one person or agency. Ultimately, however, having a designated SART coordinator who is funded specifically for this task can do much to ensure meetings stay focused and productive.
Each of these challenges is addressed in specific sections of the SART Toolkit. For additional information on maintaining momentum, see the SART Sustainability section in the SART Toolkit.
Collaboration: A Training Curriculum to Enhance the Effectiveness of Criminal Justice Teams: Instructional Manual (PDF, 345 pages)
This curriculum from the State Justice Institute assists multidisciplinary criminal justice teams in establishing or enhancing collaborative relationships. All teams can benefit from this curriculum, whether newly formed or firmly established. The manual includes information on team values, vision, problem identification, roles and responsibilities, concurrent discussion groups, group dynamics, team and project life cycles, goals, objectives, and critical work activities.
Collaboration Toolkit: How to Build, Fix, and Sustain Productive Partnerships (PDF, 121 pages)
The Collaboration Toolkit from the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office) and Circle Solutions Inc. identifies nine components of a successful collaboration: stakeholders with a vested interest in the issue, trust among and between the partners, a shared vision and common goals, expertise among partners to solve community problems, teamwork strategies, open communication, motivated partners, sufficient means to implement and sustain the collaborative effort, and an action plan. As your SART develops and matures, revisit each component to assess the status of the collaboration.
Community Organizational Assessment Tool
This guide from the University of Wisconsin Extension helps guide discussions about how a team is functioning. Although the questions are structured for nonprofit board members, the form can be easily adapted for use by SARTs.
Community Tool Box Chapter 1. Conducting Effective Meetings
This section of the Community Tool Box addresses effective meetings, including their importance, how to run them, and how to work with difficult group members.
Facilitation Skills for Managers
This course by the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) trains managers who run meetings or lead task groups. The modules cover a range of topics, including forming groups, handling challenges, and completing the work.
Group Facilitation Skills for Trainers
This course by the NIC helps experienced trainers who want to develop group participation and discussion skills. The material includes information on learning behaviors, facilitation strategies, and dealing with conflict.
List of Organizational Assessments Available Online (PDF, 2 pages)
The tools listed on this form developed by the Compassion Capital Fund of the National Resource Center (NRC) cover a wide range in both their level of complexity and the amount of time required to complete them. When choosing any organizational assessment tool, consider the resources it will take to conduct the assessment and analyze the data.
Organizational Self-Assessments
The Council of Nonprofits provides a number of tools, including self-assessment tools, self-assessments for nonprofit boards, executive directors, organizations, organizational capacity, and infrastructure. The goal of assessments is to collect data that can help the nonprofit evaluate whether or not it is making progress toward various goals, including whether the nonprofit can demonstrate that it is making progress advancing its mission.
The Role of Facilitators and Staff in Supporting Collaborative Teams (Microsoft Word, 6 pages)
This resource by the National Institute of Corrections describes the skills and characteristics of effective facilitators, including the importance of helping to establish direction for the team, maximizing the contribution of all members, creating a team process that is efficient and focused on outcomes, keeping an accurate record of team members’ ideas and decisions, and maintaining an environment that allows members to work productively and collaboratively.
Strategies for Building Effective Work Teams, Participant’s Manual (PDF, 161 pages)
This manual from the National Institute of Corrections covers critical elements of teamwork and stages of team development. The manual provides ways to assess organizational and individual readiness for developing and using work teams, developing high-performance work teams, implementing interventions to enhance team productivity, and creating strategies to overcome barriers to team development.
Team Readiness Assessment Survey (PDF, 3 pages)
This survey developed by the Sexual Violence Justice Institute (SVJI) at the Minnesota Coalition Against Sexual Assault (MNCASA) can be used to assess a multidisciplinary team’s readiness to collaborate. There is no expectation that any team would be fully ready in each of these areas, so responses should reflect the current reality. This survey can be used to assess where agencies may need more information, overall interest and understanding of the process, communication gaps, information gaps, and the current state of collaboration.
Wilder Collaboration Factors Inventory
This free tool by the Amherst H. Wilder Foundation helps teams assess how your collaboration is doing on 20 research-tested success factors. The Factors inventory takes about 15 minutes to complete. It can be distributed to a small group of leaders in the collaborative, during a general meeting, or via mail to all members for the most complete picture.
{“preview_thumbnail”:”/sites/default/files/styles/video_embed_wysiwyg_preview/public/video_thumbnails/E4zlvkkxPtI.jpg?itok=wruBAcK-“,”video_url”:”https://youtu.be/E4zlvkkxPtI”,”settings”:{“responsive”:1,”width”:”854″,”height”:”480″,”autoplay”:0},”settings_summary”:[“Embedded Video (Responsive).”]}
Choosing to conduct case reviews is an important decision for a SART. [82] Routine case reviews are one of the most effective tools for SART members to improve their team process, function, and outcomes. SARTs that engage in regular case reviews as part of their work tend to rate themselves as more effective than those that do not. [83]
SARTs conduct case reviews to improve the victim-centered response to sexual assault by —
SARTs considering case review should consider their team’s readiness and understand the real consequences of attempting to perform case review before proper preparations. Some SARTs begin case review prematurely, without establishing the appropriate foundation of trust and collaboration among members. This can lead to dysfunction, stagnation, or the dissolution of the SART. Negative effects on relationships may take years to repair. Although routine case review is an effective tool, a SART needs to determine if and when case review is a good fit by periodically assessing the team’s readiness. Some teams develop relationships through the process of case review, especially when teams are able to focus their attention on serving victims.
SARTs considering case review should begin by asking —
Readiness is directly related to a firm understanding that case review involves difficult conversations intended to uncover mistakes, problems, and areas of inefficiency in systems — not with individuals — to improve processes. Readiness is also related to identifying and incorporating best practices into one’s work. SARTs can build on others’ success or identify their own successes and build systems that preserve and encourage those, especially if they are not routinely practiced.
The assessment tool included in the appendix of What Can We Talk About? A Guidebook for How Sexual Assault Response Teams Discuss Sexual Assault [85] will provide SARTs with a clear indication of where to focus their efforts when determining if they should prepare for, begin, or stop a case review.
Depending on caseloads and your SART’s protocols or guidelines, the following considerations can guide the selection of cases to review:
Teams that conduct a case review only when a significant concern arises may find themselves discussing issues in highly charged situations. It is best practice for SARTs to hold regularly scheduled case reviews. SARTs that practice case review around routine situations can develop a habit of conducting case review, addressing concerns, and identifying potential issues before they become problematic and have lasting negative implications for victims, teams, and the community.
Teams can also review cases that go well. It is essential to review cases that go well, both to celebrate successes and to identify why they were successful. SARTs can start case review with positive cases to build relationships and warm up to the process of case review. SARTs can also use positive cases to create or build momentum for future SART work. SARTs might identify aspects of their work they would like to evaluate to further understand and document which specifics are contributing to the positive outcome. See the Evaluation section of the SART Toolkit for more information.
SARTs conduct case reviews in a variety of ways. What is essential to all is that they respect victims’ privacy by following all laws regarding victims’ information, and that they are held with a clear purpose and conducted according to a consistent format. Case review offers an opportunity for teamwork and sets the stage to promote team development and improve process outcomes. The focus should be on consistent adherence to a common standard, as laid out in the protocol, rather than blaming any individual for certain behavior.
To conduct a case review on an open case, SARTs are required to have informed consent and releases of information. [86] SARTs should also read Challenges for Prosecutors: Brady Rule in the SART Toolkit if conducting open case review.
The Wisconsin Adult Sexual Assault Response Team Protocol includes a Case Review Release of Information, Case Review Confidentiality Form, and SART Case Review overview. These documents may be helpful in developing consistent formats for case review.
In addition, the one-hour webinar SART Case Review [87], sponsored by International Association of Forensic Nurses (IAFN) and presented by Linda E. Ledray, RN, SANE-A, Ph.D., FAAN, and the attached slides provide more information on case review.
To help review system-wide responses that support prevention and the best possible outcomes for victims, the Case Review Protocol of the NH DOC PREA SART TEAM provides an in-depth outline on how to conduct a case review and protect victim confidentiality.
Other resources for case review in the SART Toolkit include the following resources:
The following chart provides examples of feedback that may come out of a case review. These examples address protocol concerns that each team member may provide to others participating in your SART.
|
SART Member |
Protocol-Focused Feedback |
|
Advocate |
Timeliness of medical and forensic exam. Contraceptives offered to the victim. Law enforcement present, or not, for the victim statement (in accordance with individual protocol). Number of referrals provided by dispatchers, sexual assault forensic examiners, reporting officers, sex crimes detectives, and prosecution. Payment provided for the medical and forensic exam. |
|
Forensic Laboratory Personnel |
Consistency of evidence collection with victim statement. Proper chain of custody followed, in accordance with the SART-specific protocol. Proper packaging and transfer of evidence, in accordance with protocol. Quality of evidence submitted by the sexual assault forensic examiner. Clear documentation of findings for forensic analysis and interpretation. |
|
Law Enforcement Official |
Treatment of the victim at the hospital, during joint interviews (if applicable), and during detective interviews when advocates attend, plus feedback on prosecutors’ charging decisions. Use of “start by believing” interview policy. Use of trauma-informed interview techniques, in accordance with protocol. Number of referrals provided to victims by law enforcement. Instances of victim-blaming. Presence of advocate during interview. |
|
Sexual Assault Forensic Examiner |
Treatment of the victim by law enforcement officers, advocates, and prosecutors. Appropriate payment provided for the medical forensic exam according to SART Protocol and the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). Use of appropriate consistent medical documentation regarding the patient’s medical history. Proper chain of custody followed with evidence collected in accordance with the SART Protocol. Advocates’ timely arrival and number of referrals offered, in accordance with the protocol. Advocates providing victims with accurate information and empowering victims to make their own decisions. Advocates following confidentiality policies and procedures. |
|
Prosecutor |
All of the above. Advocate’s presence at court and ability to provide accurate information to victims. Appropriate, clear documentation by medical and forensic professional, forensic crime lab, and law enforcement. |
At each case review, team members should —
One essential aspect for team members who are responding to victims is identifying and preventing gender bias, a form of discrimination. Explicit (conscious) and implicit (unconscious) biases about gender roles and sexual assault exist in our culture, in individuals, and in agencies of all professions. These ideas and stereotypes undermine our ability to effectively respond to sexual assault cases.
Gender biases are entrenched in the systems that we rely on for justice. Gender bias can also have a real and immediate effect on the safety of individual victims [88] and interfere with holding offenders accountable. [89] Gender bias may also affect relationships within SARTs and between SART members.
Speaking of policing practices, the DOJ notes, “Gender bias … is a form of discrimination that may result in LEAs [law enforcement agencies] providing less protection to certain victims on the basis of gender, failing to respond to crimes that disproportionately harm people of a particular gender or offering reduced or less robust services due to a reliance on gender stereotypes.” [90]
SARTs should be aware of gender biases that exist in individuals, communities, and agencies. Gender bias can be addressed through training and using standard guidelines and protocol [91] with everyone involved in supporting victims, responding to cases, or holding perpetrators accountable — including prosecutors and judges. A number of resources are available, with specific recommendations for law enforcement and courts, [92] that SARTs can refer to for specifics to address gender bias in their communities.
Highlighting bias about gender roles and sexual assault in this section is in no way intended to minimize the other pervasive and equally harmful forms of bias that exist. Your SART may have helpful structures in place around gender bias or another traditionally disadvantaged group, or you may just be getting started.
Gender Fairness in the Courts: Action in the New Millennium provides specific examples for teams attempting to address multiple forms of bias without losing momentum or focus.
When designing a case review, SARTs can choose to use pseudonyms to discuss case scenarios. There is power in language, both in the words we choose and the effect on listeners. [93] SARTs, especially those seeking to expand their understanding of diverse communities, are encouraged to assign gender-neutral names and not include an individual’s race, income level, or sexual orientation in their initial assessment of cases. This allows the team to focus on the crime that took place.
However, SARTs may find it is important to discuss these factors, as they often play an important role in the crime, or in a victim’s ability to report, or how systems respond. Some teams may see a shift in response to certain factors, but not others. Examining the system response to particular factors may allow individual members and teams to recognize and identify inherent biases that may be present. Engaging in conversations around these topics can be difficult. Yet by providing a constructive format for these discussions, your SART allows team members to increase their awareness, understand how their own responses are affected by different factors, and hold themselves accountable to address disparities in the ways they treat different victims or offenders.
Practicing gender-neutral language during case review also prepares your SART for success when working with and documenting sexual assaults in which the victim or perpetrator is non-gender conforming.
After a case review, the SART promotes accountability by tracking any identified issues, successes, and challenges. Some states designate routine feedback and quality control forms for every case, which are submitted to the SART coordinator. [94] In other states, SARTs facilitate accountability by providing a report to government officials, funders, or other stakeholders.
Victim surveys are an excellent means of fostering accountability, as they allow victims to rate and comment on each aspect of the SART’s response (e.g., patrol officer, detective, dispatch, medical team, rape crisis center, prosecutor, health care).
Peer evaluations allow SART members to provide feedback on services provided to victims by their colleagues. Peer evaluations should focus on adherence to the SART protocol and the memorandum of understanding (MOU), rather than perception of arbitrary factors. Focusing on actionable items allows SARTs to develop concrete improvements as members consistently work to achieve the guidelines agreed to in the protocol.
Gender Bias in Sexual Assault Response and Investigation: Part 1 (PDF, 14 pages)
This End Violence Against Women International (EVAWI) training bulletin is the first in a series designed to explore the phenomenon of gender bias, both explicit and implicit, and the resulting stereotypes and attitudes that can influence the professional response to, and investigation of, sexual assault.
Gender Bias in Sexual Assault Response and Investigation: Part 2 (PDF, 16 pages)
This training bulletin from EVAWI discusses the relationship between gender bias and both victim selection at the time of the assault and victim-blaming following the assault.
Gender Bias in Sexual Assault Response and Investigation: Part 3 (PDF, 19 pages)
This training bulletin from EVAWI covers the connection between gender bias and false report designations.
Guidelines for Gender-Fair Use of Language
This guide from the National Council of Teachers of English includes recommendations on using gender-neutral, or gender-fair, language. SART members can put these recommendations into action during a case review to protect and honor the victim’s identity.
Identifying and Preventing Gender Bias in Law Enforcement Response to Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence (PDF, 26 pages)
This guidance from the DOJ is aimed at improving law enforcement’s response to allegations of sexual assault and domestic violence by identifying and preventing gender bias in policing.
This website, updated and maintained by the International Association of Chiefs of Police, provides a list of current resources, grants, and projects related to gender bias in law enforcement response.
The Investigation and Prosecution of Sexual Violence: Sexual Violence & Accountability Project Working Paper Series (PDF, 71 pages)
This document from the Human Rights Center University of California Berkeley addresses specific opportunities to address gender bias in critical aspects of receiving a report and criminal justice proceedings.
This brief article from Daily Writing Tips lists strategies for reaching gender neutrality in writing.
Training Bulletin: Words Matter (PDF, 5 pages)
This training bulletin from EVAWI includes alternative ways to discuss sexual assault, such as how to describe sexual acts, how to refer to the perpetrator or victim, and the use of active language.
Victim Recantations: Addressing Gender Bias in Sexual Assault Response and Investigation (PDF, 15 pages)
This training bulletin from EVAWI discusses how gender bias can impact victim recantation in sexual assault cases.
Routine case review offers many benefits, including monitoring and improving the team process and the quality of care provided to victims. Homing in on specific areas of interest gathered from case review could lead to improved outcomes for victims, teams, and processes.
Victim outcomes include —
Team outcomes include —
Process outcomes include —
Adult Sexual Assault Response Team Protocol (PDF, 75 pages)
This protocol developed by the Wisconsin Office of Justice Assistance has included in the appendix an example of a Case Review Release of Information (p. 64), Case Review Confidentiality Form (p. 65), and SART Case Review (pp. 66-69).
Attorney General Standards for Providing Services to Victims of Sexual Assault (PDF, 22 pages)
This resource from New Jersey offers guidelines for compassionate and quality services to victims of sexual assault from SARTs.
Case File Review Template (PDF, 1 page)
This tool from Are We Making a Difference? Sexual Assault Response Teams Assessing Systems Change: A Resource for Multidisciplinary Team Leadership by the Sexual Violence Justice Institute at Minnesota Coalition Against Sexual Assault provides criteria for case review.
Case Review: Frequently Asked Questions (PDF, 5 pages)
This is a compilation of questions by the Minnesota Coalition Against Sexual Assault (MNCASA) about case review and might prove an easy reference for SARTs engaged in case review or discussing establishing case review. SARTs can send this to members prior to a meeting on case review so everyone has a shared basis of information coming into the discussion.
Case Review Protocol of the New Hampshire Department of Corrections Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) SART Team (Microsoft Word, 8 pages)
This document by the New Hampshire Department of Corrections provides a detailed outline on how to conduct case reviews.
Racine County SART Case Review (PDF, 4 pages)
This resource from the Wisconsin Adult Sexual Assault Response Team Protocol provides an example of a case review form.
Racine County SART Case Review Release (PDF, 2 pages)
SARTs can use this example case review release from the Wisconsin Adult Sexual Assault Response Team Protocol to develop their own release forms.
Racine County Sexual Assault Response Team Case Review Confidentiality Form (PDF, 2 pages)
This resource from the Wisconsin Adult Sexual Assault Response Team Protocol serves as an example of a case review confidentiality form.
SART Case Review (presentation)
This webinar from the International Association of Forensic Nurses SAFE-TA explains the difference between SANE and SART peer review as well as the benefits and barriers to case review.
SART Case Review Release (PDF, 1 page)
This sample form from SAFEta allows a client to provide permission for their case to be discussed at a SART meeting.
SART Case Review Webinar (1:06 hour webinar)
This webinar by SAFEta is a practical guide for the case review process from the International Association of Forensic Nurses (IAFN).
Sexual Assault Response Team (SART) Functioning and Effectiveness (PDF, 73 pages)
This resource includes a collection of data from the National SART Project from 2010-2012 assessing the effectiveness of SARTs.
Sustaining a Coordinated Community Response: Sexual Assault Response and Resource Teams (SARRT) (PDF, 129 pages)
This End Violence Against Women International (EVAWI) training module examines ways to establish, expand, and sustain a SART.
Systems Consultation (Microsoft Word, 4 pages)
This document generated by the Sexual Assault Interagency Council and other experts walks teams through systems consultation and can be adapted to meet local needs and processes.
Tabletop Training Case Scenarios (PDF, 6 pages)
These sample scenarios from the Rensselaer County SART provide SARTs with an opportunity to practice case review.
Talking About Gender & Sexuality Sexual Violence & Individuals who Identify as LGBTQ (PDF, 12 pages)
The Pennsylvania Coalition Against Rape (PCAR) explores the way language influences our ability to serve individuals who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer/questioning (LGBTQ).
This brief article from Daily Writing Tips lists strategies for reaching gender neutrality in writing.
What Can We Talk About? (PDF, 24 pages)
This guidebook from the Sexual Violence Justice Institute at Minnesota Coalition Against Sexual Assault covers how SARTs discuss sexual assault cases.
SART protocols are designed to give clear guidelines to all providers and systems that respond to sexual assault. SART protocols define agreements between team members about how core responders will provide services to victims of sexual assault, and their roles and responsibilities. [95] Protocols formalize these roles and responsibilities, clarify expectations between SART members, and provide a written record of agreed standards of services.
Developing an effective protocol requires a coordinated effort to negotiate, develop, and implement standards that govern coordinated services. Ongoing evaluation and revision of protocols serve to improve and evaluate the effectiveness of services provided to victims within a community.
Protocols are written guidelines for professionals to follow when responding to sexual assault victims. The procedures responders follow when working with victims of sexual assault make up the protocol practice; the written format is the protocol document. Therefore, protocols are both a process and a written document.
Protocols —
Protocols are most effective when created at the local level with representatives from all SART agencies collaborating from the development of initial drafts, through the final development process, and during revisions. SARTs engage to adapt best practice, integrate the victim experience, determine individual agencies’ obligations, and collaborate on all aspects of response. This commitment is typically formalized in an MOU.
Using data to inform planning can be useful for creating or expanding SARTs and developing protocols. Conducting a community needs assessment helps determine currently available resources and community factors. [96]
The assessment can help better understand —
Understanding the community needs and demographics is a first step for creating benchmarks to evaluate the effectiveness of SART responses over time. [97]
Protocol should be responsive and sensitive to the realities of the community’s vulnerable populations (homeless youth, undocumented individuals, people with disabilities, etc.). Developing protocols that respond to the most vulnerable populations allows the team to enhance the inherent strengths in its response while addressing the gaps and barriers to how victims access services and experience systems, including the criminal justice process.
For more information, refer to the Community Needs Assessment section of the SART Toolkit.
In developing protocol, SARTs create and use response standards that are consistent, comprehensive, coordinated, continuous, and community-specific.
|
Consistent “Are victims experiencing the same approach from agency responders?” |
|
|
Comprehensive “Is our response informed — by practice, victims, and the realities of sexual assault?” |
|
|
Coordinated “Are we organizing our response in a way that is unified for responders and supportive for victims? |
|
|
Continuous “Are we reviewing the impact of our response — on victims and in our agencies — in an ongoing manner?” |
|
|
Community-specific “Is our response defined by and designed for the community where it will be used?” |
|
A protocol is not a stand-alone document or process, but rather an ongoing and evolving document that requires the commitment of SART members to engage in a collaborative process to maintain protocols reflective of best practice standards and the changing needs of your community. SARTs regularly evaluate practices based on the protocol to identify areas that need further attention or support. Regularly scheduled protocol review and updates ensure protocols reflect reality, incorporate current practice standards, and are accurately reflected and well aligned with the needs of the community and the mission and vision of the SART.
Once SARTs establish and formalize protocols, teams work to inform and educate members of the SART to ensure practice consistently matches the outlined expectations. SART meetings provide an opportunity to continually revise and evaluate the protocol. For more information, see the Protocol Implementation section of the SART Toolkit.
Ultimately, developed protocols provide a baseline for how service providers respond to victims and are a mechanism to improve responses to victims and promote outcomes that support victims and hold offenders accountable.
The development of protocol has many advantages. SARTs can define a response that is customized to their community’s structure and needs. It also allows your SART to build a response appropriate for the unique needs of your community, particularly those who are marginalized.
There are many benefits of protocol development for SARTs:
A protocol is an evolving document and exists as part of continued system improvement. With changes in laws, policies, and research — as well as community development and social change — protocols must adapt to reflect those changes. SARTs engage in a continuous process of assessment, change-making, and measuring change to ensure protocols remain current and reflect the realities of their community and the victim experience.
An MOU is an official agreement that SART agencies sign as a commitment to participate in a collaborative process with other agencies. MOUs serve as formal and binding agreements that solidify the relationship between agencies and hold them accountable for participation in the collaborative process. One outcome of the collaborative process is protocol.
MOUs describe SART member agencies’ contributions to working with their SART partners in developing, adopting, and implementing protocol. They also outline members’ roles in that process. Protocols outline the individual roles and responsibilities for SART agencies, how agency personnel will interact with victims, and how they will coordinate with other SART agency personnel.
For an example of an MOU, see a sample memorandum of understanding from the Wisconsin Coalition Against Sexual Assault.
The consistent responses to victims outlined in SART protocols can help ensure that all victims receive the services and supports they need. By outlining consistent, culturally relevant, trauma-informed, victim-centered responses, SART protocols address the inequitable access to services and supports for victims. Any victim of sexual assault should be able to access services from any entry point (e.g., hospital, police station, advocacy center) and receive the support they need and want from the responders in those systems. Protocols ensure that all victims are supported in their efforts to seek care, report, and otherwise engage in the criminal justice system. [101]
Protocols are a way to ensure every member in every agency has access to information on supporting victims of sexual assault. Protocols, in conjunction with other staff and supervisors, may give service providers information during a response, especially around circumstances with which they are unfamiliar.
While it is ideal that service providers be well trained and up to date on responding to victims, communities that experience a low number of reports or frequent turnover of first responders may rely heavily on protocols and handheld checklists. This may be the case in rural communities where providers do not have access to 24/7 backup or are the only service provider in a large area. This may be the case in urban areas where the primary provider specializing in supporting victims and receiving reports of sexual violence is not available. Protocols can also be a used during service provision if service providers cannot agree on the appropriate course of action as a reference.
Developing protocol encourages SART members to build a shared understanding of language and terms specific to each discipline.
Every SART is unique in membership, location, resources, and need. While the SART Toolkit recommends best practices for SARTs based on current research and field knowledge, not all SARTs are able to immediately implement these recommendations. It is important for your SART to explore your level of readiness before beginning the implementation of these suggested steps.
Often, trying to move too fast or far from the realistic capabilities of a given team can increase conflict and disagreement within a SART, ultimately detracting from the overall mission. Beginning with a foundation of open communication within the team and establishing a trusting environment is essential. When members can communicate effectively and have trusting relationships, team members are naturally more able to work together during the challenging processes of enacting changes in protocol, language, systems, meetings, or service provision. [102]
Reviewing the foundational components for SARTs is essential to determining if your SART is ready for protocol development. The stronger the foundation, the more the SART can withstand challenges that arise over time, such as conflict, turnover, resource changes, and leadership transitions.
The chart below can help review prior steps, including revisiting your mission statement and other foundational components in preparation for protocol development.
|
Foundational Components for a SART |
Key Considerations |
|
Clearly defined purpose SART members must understand the reason the team exists and the intended goals of collaborating. Having a clearly stated purpose defines parameters, indicates common accountability, and creates a collective vision for the SART. |
What is our mission statement? What is our defined service area? What population(s) are we trying to impact and serve? |
|
Key membership The SART’s membership is a set of agencies, represented on the team by individuals from those agencies. Those individuals serve as liaisons between the SART and their respective agencies. Team members should be experienced in sexual assault work, be able to represent the perspectives of their agencies, and have authority to make decisions within their agencies. It is also crucial that SART membership reflect the community it serves by including survivors and members from key social and cultural groups (LGBTQ, faith communities, immigrant groups, etc.). |
Does the SART have representation from core criminal justice response agencies (e.g., law enforcement, prosecution, medical, advocacy, 911, dispatchers, and corrections/probation)? Does the SART have representation from special or marginalized groups and culturally specific service providers in the community? Are these individuals intentionally there as a representative from that community? Do the individuals on the team have decision-making ability or direct connections to decision-makers within their agencies or programs? |
|
Buy-in from agency leadership The leadership of SART member agencies must be informed about the work the SART is doing and be supportive of the process. This is important to ensure the ongoing engagement of member agencies and promote accountability to the SART process throughout the agency. |
How is SART agency leadership informed about updates from the SART? Has the commitment to the SART been formalized in an MOU? |
|
Agreement on process There must be support for the process the SART will use to achieve its goals. SART members must recognize their roles in contributing to the work the team will do and share in the responsibility toward achieving the team’s goals. |
How do we do our work — meetings, tasks, etc.? What resources are needed to support our work? What are the roles of individual SART representatives? Of member agency leadership? Of the SART coordinator? |
|
Relationships SART members need to be intentional about spending time learning about the roles, perspectives, and experiences of their team partners. This is crucial because the SART will engage in difficult conversations that challenge current practices. The more trust there is between members, the more confidence members will have in the intentions of their team partners, allowing them to hold one another, and themselves, accountable. |
What is the history between SART member agencies? In what ways are SART member agencies currently working together with regard to sexual violence? What is the current level of understanding of roles across the SART disciplines? |
|
Victim Voices Developing a mechanism for victim feedback as mentioned in Sexual Assault Victims’ Rights Act of 2013 Task Force Report 2016 [103] is central to ensuring conversations focus on victims’ needs and are grounded in their experiences. SARTs can gather victim input in different ways. Feedback should be encouraged from victims that have both positive and negative experiences with systems, as well as those that did not engage with systems at all. This can help to create more meaningful work for the SART and a more victim-centered response. Refer to the section of the SART Toolkit on incorporating Victims’ Voices for more information on how to do this in a safe, ethical manner. |
How is the SART ensuring victims are supported in providing their feedback? What measures exist to avoid re-victimization or tokenizing a victim (thinking one victim can speak to the realities of all victims or all crimes) who contributes their feedback? How is the SART gathering perspectives of victims of diverse backgrounds and identities and integrating them into the work authentically and intentionally? |
|
Finances |
Does your SART have the finances and capacity to develop a protocol and train on that protocol? |
|
Meeting participation SARTs that endeavor to develop protocol should consider their meeting participation, buy-in, and commitment of members, member agencies, and leadership. Endeavoring on protocol development without buy-in or engagement could lead to negative outcomes or could be a rallying point for the SART to increase buy-in and participation. |
Are members consistently attending meetings? Is there buy-in to the mission, purpose, and vision? |
Defining the scope of the issues addressed by a protocol is the first step toward positive change. A community needs assessment can address this step. In understanding present problems, SART members should share how each agency addresses an issue.
Members should put their assumptions aside and come into the process asking “what” and “how” questions rather than “why” questions. This will help the team establish a baseline of the challenges of sexual assault in their community, what resources exist to address it, and what is lacking. For example, ask “How does your agency do that?” not “Why did you do that?”
Protocols from other communities can be used as a guide but should never be copied, as protocols are unique to their community. For example, a rural area may have one police force serving the entire county, whereas an urban area may have several police agencies, divided into multiple jurisdictions serving a relatively smaller geographic area. There might also be a large immigrant population, or American Indian/Alaskan Native population that falls within the SART’s jurisdiction. SARTs must spend time exploring the realities of sexual assault, service provision, and accountability as it exists in their community.
Protocol development is a time-consuming process that can take several months or more than a year to complete. It is important that member agencies, particularly leadership, understand this and commit resources appropriately. Once SARTs have built a solid foundation, assessed community needs, and identified response strengths and gaps, they are ready to begin developing protocols.
{“preview_thumbnail”:”/sites/default/files/styles/video_embed_wysiwyg_preview/public/video_thumbnails/h8tkSB_L2zI.jpg?itok=ItDvSRMq”,”video_url”:”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8tkSB_L2zI”,”settings”:{“responsive”:1,”width”:”854″,”height”:”480″,”autoplay”:0},”settings_summary”:[“Embedded Video (Responsive).”]}
SVJI and the Eight-Step Model for Developing Protocol by Sexual Violence Justice Institute at Minnesota Coalition Against Sexual Assault, 2011. Retrieved from LINK.
Protocol is developed through a process of discussion and negotiation among SART members to arrive at agreements regarding the response by each organization to incidents of sexual violence. When consensus is reached, those agreements are documented in the form of guidelines, which are referred to as the protocol. [104]
Protocol applies to everyone on the SART, member organizations, and individual representatives of all the member organizations. Protocol should outlive each SART member and be relevant and applicable to the position, title, or discipline, not rely on the person who is currently attending the SART or who responds to incidents.
Because different communities have different strengths and needs, SARTs should spend time defining what a comprehensive and equitable response to sexual assault in your community would include. The best response incorporates research, best practices, and unique elements that respond to the demands of the community. This lets SARTs discuss and determine the parts of the protocol that are standards of practice (basic and unchanging), and the parts that might have more flexibility (situational and based on the responder’s discretion).
OVC’s Model Standards for Serving Victims and Survivors of Crime provides information on best practices in serving victims.
Response to any victim should include referral to culturally relevant advocacy as a basic practice and should be embedded into the protocol. Opportunities for flexibility emerge, for instance, in the case of a victim who was engaged in underage drinking or drug use. Protocols can build in practices that disregard minor offenses on the part of the victim, and focus instead on how the perpetrator used substances to create vulnerability in the victim. Both the standards of practice and the flexible parts of the protocol are necessary to set a baseline response and allow room to address individual victim needs.
While every SART may create its own plan, there are general guidelines for the process of protocol development:
Below is a list of components that research and practice have shown to be important inclusions in the actual protocol:
SARTs can review the Community Needs Assessment section of the SART Toolkit for additional information.
How a SART organizes a written protocol can be determined based on what will work best for all team members. There could be sections divided by discipline, a flowchart of SART responses, printed checklists for organizations to use on site, or charts with tasks and responsibilities marked for each SART agency. Regardless of how the protocol is set up, it is essential that the protocol clearly outlines the roles and responsibilities of each discipline, including when and how they coordinate services.
Additional considerations for organizing the written protocol include —
The SART may wish to consider the use of appendices to support the protocol. These sections may include —
SART leadership should review and approve the final draft of the protocol and ensure that the leadership of all agencies involved is committed to its full implementation and use. Protocol implementation is successful when all SART agencies can dedicate the necessary resources and personnel and participate in training.
SARTs may wish to hold signing ceremonies, public events, or a press conference to share the completion of the protocol and demonstrate the commitment to a victim-centered response to sexual assault within the community. [110] This also provides an opportunity to celebrate the work of the team in accomplishing such an important task.
Protocol implementation begins by identifying the staff that will be affected by the protocol and developing training to prepare them to use it. This process may include conducting a training needs analysis, creating a protocol training committee within the SART, and having individual SART members organize and coordinate the training efforts in their respective agencies or across agencies.
Training needs and the training process itself will look different from agency to agency, depending on the number of personnel and responders impacted by the protocol, as well as agency structure, resources, size of jurisdiction, and capacity to devote to training.
Some questions that can help SARTs consider their options for training are —
Developing objectives and a schedule will help guide the training process. Each agency’s leadership is ultimately responsible for ensuring the proper personnel are trained, the protocol is properly implemented throughout their individual organizations, and barriers to implementation are monitored and recorded.
For more information, see the Evaluation section of the SART Toolkit.
The following protocols are provided as references and examples. As described above, protocols are the documentation of agreements that were negotiated by a particular multidisciplinary team (whether local, regional, tribal, territory, or state) at a specific point. Pulling examples from other team protocols or from model protocols can provide a helpful starting place for writing new protocols or reviewing existing ones. Developing and discussing the development together will increase the likelihood the protocol you develop will fit for your community and your SART, as suggested by the guidance given above.
The list below may be incomplete. If you are in search of a model that may exist for your state, territory, or tribe, contact a training or TA advisor who serves your area to ask about specific models. If you have a protocol you’d like to share, please email resrources@nsvrc.org.
Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault — Statewide Sexual Assault Response Team Manual (PDF, 57 pages)
This manual by the Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault discusses building a SART. Section 8 covers protocol creation, including advocacy, law enforcement, medical, and prosecution responses.
Guidelines for Community Response to Sexual Assault in Alaska (PDF, 9 pages)
These guidelines from Alaska help communities develop a SART by providing information on team member roles, processes, suggested training, and protocol.
New Hampshire Sexual Assault: An Acute Care Protocol for Medical/Forensic Evaluation (PDF, 113 pages)
New Hampshire’s protocol focuses on medical and forensic evaluation as well as the state’s laws regarding sexual assault, reporting, and options for patients.
North Dakota Sexual Assault Evidence Collection Protocol (PDF, 103 pages)
The state of North Dakota’s protocol provides information about a number of different victim populations, including children, people in later life, men, people who identify as LGBTQ, victims with disabilities, and others. It also includes recommendations for law enforcement as well as medical personnel.
Ohio Protocol for Sexual Assault Forensic and Medical Examination (PDF, 48 pages)
The Ohio protocol covers adult and older adolescent sexual assault forensic and medical examination.
Oregon SATF Sexual Assault Response Team (SART) Handbook (PDF, 82 pages)
This handbook discusses advocacy, law enforcement, medical, prosecutor, offender management, and forensic lab responses to sexual assault. This protocol also covers outreach and prevention.
Wisconsin Adult Sexual Assault Response Team Protocol (PDF, 75 pages)
This protocol was developed in 2011 for Wisconsin’s Adult SART and includes advocates, law enforcement, prosecution, and sexual assault forensic examiners (SAFEs). This protocol also covers the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA), cultural competency, and best practices.
Cambria County Sexual Assault Protocol (PDF, 44 pages)
This protocol from Cambria County, Pennsylvania, covers the roles of law enforcement officers, victim advocates, SANEs, and prosecutors. It also includes a protocol checklist and discusses each member’s role regarding anonymous reporting.
Denver Sexual Assault Response Protocol (PDF, 163 pages)
This protocol for Denver, Colorado, includes responses for law enforcement, medical personnel, community victim services, college campuses, prosecution, and sex offender management.
Miami-Dade Corrections and Rehabilitation Department Sexual Assault Response Team Protocol (Microsoft Word, 30 pages)
This protocol from Miami-Dade County, Florida, lays out the goals and structure of the SART as well as a timeline and process.
Ramsey County Sexual Assault Response Protocol (PDF, 43 pages)
This protocol from Ramsey County in Minnesota is for a multi-jurisdiction SART with many members from multiple disciplines including community-based agencies.
Red River Sexual Assault Response Team Protocol for Responding to Sexual Assault (PDF, 70 pages)
This protocol was developed by the Red River Sexual Assault Response Team in Cass County, North Dakota, and Clay County, Minnesota. It covers processes for health care providers, SANEs, victim advocates, law enforcement, and prosecution.
Sexual Assault Protocol Manual (PDF, 51 pages)
This manual from Maricopa County, Arizona describes best practices for any discipline working with sexual assault victims, including law enforcement, prosecutors, health care providers, and others.
Sexual Assault Response Protocol, Region of Waterloo (PDF, 70 pages)
This protocol toolkit developed by the Waterloo region in Ontario, Canada, includes forms, information about sexual consent, a service provider self-assessment checklist, a flowchart of the criminal justice process, and more.
Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan Sexual Assault Response Team Policy & Protocol (PDF, 26 pages)
This protocol provides goals and a mission statement for a tribal SART in Michigan. The protocol includes a SART structure and processes for law enforcement officers, SANEs, and on-call advocates.
Best Practices in the Criminal Justice Response to Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault: Guidance for CCR/SART Response Protocols (PDF, 25 pages)
This protocol was developed by the North Carolina Coalition Against Sexual Assault and the North Carolina Coalition Against Domestic Violence. It includes protocol best practices for sexual assault and domestic violence responses.
PREA Coordinated Response Protocol Template for Small Jails (PDF, 15 pages)
Just Detention International and the State of Colorado Division of Criminal Justice developed this sample SART protocol for jail staff members, Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) liaisons, advocates, sexual assault forensic examiners (SAFEs), law enforcement investigators, and attorneys.
SAFE Protocol: Trans-Specific Annotation (PDF, 4 pages)
This guide from FORGE provides additional details on the specific references to working with transgender people in the National Protocol for Sexual Assault Medical Forensic Examinations.
These resources from End Violence Against Women International include extensive and up-to-date information on responding to sexual assault. SARTs can use these best practices in their protocol development.
Clinical Practice Guideline Development Manual: A Quality-Driven Approach for Translating Evidence into Action [111]
This manual discusses the practices used by the American Academy of Otolaryngology to create their guidelines.
Core Messages for B-SMART Agencies (PDF, 2 pages)
This resource was developed by the Sexual Violence Justice Institute at Minnesota Coalition Against Sexual Assault. It includes core messages for those who work with sexual assault victims.
Guide to Developing Interagency Protocols (PDF, 18 pages)
The Guide to Developing Interagency Protocols focuses on the Australian Supported Accommodation Assistance Program (SAAP), but the concepts for developing protocol can be applied to SARTs as well.
Hennepin SMARTeam – Five Core Principles (1 page)
This resource was developed by the Sexual Violence Justice Institute at Minnesota Coalition Against Sexual Assault. It includes the principles of compassion, collaboration, communication, choice, and cultural responsiveness.
Questions for Teams to Consider During Protocol Writing (PDF, 6 pages)
The Sexual Violence Justice Institute at Minnesota Coalition Against Sexual Assault provides a list of questions broken down by discipline for SARTs to consider while developing protocol.
Sexual Assault Response Team Development: A Guide for Victim Service Providers (PDF, 12 pages)
The National Sexual Violence Resource Center (NSVRC) developed this guide to assist service providers in forming a SART, including a section on defining protocols and guidelines. Several tips for developing protocol are discussed.
SVJI Core Intervention Principles (PDF, 1 page)
This resource from the Sexual Violence Justice Institute at Minnesota Coalition Against Sexual Assault explains the underlying victim-centered assumptions SARTs should keep in mind while developing protocol.
Victim-Centered Responsibilities Matrix (PDF, 4 pages)
SARTs can use this tool developed by the North Dakota Council on Abused Women’s Services during protocol development to determine the primary and follow-up responsibilities of each team member.
WHO Handbook for Guideline Development [112] (PDF, 63 pages)
This handbook provides assistance on creating World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines, which are documents that contain recommendations about health interventions.
SARTs who engage the community can help prevent sexual assaults by educating the public about harmful attitudes and behaviors. Although SARTs originally formed to increase prosecution, many found it difficult to create meaningful changes in reporting, investigation, and prosecution because of widespread misinformation and harmful attitudes about sexual assault. Over time, SARTs began turning to the community to raise awareness of their services and share correct information to enhance their response to victims of sexual assault.
This community engagement serves to meet the SART’s mission to support survivors — including making reporting accessible, decreasing secondary trauma, and increasing prosecution.
SARTs need to ensure that community engagement efforts at prevention are inclusive of all members of your community. You need to ensure that people from under-represented communities (including people with disabilities, LGBTQ persons, racial and ethnic minorities) have opportunities to share their unique issues and solutions. Prevention approaches and materials need to be culturally appropriate and gender specific.
While primary prevention is a key focus of the anti-violence movement, it is important that programs work at all three levels of prevention necessary to effectively respond to and end sexual assault: [113]
It is also important to note that different types of violence are also connected in many ways. The CDC’s Connecting the Dots: An Overview of the Links Among Multiple Forms of Violence offers an overview of these connections and ways in which they affect communities. Understanding how sexual violence is interconnected with domestic violence, youth violence, child maltreatment, and teen dating violence can give practitioners a better idea of ways to coordinate responses to violence that consider the various ways it impacts individuals. An understanding of this interconnectedness is also useful for organizations and communities as they work collaboratively to develop comprehensive, culturally relevant, and community-specific prevention programming. [114]
Violence can be experienced at multiple points across the lifespan, and there are many opportunities at every life stage to address and prevent violence. The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) Study [115] details research about the impact adverse experiences in childhood have on adult health. SARTs have a unique opportunity to understand ACEs as they relate to trauma. SARTs can also connect people to resources that can help them heal from past experiences regardless of when they enter into receiving services.
A useful framework for how SARTs can work at all three levels of prevention is Sexual Violence and the Spectrum of Prevention: Towards a Community Solution, which provides six levels of action to work toward social change. SARTs can assist in making positive change by striving to incorporate each of these levels into their work. Below are examples of activities related to each level. [116]
Level 1: Strengthening individual knowledge and skills
Level 2: Promoting community education
Level 3: Educating providers
Level 4: Fostering networks and coalitions
Level 5: Changing organizational practices
Level 6: Influencing policies and legislation
Primary prevention aims to create communities where equality, respect, and safety are accepted norms to stop sexual assault before it happens.
Actions focused on raising awareness help support primary prevention efforts because members of the community who are aware of their options will be more likely to seek help after an assault. [117] Similarly, people need to understand that sexual assault is a problem before they are willing to mobilize and activate around ending sexual assault.
SARTs can engage in ongoing community mobilization and awareness efforts throughout the year. This may include participating in awareness months such as Sexual Assault Awareness Month, National Stalking Awareness Month, Teen Dating Violence Awareness Month, and Domestic Violence Awareness Month tailored to the populations served.
SARTs can partner with community partners to recognize and tie prevention and awareness efforts to month-long observances such as:
SARTs can also engage with local media before and when an incident of sexual assault receives media attention. It is especially beneficial for SARTs to build relationships with the media before highly visible tragic incidents occur, so the community is familiar with the SART. Engaging with media can include promoting norms of community health and safety that do not allow sexual assault to occur.
The St. Croix Valley Sexual Assault Response Team is an example of the ways in which SARTs can increase their involvement with prevention and move toward promoting healthier and safer communities. The St. Croix SART provides community outreach by offering prevention and awareness education, including information on provide information on sexual assault issues, consent, boundaries, and healthy relationships by — [118]
When more SARTs begin engaging with and supporting prevention in ways that reflect and support the communities you serve, we will more effectively be able to end sexual assault.
Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs)
The CDC provides several studies on ACEs, as well as resources and case studies that help contextualize the findings.
This site includes information about preventing various forms of violence, including child abuse, intimate partner violence, and sexual violence.
Connecting the Dots: An Overview of the Links Among Multiple Forms of Violence (PDF, 16 pages)
This brief by the CDC and the Prevention Institute shares research on connections between different forms of violence and describes how these connections affect communities. The purpose is to help promote collaboration for more effective prevention.
Culturally Effective Prevention and Intervention (website)
This page from the Asian Pacific Institute on Gender-Based Violence discusses dynamics, cultural barriers, and norms in Asian, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander communities. Understanding these dynamics can help service providers create prevention strategies that fit these communities’ needs.
Guide for Transforming Prevention Programming: Sexual Violence and Individuals Who Identify as LGBTQ (PDF, 23 pages)
This guide by the National Sexual Violence Resource Center (NSVRC)and the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Rape (PCAR) provides information to state and community-based sexual violence prevention educators and practitioners on preventing sexual violence against individuals who identify as LGBTQ.
Preventing Multiple Forms of Violence: A Strategic Vision for Connecting the Dots (PDF, 18 pages)
This resource outlines the CDC’s vision for preventing and addressing multiple forms of violence by examining the connections among various types of violence.
Preventing Sexual Violence in Latin@ Communities: A National Needs Assessment (PDF, 147 pages)
This comprehensive report prepared by the Center for Evaluation and Sociomedical Research for NSVRC details advocates’ needs related to sexual violence in Latin@/x communities.
The Prevention Institute works to develop and advance primary prevention through research, tools, training, and technical assistance.
Primary Sexual Violence Prevention Project (PDF, 2 pages)
This brochure by the International Association of Forensic Nurses (IAFN) includes a roadmap for how to incorporate primary prevention into nursing practices as well as primary prevention action steps nurses can take.
Primary Prevention Primer (multimedia, 20-30 minutes)
This primer by the NSVRC introduces primary prevention through a set of activities to enhance knowledge about primary prevention. Information covered includes the Moving Upstream story, the Social Ecological Model, and an exploration of the differences between risk reduction and primary prevention.
Principles of Prevention (multimedia, 75-90 minutes)
This online course by the CDC discusses the basics of sexual assault prevention and differentiates the three levels of prevention: primary, secondary, and tertiary.
Sexual Violence Prevention: Beginning the Dialogue (PDF, 16 pages)
This resource by the CDC identifies concepts and strategies that may be used as a foundation for planning, implementing, and evaluating sexual assault prevention activities.
Sexual Violence and the Spectrum of Prevention: Towards a Community Solution (PDF, 20 pages)
This publication by the NSVRC provides advocates, practitioners, and educators with a guide for developing a comprehensive community approach to the primary prevention of sexual assault.
STOP SV A Technical Package to Prevent Sexual Violence (PDF, 48 pages)
The CDC has developed this technical package to help states and communities take advantage of the best available evidence to prevent sexual violence.
This report by the Asian and Pacific Islander Institute on Domestic Violence and the Asian Pacific Islander American (APIA) Health Forum covers the community engagement continuum and offers strategies useful for engaging Asian and Pacific Islander communities.
Community Engagement Guidebook
This online resource developed by the Minnesota Department of Health guides service providers through the process of community engagement, including the basic principles behind it, useful tools such as surveys, and resources about multicultural communities. It may be useful for any community.
Community Planning Toolkit: Community Engagement (PDF, 24 pages)
The Community Planning Toolkit developed by Community Places provides recommendations on ways to engage with the community, including community mapping, holding public meetings, facilitating forums, engaging online, and other methods that SARTs may find useful in their communities.
Chapter 6 of the Community Tool Box provides guidance on promoting participation and awareness in the community. Tips are given on working with the media, using paid advertising, developing print materials, reaching out online, and more.
Engaging Communities to Prevent Sexual Violence (PDF, 3 pages)
This resource by the Center for Community Based Research explains how community engagement is a sexual assault prevention strategy, gives tips on assessing community readiness for prevention, and provides a list of additional resources.
Engaging Men and Youth to Prevent Violence Against Women
This website addresses how getting to the roots of gender-based violence necessarily examines the roles and responsibilities of men and boys. Men’s participation is essential if we are to end violence against women. Resources to mobilize your community as well as promising practices are provided.
Community Tool Box: Social Marketing of Successful Components of the Initiative (Chapter 45)
This resource defines the social marketing framework and gives step-by-step instructions on applying this framework to any issue.
Gateway to Health Communication and Social Marketing Practice
These resources and tools guide users in designing health communication interventions within a public health framework.
Making Health Communication Programs Work (PDF, 262 pages)
This resource covers the steps needed to conduct a successful communications campaign, including strategy development, message testing, implementation, evaluation, research methods, and theory.
Vicarious trauma is a reaction to an indirect trauma exposure, such as learning about another person’s pain and suffering. Individuals affected can experience a range of psychosocial symptoms, often similar to those who have experienced the event firsthand. [119]
Vicarious trauma is an occupational challenge for people working and volunteering in the fields of victim services, law enforcement, emergency medical services, fire services, and other allied professions, due to their continuous exposure to victims of trauma and violence. [120] A provider might feel the effects of vicarious trauma right away after a particular conversation or as the cumulative effect of exposure to other’s suffering over time. It can also impact friends, families and significant others of the victim or the provider.
Vicarious trauma is sometimes referred to as secondary traumatic stress (STS), compassion fatigue (CF), or critical incident stress (CIS). [121] These terms are often used interchangeably.
This section of the SART Toolkit provides a brief overview of vicarious trauma. The Vicarious Trauma Toolkit released in 2017 hosts more than 500 resources, including in-depth information on the introductory information presented in the SART Toolkit.
Vicarious traumatization is a reaction to trauma exposure and includes a range of psychosocial symptoms. [122] Some have described vicarious trauma as “feeling heavy” or when work with victims “gets inside you.” Vicarious trauma is an ongoing process of change caused by repeatedly empathizing with people who have been harmed.
Members of all disciplines represented on a SART can experience vicarious trauma, a normal result of working with sexual assault victims. For example, a police officer may feel affected during or after an interview with a victim, or an advocate may experience vicarious trauma when working with children who are victims of sexual abuse. Viewing digital evidence can be especially challenging to service providers, even if they never interact directly with a victim.
Often, symptoms of vicarious trauma are similar to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms. A person experiencing vicarious trauma may exhibit — [123]
For more signs and symptoms of vicarious trauma, view A Trauma Exposure Response. [125]
Anyone working with or supporting survivors of trauma can experience vicarious trauma, such as professionals, friends, and family members of a victim. Some people may be at a higher risk than others.
Common risk factors include — [126]
For a more in-depth list, visit the Vicarious Trauma Toolkit.
Self-assessments can help SART members determine their risk factors for vicarious trauma. [127]
Vicarious trauma can affect the sustainability of a SART, as team members suffering from vicarious trauma may be less able to serve effectively. This can lead to burnout and subsequent turnover.
To manage vicarious trauma, it is important to understand the ABCs — awareness, balance, and connection: [128]
As a group, SARTs can be proactive in decreasing the risk of vicarious trauma. A SART culture that discusses and normalizes vicarious trauma can be helpful. SARTs can take the following actions to build an environment that helps address vicarious trauma: [129]
It is essential that SARTs recognize the risk factors and respond to vicarious trauma as a team during case reviews, meetings, or on a periodic basis. Some groups invite a therapist a few times a year or as needed to process through the work or a specifically challenging case or circumstances.
This foundation provides resources and solutions for people experiencing vicarious trauma.
Self-Care and Trauma Work (PDF, 3 pages)
This resource by the National Sexual Violence Resource Center (NSVRC) and the National Sexual Assault Coalition Resource Sharing Project (RSP) defines vicarious trauma, signs, and organizational practices that can help manage it. This resource may be helpful for SART members to implement in their own agencies and organizations.
Trauma-Informed: The Trauma Toolkit (PDF, 152 pages)
The Klinic Community Health Centre’s Toolkit is a resource for service organizations and providers to deliver trauma-informed services. There is information on trauma exposure response, risk factors, and how to manage responses to trauma. This toolkit provides tips for organizations on creating safe spaces.
Understanding Secondary Trauma (online training)
This resource from the Center for Sex Offender Management discusses risk factors for secondary traumatic stress.
This toolkit, hosted by the Office for Victims of Crime (OVC), contains over 500 discipline-specific resources around vicarious trauma.
This institute provides background information, online resources, training, books, and other resources about vicarious trauma.
When Compassion Hurts: Burnout, Vicarious Trauma and Secondary Trauma in Prenatal and Early Childhood Service Providers (PDF, 45 pages)
Appendix 1 of this resource by Best Start Resource Centre includes self-assessments, presentations, and videos that can be used as agenda topics or for individual SART member use.
Burnout, Compassion Fatigue and Vicarious Trauma Assessment (PDF, 2 pages)
Team members can use this 21-question assessment to further explore how they may be affected by the work they are engaged in. This wellness assessment tool, which includes a facilitator’s manual and 25 copies of the Assessment Tool, can be purchased from the Crisis and Trauma Resource Institute (CRTI).
This interactive self-test by MindTools helps users determine if they are at risk of burnout.
Drowning in Empathy: The Cost of Vicarious Trauma (multimedia, 12:10)
This TEDx Talk explains vicarious trauma (or compassion fatigue), outlines common symptoms, and suggests a daily self-care strategy.
Figley Institute Compassion Fatigue Educator Certification (PDF, 56 pages)
Page 30 includes a Secondary Traumatic Stress (STS) Scale members can use to determine how they’ve been impacted by their work with trauma survivors.
Transforming Vicarious Trauma (multimedia, 5:42)
This video by the Headington Institute describes three specific strategies for responding to vicarious trauma — engaging deeply, expanding your resources, and examining your beliefs.
What Is Vicarious Trauma? (multimedia, 3:28)
This short video by the Headington Institute defines vicarious trauma, lists some of the symptoms, and provides tips for managing it.
Media outlets can play a valuable role in raising awareness and educating communities about sexual assault. In recent years, high-profile cases of sexual assault have been widely covered by the media, providing an opportunity to broaden understanding of sexual assault and opportunities for prevention. SART members can partner with the media to ensure that coverage of sexual assault provides accurate information, protects victim rights, and holds offenders accountable. SARTs can offer the media first-hand insight, expertise, and resources to give context to local, regional, and national cases of sexual assault.
Sexual assault is a sensitive subject, and many journalists are not adequately trained in how best to cover it. [131] It is the media’s responsibility to balance reporting accurate information with protecting victims’ and offenders’ rights and avoiding traumatizing communities or previous victims of sexual assault. The training, skills, and experience of SART members can help the media cover sexual assault stories responsibly. Members of the media may look to SART participants for guidance on appropriate reporting that upholds victims’ rights, such as not printing victims’ names.
Each news story is an opportunity to highlight the resources that exist in your community. By working proactively with the media, SARTs can provide general information and guidance about sexual assault-related issues, including how to talk about victims and people who commit sexual assault, and appropriate terminology and context on statistics. SART members can also provide valuable context on common responses to trauma to increase understanding of how victims may react to assault.
A coordinated media response plan contributes to successful media relations. The SART should agree on consistent practices and standards when talking with media, such as not using a victim’s name and not sharing specific details of the assault or other identifying information. The immediacy of reporting through social media provides reporters with opportunities to inadvertently share private information. Your SART’s consistent message to the media to protect the identity of victims can decrease the chance of information being shared that is harmful to victims.
SARTs can watch the National Sexual Violence Resource Center (NSVRC) Reporting on Sexual Violence e-learning course to reinforce their consistency in responding to media requests. This course can also be shared with local media outlets to enhance their coverage on sexual assault. All SARTs can benefit from discussing media relations and consistent messaging to synthesize ideas and identify potential opportunities, whether or not they have worked with the media.
Most reporters work on a deadline. Prompt responses to their questions are key to having your information, quotes, or resources included in their stories. Before making any comments on the record, however, it can be helpful to speak with the reporter for background information on the case or issue being covered.
The following questions will help you provide a timely response to the reporter or make an appropriate referral if they are looking for information you cannot provide. [132]
Ask the reporter —
If you need time to gather your thoughts and the information needed to respond, let the reporter know you will call back at a set time.
The following tips may help you prepare your response:
Use these tools and strategies for effective media relations: [133]
Studies on sexual assault in the news have shown media too often default to victim-blaming myths, negative headlines, and neglecting the bigger picture of how individuals and communities are impacted. [135] Sexual assault is a complex topic, and journalists reporting on it should be aware that it can be different from other crime-related stories. [136] SARTs can provide expert content, statistics, and background information to add valuable context to help the public understand the issue beyond any single reported case.
There are many helpful tools for journalists to enhance their reporting on the topic of sexual assault. Well-written, fact-based stories that place a particular incident in a broader context can contribute to better public understanding. [137] The following resources provide guidance to reporters on how to represent topics related to sexual assault in the media.
Dart Center for Journalism and Trauma
The Dart Center provides tip sheets, publications, and best practices on journalism and trauma.
The Flawed Way the Media Covers High-Profile Rapists (multimedia, 4:08)
This video by Media Matters 4 America discusses how the media covers offenders, using the Brock Turner case and others as examples.
Guide to Interviewing Survivors of Sexual and Gender-Based Violence (PDF, 15 pages)
This guide by Witness provides tips on how to interview survivors of sexual assault.
Issue 22: What’s Missing from the News on Sexual Violence? An Analysis of Coverage, 2011-2013 (PDF, 28 pages)
This report from the Berkeley Media Studies Group explores how sexual assault is portrayed in the news and the implications of these portrayals.
NSVRC Media Packet (PDF, 18 pages)
This packet includes eight resources for journalists that answer common questions related to sexual assault.
The Poynter Institute educates those involved in the journalism field about ethical decision-making, diversity, new media skills, and more. Courses are available online.
Reporting on Sexual Violence (online course)
This online course by Poynter News University informs journalists about sexual assault and offers guidelines for interviewing survivors.
Reporting Sexual Assault: A Guide for Journalists (PDF, 23 pages)
This guide by the Michigan Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence is intended to provide insight into new trends and assist journalists in developing strategies to accurately frame the public discussion on sexual assault.
Reporting on Rape and Sexual Violence: A Media Toolkit for Local and National Journalists to Better Media Coverage (PDF, 45 pages)
This toolkit by the Chicago Taskforce on Violence Against Girls and Young Women for members of the press explains rape culture, intersectionality, and tips on reporting sexual assault.
Reporting on Sexual Violence: A Media Packet for Maine Journalists (PDF, 6 pages)
This packet by the Maine Coalition Against Sexual Assault and the Sexual Assault Crisis and Support Center includes resources specific to Maine journalists such as statistics, tips on language use, and additional resources.
Writing About Gender-Based Violence and Title IX: A Guide for Journalists and Editors
This page by Known Your IX includes guidelines for reporters covering gender-based violence, particularly on college campuses.
Media Action Toolkit Responding to Inaccurate and Harmful Portrayals of the Sex Industry (PDF, 33 pages)
Chicago Alliance Against Sexual Exploitation developed this online toolkit.
Media Reference Guide (PDF, 40 pages)
This guide from GLAAD addresses basic terminology and includes terms to avoid when writing about individuals who identify as transgender.
The Poynter Institute educates those involved in the journalism field about ethical decision-making, diversity, new media skills, and more. Courses are available online.
Stop Sexual Assault in Schools
This page provides examples of Stop Sexual Assault in Schools’ work with the media.
The Stories We Tell and the Stories We Don’t
This keynote speech was given by New York Times David Carr Fellow Amanda Hess at a national summit on media coverage of sexual violence. In the speech, Hess discusses changing the way the media covers sexual assault.
Talking Points: A Guiding Document for Media Response and Community Conversations (PDF, 10 pages)
These talking points by the Prevention and Education Subcommittee of the Attorney General’s Sexual Assault Task Force provide tips for discussing prevention with the media. Also included are examples of ways to reframe negative questions about sexual assault.
Washington Coalition Against Sexual Assault: Media Advocacy
This page gives tips on working with the media including setting goals, establishing relationships with reporters, and pitching stories.
Working with the Media — A Toolkit for Service Providers (PDF, 20 pages)
This toolkit published by the Michigan Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence offers guidance on how to build partnerships with the media for improved coverage of sexual assault.
Five on 5 Susan Moen Sexual Assault Response Team (multimedia, 5:49)
Susan Moen, executive director of the Jackson County SART, discusses their SART and services they provide survivors. She includes information on the increase of reporting due to #metoo, encouraging survivors to report whenever they are ready, and how to receive a report of sexual assault.
Hennepin Country SMARTeam Press Conference (multimedia, 1:03)
This local press conference is one example of a SART’s public outreach.
New protocol developed in Hennepin County to improve response to sexual assault
This local news article about a protocol in Hennepin County, Minnesota, is a good example of a way to celebrate a SART’s work.
Sexual Assault Response Team (multimedia, 1:25)
This short news clip shows a SART’s ceremony to sign the MOU and assert the community’s dedication to and involvement in a SART in Asheville, North Carolina.
Sexual Assault Response Team (news article)
The Del Rio New Herald, a local newspaper in Texas, published an article on their SART. The page includes rules of conduct for their comment section, which can serve as a template for other news sites.
Sexual Assault Response Team Survivor PSA (multimedia, :30)
Members of the Survivor Action Team (SAT), part of the Palm Beach County Sexual Assault Response Team, developed this survivor-led public service announcement.
Once SARTs have developed goals and action steps, a logic model is a useful way to connect the goals with outcomes and impact.
A logic model is a tool that visually displays the way a SART’s activities link to outcomes. It can be thought of as a roadmap, showing where a program starts, where it is going, and how to get there.
Some SARTs might not have the resources to develop a logic model, and the W.K. Kellogg Foundation Logic Model Development Guide provides instructions and examples for nonprofits. Evaluating the Work of Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE) Programs in the Criminal Justice System: A Toolkit for Practitioners provides SANE-specific examples. Both manuals have examples that can be adapted for your SART. If you want to share your logic model in the SART Toolkit, email resources@nsvrc.org to have it added as an example.
One of the most common methods to develop a logic model is to identify the primary components, which include the following: [138]
|
Inputs |
Activities |
Outputs |
Outcomes |
Impact (optional) |
|
The resources needed to operate a SART and engage in SART work. |
The activities or strategies that compose the work of a SART. |
The direct results of a SART that can be easily documented —for example, the number of clients you serve annually. |
The effects of the program. These could be changes or benefits that are expected to result from SART work. They may be broken into short-, mid-, and long-term outcomes. |
The overall goal or mission of SART work. |
Logic models are usually read left to right. They ask: If “input” then “what action?” and lead to “what output” creating “what impact?” [139] Some logic models may include components that others do not. For instance, a model might specify short-term, mid-term, and long-term outcomes, defined as the following: [140]
|
Short-Term Outcomes |
Mid-Term Outcomes |
Long-Term Outcomes |
|
Immediate effects of a program that often focus on changes in knowledge, attitudes, and initial structural changes. |
Effects that result from the short-term outcomes. These often focus on changes in behavior, norms, or policies. |
Effects that result from mid-term outcomes and often include changes in organizations and systems. |
Additional components in a logic model can include the assumptions about SART work and the external factors that influence this work. These can be particularly relevant for SARTs as they relate to the unique context and structure of the community in which each SART operates. See definitions of assumptions and external factors below: [141]
|
Assumptions |
External Factors |
|
The beliefs we have about the program, the people involved, and how we think the program will operate. |
Aspects external to the program that influence the way the program operates, and are influenced by the program. Elements that affect the program over which there is little control. |
SARTs can use logic models to support funding requests, program planning and development, ongoing management, internal discussions, and evaluation. [142] Logic models allow a SART to examine their system as a coordinated whole to address overall strategies. This may help identify gaps and point to resources and activities needed to achieve the outcomes a SART has identified as priorities. Having a visual representation of how an “input” relates to “impact” can help SARTs more effectively share goals, advocate for specific resources, share results of their efforts, support community engagement, focus prevention efforts, and promote the SART.
SARTs can develop a logic model during the beginning phases of forming the group, right after the group is formed, or during strategic planning. It is important to revisit the logic model regularly to ensure the information remains consistent and up to date with current-day realities.
Logic models may help SARTs develop cohesion around common goals, objectives, and vision. Team members may be participating on a SART for various reasons, and different disciplines may have unique objectives for what they wish to accomplish. Collaboratively developing a logic model can help SARTs articulate and focus on shared activities and objectives. The conversations required to develop a model can be helpful to identify gaps in SART work, inconsistencies in language, and additional areas for improvement related to team development and relationships. The collaborative process can be helpful for team building and can create buy-in for members to continue and pursue SART activities.
Every SART encounters unique external factors that influence their work. Taking the time to articulate external sources of support or potential challenges can help SARTs be proactive in finding solutions and best leveraging existing resources to be successful.
Logic models can have varying levels of detail and can be used for a variety of purposes, depending on if the team is newly formed, well established, seeking funding, engaged in outreach or community awareness, or planning for sustainability.
Logic models can be used to —
SARTs are encouraged to develop community-specific logic models. While referencing existing logic models for SARTs can be helpful, creating a personalized logic model for your SART takes into account the community context, local realities, and operations of your SART. Thinking of each component of the logic model as a question can help you get started, and taking notes on each question from SART members can help begin the outline needed to create a logic model. Creating logic models as a team may require an experienced facilitator to help the group stay focused on the big picture, careful notetaking, and a clear understanding among all members of how decisions will be made if there are disagreements.
Logic models are most effective and accurate when there is buy-in. Using a large chalkboard, whiteboard, visual, or appropriate accommodation so all team members have access to the information throughout the process increases transparency of the process. SARTs developing logic models should set realistic expectations around timeframes.
While the idea of a logic model is not complicated, members often care deeply about the language used throughout. It is important to have conversations around shared language, or other aspects of the model, to reach agreement, even if it is time consuming.
Questions to pose to members of a SART:
|
Inputs |
Activities |
Outputs |
Outcomes |
Impact |
|
What do we need to operate a SART? |
What are the activities that make up our SART work? |
What immediate products result from our SART work? |
What results do we hope our SART activities achieve? |
What is the overall goal our SART is trying to accomplish? |
|
Assumptions |
External Factors |
|
What do we believe about the people, processes, and strategies related to our SART work? How do we think our SART work can improve our community? |
What existing factors in the community may impact our ability to engage in SART work and create our desired impact? (These can be positive or negative factors.) |
When developing a logic model during SART formation, it may be helpful to start by asking about the desired impact and outcomes and then determining which activities, outputs, and inputs are needed to accomplish them.
If a SART is already operating, it may be most helpful to start by defining inputs, activities, and outputs as these are based on current circumstances and known to SART members.
While creating a logic model, any time an arrow is drawn from one box to another (e.g., from an activity to an outcome), it suggests that the one leads to another. Make sure that activities will lead to your desired outcomes. For example, will increased community networking really lead to more victim-centered responses? Discuss how to reach any conclusions and whether evidence supports them. Outlining this process can be helpful, as groups may be implementing some activities to achieve certain outcomes, but could find that these activities or outcomes may not be related to the overall impact of the SART. This provides an opportunity for SARTs to modify activities or redefine their outcomes or impact and can improve existing SART operations.
Thinking through the process to create a logic model can be more manageable when focusing on one activity or impact of a program. For example, the tables below show one activity that helps to support the healing and recovery of victims:
|
Activities |
Outputs |
Short-Term Outcome |
Mid-Term Outcome |
Long-Term Outcome |
Impact |
|
Establish and disseminate SART Protocol |
Materials developed; professionals trained; agencies adopting procedures |
Improved trauma- informed and victim- centered processes |
Better treatment of victims (increased support) |
Increased empowerment of victims |
Support for the healing and recovery of victims Reduce secondary trauma |
|
Assumptions |
External Factors |
|
Training and changes in guidelines and procedures will affect how professionals interact with victims. |
Agencies may be at different stages of readiness to implement guidelines and procedures. |
This graphical depiction could be explained as follows: If a SART develops trauma-informed, victim-centered protocols, then they can train all service providers and agencies to that standard. These efforts would lead to trauma-informed, victim-centered services that support the healing and recovery of victims.
This example is an overview of a general goal. SARTs may make their inputs and related next steps as broad or specific as they deem necessary. Consulting the logic model during difficult decision-making processes might help SARTs clarify next steps. It is important to note that agencies are at different stages of readiness to implement guidelines and procedures and that addressing barriers and challenges may be important to increase the likelihood that training and agency changes will influence how professionals and systems interact with victims.
The following considerations may be helpful when creating a logic model collaboratively as a SART:
Evaluating the Work of Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE) Programs in the Criminal Justice System: A Toolkit for Practitioners (PDF, 122 pages)
This toolkit provides several sample logic models that may be useful to SARTs. Each logic model is presented as a chart and as a diagram so each SANE program can choose the form that works best for their needs. These logic models are not copyrighted and can be used or modified to best meet the needs of your program.
This tool developed by the Child Welfare Information Gateway guides users through the process of developing a customized logic model (requires user to establish an account).
An Example of Creating a SART Logic Model (Microsoft Word, 3 pages)
This sample SART logic model is intended to illustrate what information might appear in each column. SARTs seeking to develop logic models are encouraged to consult organizations or individuals with experience in developing logic models so they meet their local and specific needs.
The University of Wisconsin – Extension
The University of Wisconsin – Extension provides multiple logic model resources from their homepage including logic model examples and templates and an interactive training.
Using Logic Models for Planning Primary Prevention Programs
This interactive web training from PreventConnect provides training on logic models specifically for sexual assault providers and lists many additional resources.
W.K. Kellogg Foundation Logic Model Development Guide
This guide was developed to provide practical assistance to nonprofits engaged in this process. It gives staff of nonprofits and community members alike sufficient orientation to the underlying principles of “logic modeling” to use this tool to enhance their program planning, implementation, and dissemination activities.
Evaluation can continue to provide information that enhances your SART’s ability to make a meaningful impact. Evaluation can serve as an opportunity for SARTs to monitor their effectiveness as a team, refine their practices and protocol, assess their impact on victim support and offender accountability, and identify potential areas of improvement. [143] SART evaluation findings shed light on what practices are correlated with high levels of meaningful collaboration. In addition, demonstrating effectiveness can be an invaluable tool to obtain buy-in from potential new partners who may have initially declined to participate on a SART. [144]
Evaluation activities can happen throughout the life of a SART and are essential to planning, developing, and sustaining a successful SART. There are many styles of evaluation that may or may not require the help of an “outside” evaluator, or hired evaluator. Your SART can plan and evaluate itself, and choose to enlist the help of a professional evaluator when resources are available.
The intention of this section of the SART Toolkit is to help SARTs understand enough about evaluation to use basic activities to understand how the SART is working, and know when and where to ask for additional help.
This section of the SART Toolkit will help your SART move forward with evaluation:
Research suggests that SARTs that participate in evaluation and continuous improvement can increase positive outcomes for sexual assault victims. [145] SARTs that engage in evaluation have reported a perceived growth in positive outcomes, such as an increase in victim satisfaction with services, greater reliability of evidence collection, more law enforcement reports, and more prosecutions. [146]
SARTs are designed to work as a cohesive system of multiple service providers and voices. A SART’s success or struggle is never due to only one stakeholder at the table. Therefore, it is important to remind your SART that evaluation is being used as a tool for improving your SART and ultimately improving outcomes for victims, which requires everyone at the table to work together to be the best cohesive system possible.
Why Evaluate?
SARTs that perform evaluation tend to have better outcomes than those that do not.
Evaluation enables SARTs to improve their services and outcomes.
Data enable SARTs to engage stakeholders, including the community, new members, and possible funders through sharing findings.
Evaluation allows SARTs to identify gaps in services and better meet victims’ needs
SARTs can track effects of systems change.
It is important to engage all SART members in some aspects of evaluation planning, including the top executives from member organizations and community leaders at all steps of the evaluation planning.
While not everyone on your SART will be as engaged with evaluation activities, it is important for everyone to be informed and involved when you identify what to evaluate, develop a plan for evaluation, and finalize your plan before implementation, as well as while you are collecting and analyzing data and developing reports.
By soliciting the interests and priorities of stakeholders early in the evaluation process, evaluation results are more likely to meet everyone’s specific information needs and serve a variety of purposes, from improving program effectiveness to affecting policy decisions.
In addition to clarifying the specific information needs and interests of stakeholder groups, it is important to consider what you want to learn from stakeholders:
Stakeholder Engagement Tools for Action [147] (PDF, 60 pages)
This resource from the Western and Pacific Child Welfare Implementation Center and the Los Angeles Department of Child and Family Services provides information and action steps for engaging stakeholders.
It is a good idea to organize the components of your evaluation by putting together an evaluation plan. Evaluation plans can be complex or simple. Although professional evaluators often develop very long and detailed plans, you will probably find that a shorter version that quickly summarizes your evaluation is faster, more useful, and more feasible to create.
An evaluation plan is a written document used to describe the purpose of the evaluation, scope of what is being evaluated, details regarding how the evaluation will be completed (e.g., data collection and analysis), and how and with whom the results will be shared.
In defining purpose and scope, the evaluation plan and evaluation activities should be anchored to three foundational components:
The remaining components of an evaluation plan include indicators of success, data sources, data collection methods, evaluation timeline, data analysis and management, and report sharing. Each component of the evaluation plan builds upon the previous component to ensure all aspects of the plan logically link together and work collectively to answer the evaluation question.
Below is an overview of these steps:
SARTs can conduct their own evaluation, work with a TA provider to develop an evaluation plan, hire an evaluator, or partner with a local campus community to complete the evaluation.
SARTs can conduct an evaluation in three different ways:
Most often, SARTs that conduct self-evaluations collect results about perception of team work.
SARTs are unique across the country and engage in community-specific variations of similar work. Evaluating how your team functions (process) and whether it is ultimately meeting its goals (outcomes) are both important. SARTs can use evaluation as a tool to gain insight so efforts are focused, intentional, and productive.
It is up to your SART to determine what questions to ask and what information you think will be most useful to your team and your ability to meet your mission. Different types of evaluation require different timelines, both to collect data and to review results. Some evaluations, particularly those focused on sustainable systems change, may take years to ensure the goals have been met, while other evaluations, such as measuring a kit backlog, may take a few months.
When beginning any evaluation, it is important to ask, “What is the question we want to answer?” and develop a clear, specific question that may include a time range. Developing a clear, specific question may be difficult for teams that have varying perceptions of the work and that may value feedback on different aspects of the work. When teams sit down to discuss evaluation, the process of identifying the right question may take multiple meetings and require feedback from all agencies in addition to the SART members.
SART evaluations can focus on two areas:
|
FOR EXAMPLE |
A team member goes to a training on working with interpreters and wonders how their own SART is doing in this area. Team members could give anecdotes, compare policies, or decide to do an evaluation. Some examples of questions the team may include in their evaluation are listed below. The team would NOT try to answer all the questions in their evaluation of their work with interpreters. |
|
|
As you can see, coming up with questions is not difficult; however, narrowing the list and selecting the questions that are most important to your SART may be more challenging. Having an outside facilitator for these conversations may be helpful to monitor and move the conversation forward.
Once your SART determines a clear, specific question you want to answer, your team can select the best type of evaluation to collect the information you are seeking.
There is no single “best” approach that can be used in all situations because the methods of collecting and analyzing data vary based on the question and the information you are seeking. Often choosing the correct evaluation method(s) to answer the question is one of the most difficult tasks.
The type of evaluation to use depends on the question your SART is trying to answer.
|
Evaluation Type |
When to Use |
What It Shows |
Why It Is Useful |
|
Process Evaluation |
|
|
|
|
Outcome Evaluation |
|
|
|
A process evaluation looks at how your SART functions and helps explain why your SART is meeting its goals and objectives (or not).
Process evaluation examines how SARTs operate related to interagency working environments, infrastructure, activates, and implementation, as further explored below.
Evaluating your team’s working environment can include assessing whether your team has a shared interagency mission, the effectiveness of its decision-making process, and the ways it communicates and manages conflict. A process evaluation would provide important information about where changes are needed to improve the team’s functioning. Research has shown that a team’s working climate is integral to its success, and that teams that handle conflict can more creatively solve problems and make necessary changes. [149]
Infrastructure can refer to how your team is organized, the skills and strengths of team members, and the effectiveness of team leadership. Assessing infrastructure is important because there is a positive correlation between strong, effective infrastructure and organizational capacity and team effectiveness.
Activities can be described as what you do to fulfill your mission — the specific tasks SART members engage in to meet a client’s needs. These activities could be referrals to the local crisis center, the medical forensic exam, trauma-informed interviewing, hospital intake, or contact by prosecution.
Process evaluation may also focus on understanding how something worked to help you answer questions such as —
Evaluating how protocols, policies, and practices are implemented is critical to an effective team response. If changes are implemented as planned, it is easier to measure outcomes and assess the impact of actions taken. If changes are not implemented as planned, the team can begin to explore why this is occurring. This information may be helpful in revising the implementation plan and adapting the policy, practice or protocol to fit the diverse needs of survivors or resources of agencies and programs.
Developing Process Evaluation Questions [150] (PDF, 2 pages)
This evaluation brief by the Evaluation Research Team at the CDC explains how to define evaluation questions and provides steps to develop evaluation questions.
A Process Evaluation of Sexual Violence Advocates [151] (PDF, 48 pages)
This evaluation report by Independent Sexual Violence Advisors examines the implantation and impact of their services.
Outcome evaluations assess the direct effects of your SART. Outcomes measure change. Outcome evaluations look specifically at whether SARTs achieve their goals and if their activities had the intended effect for victims, offenders, the community, and service providers. At the end of the day, what is different or better in the lives of the people you serve?
Outcome evaluation asks if your SART program is getting the results you expected:
An outcome evaluation requires an in-depth understanding of the SART program design, often illustrated through a logic model. The logic model can help with the evaluation to —
Outcome evaluation may be conducted at different points during the life of your SART program. It complements ongoing process evaluation, which is grounded in regularly scheduled reviews of implementation processes and progress made toward time-bound achievements. By contrast, outcome evaluation provides an overarching analysis of SART performance and whether changes can be attributed to the SART program.
Evaluation can also identify unintended outcomes. For example, if one of your SART goals was to increase the number of sexual assault cases investigated by law enforcement, you may now see a backlog in the processing of medical forensic examination kits.
At first glance, the unintended outcome is positive (more investigations and prosecution of cases), but that result can have a ripple effect on limited resources. How might a backlog in the processing of kits be impacting the goal of increasing the number of investigations conducted? A negative outcome (e.g., limited resources) can prove invaluable if you use the results to revise policies or inform policymakers and funders about evolving needs.
Assessing the Sexual Assault System Response in Hennepin County (PDF, 90 pages)
This evaluation by the Hennepin County SMARTeam is an example of a team assessing their community’s needs and the team’s response to sexual assault.
An Evaluation of the Rhode Island Sexual Assault Response Team [152] (PDF, 63 pages)
This evaluation conducted by Doug Wilson and Andrew Klein serves as an example of a SART evaluation.
Sustaining a Coordinated Community Response [153] (PDF, 102 pages)
This guide by End Violence Against Women International (EVAWI) will help communities respond to sexual assault and improve coordination of services. It explains what a SART is and how to create one.
The Three Ts of Mission Accountability for Improved SART Outcomes (PDF, 4 pages)
This tool helps guide SARTs from transactional habits to transformational practices.
Tools for Evaluating & Assessing Your SART/SANE Program (PDF, 25 pages)
This Pennsylvania Coalition Against Rape (PCAR) program provides sample surveys to evaluate common professionals who make up a SART. This tool provides SARTs with a sample or starting point to develop something that will work for their local needs.
Victim-Centered Responsibilities Matrix (PDF, 4 pages)
This matrix, adapted from Looking Back, Moving Forward: A Program for Communities Responding to Sexual Assault can help your SART determine primary responsibilities for members.
The role of the SART is to provide timely, victim-centered, trauma-informed services to sexual assault victims, while working together in a collaborative manner to improve the community’s sexual assault response and service provision.
Outcomes describe the expected effectiveness of the SART policies, practices, and programs. SART program outcomes include the result of the coordinated services by the SART, such as impacts on the victim or criminal justice results. For example, training on the impact of trauma for victims and a trauma-informed response could help law enforcement and prosecutors more effectively work with victims of sexual assault. Victims who feel more comfortable and understood are more willing to engage with the criminal justice system and participate in the investigative process, thereby impacting law enforcement and criminal justice outcomes.
Outcomes can parallel ongoing process evaluation by looking at the team cohesion, process, and evaluation of care within the SART. Several categories of outcomes for the SART exist: [154]
SARTs achieve systems change by identifying opportunities to increase victim-centered services and decrease secondary victimization. Secondary victimization, such as victim-blaming behavior and withholding of or denial of available services, intensifies the trauma of sexual assault and is associated with costly, negative health outcomes, including but not limited to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety, depression, suicide, sexual risk-taking behaviors, addiction, and eating disorders. [155]
SARTs that perform evaluations report perceived increases in services to underserved populations, [156] suggesting that evaluation activities can be designed and executed to improve victim support and the SART’s responsiveness to the community’s unserved or underserved populations. Structuring through evaluation allows SARTs to tailor process to such groups, which an increase in for ensureing victim support and structuring accountabilityence prevention) include but are not limited to males, people with limited English proficiency, victims in rural areas or in correctional settings, victims of color, victims who identify as LGBTQ, victims who are assaulted abroad and report at home, and victims with complex needs.
Indicators are visible signs of progress — they can be used to determine whether your SART is on its way to achieving the expected outcomes your team has chosen to evaluate.
Indicators are commonly used to describe, monitor, set goals, advocate, and evaluate, and to provide information to agencies and organizations accountable for processes and outcomes. A good indicator is measurable, relevant, understandable, and useable. [157] If your team has already developed objectives in the S.M.A.R.T. format, then you have a jumpstart on indicator development. The Wisconsin Coalition Against Sexual Assault’s Planning It Out [158] page contains tools to create indicators from SMART objectives.
If your indicators are S.M.A.R.T., they are —
You can use different types of indicators to measure your SART performance, depending on what SART outcomes you identify. For example, you may want to assess if team meetings promote increased knowledge of community resources. One indicator is that team members report increased knowledge of available community resources. Another potential indicator is that referrals to community resources have increased.
Process indicators reflect whether a SART program is being carried out as planned and how well SART activities are being carried out. They can also measure how well a team is collaborating across systems — trust levels, communication frequency, and leadership strength. Process indicators are often reported in the form of a number. These are clearly stated measurable results of the groundwork necessary for achieving one or more long-term outcomes. Examples include —
Outcome indicators relate to change that is demonstrated because of the team’s efforts. Outcome indicators help to answer the question: What is different in the lives of victims, offenders, and the community because of our efforts? They can measure a SART program’s level of success in improving service accessibility, utilization, or quality. These types of indicators are often reported as percentages or rates, such as the percentage of the sexual assault victims seeking services. Data for outcome indicators often come from censuses, surveys, or existing agency databases.
Outcome indicators are specific and measurable data used to answer evaluation questions. Examples include —
The selection of indicators can be informed and supported by the activities and outcomes described in your logic model. You can also identify data collection activities for indicators through the SART activities outlined in your logic model. Using your logic model to support indicator selection helps ensure that indicators logically connect to your SART program goals.
Indicator selection should be anchored to evaluation questions and expected outcomes of your SART program. An indicator should either contribute necessary information to answer evaluation questions or explain evaluation findings. Just as evaluation questions reflect evaluation goals and objectives, indicators selected based on evaluation questions should therefore also measure evaluation objectives to show whether evaluation goals were achieved.
Clearly outlining your SART needs and use of findings related to the evaluation allows a checkpoint during indicator selection to assess if the indicator is meaningful and relevant for your team. This can be useful when identifying indicators that directly answer the evaluation questions or help to explain evaluation findings. [159]
Collaboration within a group is a continuous partnership, where professionals with diverse backgrounds and various experiences unify to solve challenging problems, maintain a service, or accomplish a common goal. [160] A SART’s main function is to promote collaboration between service providers to address inadequacies and limitations in and among systems to ensure appropriate, trauma-informed responses to the crime of sexual assault that supports victims and structures offender accountability in every case. [161]
To achieve this successful collaboration, all team members must understand the four competencies for cross-system collaboration practice: roles and responsibilities, ethics and values, communication, and teamwork/teams. [162] Acknowledging the roles and responsibilities of each profession and appropriate communication can help build team relationships and maintain sustainability. [163]
|
Multidisciplinary Evaluation To ensure a coordinated team approach to sexual assault that affords each victim access to needed services. |
||||
|
Low* |
Medium** |
High*** |
||
|
|
Process evaluation (basic)
|
Process evaluation (intermediate)
Outcome evaluation (basic or intermediate)
|
Process evaluation (intermediate or advanced)
Outcome evaluation (intermediate or advanced)
|
|
* Little or no money, one person responsible for coordination and evaluation, no time for evaluation and no experience with evaluation ** Little or no money, people who can help with data entry, basic understanding of surveys and using spreadsheets or online surveys *** Paid staff or volunteer time allocated for evaluation, formal funding |
||||
Advocates provide resources and support from the beginning to the end by being trauma-informed and empowering people who have been sexually assaulted.
When advocacy and coordinated community responses are involved in cases, victims — [165]
|
Advocacy Services Evaluation To ensure that the physical, emotional, and psychological well-being of the victim will be given strong consideration throughout the sexual assault examination, investigation, and prosecution. |
||||
|
Types of Indicators |
Types of Data |
Evaluation Options |
||
|
Low* |
Medium** |
High*** |
||
|
|
Process evaluation (basic)
|
Process evaluation (intermediate)
Outcome evaluation (basic or intermediate)
|
Process evaluation (intermediate or advanced)
Outcome evaluation (intermediate or advanced)
|
|
* Little or no money, one person responsible for coordination and evaluation, no time for evaluation and no experience with evaluation ** Little or no money, people who can help with data entry, basic understanding of surveys and using spreadsheets or online surveys *** Paid staff or volunteer time allocated for evaluation, formal funding |
||||
Advocate Survey (PDF, 2 pages)
This survey is one of many surveys provided in Pennsylvania Coalition Against Rape’s Tools for Evaluating & Assessing Your SART/SANE Program. This tool provides SARTs with a sample or starting point to develop something that will work for their local needs.
OVC’s Program Evaluation Resources
OVC provides a number of tools and resources to assist with evaluation.
Sexual assault forensic examiners (SAFEs) provide quality care and evidence collection. Research demonstrates that when SARTs coordinate with SAFEs — [166]
|
Medical Response Evaluation To ensure personal safety and the prompt, compassionate, comprehensive health care needs of the sexual assault victim. |
||||
|
Types of Indicators |
Types of Data |
Evaluation Options |
||
|
Low* |
Medium** |
High*** |
||
|
|
Process evaluation (basic)
|
Process evaluation (intermediate)
Outcome evaluation (basic or intermediate)
|
Process evaluation (intermediate or advanced)
Outcome evaluation (intermediate or advanced)
|
|
* Little or no money, one person responsible for coordination and evaluation, no time for evaluation, or no experience with evaluation ** Little or no money, people who can help with data entry, basic understanding of surveys and using spreadsheets or online surveys *** Paid staff or volunteer time allocated for evaluation, formal funding |
||||
Evaluating the Work of Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE) Programs in The Criminal Justice System: A Toolkit for Practitioners [168] (PDF, 227 pages)
This toolkit by a team of researchers including Rebecca Campbell, Megan Greeson, Nidal Karim, Jessica Shaw, and Stephanie Townsend is intended to guide SANE program staff in evaluating their program, particularly its impact on prosecution rates of sexual assault.
Patient Care Satisfaction Survey [169] (Microsoft Word, 2 pages)
This survey from the Coalition Against Sexual Assault in North Dakota is distributed to patients to determine their level of care.
SANE Empowering Care Survey (PDF, 3 pages)
This survey developed by Rebecca Campbell, Ph.D., Debra Patterson, MSW, MA and Adrienne Adams, MA helps SARTs get feedback on services provided by a sexual assault nurse examiner.
This program by the National Institute of Justice evaluates the services provided to sexual assault victims in their first contact with health care professionals.
SART Nurse Survey (PDF, 3 pages)
This survey is one of many provided in PCAR’s Tools for Evaluating & Assessing Your SART/SANE Program. This tool provides SARTs with a sample or starting point to develop something that will work for their local needs.
It is essential for law enforcement professionals to investigate all the facts and maintain a rapport with the sexually assaulted person. A victim of sexual assault who has been treated with fairness, dignity, compassion, and respect is more likely to support the investigation and prosecution processes. Stronger victim involvement will result in an increase in the apprehension, prosecution, and conviction of sexual offenders. SART intervention is a factor in the identification and arrest of suspects and the strongest predictor that charges will be filed. [171]
|
Law Enforcement Services Evaluation To ensure the quality and integrity of the sexual assault investigation. |
||||
|
Types of Indicators |
Types of Data |
Evaluation Options |
||
|
Low* |
Medium** |
High*** |
||
|
|
Process evaluation (basic)
|
Process evaluation (intermediate)
|
Process evaluation (intermediate or advanced)
|
|
* Little or no money, one person responsible for coordination and evaluation, no time for evaluation, or no experience with evaluation ** Little or no money, people who can help with data entry, basic understanding of surveys and using spreadsheets or online surveys *** Paid staff or volunteer time allocated for evaluation, formal funding |
||||
Form for Evaluating Police Response [172]
This form by the Women’s Justice Center can be used by sexual assault victims, advocates, and law enforcement to evaluate law enforcement response to sexual assault.
Law Enforcement Survey (PDF, 2 pages)
This survey is one of many provided in PCAR’s Tools for Evaluating & Assessing Your SART/SAFE Program. This tool provides SARTs with a sample or starting point to develop something that will work for their local needs.
Law Enforcement Survey (PDF, 4 pages)
This survey for police officers comes from Are We Making a Difference? Sexual Assault Response Teams Assessing Systems Change: A Resource for Multidisciplinary Team Leadership by the Sexual Violence Justice Institute at Minnesota Coalition Against Sexual Assault.
Research on coordinated community responses has demonstrated the positive impact of victim services on outcomes and has suggested that SART collaboration has a positive impact on victim participation in the criminal justice system. [173]
Sexual assault cases in jurisdictions with SARTs — [174]
|
Prosecution Services Evaluation To ensure coordination with the respective legal agencies to create an effective response to sexual assault. |
||||
|
Types of Indicators |
Types of Data |
Evaluation Options for Resource Levels |
||
|
Low* |
Medium** |
High*** |
||
|
|
Process evaluation (basic)
|
Process evaluation (intermediate)
Outcome evaluation (basic or intermediate)
|
Process evaluation (intermediate or advanced)
Outcome evaluation (intermediate or advanced)
|
|
* Little or no money, one person responsible for coordination and evaluation, no time for evaluation and no experience with evaluation ** Little or no money, people who can help with data entry, basic understanding of surveys and using spreadsheets or online surveys *** Paid staff or volunteer time allocated for evaluation, formal funding |
||||
Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner Prosecution Survey (PDF, 6 pages)
This survey helps SARTs collect information about prosecution of sexual assaults and collaboration with sexual assault examiner programs, rape crisis advocates, and law enforcement.
Data collection is an essential piece of a SART evaluation plan. An immense amount of data can be collected by SARTs. Keep your evaluation feasible and useful by choosing methods that will give you the most accurate information without overburdening your resources and capacity. Each SART is unique, and you will need to determine what information is most useful to your team, in your community. Whenever SARTs attempt to collect or share data, victim confidentiality should be an essential consideration to ensure victim privacy and safety.
|
Examples of Data Collected for Evaluations |
|
|
Team Characteristics |
SART membership, frequency of team meetings, and whether case reviews are performed |
|
Victim Characteristics |
Age, race, socioeconomic status, gender, and level of involvement with criminal justice |
|
SART Services |
# of victims served, and types of services provided |
|
SART Outcomes |
Victim satisfaction, changes in policies or resources, # of cases referred to community-based services, team member attitudes and beliefs, knowledge and understanding |
|
SART Advocacy Outcomes |
Victim satisfaction, # of victim referrals, outreach and service to diverse populations, dissemination of information for victims, education for victims, access to other resources and service providers |
|
SART Medical Outcomes |
Victim satisfaction, # of forensic medical examinations, # and types of kits collected, # and types of services provided, data on quality of evidence collected by forensic examiners, # of health care providers subpoenaed to testify |
|
SART Law Enforcement Outcomes |
Victim satisfaction, # of kits processed by crime labs, data on quality of evidence collected by law enforcement, # of cases assigned for investigation, # of cases submitted to district attorney for review |
|
SART Prosecution Outcomes |
Victim satisfaction, # of charges, # of case filings, # of trials, pleas, sentences, # of dispositions, trial results, timeliness of response, language accessibility and use of interpreters as appropriate. |
Consider the following steps before collecting data:
In other words, figure out —
Many types of data provide useful information but may not be the most feasible to collect, given your current evaluation capacity.
There are two forms of data:
|
Pros and Cons of QUANTITATIVE Data |
|
|
PROS |
CONS |
|
Collects a wide variety of information quickly. |
You may miss out on more in-depth understanding of what you are evaluating. |
|
Provides a quick “snapshot” of results for busy decision-makers. |
It may not enhance the information shared with decision-makers. |
|
You can do statistical analysis that may predict change. |
Statistics are not always feasible or appropriate for evaluation. |
|
Statistics are viewed as credible data to decision-makers. |
It does not allow for community knowledge to be shared. |
|
Tools may already exist that have been tested and validated for use in evaluation. |
Data collection tools (sometimes) are not easy to develop or adapt and may not be culturally appropriate. |
|
Pros and Cons of QUALITATIVE Data |
|
|
PROS |
CONS |
|
You can gain a more in-depth understanding of what you are evaluating. |
It can be resource-intensive and time-consuming to collect and study. |
|
It can enhance the information shared with decision-makers. |
Data collection requires more staff training. |
|
Data collection tools are (usually) easier to develop. |
Data analysis may require more staff training. |
|
It allows more community knowledge to be shared. |
Findings can be subject to misinterpretation (quantitative methods are not immune to this, however). |
|
It can be more culturally appropriate. |
It may be so specific that it is hard to draw broad conclusions across populations or contexts. |
Data Collection Sources for SARTs (PDF, 3 pages)
This document, adapted by the National Sexual Violence Resource Center, provides examples of the type of data you can collect from different agencies.
Information is power, and SARTs have the potential to compare and contrast information from many agencies. Anytime SARTs share information, it is essential to ensure the information shared does not breach confidentiality of individual victims, including leading to potential identification of victims.
To understand the scope of sexual assault in your jurisdiction, you can pull data from —
If your SART chooses to collect interagency data, you will need to determine if this is the best way to answer the questions you want to answer and if your team members and home organizations are willing to commit resources and information to data collection for whatever time period your SART determines necessary. Many challenges come into play when collecting interagency data, and you should address those challenges as you develop your SART’s evaluation plan.
When collecting information from multiple agencies or sources, it is important to keep the following in mind:
In addition to collecting interagency information, your team may want to gather information on community members’ knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs concerning sexual assault and the services available in your area. Hosting these discussions will inform the team as they consider sexual assault services. Community members’ knowledge of services available and their confidence in and perceptions of the quality of services may be particularly relevant to your SART evaluation. [176]
For more information on collecting community-based data, go to the Community Needs Assessment section of the SART Toolkit.
Story 1: Review of Existing Data
Story 1: Review of Existing Data by Sexual Violence Justice Institute at Minnesota Coalition Against Sexual Assault. Retrieved from LINK.
Often, the data your SART wants to collect may already exist. Each time you think of an evaluation question you would like to answer or a piece of information you would like to know, think of all the places it might already be documented. Websites, directories of community services, previous reports, meeting minutes, newspaper articles, and written records (police reports and case files) can all be accessed publicly and searched, organized, and shared with your team (if accessible).
The following tips can help your review of documents and existing data:
|
DOCUMENT REVIEW Quantitative |
|||
|
Purpose |
Advantages |
Challenges |
Resources and Capacity Required |
|
|
|
|
Data Collection Methods for Evaluation: Document Review (PDF, 2 pages)
This evaluation brief from the Department of Health and Human Services includes information about using existing documents to collect evaluation data.
Document Review (PDF, 3 pages)
This information sheet from the WBI Evaluation Group includes examples of community-based document reviews along with general procedures for document reviews.
Using questionnaires or surveys for collecting data has many advantages, but they also have their drawbacks. Surveys are best when you —
|
QUESTIONNAIRES, SURVEYS, CHECKLISTS Quantitative Data |
|||
|
Purpose |
Advantages |
Challenges |
Resources and Capacity Required |
|
Once a survey is developed, can quickly and easily get a lot of information from people in a non-threatening way |
|
|
|
Using Surveys and Group Interviews to Understand how Victim/Survivors Experience the System Response
Using Surveys and Group Interviews to Understand how Victim/Survivors Experience the System Response by Sexual Violence Justice Institute at Minnesota Coalition Against Sexual Assault, 2011. Retrieved from LINK.
SARTs often conduct victim surveys during or after service provision to identify how victims feel about the services offered, which services were offered, if victims felt supported, and possible areas for improvement. [178] SARTs should be careful to include cases that were not reported to law enforcement but where a sexual assault forensic exam was provided and cases that were not pursued.
Many SARTs attempt to distribute written surveys and often have low response rates. SARTs that make a commitment to supporting victims from reporting through prosecution, including their decision to exit the process at any point, will have the most meaningful engagement with and feedback from victims.
Even if done well, victim surveys provide limited feedback from people experiencing sexual violence, and raise issues around triggering victims and potential breaches in confidentiality. SARTs should seek meaningful feedback from all victims, including those who do not seek services, those whom service providers are unable to serve, and those whose cases —
Some SARTs create advisory boards where a larger number of survivors can weigh in on ways to adapt existing policies and programs to serve diverse groups within a community and provide the SART with feedback on proposed changes. Other SARTs involve survivors in volunteer positions and community outreach and prevention activities.
Before designing a victim survey, consider several key questions: [179]
The victim survey needs to capture both quantitative and qualitative information about services, including the types of assistance received, whether services were easily accessible, victims’ experiences with the criminal justice system, satisfaction with services received, referrals provided (to shed light on interagency coordination), and assistance that victims needed but did not receive. Keep in mind the development of surveys is an art and a science.
The survey should include a title, introduction, directions, and questions (including questions related to demographics). The survey’s title should be clear and concise and reflect its content. The introductory statement should identify the survey’s purpose, explain confidentiality, and state how the data will be used. When creating directions for the survey, it is important not only to describe how to complete the survey but also include where and how to return it. The actual survey questions can be a combination of types (e.g., scale, category, checklist, yes/no, open-ended) but should be limited to questions that are necessary. Putting demographic-related questions last on your form will increase the probability they will be answered.
Here are more tips for developing surveys:
Collecting Evaluation Data: Surveys (PDF, 27 pages)
This guide by the University of Wisconsin Cooperative Extension focuses on survey planning, including choosing a method, implementing it, and interpreting results.
Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault- Statewide Sexual Assault Response Team Manual Version I (PDF, 57 pages)
This manual includes a number of survey tools that may be helpful for SARTs to review as they explore developing surveys and tools specific to their local needs.
Developing a Survey (PDF, 6 pages)
This tip sheet developed by the Innovation Network covers how to develop an effective survey using examples.
Developing Written Questionnaires
This module included in the Online Evaluation Resource Library includes information on determining whether to use questionnaires as well as how to write, design, and administer them.
Essentials of Survey Research and Analysis (PDF, 50 pages)
This handbook developed by Ronald Jay Polland, Ph.D. discusses developing and using surveys.
Planning a Program Evaluation (PDF, 27 pages)
This guide by the University of Wisconsin Cooperative Extension addresses focusing an evaluation, collecting and using information, and managing the evaluation.
It is important that interviewers are skilled and prepared.
Interviews are best when you —
Group Interviews with Law Enforcement
Group Interviews with Law Enforcement by Sexual Violence Justice Institute at Minnesota Coalition Against Sexual Assault, 2011. Retrieved from LINK.
|
INTERVIEWS Qualitative |
|||
|
Purpose |
Advantages |
Challenges |
Resources and Capacity Required |
|
To explore participant perceptions, impressions or experiences, or learn more about their answers |
|
|
|
Are We Making a Difference? Sexual Assault Response Teams Assessing Systems Change (PDF, 134 pages)
This guide is by the Sexual Violence Justice Institute (SVJI) at Minnesota Coalition Against Sexual Assault. Evaluation stories three and four discuss using the methods of group interview to learn about barriers and victim experiences with system responses to sexual assault.
These two modules by the Online Evaluation Resource Library (OERL) address preparing a protocol and administering interviews.
This website by Better Evaluation provides a guide to qualitative interviewing.
Qualitative Research Guideline Project [183]
This page by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation defines five different types of interviews.
Community Service Provider — Sample Group Interview
For community service providers, use this sample interview adapted from Are We Making a Difference? Sexual Assault Response Teams Assessing Systems Change: A Resource for Multidisciplinary Team Leadership by the SVJI at MNCASA.
Designing and Conducting Group Interviews (PDF, 27 pages)
This guide, adapted from Are We Making a Difference? Sexual Assault Response Teams Assessing Systems Change: A Resource for Multidisciplinary Team Leadership, by the SVJI at MNCASA, provides tips and considerations for group interviews.
Documenting Group Interviews (PDF, 2 pages)
Use this grid adapted from Are We Making a Difference? Sexual Assault Response Teams Assessing Systems Change: A Resource for Multidisciplinary Team Leadership, by SVJI at MNCASA, to document questions, evidence, key themes, supportive quotes, and additional comments.
Sample group interview – Community member (PDF, 2 pages)
For a group of community members, use this sample interview adapted from Are We Making a Difference? Sexual Assault Response Teams Assessing Systems Change: A Resource for Multidisciplinary Team Leadership by the SVJI at MNCASA.
Sample group interview – General responder (PDF, 2 pages)
This sample interview adapted from Are We Making a Difference? Sexual Assault Response Teams Assessing Systems Change: A Resource for Multidisciplinary Team Leadership, by the SVJI at MNCASA, can be used for a general audience.
Sample group interview - Law enforcement leadership/investigators interview (PDF, 2 pages)
Use this sample interview adapted from Are We Making a Difference? Sexual Assault Response Teams Assessing Systems Change: A Resource for Multidisciplinary Team Leadership, by the SVJI at MNCASA, when interviewing law enforcement.
Sample group interview – Multi-disciplinary team member (PDF, 2 pages)
This sample interview adapted from Are We Making a Difference? Sexual Assault Response Teams Assessing Systems Change: A Resource for Multidisciplinary Team Leadership, by the SVJI at MNCASA, can be used for multidisciplinary team members, such as SART members.
Sample group interview – Victim/survivor (PDF, 2 pages)
Use the following sample interview adapted from Are We Making a Difference? Sexual Assault Response Teams Assessing Systems Change: A Resource for Multidisciplinary Team Leadership, by the SVJI at MNCASA, as a guide for interviewing victims.
Focus groups are in-depth interviews with groups of people designed to identify specific issues. Whereas needs assessments and surveys help communities determine a course of action once a problem or issue has been identified, focus groups help uncover problems or issues that may not be recognized. Listening as people share different points of view provides a wealth of information, not just about what they think, but why they think the way they do. Focus groups use the power of group conversation to gain a deeper understanding of people’s opinions and perspectives. [184]
Focus groups are beneficial when you —
To generate meaningful group discussions, focus group facilitators must be able to separate themselves from the topics at hand, maintain objectivity, and have no hidden agendas that will affect the outcomes.
|
FOCUS GROUPS Qualitative |
|||
|
Purpose |
Advantages |
Challenges |
Resources and Capacity Required |
|
Explore a topic in depth through group discussion (e.g., reactions to an experience or suggestion; understanding program issues, challenges or complaints) |
|
|
|
Section 6 of the Community Tool Box explains how to conduct focus groups.
This online guide by Drs. Richard Krueger and Mary Anne Casey provides resources and a video about conducting focus groups.
Story 2: Observation and Document Review
Story 2: Observation and Document Review by Sexual Violence Justice Institute at Minnesota Coalition Against Sexual Assault, 2011. Retrieved from LINK.
Observation is another data collection method that can help you better understand an issue. Observation includes not just watching a person, group, process, etc., but recording and analyzing what you see in a systematic way.
Observation is a beneficial data collection method when you —
|
OBSERVATION |
|||
|
Purpose |
Advantages |
Challenges |
Resources and Capacity Required |
|
Gather first-hand information about how a program or strategy actually works and particulars about processes |
|
|
|
Are We Making a Difference? Sexual Assault Response Teams Assessing Systems Change (PDF, 134 pages)
Evaluation story 2 focuses on improving sexual assault investigation process and documentation by observing and shadowing. This guide was developed by the SVJI at the MNCASA.
Collecting Evaluation Data: Direct Observation (PDF, 8 pages)
This guide by the University of Wisconsin Cooperative Extension explains when to use direct observation.
Selecting an Observation Approach
This module by the Online Evaluation Resource Library (OERL) discusses determining the features to use, the different observation techniques, and the advantages and disadvantages of different techniques.
Orientation to a Think Aloud Observation Session (PDF, 2 pages)
The process described in this document, adapted from Are We Making a Difference? Sexual Assault Response Teams Assessing Systems Change: A Resource for Multidisciplinary Team Leadership by the SVJI at the MNCASA helps gather information about the protocol, process, and set of procedures used during a sexual assault case by various responders.
Questions for Debriefing a Ride Along or Think Aloud Session (PDF, 1 page)
This document adapted from Are We Making a Difference? Sexual Assault Response Teams Assessing Systems Change: A Resource for Multidisciplinary Team Leadership by the SVJI at the MNCASA provides SARTs with example debriefing questions from a ride-along.
Tips for a Police Ride Along (PDF, 2 pages)
This resource from Are We Making a Difference? Sexual Assault Response Teams Assessing Systems Change: A Resource for Multidisciplinary Team Leadership by the SVJI at the MNCASA provides information on going on a ride-along.
Before beginning any evaluation efforts, your SART should consider three important issues:
Evaluation of the efficacy of a program designed to serve victims, such as a SART, would not be complete without the victims’ voices. [189] Ensuring that the work SARTs do is guided by the voices of survivors helps hold SARTs accountable to victims’ outcomes.
Evaluation done well can be therapeutic and an opportunity to empower survivors. Done poorly, evaluation has the potential to cause direct harm to victims as it may require that traumatic experiences be recalled. Thus, it can be a balancing act to efficiently collect information and employ a person-centered, trauma-informed perspective.
Sexual assault involves a loss of control. Because of this, it is vital that any evaluation process provide victims and survivors with control and choice over how they participate and what information they share. Here are some considerations for engaging in the collection of information from people who have experienced sexual-based trauma. [190]
For victims and survivors, respectful evaluation engagement should —
The desire to collect data for a SART evaluation must always be considered in conjunction with the confidentiality and safety of victims engaged in the evaluation activities. It is not ethical to collect data solely for the sake of collecting data, and it is extremely important that you have a system in place to protect victims’ privacy before you begin collecting any data from them.
The safety and confidentiality of victims should be kept in mind when —
Ask yourself if you really need the information, how you will use it, whether it is respectful or disrespectful to ask, and who else might be interested in accessing the answers (e.g., defense attorneys representing a perpetrator). Victims should always be told why they are being asked the questions and should always know what might happen to the information they provide. If there are procedures to protect this information from others, they should know that. If their information might be shared with others, victims need to know that as well. [191]
Victims and survivors may not be able or willing to share their thoughts while they are still involved in the criminal justice system or receiving services from some member of the SART. This could be due to ongoing trauma or fears that their feedback will affect services and the criminal justice process.
SARTs that develop consistent follow-up mechanisms with victims as part of their protocol may be more likely to receive meaningful feedback on the services offered. SARTs should consider and make available all possible options for surveying victims within the victims’ level of comfort. A victim who is not emotionally ready to participate in a victim discussion panel or in-person interview may agree to an anonymous one-on-one phone call or a written survey.
Some tips and strategies for including victims include —
The following tips for interviewing victims during the evaluation process come from research on feminist evaluation approaches:
Keep in mind that the victims your SART can interview are a limited group. Given that so few victims seek services and that only some of these will participate in evaluation activities, SARTs benefit from talking with community members — especially diverse groups that may include teens, older people, racially and culturally diverse folks, members of the LGBTQ community, students, etc.
It is important to recognize that talking only to victims is a strategy that will produce valuable but limited information.
Most evaluation data are confidential, not anonymous, although the two terms are often (incorrectly) used interchangeably. When data collection is anonymous, the identity of the respondent/participant is unknown to anyone. When data is confidential, the identity and data of a respondent/participant is known to those who interact with the data, but is not disclosed in any identifiable way.
Any publication of evaluation findings should be stripped of identifying characteristics, including factors that could identify a person, organization, group or (sometimes) community. Care should be taken to ensure that people or organizations in smaller numbers are grouped with others to ensure that their identity is kept confidential. Gauging how small is too small will depend on a variety of factors. The important thing to remember is that participant confidentiality is protected.
If you will be identifying communities, people, populations or organizations in any report of evaluation findings, it is good practice to inform those entities that they will be identified so they can choose to either not participate or opt out of the findings.
In some situations, it may not be necessary to distribute consent forms. Evaluation in public settings such as community gatherings and other informal settings often use observation or visitor tracking methods. In these cases, posting a sign alerting visitors that an evaluation is being conducted may be sufficient for informed consent (this is an example of “passive consent”).
Even in these situations, you must provide visitors with information about how to opt out of the evaluation and who to contact should they have questions. You also should have copies of the evaluation’s purpose and methods available in case visitors would like more information. Likewise, if you are distributing a survey where no identifying information is collected, informed consent is usually unnecessary if you are surveying adults. In this case, the participant’s decision to fill out and return the survey usually counts as his or her consent.
Before deciding to use this approach, be sure to check with your organization about its policies regarding evaluation and obtaining informed consent for evaluation purposes. Informed consent for evaluation is different than informed consent for receiving services, and a person who has consented to receiving services may not be willing or able to participate in an evaluation. [198]
When minors are participating in an evaluation, a notice of active or passive consent must be sent to their parents or guardians. In addition, if the children are age 7 or older, you may be required to use an assent form.61 Example consent and assent forms can be found at Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault.
How Do We Attend to Safety, Confidentiality and Diversity? (PDF, 3 pages)
This evaluation issue brief from the National Resource Center on Domestic Violence provides recommendations on confidentiality, respect of survivors, and issues of diversity.
Recommended Guidelines for Sharing Details of Survivors’ Experiences in Training or Educational Presentations (PDF, 4 pages)
The Oregon Attorney General’s Sexual Assault Task Force developed this position paper and includes reasons not to share details of victims’ experiences in presentations as well as reasons to share them and considerations to keep in mind.
To improve your SART, you need to understand and correctly report data collected for evaluation. It is important to accurately portray survivors’ experiences and not underestimate or overestimate SART successes.
Once your SART has gathered and analyzed the results of your interagency data sharing, document reviews, surveys, interviews, and focus groups, your SART can use these data to educate all members of participating agencies and their employees that do not attend SART meetings, as well as potential grant funders and the community. But most importantly, it shows the members of your SART clear evidence of their progress and impact. [199]
For quantitative data, such as closed-ended survey questions, analysis can be a matter of simple addition or the mean, median, and mode of the answers. Quantitative analysis can also look at frequencies and crosstabs. Frequencies (e.g., how frequently a response was chosen) are sometimes called “counts,” and are often shown as percentages. Crosstabs allow you to find out the relationship between two items that have frequencies in groups or categories (such as gender or age groups). Crosstabs allow you to find out the relationship between two items that have frequencies in groups or categories (such as gender or age groups). [200]
For qualitative data, such as open-ended questions, interviews, or focus group transcripts, information collected can be grouped into meaningful categories to help your SART understand something new. Analysis will include thematic coding of the narrative data results into categories, which will shape the data interpretation . Thematic coding looks for themes, similarities, and discrepancies across verbatim responses.
Most program evaluations do not require elaborate analytic techniques. Instead, the practical approach focuses on collecting information that will improve your SART’s strategies. The purpose of analyzing the interviews and focus group notes is to systematically identify common themes. Program evaluation focuses on assessing whether the strategy met its outcomes and was implemented as intended. More advanced analysis is possible, but may not be necessary or feasible, depending on SART evaluation needs and resources.
If you expect a large number of respondents, consider an online survey that can provide statistical analyses. Two options are Survey Monkey and Survey Gizmo.
Whether you will be entering the data into a computerized database, calculating your findings by hand, or using an online service, determine how and where you will store your data to maximize confidentiality of participants and to minimize the opportunity for someone to mistakenly delete or misplace your files.
Below are some data management tips: [201]
Section 5 of the Community Tool Box covers how to collect data and analyze it, using it to draw conclusions about your work.
How Do We Approach Gathering, Maintaining, and Analyzing Data? (PDF, 9 pages)
This document from the National Resource Center on Domestic Violence includes examples and methods for collecting and disseminating information (by sampling, surveys, etc.) that can provide program results for the organization and funders.
Listening to Our Communities: Guide on Data Analysis (PDF, 11 pages)
This guide is part of the National Sexual Assault Demonstration Initiative Toolkit on community assessment approaches to support the growth of sexual assault services within multi-service programs. It includes tips for analyzing interviews and groups to make sure that community stories are captured effectively.
Organizing and Analyzing Your Data [202] (PDF, 4 pages)
This Wilder Research Tip Sheet provides strategies for organizing and analyzing collected evaluation information. The right analysis approach will increase understanding and interpretation of findings, and ultimately guide program and policy improvement.
The Office for Victims of Crime Training and Technical Assistance Center offers this training on program evaluation that covers how to prepare for evaluation, develop an evaluation plan, conduct an evaluation, and use evaluation results.
Safety Net: The National Safe and Strategic Technology Project
The National Network to End Domestic Violence’s Safety Net Project focuses on the intersection of technology and intimate partner abuse and works to address how it impacts the safety, privacy, accessibility, and civil rights of victims.
There are many opportunities for a multidisciplinary team to reflect on, analyze, and use the information they have collected to deepen team understanding about the response process, and to help a team decide how and when to integrate a new approach to their system response.
In looking at the information shared by victims, responders, community members, or other stakeholders, where can the team identify opportunities for improvement in the system response? This process is key because it not only ensures higher-quality data, but it also establishes credibility for your recommendations. Informed by a systematic data collection and analysis process guided by specific questions, your team’s decisions are more likely to be trusted. [203]
Organize information collected with the following considerations in mind:
Conduct a team conversation regarding the data collected:66
Establish a plan that includes roles and timing for developing a written report with information on evaluation findings and changes you will make in light of what your team has learned. This information can be used to create a more detailed strategic plan that specifies what actions will be taken, when, and by whom, and how outcomes will be measured.
The interpretation of interagency statistical data, community needs assessment surveys, victim surveys, and interview or focus group findings goes beyond simply tabulating the results. The data need to be evaluated to determine what the results mean, patterns that occur, and your SART’s proposed next steps. Summarizing the data by writing an executive summary and comprehensive report will help you talk with the key stakeholders and the community about changes that need to occur and why these changes are needed.
Data reports should be written in a format that is easily understood by broad and diverse stakeholder audiences. It is also helpful to define key terms and acronyms. Reports are rarely read cover to cover, so it is important to start with the most important information. You also need to explain what is known that was not known from the information gathered and how the new information will help improve your multidisciplinary response. To enhance your report’s credibility, list any limitations of the findings or alternative explanations for them.
Creating Formal Public Reporting Processes [204]
Learn how to develop communication and reporting processes that keep the community informed and involved, and provide accountability for the effort.
A major purpose of evaluation is to help make improvements to your SART implementation so that it can achieve its outcomes over time. Your evaluation findings are key to helping you decide what improvements to make. Unfortunately, many SARTs are so busy there is rarely time set aside to debrief implementation of policies, protocols, and decisions. Teams risk continuing to implement SART activities that may be inefficient, ineffective, and at worst, harmful.
If you never use your evaluation findings to improve your SART, why are you collecting evaluation information? Remember that evaluation data should be working for you, and setting aside the time to improve your SART will save you time in the long term by making your work more efficient and effective.
The process of reviewing evaluation findings and making changes to improve your activities based on those findings is called continuous quality improvement (CQI). CQI is the systematic use of process and outcome evaluation findings to monitor and improve the implementation and outcome of your SART. Think of a CQI as a periodic progress report used for accountability, to meet funding requirements, or to generate yearly reports on sexual assault and response efforts.
Everyone involved with the SART implementation can and should be involved in some part of the improvement process. This includes all SART members, community partners, victims, evaluator(s), and anyone else who has a vested interest in a successful sexual assault response.
The SART leader or coordinator is a natural person to oversee the process of establishing improvement practices. Ultimately, the decision about who to engage in the process will mainly depend on stakeholders’ time and the resources for bringing them together to review evaluation findings and suggest changes to your implementation. The most important part of the improvement process is making the time to do it.
The key to using evaluation findings for improvement is to make it routine and expected. Most SARTs will want to use a combination of rapid and periodic improvement processes.
Rapid improvement processes involve the quick collection of simple feedback or information about SART implementation and the immediate use of that information to make improvements. Your regular SART meetings are a great place to make it routine to ask partners, “What is going well and what is not going well?” so the group can make instant decisions about simple course corrections to SART implementation.
Periodic improvement processes should be scheduled at regular intervals (e.g., once a year, one every six months) and with a clear purpose in mind: reviewing evaluation information to make decisions about major improvements to the SART. You will need to prepare evaluation findings into a simple summary so that a small group of your SART can review the findings and make suggestions for improvement.
There are no hard and fast rules about when to collect data, but timing can be very important. If you want to examine change over time, ideally you would collect initial (baseline) data during the planning stages and then again at various points once the SART is established. Always leave enough time between the first time you collect data and those that follow so that desired changes have a chance to occur. Not doing so could lead you to erroneously conclude that an activity or response is ineffective.
Anonymous SART Feedback Survey (Microsoft Word, 3 pages)
This questionnaire by the Story County (Iowa) Sexual Assault Response Team is for individuals who have received SART services. The questionnaire asks about interactions with the health care provider, forensic nurse, victim advocate, and law enforcement representative.
Confidential Client Evaluation (Microsoft Word, 2 pages)
This questionnaire developed by The Sensory-motor Auditory Visual Education (SAVE) Program, a part of Help a Child Inc., is intended for individuals who have received SART services. It asks for the names of the forensic examiner, nurse assistant, victim advocate, and law enforcement representative, and assesses their actions toward the victim.
Tools for Evaluation & Assessing Your SART/SANE Program (PDF, 25 pages)
This guide from the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Rape (PCAR) includes an initial victim survey of victim experience with a SART and satisfaction with care received, a SANE survey, an advocate survey, and a follow-up protocol and process.
The expense of an evaluation will vary depending on questions being asked, the types of evaluation activities used, the amount of SART and staff time needed, and the role of an outside evaluation consultant. A simple, low-cost evaluation is feasible and can deliver useful results.
Here are steps you can take to keep costs down: [205]
As your resources and capacity for implementing SART activities increase, so will your resources and capacity to evaluate that programming.
This working group promotes evaluation practices at the CDC and throughout the health care system. The website links to online publications, evaluation manuals, logic model resources, and planning and performance improvement tools.
Minnesota Coalition Against Sexual Assault (MNCASA)
MNCASA offers assistance in SART technical assistance related to evaluation readiness, determining your goals, implementing evaluation, and deciphering results.
National Center for Interprofessional Practice and Education
This site includes an assessment and evaluation gateway to finding measurement tools that can be used to assess individual learners, groups, teams, practice environments, and organizations; and to evaluate the impact of interprofessional education programs and collaborative practice.
OVC: AI/AN SANE-SART Initiative
The Office for Victims of Crime (OVC) established the American Indian/Alaskan Native (AI/AN) SANE-SART Initiative in 2010 to address the comprehensive needs of tribal victims of sexual violence, with the ultimate goal of institutionalizing sustainable and evidence-based practices that meet the needs of tribal communities.
OVC TTAC Program Evaluation Training
OVC Training and Technical Assistance Center (TTAC) offers a two-day training on program evaluation. More information can be found at their website or in the Program Evaluation Flyer.
PCAR: Primary Prevention and Evaluation Resource Kit (PDF, 112 pages)
This resource includes surveys to collect feedback from victims, advocates, police officers, and nurses, as well as data collection templates and tips.
This organization helps agencies improve their service provision and management systems and promote organizational learning. The website includes planning tools, a bibliography, online consulting services, and other resources.
Since 1998, Praxis has been providing training, technical assistance, and networking opportunities to rural communities working to end violence against women.
RAINN conducts sexual violence prevention and response program assessments based on leading research, regulatory guidance, and state and federal laws to evaluate program strengths and weaknesses. The result is a set of concrete recommendations that assist organizations in providing best-in-class education and response programs.
Strategic Prevention Solutions
Strategic Prevention Solutions (SPS) specializes in intimate partner violence and sexual violence prevention and services evaluation, research, and training. SPS can help you improve your skills to make a difference. Go to their website to learn more about what SPS offers, download free planning tools and worksheets, and obtain a copy of their user-friendly “Planning and Evaluation Workbook.”
VAWA Measuring Effectiveness Initiative
This organization measures the effectiveness of VAWA Act grants administered by the Office on Violence Against Women (OVW).
Agency’s Use of Technology Best Practices and Policies Toolkit
This resource explores technology in the context of intimate partner violence, sexual assault, and violence against women.
This online toolkit by the Center for Community Health and Development at the University of Kansas provides resources for identifying local needs and resources, conducting public forums and listening sessions, collecting information, conducting focus groups, conducting needs assessment surveys, identifying community assets and resources, developing baseline measures, determining service utilization, and conducting interviews and surveys.
Dawn Ontario DisAbled Women’s Network
This website includes a comprehensive table of contents for accessing information about various technologies, such as computers and assistive and adaptive technologies, and FAQs.
This online toolkit created by the National Sexual Violence Resource Center offers guidance on evaluation within the context of primary prevention.
This three-part online toolkit created by the Resource Sharing Project contains tips and resources on building a foundation for prevention, working with individuals outside the organization, and handling unexpected outcomes of evaluation.
INFONET: The development, implementation, and operation of a web-based information system for victim service providers in Illinois (PDF, 38 pages)
This resource by the Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority describes how agencies use data, the way the INFONET system is structured, and critical issues.
This guide by the Community Oriented Policing Services of the U.S. Department of Justice provides background on communication interoperability and tools for carrying out technology initiatives.
National Archive of Criminal Justice Data
This archive includes online guides that provide detailed information about complex or frequently accessed data collections.
National Association for Justice Information Systems
The National Association for Justice Information Systems is an organization of individuals responsible for acquiring, operating, and managing local, state, and federal criminal justice information systems.
Office of Research and Evaluation’s Crime, Violence and Victimization Research Division’s Compendium of Research on Violence Against Women (PDF, 237 pages)
This 2014 document from the National Institute of Justice Office of Research and Evaluation is a compendium of reports on advocacy, arrest and prosecution, offender interventions, courts and the criminal justice system, forensic and investigative methods, and more.
This website provides state- and county-level data for all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. territories. Data reports are available by gender, race, and ethnicity and come from various sources. Categories include demographics, reproductive health, violence, prevention, disease, and mental health.
Virginia Sexual and Domestic Violence Data Collection System
This system enhances and improves the collection of statewide data from all victims who use the services of local domestic violence programs and sexual assault centers.
| Back | Index | Next |