South Carolina Forensic Nurse Examiner Bi-Annual Newsletter

Transcription

1 September, 2015 South Carolina Forensic Nurse Examiner Bi-Annual Newsletter 1 In This Issue: Guest Contributor: Kathy Gill-Hopple, PhD, RN, SANE-A, SANE-P, AFN-BC Overview of Crime Data Reporting for SANEs FNE Coordinator Job Overview Statewide FNE Meeting Date Congratulations to recent IAFN certified SANEs! Educational Opportunities Did You Know??? Welcome NEW SANEs I would like to welcome our first guest contributor to the SC FNE Bi-Annual Newsletter!! Kathy Gill-Hopple, Forensic Nurse Examiner Coordinator at MUSC, has over 30 years of nursing experience and maintains a steadfast commitment to the advancement of Forensic Nursing! Dr. Gill- Hopple s informational piece provides an insightful overview of crime data reporting for SANEs. Law Enforcement Outcomes for Sexual Assault Cases Since 1930 the FBI has collected, compiled and analyzed crime statistical data from local police departments into the Uniform Crime Report (UCR) Summary Reporting System. This national standardized report is compiled to record crime trends and identify areas needing additional resources. Crimes are classified according to standardized definitions. These definitions allow for accurate recording since offenses may have different titles in different states. The statistics are designed to assist in identifying areas of concern, not analyzing judicial outcomes. The data collected includes age, sex and race of arrested offenders, murder victims and weapons used during the commission of a crime, law enforcement officers killed, hate crimes, cargo theft and human trafficking (; CJIS, 2013). Pertinent to Forensic Nurse Examiners is the crime of forcible rape. In the late 1970s the UCR was re-conceptualized into the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS), a local, state and national compilation of crime reports. NIBRS, piloted by the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED), was nationally approved in Significantly more detail is recorded on each incident and arrest in 23 offense categories than what is available in the UCR summaries. All major criminal justice issues are reported to NIBRS: terrorism, white collar crime, weapons offenses, missing children where criminality is involved, drug/narcotics offenses, drug involvement in all offenses, hate crimes, spousal abuse, abuse of the elderly, child abuse, domestic violence, juvenile crime/gangs, parental abduction, organized crime, pornography/child pornography, driving under the influence, and alcohol-related offenses. Offenses are grouped into two categories. There are 22 Group A offense categories and detailed specific facts about each Group A offense is reported. There are 11 Group B offense categories, however only the arrest data is reported for these offenses. Group A offenses consist of 46 specific crimes, of which the following are pertinent to Forensic Nurse Examiners and Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners: homicide offenses (murder and non-negligent manslaughter, negligent manslaughter, justifiable homicide), kidnapping/abduction, pornography/obscene material, prostitution offenses (prostitution, assisting or promoting prostitution, forcible sex offenses (forcible rape, forcible sodomy, sexual assault with an object, forcible fondling), and non-forcible sex offenses (incest, statutory rape). Offenses are listed as either attempted or completed. Unlike the UCR, if more than 1 crime is committed by the same person or groups of persons, and the time and interval of crimes is insignificant, all of the offenses are reported. Also unlike the UCR, Crimes Against Society (e.g., drug or narcotic offenses) and crimes committed using a computer are also reported in NIBRS. Of all the offenses in the UCR the only most relevant to Forensic Nurses is forcible rape, defined in 1929 as the carnal knowledge of a female, forcibily and against her will. FBI Director Robert Mueller amended the definition in December 2011 to Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim (Tracy & Fromson, 2012). The term forcible was removed from the new definition. Male victims and victims of forcible sodomy were also included in the definition (SCDPS, 2013). This expanded definition is to more accurately reflect the true incidence of rape reported to law enforcement. Local law enforcement agencies build electronic data systems to suit their own needs including the data required for submission to the UCR. Data from 535 law enforcement agencies in South Carolina is recorded in NIBRS (Justice; SCDPS, 2013).

2 2 Today SLED collects crime data from municipal and county law enforcement agencies daily, monthly and annually. The information is standardized into reports that allow for uniform information exchange between law enforcement agencies. Since 1991, data is loaded into an enhanced version of the South Carolina NIBRS system, SCIBRS. The goal of SCIBRs is to provide legislators, public and government officials with detailed description of criminal activities to facilitate response and improve efficiency, effectiveness and performance of the criminal justice agencies. The data entered into SCIBRS is update when new information is uncovered. Of particular importance to those who work in the field of sexual violence is that the location, date and time of the offense and the relationship between victim and offender is coded in SCIBRS. With this knowledge policy and prevention strategies may be developed based upon the relationship of the victim and the offender. Each participating law enforcement agency receives monthly reports. To facilitate decisions about budgeting, manpower and the identification of high crime areas. The reports are also forwarded by SLED to the FBI for inclusion in the annual Uniform Crime Report. Implications of Crime Data Analysis for SANEs When a sexual assault is reported to law enforcement the victim is more likely to receive protection from the criminal justice system. Evidence can be collected, cases investigated and prosecuted, with the goal of holding offenders accountable for crimes committed (OVW, 2013). Additionally, reporting allows the justice system an opportunity to address the needs of victims and identify patterns in violence within the community. This information may also contribute to an evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of agencies and effectiveness of community responses to sexual violence. Significant coordination is required when collaborating across jurisdictional lines, or even within a single jurisdiction to arrive at reliable data illustrating the scope of sexual assault. As SANEs we have heard that our role is an essential one to provide health care and community resources. The influence of SANE care on the criminal justice outcomes has been studied by several researchers, with a wide range of conclusions. The historical literature implies that SANE programs had a positive effect upon the legal outcomes by increasing the rate of plea bargains (Aiken & Speck, 1995; Ledray, 1992; Little, 2001; Seneski, 1992). One of the first controlled studies compared prosecution rates 2 years before a SANE program was implanted and 3 years after SANE implementation. A significant increase in reporting, arrest, charging decisions, prosecutions, and convictions was documented after the SANE program was implemented. Significantly more cases were charged after SANE implementation (7.0 charges/perpetrator) compared to before SANE services were implemented (5.4 charges/perpetrator). Sexual assault cases that went to trial resulted in more convictions post-sane program (69%) as compared to the sexual assault cases tried before the implementation of SANE programs (57%) (Crandall & Helitzer, 2003). Similar findings by Campbell et al (2012) showed investigation and prosecutions rates increased significantly 7 years after SANE programs were implemented. More cases moved further through the legal system and reached a higher level of case disposition (ie pleas, and trials) as compared with the investigation and prosecution rates 5 years before the SANE program was implemented. In 2014, Campbell et al compared the prosecution outcomes for 3 different communities. The rates of cases that were not referred or not charged ranged from 87% to 94% before the implementation of SANEs. Post SANE implementation, the rate of not referring or not charging sexual assault cases dropped to 80-84%, none were statistically significant. Plea bargains and convictions generally increased, yet neither the change in not referred case rate or the rate of plea bargains were significant (Campbell et al., 2014). The American Prosecutors Research Institute (APRI) and Boston College received funding from the National Institute of Justice to rigorously examine SANE/SART interventions. Cases pre-sane/sart intervention were compared to post SANE/SART intervention in the frequency of arrests, disposition of charged cases, frequency of guilty pleas and convictions and the penalties assessed to offenders. Results showed that when a case received a SANE/SART intervention, it was 1.7 times more likely to result in an arrest, than when there was no intervention. The strongest predictors of arrest were the victim/offender relationship, and degree of victim participation in the criminal justice process. Out of the 208 cases where an arrest was made, 62 of the cases (12%) were not charged. They were either administratively closed, or the prosecutor or grand jury decided charges were not to be filed (Nugent-Borakove et al., 2006). Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE) programs provide law enforcement investigators with detailed reports and forensic evidence collected from victims of sexual assault. Few studies have empirically tested the hypothesis that cases handled by SANEs result in higher arrest and prosecution rates. Data on arrest rates for communities without SANE programs is dated, and little data has been released regarding arrest rates for communities with SANE programs. Frazier & Haney (1996) documented the arrest rate at 25%, yet Spohn & Horney (1992) found a 49% arrest rate. Rates of prosecution are also variable, ranging from 14% (LaFree, 1980) to 56% (Spohn, Beichner, & Davis-Frenzel, 2001).The following information is provided to illustrate the progress of a reported sexual assault through the criminal justice system. Once a crime has been reported to law enforcement and an investigation is completed, the outcome is recorded according to the agency s policies and procedures. In large jurisdictions there may be specialized staff who input data into the state and federal reporting systems. Each report is read and classified according to characteristics. Uniform Crime Code Definitions The FBI uses terms such as cleared by arrest, exceptional clearance and unfounded. A case that is cleared has been removed from an active investigation status. In a cleared case the suspect has been identified and arrested. When there is a reason beyond the control of law enforcement which prohibits the arrest, charging and prosecution of an suspect, such as lack of cooperation by the victim, the death of the suspect, or the suspect cannot be extradited from another jurisdiction, the case is reported as cleared by exception (Rennison, 2012). A case may also be closed (removed from an active investigation status or temporarily inactivated) when unusual circumstances are present.

3 3 Another term used by the UCR is unfounded. A case is unfounded when the investigators conclude that it is either false or baseless. The terms false and baseless are not interchangeable, according to the UCR Guidelines. A case is baseless when the victim reports an incident that, while truthfully recounted, does not meet the legal definition of a sexual assault (Lisak, Gardinier, & Cote, 2010). A case is false when the victim deliberately fabricates an account of being raped. According to the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), a case can only be classified as false after investigation has shown the crime was not committed or attempted (IACP National Law Enforcement Policy Center, 2005, pp ). Cases may be filed as false reports when there is coding inconsistency, lack of victim cooperation, lack of evidence, the victim retracts the complaint or states the complaint was false. Some researchers conclude there is a concern for the artificial decrease in the rate of sexual assault cases as false (Kelly, 2010). Investigation into a case that does not meet the elements of the sexual assault offense, penetration, however slight is likely to be unfounded because it is baseless. Likewise, an investigation into a case reported as a sexual assault that shows the event never took place is likely to be unfounded because it is a false report. The UCR Program does not distinguish false reports from baseless reports. The UCR Program only tracks the number of unfounded reports for each crime, which is not published in annual reports. (Unfounded statistics are available by contacting the FBI directly). A training bulletin by EVAW International provides a scenario that easily illustrates the potential for confusing classifications: A sexual assault report is made, an investigation is conducted and all leads are exhausted. A suspect is identified but not arrested even though probable cause exists. The case is referred for prosecution, but the prosecutor rejects it, on the grounds that there is insufficient evidence to file formal charges because the prosecutor does not believe the case can be proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt (Archambault & Lonsway, 2013). Because the suspect was not charged, booked and referred to prosecution the case would not be cleared and would be left open. There may be an additional notation that states administratively cleared or closed, inactivated or suspended. Preliminary Study Report A review of cases was undertaken to describe the characteristics of sexual assault events reported to Tri-County law enforcement agencies. This included only cases reported to law enforcement in the calendar year of 2011 and 2012 in which medical forensic evaluations were performed at the Medical University of South Carolina. Information was collected on all adult sexual assault cases presenting to MUSC for an acute medical forensic examination within 120 hours of the assault. Cases were included if the assault occurred and was reported to law enforcement in Charleston, Berkeley and Dorchester counties between January 1, 2011 and December 31, All other cases (such as anonymous reports or assaults involving military personnel) were excluded. Of the 249 adult sexual assault cases reported to law enforcement and examined at MUSC in 2011 and 2012, 54.6% (n=136) were not referred/not charged by the county Solicitor. Of the cases referred to the county Solicitor, 7.6% (n=19) of cases were initially charged but those charges were later dropped. Ultimately, 6.4% of cases (n=16) pled, 2% of cases (n=5) resulted in a jury trial with an acquittal and 0.8% of cases (n=2) resulted in a trial with a conviction. There were 48 cases (19.3%) with an unknown outcome, due to a case file that could not be located, remained open, or there was no response to the query for information by the respective law enforcement agency. A goal of the State of South Carolina Primary Prevention of Sexual Violence Strategic Plan is to enhance existing or create new data collection systems and practices related to primary prevention of sexual violence risk factors. The scope and depth of sexual violence, and the communities response to sexual violence must be examined prior to planning effective primary prevention goals and objectives. Without accurate information and examination of current practices, this will be impossible. The impact of SANE programs on the criminal justice outcome of adult sexual assault cases continues to be difficult to quantify and research. Collaboration is required from the SANE programs, the law enforcement agencies and the prosecution when information is collected, shared and open to analysis. Although difficult to do, it is exactly this effort that will benefit victims who choose to report sexual assault as well as those who do not report. Concerns about public safety and gaps in service delivery and resource utilization can be explored when the members of the SART have all the pertinent information. References: Campbell, R., Bybee, D., Townsend, S. M., Shaw, J., Karim, N., & Markowitz, J. (2014). The impact of sexual assault nurse examiner programs on criminal justice outcomes: A multisite replication study. Violence Against Women. CJIS. (2013). Summary Reporting System (SRS) User Manual. Clarksburg, WV: Federal Bureau of Investigation Retrieved from Crandall, C., & Helitzer, D. (2003). Impact evaluation of a sexual assault nurse examiner (SANE) program. (NIJ Document No ). Washington, DC. Justice, U. S. D. o. Incident Based Reporting Resource Center. Retrieved May 13, 2015, from Nugent-Borakove, E., Fanflick, P., Troutman, D., Johnson, N., Burgess, A., & Lewis O'Connor, A. (2006). Testing the efficacy of SANE/SART programs: Do they make a difference in sexual assault arrest and prosecution outcomes? (214252). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. OVW. (2013). National Protocol for Sexual Assault Medical Forensic Examinations. (DCJ ). Washington, DC: U.S. DOJ. SCDPS. (2013). South Carolina Criminal and Juvenile Justice Trends (D. o. P. Safety & O. o. H. S. a. J. Programs, Trans.). In R. McManus (Ed.). South Carolina. Tracy, C., & Fromson, T. (2012). Long sought-after expansion of UCR definition of rape achieved. Sexual Assault Report, 15(4), 49-50, 59-60, 64.

4 4 WHAT DOES THE FNE COORDINATOR DO? South Carolina Victim Assistance Network P.O. Box Columbia, South Carolina Visit us on the WEB: Primary Role of SC FNE Coordinator: The FNe coordinator s primary role is To collaborate with SANEs/FNEs and SARTs across the state, and to work with key individuals to develop new programs as needed. Support the development of strong and effective local and regional collaborations, and to create opportunities to stay connected and growing Eliminate isolation among FNE programs Coordinate, support, and enhance existing and developing FNE programs Provide technical assistance to existing and new FNE programs by gathering resources as needed Coordinate the network of agencies involved in SART operations Coordinate educational opportunities for SART programs Coordinate community education events Forensic nursing is a rapidly growing sub-specialty of nursing based largely on the effectiveness of nurses to apply the science and art of nursing to criminal and civil investigations and legal matters. Statewide FNE Meeting: o Friday, November 13, 2015: 10 AM 12 PM Location: City of West Columbia 200 North 12th Street West Columbia

5 5 CONGRATULATIONS to the following for receiving their IAFN Certification: Jennifer Combs, SANE-A Spartanburg Regional Medical Center Jennifer Nguyen, SANE-A The Regional FNE Program Columbia, SC Gina Goss, SANE-P The Regional FNE Program Columbia, SC EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES 1. For educational opportunities and training through the IAFN: th Annual Interpersonal Violence Conference: Spartanburg, SC Friday, October 23, :30 4:15 ae28-e411-ac68-2c768a4e1b84 3. Rock Hill Combined Pediatric and Adolescent/Adult SANE Training (64 hour classroom didactic training) a. Dates: Sept. 16, 17,28 & 29, and October 7 & 8 b. 8:00 AM 5:30 PM 4. Spartanburg Adolescent/Adult SANE Training a. Dates: November 2 6, 2015 b. 7:45 AM 5:00 PM c Murrells Inlet Adolescent/Adult 4-Day SANE Training a. Dates: November 9 & 30 and December 11 & 14 b. 8:00 AM 6:30 PM c. Please call the Tidelands Health Staff Development department at for further information and registration DID YOU KNOW? **SOVA has agreed to evaluate a process for payment of the acute medical-forensic exam when an evidence collection kit is NOT collected. To receive payment, the SANE/Healthcare Provider MUST: Call/notify victim advocate Inform the victim of all their options Proceed with the exam COMPLETE THE SLED PROTOCOL o on page 8, Evidence Collected, document per patient s request evidence was not collected Offer STI Prophylaxis/EC when indicated and desired Discharge instructions/referrals BOTH SOVA DOCUMENTS MUST BE COMPLETED o Next to the printed words, Medical Examination Release Form (title of document/3 rd line), place the following initials, (IF and only IF evidence was not collected), NKC. o Do not write out no kit collected, it may indicate to the billing dept. NOT to submit the charges to SOVA and charge the patient/victim o o AGAIN, USE NKC when EVIDENCE WAS NOT COLLECTED, next to the statement, medical examination release form Advise the patient: If they have, or are intending, to contact/involve law enforcement, advise the patient to let law enforcement know: the exam was completed; evidence was not collected, and law enforcement can get a copy of the protocol by contacting the hospital (specific to hospital procedures/policies). IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS, PLEASE CONTACT ME: anne@scvan.org

6 6 Welcome New SANEs Cassie Taylor (Aiken Regional Medical Center) Heather Radford (Aiken Regional Medical Center) John Nerges (MUSC) Tammy Reynolds (MUSC) Grace Mikan (MUSC) Erin Wittington (MUSC) Sandra Coons (MUSC) Elise Faber (MUSC) Karen Van Maanen (MUSC)