To add your name to
the SATI e-News and
SATI e-News: January 16,2006
to you by SATI, Inc.
Sexual Assault Training and Investigation
In this issue:
Sexual Assault News
Practices: From the Desk of the Training Director
Online DNA Training
Module: What Every Officer Should Know
Online Forum on
Stalking: Awareness and Best Practices in Victim Services
Sexual Assault on
Campus: What Colleges and Universities are Doing About It
Violence Against Women Act Renewed
Just hours before adjourning in 2005 Congress reauthorized the
Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), which supports efforts to
combat domestic violence, sexual assault and dating violence
across the country. President Bush signed VAWA into law on January
5. This is the second reauthorization since VAWA was originally
enacted in 1994.
The legislation authorizes $3.9 billion over the next five years.
In addition to funding existing programs, VAWA also creates new
programs, policies and protections for victims in response to
requests from the field.[read
While VAWA has always funded domestic violence programs and
shelters, the 2005 reauthorization for the first time extends to
agencies, which provide direct services to victims of sexual
assault, up to $250 million over five years. $45 to $55 million
(depending on appropriation levels) is earmarked to address sexual
assault in rural communities.
Other highlights include:
An increase in funding for the STOP
grant program from $185 million/year to $225 million/year.
A new condition that prohibits
recipients of STOP grants from asking or requiring victims of
sexual offenses to submit to a polygraph exam as a condition of
proceeding with an investigation (see promising practices article,
A new grant program to train school
personnel to recognize signs of violence in schools and establish
policies for intervention ($25 million over five years).
New protections for domestic violence
victims threatened with eviction from public housing or with
losing housing subsidies as a result of the criminal acts of their
Expansion of the federal stalking law
to cover surveillance of victims by technology (this is in
response to reports from the field that stalkers were using newly
available GPS devices to track their victims).
Creates three new grant programs aimed
at strengthening the healthcare system’s response to violence
against women ($65 million over 5 years);
Withholds some federal funding from
states that do not have laws allowing victims of rape and sexual
assault to learn the HIV status of their attacker within 48 hours
of an indictment.
VAWA 2005 will clarify that in order
for state and tribal governments to use STOP grant funds to pay
for forensic medical exams for sexual assault victims, victims
shall not be required to seek reimbursement from their insurance
company. It also ensures that the victim must not be required to
participate in the criminal justice system or cooperate with law
enforcement in order to be provided with a forensic medical exam
or reimbursement for such exam.
Susan Howley of the National Center
for Victims of Crime is clearly pleased with funding levels, but
she cautions that at this point the amounts are only authorized,
not appropriated. It’s important for advocates and others in the
field to stay tuned to developments and be prepared to act quickly
to urge Congress to appropriate these funds.
H.R. 3402.ENR (Enrolled as
Agreed to or passed by both House and Senate).
<top of page>
GPS Tracks Sex Offenders, Allows
Crime Scene Correlation
Within the past year nine states – Alabama, California, Florida,
Iowa, Missouri, New Jersey, Ohio, Oklahoma and Tennessee -- have
passed laws to employ Global Positioning Satellite (GPS)
technology to track the movements of sex offenders. These laws
were passed largely in response to high profile cases in which sex
offenders on parole continued to commit heinous crimes. A recent
study by the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics found that
nationwide, one-fourth of registered sex offenders cannot be
The National Conference of State Legislatures expects GPS
surveillance to be one of the top 10 legislative issues of 2006.
There are two types of GPS surveillance: active and passive.
Active GPS allows the offender to be tracked in “real time” on a
computer that depicts the offender’s location on a city map. The
technology also allows authorities to set parameters that restrict
an offender from being in certain areas such as a victim’s
neighborhood or a school. If the offender violates the boundaries,
an alert is registered at the monitoring center and relayed to
authorities. The system can also notify the victim automatically
Passive GPS technology has many of the same features as Active
GPS, but it does not report the offender’s movements in real time.
Instead, the system maintains a log of his location through daily
transmissions via phone. Passive technology is less expensive, but
it requires more human resources to analyze the downloaded data.
Florida has been experimenting with equipment that integrates
electronic monitoring devices with crime scene mapping in a
Web-based application for law enforcement agencies and crime scene
analysts. Florida’s recidivism rate has declined to less than 5%
in the three years since the technology has been in operation in
the state according to Hoyt Layson Jr., designer of the GPS
“Electronic Monitoring Should be Better Targeted to the Most
Dangerous Offenders,” Report No. 05-19, National Institute of
Justice, April 2005.
“States Move on Sex Offender GPS Tracking,” Associated Press, July
“Sex Offender GPS Tracking Proposed,” Times-Picayune, August 27,
“Annual Meeting Sessions Summary: Crime Technology: Science Meets
Law & Order,” National Conference of State Legislatures, August
<top of page>
Sexual Assault News
Rape of Tourists Traveling Abroad
Shortly after taking his post in September 2004, John Rood,
Ambassador to the Bahamas, was shocked to learn of the number of
unsolved rapes reported by tourists in the Bahamas. Bahamian
police say they’ve received reports of 55 sexual assaults of
foreigners over the past three years, 25 of whom are American
tourists. Of the 55 cases, nine reports were withdrawn by the
victim, 21 cases went to court and 23 cases were under
investigation. The outcome of the court cases is unknown.
Rood wanted to get to the bottom of what he called “horrific
situations” and so he decided to make sexual assault one of his
Rood requested that the Royal Bahamas Police force notify him of
every reported incident – just as he is already alerted about
American perpetrators of crimes. He also meets monthly with police
authorities to receive updates on investigations.
Rood describes the Bahamian authorities as polite and helpful, but
is frustrated that they are not forthcoming with more detailed
information. For instance, Rood learned from news reports that the
suspect in a recent double murder was out on bail pending trial in
the charge of rape of an American tourist in 2002. But because the
court records are sealed until a defendant is convicted,
authorities will not reveal to Rood the name of the American
Bahamian authorities lack their own DNA resources, relying on
Florida’s Broward County Crime Lab to process DNA requests.
Detectives on the local police force are reportedly receiving DNA
evidence training from the FBI agent stationed in Nassau.
When charges are brought against the perpetrator, the case often
does not reach a conclusion because it’s difficult for victims to
travel back to the country to testify. Defense attorneys often use
multiple continuances as a tactic to avoid prosecution of their
client, knowing of the financial hardship on the victim to return
to the country. Trying to “wear down” a victim this way is not a
new tactic for defense attorneys, but it is one that is even more
pronounced for victims of crime abroad.
Kim Sweeney who was raped while visiting the Dominican Republic
was asked to travel back to the country five times to testify over
a five-year period. She had already borrowed to cover the costs of
the first four trips and had doubts about continuing to go further
into debt, especially not knowing if there would be even more
Sweeney was fortunate to enlist the help of the “It Happened to
Alexa Foundation”, which provided financial assistance for her and
her Mother to travel back to the Dominican Republic to testify.
The final trip resulted in three judges confirming the April 2001
conviction and upholding the initial sentence of ten years in
prison. In a testimonial Sweeney told the foundation, “The ruling
not only protects other women from this criminal, but also
demonstrates to other men that rape is a crime that will be
“In the Bahamas, rapes often go unnoticed,” St. Petersburg Times,
October 10, 2005.
It Happened To Alexa Foundation
<top of page>
Update on Katrina
Disaster Relief and Sexual Assaults
Thanks to those who responded to EVAW International’s appeal in
September for assistance to Louisiana law enforcement with
donations of equipment and supplies.
EVAW International also reported about emerging news reports of
rapes of hurricane victims in the aftermath. Information was
spotty at that time and even now victims are still dispersed
around the country.
EVAW International collaborated with the National Sexual Violence
Resource Center and the Louisiana Foundation Against Sexual
Assault to create a database to accept reports from hurricane
victims. This database was recently featured in a story on
National Public Radio, which indicated that 42 such reports of
sexual assault had been recorded in the database as of December
21, 2005. [read more]
Meanwhile Lt. Dave Benelli, Commander of the Sex Crimes Unit of
the New Orleans Police Department, told NPR that his team
investigated two attempted rapes inside the Superdome and two rape
reports that happened elsewhere in the city. “I admit that rapes
are underreported,” Benelli says. “I know more sexual assaults
took place. I’ve expressed many times that we’re willing to
investigate any sexual assaults that happened in this city at any
time. We can only deal with what we know.”
“More Stories Emerge of Rapes in Post-Katrina Chaos,” National
Public Radio, December 21, 2005.
<top of page>
Illinois Pulls Contract from Virginia DNA Lab
Illinois State Police abruptly cancelled its contract with Bode
Technology in late August of last year after its own quality
control review determined that the lab had botched nearly a
quarter of the results, according to the Chicago Tribune. Illinois
state police conducted a random sample testing of 51 rape kits in
which Bode had told state police that no semen was found and they
discovered semen in 11, an error rate of nearly 22%.[read
First Deputy Director Doug Brown told the Tribune that he does not
believe anyone went free because of botched lab tests. “We (the
state police) literally went down case by case to make sure there
weren’t any problems,” Brown said.
Kevin McElfresh, the Executive Director of Bode, told the New York
Times that the company had worked with the state police on
revising the methodology it used to test samples after the police
pointed out the discrepancies in May. In a statement on their Web
site, Bode further stated that “. . . No concerns have been raised
regarding the quality of Bode’s DNA testing results. Rather, the
issue relates to serology testing results . . . .”
Brown told the Tribune that the state would be seeking to recoup
$500,000 of the $750,000 the state had spent to have 1,200 samples
Bode does testing for 11 other states as well as the Department of
Justice. In December, Bode was selected by the Louisiana State
Police and the Department of Health and Hospitals to conduct DNA
analysis on remains of Hurricane Katrina victims.
“Crime Lab Botched DNA Tests, State Says,” Chicago Tribune, August
“Illinois State Police Cancels Forensic Lab’s Contract, Citing
Errors,” New York Times, August 20, 2005.
“Statement Regarding Illinois State Police Contract,” Bode
Technology Group, August 22, 2005.
“State Police, Department of Health and Hospitals Complete DNA
Contracts, Select Vendors,” Louisiana State Police News Release,
December 9, 2005.
<top of page>
Highlights Major Deficiencies at Houston Crime Lab
The crisis in Houston deepened with the release of a report from
an independent investigator citing “severe and pervasive problems”
with the serology and DNA profiling work performed in the Houston
Crime Lab over a 15 year period from 1987 until December 2002 when
the DNA section of the Lab was closed.
The report found that analysts in two divisions failed to report
evidence that might have helped criminal suspects, and they made
errors in almost one-third of the cases reviewed in a test sample.
Major issues were identified in 27 DNA cases analyzed by the Crime
Lab in the 1990s and early 2000s including deficiencies in the
cases of three death row inmates.
The investigation did find that certain divisions of the Crime Lab
such as firearms, toxicology and documents examination performed
highly competent work. Michael Bromwich, a former U.S. Department
of Justice inspector general, was contracted by the city of
Houston in February 2005 to conduct the independent investigation.
In other Texas forensic news, only one-third of the state’s crime
labs met the criteria for new accreditation requirements when the
state law went into effect in August 2005. The accreditation
legislation was prompted by reports of deficiencies at the Houston
crime lab. Accreditation can take up to a year to prepare and cost
as much as $50,000 according to the Houston Chronicle.
Of the 18 accredited labs in the state, 13 are operated by the
Texas Department of Public Safety. Without accreditation, the labs
are unable to introduce evidence in criminal trials. 28 labs
remain unaccredited, most of them in rural areas. The Associated
Press reported that at least one private lab closed down because
it could not afford accreditation. Officials are concerned that
the accredited labs, which have their own backlogs, will be forced
to pick up the work load for the other jurisdictions.
- “HPD Analysts Avoided Serious Penalty Before,” Houston
Chronicle, January 8, 2006.
“Commission That is to Monitor State Crime Labs Short by 7,”
Houston Chronicle, January 3, 2006.
“HPD Lab Probe Details More Lapses,” Houston Chronicle, January 5,
“Three More Dubious Cases Found in HPD Lab Probe,” Houston
Chronicle, January 6, 2006.
“HPD Analysts Avoided Serious Penalty Before,” Houston Chronicle,
June 8, 2006.
“Many Crime Labs Won’t Meet State’s Accreditation Rules,”
Associated Press, August 28, 2005.
Background of the Investigation of the Houston Crime Lab
Reports of the Houston Crime Lab Independent Investigation
<top of page>
Practices: From the Desk of the Training Director
VAWA 2005 Restricts the Use of Polygraphs with Victims of Sexual
Archambault, SATI Training Director and Founder of EVAW
International and Dr. Kim Lonsway, EVAW International Director of
of the provisions of the recently enacted VAWA 2005 is that
jurisdictions will no longer be eligible for STOP funding if their
policy or practice is to ask or require adult, youth or child
victims of sexual assault to submit to a polygraph examination or
other truth telling device as a condition for proceeding with the
investigation of the crime. In addition, the refusal of a victim
to submit to such an examination must not prevent the
investigation of the crime. Jurisdictions have until January 5,
2009 to comply with the law.
Over the last few years, I have trained and written articles
generally discouraging the use of polygraphs, Voice Stress
Analysis and Other Methods for “Lie Detection” during the course
of an investigation. This provision may cause some concern and so
I hope this Promising Practices article will help to alleviate
resistance to change in departmental policies and procedures as
jurisdictions rethink their policies in response to the new law.
To further support your efforts to meet this new requirement, we
have provided guidance from the International Association of
Chiefs of Police and provisions from model laws at the conclusion
of this article.
First, I often find that polygraphs, like some release waivers,
are used to shut down an investigation while providing a
perception of immunity, rather than being used to build an
investigation. I also find that these interrogation tactics can
sometimes create a “false report” by intimidating victims into
withdrawing their cooperation or even recanting their report.
These methods can include the use – or threat of using – polygraph
examinations, voice stress analysis, handwriting analysis,
statement validity analysis, and other means to determine whether
the victim is telling the truth. Unfortunately, such methods are
routinely used with sexual assault victims in some areas of the
country, often times as a way of screening cases so that we do not
“waste our time” doing an investigation of a report we suspect is
These screening methods are particularly likely to be used with
certain types of sexual assault cases -- those that raise some of
the “red flags” listed below:
The victim and suspect know each
The victim and suspect have had sex
The victim is an adolescent.
No weapon was used.
No physical violence was reported.
There is no sign of physical injury.
The victim is calm
The victim didn’t report to law
enforcement for days, weeks, or even months.
The victim reported to someone other
than law enforcement.
The victim is difficult to locate.
There is little or no evidence to
corroborate the allegation.
The victim does not follow through or
participate with the investigation.
The victim changes his or her account
of what happened.
The victim is uncertain or vague about
the details of the sexual assault.
The victim recants.
The victim later recalls additional
Details in the victim’s account are
The victim is not seen as credible.
The victim is elderly, disabled, or
The victim was drunk and/or
voluntarily used drugs at the time of the assault.
The victim is suspected of being a
prostitute or drug addict
The victim is thought to be involved
in previous criminal behavior.The victim is belligerent.
The victim is homeless
The victim has a physical or mental
The victim fails a polygraph
The victim has reported sexual
assault(s) in the past.
No suspect can be identified.
The suspect seems sincerely upset and
confused by the allegations.
The suspect seems respectable,
credible, or even likeable.
The suspect is attractive and has an
active, consensual sex life.
methods are widely viewed as inappropriate – both because they are
ineffective for this purpose and because they destroy any trust
the victim has with law enforcement. Of course, this in turn
eliminates any chance for successful investigation and
A woman is
sexually assaulted and experiences emotional trauma as a result.
She then decides to report the assault to the local police
department, which increases her anxiety level. The police officer
then uses (or threatens to use) some method to determine whether
or not she is lying (e.g., a polygraph examination, voice stress
analysis, handwriting analysis, statement validity analysis,
etc.), and she interprets this as evidence that the police do not
increases her stress level, which in turn increases the likelihood
that the examination or analysis will detect a “lie.” On this
basis, the police investigator determines that the woman has filed
a false report, and may even threaten her with prosecution or try
to make her pay for the forensic examination that was conducted in
her case. The woman is devastated, and either withdraws her
cooperation or recants her story. The investigator walks away
from the situation, further convinced that most sexual assault
reports are false.
In fact, the
polygraph is known to be unreliable when used with people
experiencing crisis and many argue that they are therefore
inappropriate for use with sexual assault victims (e.g., Jordan,
1996; Sloan, 1995). Even J.E. Reid, the developer of the modern
polygraph examination offers a long list of factors that can
influence the validity of the test results, such as:
extreme emotional tension or nervousness
concern over neglect of duty or responsibility that made
the commission of the offense by someone else
involvement in other similar acts or offenses
physical discomfort during test
physiological and mental abnormalities (Reid & Inbau, 1977)
Many of these
factors are extremely likely to be seen with sexual assault
victims, rendering the validity of the polygraph examination
extremely questionable. Yet other factors may be introduced by
the examiner that further limit the validity of the polygraph
excessive interrogation prior to test
excessive number of test questions
inadequate question phraseology
inadequate control questions (Reid & Inbau, 1977)
many of these factors are likely to be seen in a sexual assault
investigation, they suggest that polygraph examinations are
simply inappropriate for use with sexual assault victims.
That is why polygraph findings are inadmissible in courts in all
50 states, except for certain, narrowly defined uses. Several
states have even enacted laws to prohibit the use of the polygraph
with sexual assault victims or limit the use to very specific
circumstances. Furthermore, because new technologies such as
computerized voice stress analysis (CVSA) operate on similar
principles, the same advisories apply.
therefore recommended that the polygraph should never be used
with victims of sexual assault during the course of the
investigation – even if the victim requests it. A competent,
evidence-based investigation will most likely reveal the truth
much more effectively than these interrogation tactics.
On the other hand, there are some states and
jurisdictions where the polygraph examination is used
strategically with sexual assault victims during the courtroom
proceedings, however, this is only after a thorough investigation
has been completed and documented. The use of the polygraph
examination in this very specific situation is addressed in the
Concepts and Issues Paper on sexual assault investigation recently
released by the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP):
“There are some states and jurisdictions where the polygraph
examination is used strategically with sexual assault victims
during the courtroom proceedings. This tactic can be particularly
useful in the case of a non-stranger sexual assault resulting in a
consent defense, but it should only be used in the phase of
courtroom proceedings and not during the investigation. To
illustrate, many defendants state that they will only take a
polygraph examination if the victim will also take one at the same
time. In addition, many defense attorneys will not allow the
defendant to take a stipulated polygraph if the victim has already
passed a polygraph or voice stress test. In this type of
situation, it can sometimes be strategically beneficial to offer a
polygraph examination of the victim, in court and in front of the
defendant’s wife, girlfriend or mother. This strategy must be
used only if the situation is discussed with the victim in
advance, in the presence of a victim advocate or other
knowledgeable support person.
In some states like Ohio, the results of a
stipulated polygraph are admissible because the person
administering the polygraph can be called as a witness by the
prosecutor to testify at trial as an expert regarding all aspects
of the test administered, and “such testimony shall be offered and
received as evidence in the trial without objections of any kind
by any party to the agreement except as to the weight of the
evidence.” Of course, it is critically important to ensure that
this practice is not abused by having policies that clearly state
that law enforcement should not require, offer, or suggest that a
victim take a polygraph or voice stress during the investigation
stage. Using such tactics during the investigation is not
recommended because they are not generally reliable under such
conditions, they may contribute to a sense of revictimization, and
they may eliminate the proper use of a court stipulated polygraph
after indictment and during the pre-trial stages” (IACP Concepts
and Issues Paper, 2005, p. 13).
For further discussion about when a polygraph
examination might be used with victims as a strategic trial tactic
rather than an investigative tool, please see the
2002, Promising Practices Article available at
concerns, many law enforcement agencies do in fact ask (or
require) victims to take a polygraph examination as part of their
sexual assault investigation. For example, based on her national
survey of 83 rape crisis centers in 19 states, Sloan (1995) found
As many as 31 rape crisis centers (in 15 states) reported that
sexual assault victims had been asked to take the polygraph
examination before a police investigation was initiated.
Worse, 22 rape crisis centers (in 13 states) reported that sexual
assault victims had been told that there would be no police
investigation if they did not take the polygraph examination.
As many as 18 rape crisis centers (in 9 states) reported that
sexual assault victims were told that they would go to jail
if they lied during the polygraph examination.
surprisingly, this use of the polygraph examination had a damaging
effect on numerous sexual assault investigations, either because
victims “failed” the polygraph examination, refused to take it,
and/or withdrew their cooperation as a result. For example, Sloan
(1995) documented on the basis of her national survey that:
A total of 32 rape crisis centers (in 13 states) reported that
sexual assault victims withdrew their cooperation with the
police investigation as a result of their experience with the
Because the victim “failed” or refused to take the polygraph examination, 13 rape crisis centers (in 8 states) reported that
the sexual assault charges were dropped.
11 rape crisis centers (in 9 states) reported that no
investigation was conducted after the sexual assault victim
“failed” or refused the polygraph examination.
even cited at least one instance where the sexual assault victim
was actually arrested for “failing” the polygraph
In addition to
all of these concerns about using polygraphs with sexual assault
victims, there are similar issues when using a polygraph
with suspects in a sexual assault case. This is especially
true when the suspect believes that he had permission to engage in
sexual activity with the victim. As a result, he is
understandably upset by the victim’s allegations, and may even be
extremely emotional. He certainly does not define his actions as
sexual assault, and therefore he may pass a polygraph examination
when asked about the facts of the case.
As a result of
these concerns, many states have enacted laws such as California’s
which prohibit anyone investigating or prosecuting a sex offense
from requiring or requesting that the victim submit to a polygraph
examination as a prerequisite to filing an accusatory pleading.
In fact, the language of California’s law matches very closely
with the language included in VAWA 2005, even though the law has
been on the books for over twenty years. California Penal Code
637.4 reads as follows:
No state or local government agency involved in the investigation
or prosecution of crimes, or any employee thereof, shall require
or request any complaining witness, in a case involving the use of
force, violence, duress, menace, or threat of great bodily harm in
the commission of any sex offense, to submit to a polygraph
examination as a prerequisite to filing an accusatory pleading.
Any person who has been injured by a violator of this section may
bring an action against the violator for his actual damages or one
thousand dollars ($1,000.00), whichever is greater.
Code similarly prohibits peace officers from requiring a polygraph
examination from a “person who charges or seeks to charge” a
variety of sex offenses (Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article
15.051). Therefore, VAWA 2005 may not require any legislative,
policy, or protocol changes in states with this type of
prohibition already on the books. Law enforcement agencies should
consult with legal counsel to see if any additional change is
have made legislative changes to address the issue of polygraphing
victims of sexual assault, but fell short of prohibiting the
practice as a precondition for investigating the case. For
example, the Kentucky state legislature passed a law this past
year as part of an effort to update their standards for
polygraphists. As a result, the law was designed to apply
directly to polygraph examiners rather than law enforcement
officials. As reported in the February 4, 2005 SATI e-News, the
regulations were drafted by the Kentucky Justice and Public Safety
Cabinet, and although they do not forbid the practice of
polygraphing victims they impose several criteria that must be met
before any such examination is conducted. These provisions were
designed to be consistent with the procedures taught to new
polygraph examiners for years, but until that point, polygraph
examiners weren’t required to comply with the procedures after
certification. For more information on this Kentucky law, please
that SATI e-news article.
Other agencies and organizations have also taken a
practice stand in discouraging or prohibiting the use of polygraph
examinations with sexual assault victims. To illustrate, a
multidisciplinary task force in Florida recently adopted a Model
Policy (1999) for statewide use. One of the provisions of that
model policy was the following admonition:
“The use of
polygraph exams or voice stress tests with victims shall be
strongly discouraged and set forth in policy ... such tests should
be conducted only under limited circumstances and ... those
circumstances ... should be set forth in policy” (Florida Model
Policy, 1999, p. 15).
Policy on sexual assault investigation that was recently released
by the IACP includes a similar provision, stating that:
enforcement agencies should establish policies to clearly state
that officers should not require, offer, or suggest that a victim
take a polygraph examination or submit to SCAN or voice stress
analysis during the investigation stage” (IACP Concept and Issues
Yet in the
wake of VAWA 2005, even this type of legislation or model policy
will not go far enough to meet the new mandate. Regardless of the
standards imposed on polygraph examiners or admonitions in any
model policy, VAWA 2005 clearly states that law enforcement
investigators and prosecutors cannot request or require victims of
sexual assault to submit to a polygraph examination or other truth
telling device as a condition for proceeding with the
investigation of the crime. This will require law enforcement
agencies to respond more proactively by implementing written
policies and protocols, with the information disseminated in
training for officers, detectives, and prosecutors. This
legislative development also provides an excellent opportunity for
law enforcement agencies to work cooperatively with victim
advocacy organizations such as rape crisis centers to craft
appropriate protocols, conduct cross-disciplinary training, and
design a structure for responding to any potential violations.
support you in your effort to meet this new requirement, we would
therefore recommend that you start with the new Model Policy and
supporting Concepts and Issues Paper released by IACP. They are
Investigating Sexual Assaults Concepts and Issues Paper (July
Investigating Sexual Assault Model Policy (May 2005).
Three training keys are also available for purchase from the
(1996). Sex Crime Investigations: The Complete Investigator’s
Handbook. Boulder Colorado: Palladin Press.
Reid, J.E. & Inbau,
F.E. (1977). Truth and Deception: The Polygraph (“Lie
Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins Co
(1995). Revictimization by polygraph: The practice of polygraphing
survivors of sexual assault. Medicine and Law, 14, 255-267.
Conference Manual Now Available
If you were
unable to attend EVAW International’s recent conference in
Baltimore, you can still own the comprehensive conference manual
from the Third International Conference on Sexual Assault,
Domestic Violence and Stalking. This valuable resource includes powerpoint presentations from dozens of the country’s top experts
on topics such as: Advocates and Confidentiality, Prosecuting
Sexual Assault Cases with Voluntarily Intoxicated Drug Victims,
Courtroom Role Playing, Protecting Child Sexual Assault Victims
Caught in the Court System, Law Enforcement Responses to Stalking,
and Finding and Getting Grants.
Order now while limited supplies last.
Online DNA Training Module: What Every Officer
The National Institute of Justice offers an
interactive training module with the basics of
identification, preservation, and collection of DNA evidence at a
Online Forum on Stalking: Awareness and Best
Practices in Victim Services
Dr. David Lisak
of the University of Massachusetts-Boston Department of Psychology
will hold an online forum about stalking on the OVC website on
Friday, January 27, 2006 at 2 p.m. E.T. Dr. Lisak is an expert on
the links between psychological trauma, sexual assault,
interpersonal violence, and masculine socialization. Dr. Lisak
was the recipient of EVAW International’s Visionary Award,
presented at its International Conference on Sexual Assault,
Domestic Violence, and Stalking in Baltimore, Maryland, in October
Click here for more information.
on Campus: What Colleges and Universities are Doing About it,
National Institute of Justice, December 2005. Colleges and
universities are not always the safe havens they are thought to
be; college women are at higher risk for sexual assault than their
non-college-bound peers. Yet, many rapes and attempted rapes are
unreported, perhaps because for the majority of these crimes,
victim and assailant are acquainted. Schools vary widely in how
they comply with Federal requirements to report and respond to
sexual victimization. These are among the findings from the first
major survey of the Nation's colleges and universities to inquire
about sexual assault on campus and how schools are reporting and
handling the problem. Many schools need guidance on how to comply
with Federal requirements to disclose security procedures, report
crime data, and ensure victims' rights. Promising practices in
prevention, policy, victim support services, and other areas are
Click here to view study.
Past issues of SATI e-News are archived at
To subscribe to this e-News service,
please go to
Please contact the
webmaster if you have any problems