Sexual Assault Response Team (SART) Implementation and Collaborative Process: What Works Best for the Criminal Justice System? 2010-2013 [UNITED STATES] (ICPSR 34795)

Time Period(s) View help for Time Period(s)

Date of Collection View help for Date of Collection

Data Collection Notes View help for Data Collection Notes

Study Purpose View help for Study Purpose

The purpose of Study 1 National Survey was to conduct a national-scale study of Sexual Assault Response Teams (SARTs) in order to:

1. Understand the structure and functioning of United States SARTs.
2. Identify patterns of SART implementation.
3. Examine how these different patterns relate to perceived effectiveness at improvements in legal practice and outcomes.

The purpose of Study 2 Network Analysis was to examine patterns of collaborative relationships within model SARTs:

1. To understand the nature and distribution of each of these types of inter-organizational relationships within model SARTs. For example, are SARTs characterized by many or few inter-organizational relationships? Do organizations in SARTs tend to have relationships that are reciprocated? Are relationships centered around a focal organization or group of organizations?
2. To understand the associations between these types of inter-organizational relationships. In other words, within SARTs, do inter-organizational relationships tend to be similar across networks of communication frequency, feeling valued by other organizations, and valuing other organizations' work?

Study Design View help for Study Design

For Study 1 National Survey random sampling methods were used to identify a nationally representative sample of n=172 SARTs which engaged in multidisciplinary coordination in the response to sexual assault, meet regularly, and responding to adult sexual assault victims. A semi-structured phone interview was conducted with a key informant, such as a SART leader or coordinator, asking them to provide information about both their perceptions of SARTs' effectiveness, and structural characteristics of their SART. The interview asked specific questions on membership breadth, such as the number of different stakeholder groups that participated in the collaboration; aspects of implementation, such as their use of formal resources and structures to organize their work; and extent to which they institutionalize various collaborative activities into their teamwork in order to promote change. Based on these features, cluster analysis was used to empirically derive patterns of SART implementation.

Study 2 Network Analysis sought to deepen the understanding of how SART structure relates to SART perceived effectiveness by examining the structure of inter-organizational relationships within SARTs. Based on Study 1 results, four model SARTs (high use of formal structures and institutionalization of collaborative activities, and all engaging in program evaluation) were sampled. Phone interviews were conducted with a key informant from each of the members of the SART. Three types of collaborative relationships were assessed: inter-organizational communication about coordinating the response to sexual assault, believing that other organizations value their organizations role in the response to sexual assault, and believing that other organizations are a resource to their organization's work in responding to sexual assault. Researchers employed social network analysis to study these inter-organizational relationships.

Sample View help for Sample

Study 1 National Survey

To be selected a SART had to engage in multidisciplinary coordination in the response to sexual assault, meet regularly, and respond to adult sexual assault victims. SARTs that only served child sexual assault victims were excluded from the study. A total of 864 SARTs were identified from International Association of Forensic Nurses' (IAFN) registry of Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner programs, SANE-SART.com's registry of SANE-SART member organizations, subscribers to the National Sexual Violence Resource Center's SART list-serv, state sexual assault coalitions, academic literature, practitioner SART manuals, and Google search. A target of 170 SARTs were to be interviewed, 268 were recruited to participate in the study, 81 were successfully reached and deemed to be ineligible, because they did not serve adult victims, the SART did not exist, or the SART had stopped meeting. Of the remaining 187 teams, 11 did not successfully complete the interviews and four refused to participate. In all 172 interviews were completed.

Study 2 Network Analysis

SARTs were selected from the High Adopters Plus Evaluation Cluster in Study 1 National Survey, which was characterized by high use of formal structures and high institutionalize of collaborative activities. Of the ten SARTs that were sampled, two were successfully contacted but were ineligible to participate, of the remaining eight eligible SARTs, two were contacted but was unable to reach an agreement to participate before data collection ended, one was never successfully contacted, one declined participation, and four participated in the study.

Time Method View help for Time Method

Universe View help for Universe

Study 1 National Survey: Sexual Assault Response Teams in the United States.

Study 2 Network Analysis: Sexual Assault Response Teams from Study 1 National Survey's High Adopters Plus Evaluation Cluster.

Unit(s) of Observation View help for Unit(s) of Observation

Data Type(s) View help for Data Type(s)

Mode of Data Collection View help for Mode of Data Collection

Description of Variables View help for Description of Variables

Study 1 National Survey (n=172) contains 120 variables on: SART's operational history; respondent's demographics, education level, and title and tenure in the SART; which groups the SART represents; number of members in the SART; organization structure and formalization, such as existence of written mission statement, recorded meeting minutes, formal procedures and bylaws; use of program evaluation; institutionalization of case review, cross training, and policy/protocols; SART's effectiveness in victims engagement with investigation, producing evidence, willingness to prosecute, and engagement with court officials; SART's effectiveness in improving support for victims in criminal justice process, quality of forensic evidence, knowledge and utilization of medical evidence by the police and prosecutors, law enforcement's investigations, police and prosecutors building rapport with victims, medical personnel's expert witness testimony, and prosecutors preparing victims for testimony; whether SART's efforts led to victims more likely to receive referrals to medical, mental health, and advocacy services; whether SART's efforts led to responders providing better service to victims and being more sensitive toward victims; whether SART's efforts lead to victims having more positive experience with legal systems, medical systems, health systems, and advocacy; region the SART is located; participant's stakeholder group; legal effectiveness of victim participation, prosecution, and police; and cluster analysis dummy variables.

Study 2 Network Analysis is composed of sets of 4 files containing SART networking data prepared for network analysis, one for each of the 4 sampled SARTs.

Please see the User Guide for more detailed description of the Study 2 Network Analysis data files.

Response Rates View help for Response Rates

Study 1 National Survey: 92%

Study 2 Network Analysis: 50%

Presence of Common Scales View help for Presence of Common Scales

Several Likert-type scales were used.

Original Release Date View help for Original Release Date

2016-09-27

Version History View help for Version History