Sexual Assault Surveillance Systems

To obtain a better understanding of sexual assault surveillance at the state level in the United States, we undertook a National Sexual Assault Surveillance Systems survey. People were contacted by telephone in all 50 states to determine who is monitoring sexual assault surveillance at the state level at which level of analysis. Sexual assault surveillance systems forms were requested from those states where the system is in place or development is far enough along that data sets exist in draft form. The results of the survey are presented in the following Tables 1 through 4 and the findings are discussed below each table.

Contents

Table 1. Types of organizations
Table 2. Level of analysis
Table 3. Frequency of reporting
Table 4. Data items

Table 1. Types of organizations conducting sexual assault surveillance at the state level in the United States.

Organization Type N %

State Coalition	18	36
Health Department	16	32
Criminal Justice System	11	22
UCR Only	4	8
Other Criminal Justice	7	14
Social Services	7	14
Total	50	100

Table 1 summarizes the organization type responsible for sexual assault surveillance. Although the Uniform Crime Report (UCR) program is active to some extent in every state, Table 1 shows that 8% of the states only have the UCR program for sexual assault surveillance. Other criminal justice agencies account for 14% of state sexual assault surveillance. Social services also accounted for 14%. State health departments were found to be conducting sexual assault surveillance in 32% of the states. These generally represent administrators collecting data from programs funded through such avenues as VOCA or the Rape Prevention Education grant. State coalitions were the most likely (36% of states) to be collecting sexual assault surveillance data on a statewide basis. Arizona has UCR data and data collected through the Health Department by the Arizona Rape and Sexual Assault Surveillance Project. A state sexual assault coalition is underdevelopment in Arizona, but is not currently collecting data.

Table 2. Level of analysis of state sexual assault surveillance systems in the United States.

Level of Analysis N %

Individual	8	16
Organization	42	84
Total	50	100

Table 2 summarizes the level of analysis undertaken. Data can be collected at the individual level, with data records representing individual clients, or at the organizational level, with service providers and/or police departments reporting aggregate data. Sixteen percent of states are collecting individual-level data while 84% of states are collecting organizational-level data. Individual-level data collection is more expensive than organizational-level data collection at the state level because more complex data collection and storage is involved. However, individual-level data collection allows one to answer important questions about risks and protective factors that organizational-level data does not (Koss 1993). Confidentiality is an issue if personal identifiers are kept with the data or other data sets exist that could match characteristics of the crime with personal identifiers. Arizona is currently collecting data at the organizational level of analysis, requesting aggregate data primarily from programs funded through the Rape Prevention Education grant. Aggregate archival data collection is exempt from Human Subjects Review.

Table 3. Frequency of reporting of state sexual assault surveillance systems in the United States.

Frequency of Reporting N %

Underdevelopment	5	10
Annual	7	14
Quarterly	19	38
Monthly	14	28
Ongoing	5	10
Total	50	100

Table 3 summarizes the frequency of reporting. Data is centrally collected at varying intervals. Quarterly and monthly reporting are the most common. Ongoing data collection is generally only available in conjunction with individual-level data collection. The utility of collecting data more often varies with the meaningfulness of the data collected. While there may well be variations in sexual assault characteristics and service provision over the year, the type of data currently being collected in this state does not justify more than annual tabulation. More frequent data collection will be useful when the sexual assault surveillance system is providing data with at an individual level of analysis.

Table 4. Data items in use or under development in state sexual assault surveillance systems.

I. Organization Demographics

Agency name	Report period	Funding
Grant information	Amount of grant	Grant accounting
VOCA funding	Grant period	Type of organization

II. Organizational outcomes

Efforts to coordinate with providers and law enforcement	Efforts to serve federal crime victims	Case histories
Improvements to delivery of service	Community notification	Types of training
Institutional advocacy	Procedures	Significant strengths and accomplishments
Problems encountered

III. Number of victims

1. Primary (As result of assault)

2. Secondary (Current state)

3. Demographics

Age	Gender	Disabled	Ethnicity	Income
Education	Occupation	Marital status	First language	Military
Alcohol abuse	Mental state	Pregnancy

IV. Assault Description

· Perpetrator demographics

Gender	Ethnicity	Age	Education
Income	Criminal background	Victim-assailant relationship	Number of perpetrators
Multiple assaults	Perpetrators receiving services	Other

· Type of victimization

Child sexual abuse	Incest	Adult sexual assault	Adults molested as children
Harassment	Ritual/Cult abuse	Attempted rape

· Type of penetration

· Location

· Time

· Weapon

· Alcohol

· Coercion type

· Behavioral response

V. # Returned to perpetrator

·Case results

Arrests	Pleas	Convictions
Dismissals	Acquittals	Indictments
To trial	Protective order	Other

VI. By type of contact

Phone

In person

Information/referral

Collateral

Direct versus indirect

VII. Assisted

Counseling (hours or # of sessions)

New versus continuing cases	Individual	Group
Significant other attended	Minorities	Family or couples

· Crisis calls

New versus continuing	Primary	Secondary	Information/referral
Victim demographics	Perpetrator demographics	Time

VIII. Other assistance

· Advocacy

Victim witness

Medical advocacy

Personal advocacy

Acute assistance

Received medical attention	Reported to law enforcement	Financial assistance	DHS involvement	Personal support
Benefited issues hindering assistance	Child care	Transportation	Shelter/housing	Clothes

IX. When reported

· Unusual circumstances

X. Referrals

o Source

o Made

XI. Education

· To whom

Participants

Sessions

Media used

Staff training

XI. Meetings attended

Table 4 below lists the data items being collected by state surveillance systems around the country. No one surveillance system collects all of these data items. Which data items appear on a particular form is influenced by the type of surveillance system in place and who is responsible for gathering the information. This list represents the universe of what is being collected rather than the ideal data set. Although this list appears long, there are some items conspicuously missing. For example, there are no items concerning sexually transmitted diseases, especially HIV and AIDS. Also, there is very little description of the medical treatment received. The items recommended for inclusion in Arizona’s sexual assault surveillance system will be a small subset of those presented here.