Untested Sexual Assault Kits

• Date: 01 May 2016
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12213
• Author: Kevin J. Strom,Matthew J. Hickman
• Published date: 01 May 2016

POLICY ESSAY

RAPE KIT TESTING

Untested Sexual Assault Kits

Searching for an Empirical Foundation to Guide Forensic

Case Processing Decisions

Kevin J. Strom

RTI International

Matthew J. Hickman

Seattle University

The processing of sexual assault forensic evidence is a challenging, if not frustrating,

issue for victims and victim advocates, the forensic community, and the larger

criminal justice system. Untested sexual assault kits (SAKs) in law enforcement

custody (also referred to as unsubmitted SAKs) and backlogged SAKs in crime laboratories

result in delays in the justice process and, in some instances, the denial of justice for

survivors of sexual assault (Hickman and Strom, 2014; Strom and Hickman, 2010). Media

coverage of jurisdictions having large volumes of untested sexual assault kits has fueled

concerns about the legitimacy of the justice system response for crime victims, supported

by numerous accounts of evidence that sat untested beyond relevant statutes of limitations

(e.g., Los Angeles, CA; see Hickman and Strom, 2014; Peterson, Johnson, Herz, Graziano,

and Oehler,2012; Ritter, 2013). And although cities such as Detroit (MI), Cleveland (OH),

Houston (TX), and Los Angeles (CA) have uncovered large numbers of untested SAKs,

midsized and more rural areas have also struggled with this problem.

Studies have found untested SAKs held by law enforcement agencies to be substantial

in size and scope (Lovrich et al., 2004; Strom and Hickman, 2010). National estimates of

the number of untested SAKs range as high as the hundreds of thousands with the largest

totals reported in some of the nation’s most populous cities. In a nationally representative

survey, state and local law enforcement agencies estimated that 18% of unsolved rape cases

from 2003 to 2007 had forensic evidence that was not submitted to a crime laboratory

for analysis. Although larger law enforcement agencies (i.e., those having 100 or more

Direct correspondence to Kevin J. Strom, Policing, Security, and Investigative Science Program, RTI

International, 3040 East Cornwallis Road, Post Office Box 12194, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2194

(e-mail: kstrom@rti.org).

DOI:10.1111/1745-9133.12213 C2016 American Society of Criminology 593

Criminology & Public Policy rVolume 15 rIssue 2