Begun Center for Violence Prevention Research and Education
AT THE JACK, JOSEPH AND MORTON MANDEL SCHOOL OF APPLIED SOCIAL SCIENCES AT CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY

What Happened with the Sexual Assault Reports?
Then Vs. Now
By Rachel Lovell, PhD, Daniel Flannery, PhD, Laura Overman, MA, MEd, Tiffany Walker, MA
September 2016
This report provides data describing how sexual assault
reports that were not previously indicted were initially
processed through the system from the Reporting Phase, to
the Investigative Phase, and the Prosecution Phase. We then
track what is currently happening with these cases as part of
the Cuyahoga County Sexual Assault Kit (SAK) Pilot
Research Project.
Key Findings

Now






Then














Of the 243 sexual assaults, all but three were reported to
the police.
After the initial report, the sexual assaults were assigned
to a detective for investigative follow up. The average
amount of time from initial reporting to the first
investigative activity on the case was 5 days.
Victims were not (or were not able to be) contacted in at
least 40% of the cases. When victims were contacted, in
half of the cases, the contact occurred within a day or
less of the start of the investigation.
Initial investigations remained open for an average of 40
days, with approximately a quarter of the investigations
remaining open one day or less and half remaining open
for one week or less.
Over half of the cases that were investigated were closed
due to police being unable to locate the victim or the lack
of victim follow up.
Less than half of all cases that were investigated were
referred to the City Prosecutor. Of the cases that were
referred, over 75% were ruled “no prosecution” and
closed by the City Prosecutor.
None of the cases reviewed resulted in an indictment.
The Begun Center

11402 Bellflower Rd.









None of the coded sexual assault cases were precluded
by law from being prosecuted (e.g., not previously
adjudicated, within the statue of limitations, and not
abated by suspect’s death).
After reinvestigating these cases, 74% of the cases had
been indicted.
Almost 40% of the 243 cases have resulted in a
conviction (a plea or a guilty verdict) and almost 25%
were closed due to insufficient evidence by the County
Prosecutor’s Office.
Convictions were more common with sexual assaults
committed by strangers.
Approximately a quarter of these sexual assaults
involved specific mentions of the victims being involved
in (or suspected of being involved in) prostitution, using
drugs or alcohol at or near the time of the sexual assault,
or having a mental illness (victim “vulnerabilities”).
Victims with these “vulnerabilities” were almost as
likely to have their cases result in a conviction compared
to victims without these documented “vulnerabilities.”
For current investigations closed by the Prosecutor due
to insufficient evidence, the most likely reasons for
closure were victims that might be perceived as
unreliable or victims with no or poor memories of the
sexual assault.

Cleveland, OH 44106

216.368.5235

begun.case.edu

1 of 11

 Then: What initially happened with the sexual assault reports?
Figure 1 depicts how the sexual assault reports were initially processed through the system, through three phases—
the Reporting Phase, the Investigative Phase, and the Prosecution Phase. These outcomes are based upon the
initial police reports.
Figure 1. The Original Processing of Sexual Assaults According to the Police Report

The Begun Center

11402 Bellflower Rd.

Cleveland, OH 44106

216.368.5235

begun.case.edu

2 of 11

 Reporting Phase
The Reporting Phase of a sexual assault investigation
begins with the reporting of a sexual assault and/or sexual
assault kit. After a police report has been made, the
reporting officer(s) refers the case to detectives for
investigation. In CPD, sexual assault reports are referred to
the Special Crimes Unit (SCU) for investigation. CPD
SAKs comprise the vast majority of SAKs—237 of the 243
(98%) were CPD SAKs. The other 2% of cases were from
other police departments in the county.
As illustrated in Figure 1, the overwhelming number of
sexual assaults included police reports. Of the 243 sexual
assaults analyzed, 240 (99%) were reported to the police.
For the remaining three sexual assaults, the victims did not
wish to make a police report.
How long did it take from initial report to investigation?
Of the 240 sexual assaults with a police report, 216 (90%)
showed evidence of investigative follow up according to
the police report. Thus, 10% (n=24) of the sexual assault
reports indicated no follow up in the coded police report.
Not all police reports included dates for all phases. From
initial reporting to investigation, we have dates on 158 of
the 216 investigations. From these 158 reports, the average
response time from initial report to the first investigative
activity was 5 days.

More than a third (43%) of the sexual assaults (n=68) showed
investigative activity on the same day. In the vast majority of
cases (88%, n=139), an investigation began within a week of
the initial police report.
How long did it take to contact and/or interview the victim?
An important component of a sexual assault investigation is
contacting and/or interviewing the victim. Of 218 sexual
assaults, 40% (n=88) indicated that SCU did not contact the
victim during the investigation, 45% (n=97) indicated that SCU
contacted the victim one time, and 7% (n=15) indicated that
SCU contacted the victim more than once. Additionally, 6%
(n=13) of the cases indicated that the victim missed several
appointments with SCU and in 2% (n=5) of the cases, victim
contact was not specifically mentioned.
In almost three-quarters of cases (73%), police reports did not
indicate that SCU interviewed the victim. In 25% of the cases,
police reports indicated SCU interviewed the victim once. In
2% of cases, police reports did not specifically state whether
the victim was interviewed.

Of the cases that included victim contact and the dates of the
contacts (n=84), victims were contacted the same day that SCU
began the investigation in 44% of the cases and within a day or
less in over half of the cases. Of the cases that included victim
interviews and the dates of the interviews (n=44), victims were
contacted the same day that SCU began the investigation in
41% of the cases and within a day or less in over half of the
cases.

Data and Methodology
In August 2015, we began with a list of cases that had completed the investigative workflow (e.g., a series of investigative tasks in order
to determine whether or not to prosecute a sexual assault) and had been closed by the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor’s Office and either
(1) resulted in prosecution or (2) not pursued due to insufficient evidence.
From the case files we coded police and investigative reports, forensic lab reports, and criminal histories on a random sample of 210 cases
representing 243 Sexual Assault Kits (SAKs). For the findings presented here (except those with multiple unsubmitted SAK hits), the
same offender is represented more than once but for separate sexual assaults. These assaults were reported between March 1993 and May
2014; however, the majority of the assaults (74.1%) occurred between 1993 and 1997, which reflect the statute of limitation prioritization
for prosecution at that time.
For a more complete description of the history of the unsubmitted SAKs in Cuyahoga County, the SAK Task Force, and a more detailed
description of these data, see “The Cuyahoga County Sexual Assault Kit (SAK) Task Force: Describing the Process of Testing,
Investigating, and Prosecuting Unsubmitted SAKs” and “The Cuyahoga County Sexual Assault Kit (SAK) Pilot Research Project: Data
and Methodology.” (http://begun.case.edu/sak/)

The Begun Center

11402 Bellflower Rd.

Cleveland, OH 44106

216.368.5235

begun.case.edu

3 of 11

 What about the 10% of cases that indicated no investigative
follow up?
We further examined the 24 sexual assault reports that did
not indicate investigative follow up in the initial police
report. A SAK Task Force member and CPD officer looked
up these reports in CPD’s records management system to
determine what, if any, follow up occurred. In April 2016,
the CPD officer provided us the following information on
these 24 cases:










10 of the 24 (42%) were followed up at some point by
CPD’s SCU although the initial coded police report did
not indicate this. Of these 10 cases, 5 were closed
because there were no further investigative leads and 5
provided no details as to why they were closed.
8 of the 24 (33%) were closed because the victim could
not be located
3 of the 24 (13%) were received by SCU but not
assigned to a detective
2 of the 24 (8%) were East Cleveland Police
Department cases, and therefore the CPD detective was
unable to access additional information on the reports
1 of the 24 (4%) had no additional information

Thus, of the 24 that initially did not indicate investigative
follow up by SCU, 10 were found to have some degree of
investigative follow up at or near the time of the initial
report.
Of the 240 cases with reports, a total of 216 cases (90%)
proceeded to the subsequent phase, the Investigative Phase.

The Begun Center

11402 Bellflower Rd.

Investigative Phase
The Investigative Phase begins when a sexual assault report is
assigned to an investigator for follow up.
In this phase we had complete dates from 118 investigations.
From these 118 investigations, we found that for the initial
investigation, the average amount of time the investigations
remained open was 40 days, with:


25% of these cases being closed the same day as detectives
received the case



48% were open for one week or less



62% were open for two weeks or less



71% were open for a month or less

What are the outcomes of the initial investigation?
Figure 1 depicts the outcomes of the 216 investigations with
investigative follow up in the coded police report. The majority
of 216 investigations (53%, n=115) were closed because the
police reported that the victim could not be located or did not
follow up. For these cases (that had dates), investigations
remained open for an average of 45 days from the initial SCU
investigation, with 49% remaining open for two weeks or less
and 81% remaining opening for two months or less. The
minimal amount of time these cases remained open was 0 days
and the maximum was 282 days.
The second most common reason for closing an investigation
was due to insufficient evidence (18.5%, n=40). For these cases
(that had dates), investigations remained open for an average of
60 days, with 68% remaining open for two weeks or less and
82% remaining open for two months or less.

Cleveland, OH 44106

216.368.5235

begun.case.edu

4 of 11

 Thirty of the 216 (13.8%) investigations were closed due to
the victim not wanting to prosecute. For these cases (that
had dates), investigations remained open for an average of
6 days, with 86% of cases remaining open for two weeks or
less, and 100% remaining open for one month or less.
Seven of the 216 (3.2%) investigations were closed due to
the victim stating she had lied about the sexual assault or
the police officer stating in the report that she/he believed
the victim was lying. For the small number of these cases
(that also included dates), investigations were closed much
sooner than with the other cases—they remained open for
an average of 7 days, with 50% remaining open for 5 days
or less, and 100% remaining open for nine days or less.
For the remaining 30 cases, 9% (n=19) were referred to the
Grand Jury for indictment, 3% (n=7) were closed for
unknown reasons (e.g., a reason for closing was not
provided in the police report), and 2% (n=4) were referred
to juvenile court.

Not all of the 90 cases that were referred to the City
Prosecutor’s Office included dates. For those that included
dates, investigators referred these cases to prosecutors on
average within 58 days from the start of the initial investigation, with 52% (n=32) being referred within two weeks or less
of from the start of initial investigation and 60% (n=37) referring within a month or less.
Of the 90 referred cases, 21 (23%) were accepted by the
prosecutors for possible indictment, with the remaining 69
cases being declined by prosecutors. Cases accepted by the
Prosecutor’s Office would have been referred to the County
Prosecutor’s Office for possible indictment.
Of the 21 cases accepted by the City Prosecutor’s Office, 19
(90%) were taken to Grand Jury for indictment by the County
Prosecutor’s Office. None of these cases were indicted by the
Grand Jury (although, again, this sample only consists of cases
that were not previously adjudicated).

Of the 216 cases, a total of 90 cases (42%) proceeded to
the subsequent phase, the Prosecution Phase.
Prosecution Phase
Once an investigation is completed, a case is referred to
prosecutors for review and possible indictment
(the Prosecution Phase). Cuyahoga County is unique in that
cases are first referred to the City Prosecutor’s Office and
then the County Prosecutor’s Office if the City Prosecutor’s Office accepts the case (e.g., rules papers). A little
less than half (42%, n=90) of the 216 assaults were referred
to the City Prosecutor’s Office.

The Begun Center

11402 Bellflower Rd.

Cleveland, OH 44106

216.368.5235

begun.case.edu

5 of 11

 Now: What is currently happening with the sexual assault reports?
Starting in 2013, the SAKs associated with these 243 sexual
assaults were submitted for DNA testing. Upon receiving the
results of the DNA testing, the Sexual Assault Kit Task
Force reopened investigations for all 243 sexual assaults.
Below we present data on the current outcomes for these 243
sexual assaults.
How many SAKs had a “hit”?
Of the 243 sexual assault kits tested for DNA, 70% (n=171)
had a “hit” in the federal DNA database, the Combined DNA
Index System (CODIS). A hit could be a hit to a named or an
unnamed offender in the database—144 (85%) had a hit to a
known offender and 27 (16%) had a hit to an unknown
offender. The remaining 72 SAKs either did not have DNA
in the SAK, had DNA in the SAK but the DNA did not
match to a DNA profile in CODIS, or had DNA in the SAK
but the DNA sample was insufficient for upload in CODIS.

Of the 243 cases (Figure 2),
39% (n=96) of the sexual assaults investigations had resulted
in a conviction (defined as a plea or a guilty verdict)
24% (n=58) did not proceed to indictment due to the SAK
Task Force closing the case for insufficient evidence
17% (n=42) had been indicted but the defendant was capias
10% (n=25) were still in the process (e.g., indicted but no
disposition)
7% (n=18) had gone to trial and were found not guilty
2% (n=4) were listed as closed/inactive by the Task Force

Figure 2. Current Outcomes of Sexual Assault Cases

39%

The 70% “hit rate” for these 243 sexual assaults is higher
than the hit rate for all the tested SAKs in this Initiative,
which is due to our sample of SAKs being derived from
SAKs that were able to be prosecuted (e.g., those that were
indicted or closed due to insufficient evidence by the SAK
Task Force) and prioritized for prosecution by the Task
Force. For more details about the SAK Task Force “hit rate”
see Lovell, Butcher, and Flannery, 2016.

24%
17%
10%
7%
2%

What are the current outcomes for these sexual assault
cases?
Once indicted, the unit of analysis changes from a sexual
assault incident/report to a prosecutorial case where there can
be more than one defendant (e.g., group sexual assault) and/
or more than one sexual assault incident (e.g., serial
offenders).
At the time the coding ended for the pilot project of the 243
sexual assaults, 74% (n=181) of the cases had been indicted
by the Task Force.

The Begun Center

11402 Bellflower Rd.

Cleveland, OH 44106

216.368.5235

begun.case.edu

6 of 11

 What are the factors that might be contributing to more favorable prosecutorial outcomes?
Below we present SAK characteristics by prosecutorial outcomes to explore possible factors that contribute to
more favorable prosecutorial outcomes.
Table 1. SAK Characteristics by Prosecutorial Outcomes
Prosecutorial Outcomes
SAK
Characteristics

Convicted
(n=96 of 243)

Not Convicted
(n=18 out of
243)

Still in Process
(n=25 out of
243)

Closed/Inactive
(n=4 out of
243)

Insufficient
Evidence
(n=58 out of
243)

% CODIS hit

95%
(n=91 of 96)

72%
(n=13 of 18)

80%
(n=20 of 25)

75%
(n=3 of 4)

53%
(n=31 of 58)

% CODIS hit to a known
offender

84%
(n=81 of 96)

67%
(n=12 of 18)

72%
(n=18 of 25)

50%
(n=2 of 4)

48%
(n=28 of 58)

% initially closed due to lack
of victim follow up

51%
(n=49 of 96)

39%
(n=7 of 18)

48%
(n=12 of 25)

25%
(n=1 of 4)

45%
(n=26 of 58)

% initially closed to due to
insufficient evidence

18%
(n=17 of 96)

17%
(n=3 of 18)

12%
(n=3 of 25)

50%
(n=2 of 4)

19%
(n=11 of 58)

% initially closed b/c victim
did not want to prosecute

13%
(n=12 of 96)

17%
(n=3 of 18)

20%
(n=5 of 25)

0%
(n=0 of 4)

12%
(n=7 of 58)

% offender was stranger to
victim

60%
(n=58 of 96)

39%
(n=7 of 18)

52%
(n=13 of 25)

75%
(n=3 of 4)

43%
(n=25 of 58)

% involved one perpetrator

89%
(n=85 of 96)

94%
(n=17 of 18)

76%
(n=19 of 25)

75%
(n=3 of 4)

81%
(n=47 of 58)

% involved suspect identified
at the time

45%
(n=43 of 96)

67%
(n=12 of 18)

56%
(n=14 of 25)

50%
(n=2 of 4)

53%
(n=31 of 58)

Table 1 shows that SAK investigations which resulted in a conviction more frequently had a CODIS hit and a hit
to a known offender compared to all other outcomes. SAKs that resulted in conviction were also more likely to
involve a stranger than those that went to trial but did not result in a conviction (60% vs. 39%) and less likely to
involve a suspect who was identified at the time of the assault (45% vs. 67%) but these differences were not
statistically significant.

The Begun Center

11402 Bellflower Rd.

Cleveland, OH 44106

216.368.5235

begun.case.edu

7 of 11

 Victim Vulnerabilities
We further explored victim “vulnerabilities” to assess whether this might impact prosecutorial outcomes. We focused on the
vulnerabilities that might be more likely to lead to the victim being “blamed” for the assault or not believed—the most
common types of victim vulnerabilities that we coded. More specifically, we coded documented history of prostitution if it
was mentioned in the initial police report (as this reflects what the police knew and documented at the time—thus, a
conservative measure) and is not based on the victims’ criminal histories; victims’ documented history of drug/alcohol use
at or near the time of the sexual assault and victim’s documented mental illness as mentioned in the initial police report or
medical records. As shown in Table 2, approximately a quarter (24%) of victims had these “vulnerabilities.”
Table 2. Victim “Vulnerabilities” by Prosecutorial Outcomes
Victim had documented history of prostitution, drug/
alcohol use, or mental illness
No (n=182)
Yes (n=56)
Total*

Prosecutorial Outcomes
Not convicted

8% (n=15 of 182)

5% (n=3 of 56)

8% (n=18 of 238)

Convicted (plea, guilty verdict)

40% (n=73 of 182)

38% (n=21 of 56)

40% (n=94 of 238)

Still in process

12% (n=21 of 182)

5% (n=3 of 56)

10% (n=24 of 238)

Closed/Inactive

2% (n=3 of 182)

2% (n=1 of 56)

2% (n=4 of 238)

21% (n=39 of 182)

30% (n=17 of 56)

24% (n=56 of 238)

Insufficient evidence

*Total is 238; 5 cases have missing values
Victims with a documented history of prostitution, drug/alcohol use, or mental illness were more likely than those without
these vulnerabilities to have their cases closed due to insufficient evidence and less likely to have their cases still in the
process of being prosecuted (although the number is small). However, victims with these documented vulnerabilities were
almost as likely to have their cases result in a conviction compared to victims without these vulnerabilities.
For those that resulted in conviction, we further explored whether victims with a documented history of prostitution, drug/
alcohol use, or mental illness were more likely to have their cases result in a plea vs. guilty verdict compared to victims
without these vulnerabilities. We did not find any statistically significant differences.
Next, we wanted to explore whether the defendants in the cases where the victim had these vulnerabilities (compared to
when the victim did not have these vulnerabilities) were more likely to get “lighter” sentences—either by a reduction in the
severity of the charge (e.g., felony 1 to felony 3) or a reduction in the number of charges (e.g., 3 counts of felony 1 rape to 1
count of felony 1 rape). The only statistically significant differences in the sentences for defendants in the cases where the
victim had the vulnerabilities compared to those cases where the victim did not have these vulnerabilities was in the total
counts. Defendants in cases where the victim had these vulnerabilities saw a statistically significant reduction in the number
of counts but not the severity of the counts they were convicted on compared to defendants in cases where the victim did not
have these vulnerabilities.

The Begun Center

11402 Bellflower Rd.

Cleveland, OH 44106

216.368.5235

begun.case.edu

8 of 11

 For current investigations, why were cases closed due to insufficient evidence?
We examined possible reasons why current investigations were closed due to insufficient evidence. These reasons were not
specifically provided in the case files, as the Prosecutor’s Office does not keep data on this. Instead, the reasons provided here
(Figure 3) reflect the researchers’ summative classification of closure based upon a number of variables primarily related to
the victim but also data contained in the current investigative reports of the sexual assault by Task Force investigators.

Figure 3. Now: Likely Reasons why SAKs Were Closed Due to Insufficient Evidence

Unreliable victim due to mental illness,
drugs, prostitution (n=14)

24%
17%

Victim recanted (n=10)

17%

Victim has poor memory/no memory of event (n=10)
Victim deceased (n=8)

14%
9%

Lack of evidence (n=5)

9%

Victim does not want to prosecute (n=5)

5%
3%

Victim incapacitated at rape (n=3)
Victim cannot be contacted (n=2)

2% No evidence of assault (n=1)
For example, of the 58 insufficient evidence cases, 14 (24%) were likely closed due to victim being unreliable due to
mental illness, drug/alcohol use, or prostitution. A victim’s lack of memory was likely the reason for classifying as
insufficient evidence in 13 of the 58 cases (22%)—either because the victim was incapacitated (n=3) or did not have a
memory or a poor memory of the event (n=10).
A smaller percentage of cases (n=10 of 58; 17%) were deemed insufficient evidence because the victim recanted.
A lack of victim availability at the time of current prosecution was likely the reason why cases were closed due to
insufficient evidence in 10 of the 58 cases (17%), either because the victim could not be contacted (n=2) or because the
victim was deceased (n=8).
The availability of evidence does not appear to be a significant issue with these cases as a total of 6 out of the 58 (10%)
were likely closed because of either no evidence of a sexual assault (n=1) or a lack of sufficient evidence for indictment
(n=5).
A small number (n=5) of the cases were closed due to insufficient evidence because the victim did not want to prosecute.

The Begun Center

11402 Bellflower Rd.

Cleveland, OH 44106

216.368.5235

begun.case.edu

9 of 11

 How can these findings inform practice?
Our sample of sexual assaults is derived from SAKs that
had not been submitted for DNA testing and were still
prosecutable (thus not previously adjudicated, still within
the statute of limitations, and where the suspect was not
deceased). Thus, these represent the “forgotten” cases—
missed opportunities to provide justice for the victims and
justice for the community.
Understanding what initially happened with these sexual
assault reports provides an important opportunity to assess
where in the process the investigations and prosecutions
were stalled, why they were stalled, and how long this
process took in order to help more cases reach a quicker,
more favorable final disposition. Furthermore, understanding what currently is happening with the same sexual
assault reports provides an important opportunity to assess
possible improvement in the criminal justice system’s
response to sexual assault.
The findings show that most of the victims wanted to
report the crime to authorities, as almost all made police
reports. However, it should be noted that these SAKs are
from victims who sought medical attention and agreed to
the administration of a SAK.
Approximately 10% of the sexual assault reports initially
indicated no follow up in the police report. For those cases
with investigative activity, the majority of them were
closed because the victim could not be contacted or the
victim did not follow up. Less than half of the
investigations were referred to prosecutors and of those
that were referred, over 75% were declined for
prosecution. None of the 243 sexual assaults resulted in
indictments.
We coded for specific mentions of victims who, at the
time, might have been involved in or perceived as
involved in prostitution, have a mental illness, or was
using drugs and/or alcohol at or near the time of the
sexual assault (e.g., victim “vulnerabilities”).

The Begun Center

11402 Bellflower Rd.

While we are relying on official documentation of these
factors (thus, a conservative measure), the findings indicate
that at least in Cuyahoga County, SA Ks that were never
submitted for DNA testing are not primarily cases whether
the victim was involved (or was perceived to be involved) in
prostitution, mentally ill, or a drug and/or alcohol user—
24% of these assaults involved specific mentions of the
victims having at least one of these vulnerabilities. The
findings also illustrate, after re-opening the cases, very few
victims recanted—less than 2% of the entire sample.
The current activity on the sexual assaults show that
approximately one-fourth of these cases were closed due to
insufficient evidence; however, 74% had been indicted, 40%
had a conviction and only 7% had a not guilty verdict. Thus,
these unsubmitted SAK cases are not necessarily “no-win”
cases.
In fact, current prosecutorial outcomes indicate that victims
with documented histories of prostitution, mental illness, and
drug/alcohol use at the time of the sexual assault were
almost as likely to have their cases result in conviction as
victims without these histories. This finding contradicts the
assumption that convictions are unlikely if the victim was a
sex worker, mentally ill, or a drug/alcohol user. Hopefully,
these findings can be used to encourage prosecutors to be
willing to prosecute cases where the victim has these and
other types of “vulnerabilities,” and speak to the probative
value of the DNA evidence.
While we present data on the most likely or probable reason
for closing, cases are likely closed for a combination of
factors and we have no data on the combination of factors
that lead to a case closing for insufficient evidence.
However, currently, two prosecutors must be in agreement in
order to close a case. If they are not in agreement, then a
senior-level prosecutor is the tiebreaker, thereby reducing the
chance that a “weaker” case is easily closed.

Cleveland, OH 44106

216.368.5235

begun.case.edu

10 of 11

 The data also show that during the initial process,
investigations were opened on average 5 days after
reporting and remained open for 40 days on average.
However, 25% were closed the same day and almost half
were closed within a week. Cases were referred to
prosecutors on average 59 days after the start of an
investigation. While these data are informative, the amount
of time the case remained at each phase of the process does
not necessarily speak to the amount of effort expended in
each phase. During the time period when most of the
sexual assaults occurred in Cleveland, the high number of
reported sexual assaults and small number of CPD
detectives assigned to investigate the sexual assaults
(Atassi 2014; Dissell 2012), CPD detectives could not
have possibly been able to fully investigate, all or even
most, of the sexual assault reports. If police departments
do not or are not able to adequately staff units responsible
for investigating crimes that are statutorily considered to
be second only to murder, victims will be denied justice
and offenders will continue to sexually offend, thereby
further and needlessly harming even more victims and the
community.
There are many ways that a victim can “fall through the
cracks.” The findings show a drastic siphoning off of cases
through the bureaucratic process and present opportunities
for improvements in the criminal justice’s response to
sexual assault. This analysis shows the onus for the
investigation and prosecution of sexual assault is most
often placed, heavily, on victims—victims of one of the
most traumatic events that could happen to a person and
often immediately following the traumatic event.
Victims are expected to be able to continue to advance the
investigation and prosecution in all stages of the bureaucratic process and when this does not occur, the case fails
to advance. Victim “cooperation” is expected by the
system but often fails to provide the victims the needed
support and information to ensure continued
“cooperation.”

The data show that at the time of the initial investigation,
victims were not (or not able to be) contacted in at least
40% of the cases. Currently on the Task Force, investigators do not close a case before contacting the victim,
except in instances where the victim, after much searching,
cannot be found or is completely unwilling or unable to
give a statement. This practice may account for the fact
that, currently, victims with “vulnerabilities” are equally as
likely to have their case result in a conviction as victims
without “vulnerabilities.”
The system treats (the often vulnerable) victims of sexual
assault in the same manner in which they would treat a
victim of vehicle theft or any other crime. More recent
criminal justice practices are beginning to incorporate what
we know now about how trauma impacts the victim’s brain
and behavior to positively improve the process for victims
of sexual assault. These findings give further support as to
why these types of improvements are necessary but not
sufficient. There is still much more work to be done.
By using data to inform practice, efforts can be focused on
ensuring all sexual assault reports are followed up on and
are able to be fully investigated, supports are provided to
victims throughout the process, and that prosecutors are
willing to prosecute the cases.
References
Atassi, L. 2014. “Cleveland Police brass respond to recommendations from national police research and policy organization.”
Cleveland.com, May 5, http://www.cleveland.com/cityhall/
index.ssf/2014/05/cleveland_police_brass_respond.html
Dissell, R. 2012. “Sex-crimes, missing-person policies revised;
issues remain.” Plain Dealer, March 31, p.B1
Lovell, R., Butcher, F., Flannery, D. 2016. “Describing the Process of Testing, Investigating, and Prosecuting Unsubmitted
SAKs” http://begun.case.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/
Process-Brief.pdf

Last edited: 9.14.16

The Begun Center

11402 Bellflower Rd.

Cleveland, OH 44106

216.368.5235

begun.case.edu

11 of 11