Victim Notification in Sexual Assault Cases
with Unprocessed Kits
An overview of what was done and what was learned
from The 400 Project
Debi Cain, Executive Director, Michigan Domestic and Sexual
Violence Prevention and Treatment Board;
Lore Rogers, Staff Attorney, Michigan Domestic and Sexual
Violence Prevention and Treatment Board;
Herb Tanner, Violence Against Women Project Director,
Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan
Kimberly Hurst, Executive Director, Wayne County SAFE
Overview of 400 Project
Over 10,000 sexual assault kits (“SAKs”)
found in City of Detroit Police Crime Lab
where status of testing and of associated
cases unknown
 In early 2010, the 400 Project created to
determine the scope of work and
estimated cost of testing these kits

The Goals of The 400 Project
Testing of SAKs and data collection for
analysis
2. Case recommendations to Wayne
County Prosecutor
3. Provide victim advocacy services
4. Learn from process to help other
communities
1.
400 Project Process
Team building
Mission statement and guiding
principles
◦
•
•
•
Multidisciplinary nature of team
Team members didn’t know each other
Need to accomplish a lot in one year
Anticipation of potential conflicts as with any
other multidisciplinary collaboration in this
field
400 Project Mission Statement
“To provide comprehensive, victimcentered, multi-disciplinary investigation
and support services in response to the
Detroit sexual assault cases represented
by the 400 pilot sexual assault forensic
exam kits.”
400 Project Guiding Principles
Guiding Principle #1
Being victim-centered means acting in a way that
promotes victim safety and empowerment, that
respects victim autonomy and agency, and that
provides victims with accurate information so
that they can make informed decisions and
choices whenever possible.
Elaborative comments from team: “Victims need to know what to expect
before they make their choices.” “Never lie to them.” “We may not
know the answers to all their questions.”
400 Project Guiding Principles
Guiding Principle #2
We will demonstrate mutual respect
for our respective team members
and their roles.
Elaborative comments from team: “”Regular
communication is key.” “We need to learn from and
teach each other about our roles, work, tasks.”
400 Project Guiding Principles
Guiding Principle #3
We will be supportive of victims’ decisions and choices
and demonstrate non-judgmental understanding of
those decisions/choices, even when we disagree and/or
when we cannot work to bring about the outcome that
the victim wants.
Elaborative comments from team: “Victims need to be heard and
validated.” “We need to listen to understand, not just hear.” “We
need to recognize that we don’t know what has happened to the
victim or how our work will affect them.”
400 Project Guiding Principles
Guiding Principle #4
The focus of the investigations will be on the
behavior of the offender pre-, post-, and
during, the offense.
Guiding Principle #5
We will remain up-to-date on best and
promising practices in the area of sexual
assault and on what victims of sexual
assault need.
What we mean by
“victim notification”
◦ How would initial contact with victim be
made (the mechanism or mode of contact)
◦ When would initial contact be made
◦ Who would make the initial contact
◦ What information would be given to victims
at initial contact(s)
◦ How would community based victim
advocates be engaged in this process
400 Project Victim Notification
◦ As tackled the issue of victim notification, we
looked at following:
 Who should make the first contact – investigator?
Advocate?
 By phone? By letter? In person?
 Before kit tested or after? Only if suspect
identified?
 Would advocate go with the investigator?
◦ Ultimately, developed a general protocol, but
still evaluated on case-by-case basis
First Step: Locate Victim
◦ Process was more complicated than anticipated
◦ Public Records searches/Lexis-Nexis
searches/Government Agencies-i.e. DHS
◦ Search warrant, carefully drafted and limited in
scope, for medical records
Initial Victim Contact
◦ Investigator would make first contact, in person,
and provide a letter introducing and offering
advocacy services
◦ Investigator would notify advocates that had
made contact, provide contact info to advocates
for follow up
◦ Whether any victim accessed services was not
disclosed by advocates without informed
written signed consent
Initial Victim Contact
◦ Explanation of 400 Project, disclosure that
perpetrator had been identified, was to be faceto-face whenever possible
◦ If the victim was in another state, Project
enlisted local law enforcement and advocacy to
handle notification in person
◦ No law enforcement contact with victims when
there was no suspect identification
Victim Response To Investigator
◦ Varied greatly
 I have dealt with it, leave me alone
 Shock
 Relief
 Anger
 Gratitude
Victim Responses After Initial Contact
As Observed By Victim Advocates
Victim advocates had contact with a
significant number of victims over the
course of the 400 Project
 Impressions of client responses based upon
client interaction with advocacy services

Victim Responses Observed By
Victim Advocates

After notification by law enforcement,
victims initially may have only wanted
resources or advocacy services
◦ With some, this initial contact opened the door
to longer term counseling down the road (after
establishing a relationship with the victim)
◦ With others, notification would lead to an initial
meeting with advocacy, but then contact quickly
fell off - cancel appt, no show, etc
Victim Responses Observed By
Victim Advocates
Individual client responses to the
notification were influenced by a multitude
of variables.
 Stranger assault cases: common initial
positive response of wanting to
know "Who did this?!" and a desire to go
forward with the case

◦ Most reported the incident to LE at the time of
the incident and felt that they had conveyed to
LE that they had wanted to go forward at that
time
Victim Responses Observed By
Victim Advocates
"I don't want anything else except..." legal
support through court accompaniment
 “I don't need you“ -- overall management
of the interaction was handled
independently or with family support
 Initial shock from the first notification
sometimes resulted in immediate and final
refusal of services

Victim Responses Observed Victim
Advocates

The gap in time between the initial assault
and the notification by the 400 Project
resulted in greater attitude of mistrust
towards the system.
◦ Victims expressed lack of "faith" in process,
expressed feelings of "Why now?" or
"Counseling would have been nice when it
happened.”
◦ Victims reported that they had no knowledge of
resources for support at the time of assault
Additional Considerations

Communities beginning to work on
resolving unsubmitted SAKs should
anticipate and decide what response will be
when victim asks for information, e.g., when
asks to see police report, or wants to know
identity and location of suspect identified in
a CODIS hit
Statistical Analysis of 400 Project
Cases

All SAKs in the project were tested

Analysis done with overlay of “decision
rules” created by Project that could
influence which SAKs from 10,559 would
be submitted, or the priority for
submitting
Statistical Analysis of 400 Project
Cases
Important to understand stages of
processing of SAKs and the “stop” points
1. Case status screening
2. Evidence screening
3. DNA testing
4. CODIS entry

◦ Forensic association
◦ Offender association
Statistical Analysis of 400 Project
Cases
 Analysis
predicts:
 Total number of SAKs from the
10,559 that will likely require lab
analysis
 How many SAKs likely to each stage
of processing
Statistical Analysis of 400 Project
Cases
Estimated that, of the 10,559 SAKs:
 4250 SAKs will contain biological
evidence to be tested for DNA
 3669 of those SAKs will have a DNA
profile developed for entry into CODIS
 1241 of the DNA profiles will have a
matching DNA profile
◦ 132 will be forensic associations
◦ 1109 will be associated with identified person
Case Outcomes from 400 Project
Two cases already prosecuted by Wayne
County Prosecutor
 One conviction at trial, one conviction by
plea
 Nothing simple or uncomplicated about
these successes – each one required
extensive commitment of resources

◦ 1998 case, victim and witnesses had moved,
some out of state
In Conclusion . . .
Many thanks to the Office of Violence
Against Women for its support of this
project
 Questions? Contact Debi Cain,
caind@michigan.gov

Thank you!
This webinar was supported by Grant
No.2011-TA-AX-K048 awarded by the Office
on Violence
Against Women, U.S. Department of Justice.
The opinions, findings, conclusions, and
recommendations expressed in this
publication/program/exhibition are those of
the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect
the views of the Department of Justice, Office
on Violence Against Women.