Institutional responses to sexual trauma

Sexual violence is an intensely personal crime, in a way few other crimes are. It follows that a vast amount of research on sexual violence focuses on the individual, and primarily the victim. For instance, studies of sexual victimization often focus on the type of sexual violence experienced, the mental and physical consequences of sexual violence, and the victim’s characteristics, attitudes, and behaviors (e.g., Was she assertive? Were they drinking?). While this body of work has contributed vital information, sexual violence is also a public issue. Sexual violence happens within institutions, including communities, workplaces, schools, and larger sociocultural contexts. Additionally, trauma survivors may interact with a wide variety of institutions after violence occurs. Scholars have demonstrated the important role of institutional responses to sexual violence. For example, responses from the criminal justice system, medical system, and educational institutions can have a significant effect on survivors’ wellbeing (e.g., Campbell, 2008; Freyd & Birrell, 2013; Monteith, Bahraini, Matarazzo, Soberay, & Smith, 2016; Smith & Freyd, 2014; Smith, Gomez, & Freyd, 2014). This work illustrates that some survivors receive trauma-informed and victim-centered care when accessing support from institutions, but many others experience treatment that is deleterious and re-traumatizing (doubting or blaming the victim, taking no action). However, there is still much to learn about institutional responses to sexual violence. The goal of this special issue is to advance our understanding of how institutions respond to sexual trauma and advocate for better, empirically informed institutional responses. The special issue includes articles that focus on three specific institutions: the criminal justice system, higher education, and the U.S. Military.

Two articles examine the criminal justice system. In Qualitative Study of Sexual Assault Survivors’ Post-Assault Legal System Experiences, Katherine Lorenz, Anne Kirkner, and Sarah E. Ullman examine sexual assault survivors’ and their informal support providers’ experiences with the legal system. The study is a dyadic, qualitative analysis of interviews with matched pairs of survivors and their informal support providers (i.e., a friend, family member, or significant other). This article advances our understanding of survivors’ decision to pursue, or not pursue, a formal report and survivors’ experiences with the legal system. In their article, How to Right a Wrong: Empirically Evaluating Whether Victim, Offender, and Assault Characteristics Can Inform Rape Kit Testing Policies, Rachael Goodman-Williams, Rebecca Campbell, Dhruv B. Sharma, Steven J. Pierce, Hannah Feeney, and Giannina Fehler-Cabral offer a critical examination of policies that would prioritize the testing of sexual assault kits (SAKs) by victim, offender, or assault characteristics. In this study, the authors analyzed a random sample of 900 previously-untested SAKs from Detroit, MI – submitting the samples for DNA testing, entering eligible profiles into Combined DNA Index System (i.e., CODIS), and analyzing the police files for each SAK. The findings suggest that individual-level variables, including victim, perpetrator, and assault characteristics, do not increase the likelihood of a CODIS hit. This study provides useful data to encourage the legal system to test all untested SAKs. Together, these two articles offer useful insight into ways to improve the way that the criminal justice system responds to sexual violence.

Another two articles in this special issue examine institutions of higher education. In their article Advocacy Services for College Victims of Sexual Assault: Navigating Complicated Confidentiality Concerns, McKenzie Javorka and Rebecca Campbell examine barriers to providing confidential advocacy services for college sexual assault survivors in the wake of significant policy reforms. This study examines data collected through interviews with national experts on campus sexual assault. The findings highlight the challenges that campus-based advocates face and suggest the importance of campus partnerships with community-based advocacy organizations. This study provides essential information about the potential consequences of policies regulating the reporting of sexual assault on campus. Second, in Institutional Responses to Campus Sexual Assault: Examining the Development and Work of a Multidisciplinary Team, Julie Olomi, Anne P. DePrince, and Kerry L. Gagnon provides unique data on the development and function of a multidisciplinary team involving campus, criminal justice, and community-based institutions. Through observations of MDT monthly meetings and interviews with MDT members, this study provides insight into the complexity of teams providing coordinated responses to campus sexual assault. Both of these studies offer important information on strengthening college and university responses to sexual violence.

The final two articles examine sexual trauma within the U.S. Military. In the article, Seeking Help for the Health Sequelae of Military Sexual Trauma: A Theory-Driven Model of the Role of Institutional Betrayal, Ryan Holliday and Lindsey L. Monteith propose a theoretical model of the role of institutional betrayal in help-seeking among survivors of military sexual trauma (MST). This model positions institutional betrayal as a key barrier to disclosure and identifies key mediators of this relationship. This theoretical model provides a helpful starting point for future research to examine the reasons MST survivors do not use resources, and how institutions and healthcare providers within the U.S. Military can address these barriers. In The Impact of Leadership Responses to Sexual Harassment and Gender Discrimination Reports on Emotional Distress and Retention Intentions in Military Members, Samantha Daniel, Adon Neria, and Elizabeth Davis examine the relationships between positive and actions following a report of sexual harassment or gender discrimination and victims’ emotional distress, retention intentions, and mental health outcomes. This study examines data gathered by the department of defense (2016 Workplace and Gender Relations Survey of Active Duty Member). The findings provide evidence that positive chain of command responses after disclosures are associated with decreased emotional distress and increased retention intentions, while negative responses were associated with opposite outcomes. This study emphasizes the opportunity that leaders have to promote military members’ well-being while addressing sexual harassment and gender discrimination. These two studies provide a helpful look into U.S. Military responses to sexual violence and how this institution can provide more support for survivors of sexual trauma.

Collectively, the articles in this special issue offer a wide variety of perspectives on key institutions from important institutional members. These articles analyze data from sexual trauma survivors, informal support providers, advocates, sexual assault kits, police records, criminal justice members, campus administrators, and community-based providers. In addition, these articles approach the study of institutional responses to sexual trauma using innovative qualitative and quantitative methods. Together, the studies in this special issue provide a more complex understanding of how institutions respond to sexual trauma and how these responses can be improved to better support survivors.

There are ways that this work can be built upon in the future. First, researchers can use similar approaches to examine other institutions, including primary and secondary schools, mental health systems, religious institutions, and government agencies and offices. Second, more research is needed to further establish the effectiveness (or ineffectiveness) of specific policies to address sexual violence within these institutions, such as policies mandating training of college employees and administrators, police officers and lawyers, and healthcare providers who respond to survivors of sexual assault. Third, more research is needed to document the effect of larger social, cultural, and political institutional responses to sexual violence. For instance, examining how high-profile cases of sexual assault – such as the hearings to investigate Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s accusations against Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh – affect survivors’ likelihood to come forward after an assault. Given the pervasiveness and deleterious effects of sexual violence, understanding and improving institutional responses will be a critical step towards supporting survivors.