WV would like to find out if any other sites have a centralized storage for reported SAKs and if so, do any of those do a “direct deposit of kits” directly from the hospital not having the SAK pass through law enforcement.
Please check the box next to the following questions if the answer is 'yes'.
Please enter the applicable Event Date if there is an Event associated with this TTA.
When entering an Event Date, the Time is also required.
If the TTA is targeted to a particular audience or location, please complete the questions below.
Milestones are an element, activity, work product, or key task associated with completing the TTA (e.g. kick-off meeting, collect data from stake holders, deliver initial data analysis).
Please complete the fields below, if applicable, to create a milestone for this TTA.
Rene emailed with her question.
Paige to find out from other Site Liaisons if anyone can provide assistance and recommendations to WV.
In the Monthly Check-in Communication, Rene indicated that she was still working with folks in WV about the direct deposit method for SAKs.
Rene is going to ask her colleagues about availability to set up a call.
In our Annual 2018 Check-in Call, Rene provided additional information about their needs on the Direct Debit Question. Direct Deposit Question
• WV Senate Bill 66 – allows for DCJS to make rules that will improve the response to SA. Currently, only non-reports go straight from hospital to Marshall for storage. They are looking into Direct Deposit as an option for SAKs. Currently, they are researching laws about SAKs going straight from hospital straight to lab. However, the LE submission sheet is mandatory. How are other states doing this?
• Crystal recommended checking with Kelle first to see if there are sites specifically to speak to about this.
• WV would like to understand more about the logistics – how does it work? They have a subcommittee that will include hospitals, LE, anyone involved in the whole process to help flesh out the rule but need more info and experienced thoughts.
Schedule call with Kelle Barrick.
Per Kelle Barrick's recommendation, Paige reached out to Pattie Melton to ask for a connection to Julie Renfro to get help for WV on this request. Pattie said that Paige should have a call with Julie with specific questions, and then, she should schedule a call with Amy J with WV. Paige scheduled a call with Julie and asked WV to send a list of questions for Paige to go over with Julie. Then, Paige reached out to Amy J for a list of availability and scheduled a call with WV and Amy J.
Have call with Julie and ask WV's questions.
Facilitate call with WV and Amy J.
Call was held with WV SAKI and Amy J to discuss the notes from the call with the California Crime Lab and to discuss further what WV was looking for in terms of creating a policy for direct deposit.
Discuss with the task force and determine what else they need from SAKI TTA.
At the Statewide Workshop, Paige checked with Rene on how this was all going, and she said the working group was doing well. If they have any additional questions, she will let me know.
Christina followed up on the Direct to DNA questions for the working group with a request about evidence retention.
Paige sent two items that could be of help:
1. Here is the first example that we have about Evidence Retention from Wisconsin:
They implemented a new protocol in January of 2016, allowing a hospital to send the kit directly to the WSCL for storage for up to ten years (the statute of limitations for second and third degree sexual assault in Wisconsin). At the end of that ten years, if the survivor hasn’t come forward to report the assault, the kit will be destroyed. If the survivor does come forward to report the assault, law enforcement will request the WSCL test the kit.
Attached is the form that WIDOJ includes in their sexual assault kits for SANE nurses and advocates to review with patients about their options.
Keeley Crowley who is the WI DOJ SAKI Site Coordinator is willing to speak with representatives from D.C. Her contact information is below.
Keeley Crowley
Program and Policy Analyst - Advanced
Office of Crime Victim Services
Wisconsin Department of Justice
(608) 261-8649
2. Three other examples of retention policies from JSO and Duluth.
Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office: See ‘SAU Unit Order 325’ Policy attached, pg 6, V.A.3.c. Additionally, see the two attachments from Duluth.
Paige collected answers to the questions from Pattie Melton and from the Partner call. Additionally, Amy and Jim followed up with a few thoughts after the call. These were put together into a Recommendations email to be sent to the site.
Suffice it to say that your questions made the SAKI TTA Team have lots of conversation around the topics. There was no clear ‘answer’ since these are all types of issues that MDTs are trying to decide, and no one can say exactly what is the best practice since this is pretty far into the details of larger conversations. One thing that Patti Powers mentioned was that as long as you are having the conversations with input from a MDT, you are approaching it from the right direction. It is just important that everyone get to provide input and possible pitfalls to make sure no one discipline is negatively impacted the decision of the whole.
I’m not sure if you think it would be helpful to have a SAKI TTA partner conference call in to assist in facilitating the discussion that should be possible. One question Jim Markey and Amy Durall had was how often are you having victims request for their kits to be destroyed? Jim had never heard of this as a request, and Amy (IACP previously with Austin PD as SBA) had only heard of it 1 time. If you are finding this to be a request, is it being mentioned as a possibility by someone?
Here are a few items of considerations that happened during the brainstorming –
If victims request that their kits be destroyed after reporting:
• This was one that everyone was really iffy on since it really does go back to ‘who owns the kit’. It has many implications since it was felt that most jurisdictions view it as belonging to the Evidence Property room of Law enforcement.
• SAKI TTA recommends that you seek a legal opinion on any potential WV Laws that address the ownership issue. If you would like AEquitas to join that conversation, let me know.
• Ensure Law Enforcement would not use this as an option to close a case. Jim was very concerned about presenting this option to the victim by advising “we really don’t have to test the kit, and we can destroy it as well” as a means to close the case.
• There was much discussion on if it is a good idea for this to even be presented as an option. Who would do it? There are so many ifs and potential issues around this being an option.
• If this policy is implemented, there will need to be a clear chain of what to do, how to do it, and who will do it. To make sure it’s uniform across the state and very clear, we feel considerable research should be done into this possibility. We also would be willing to review the text.
If they were non-reports then victims decide they don't want their kits stored:
• Jim did report that he knows many agencies have a policy for length of retention of non-reported SAK, so he didn’t see a reason why a victim couldn’t have it destroyed earlier than the retention schedule. However, it would be critical to have as much documentation as possible of this destruction. As with the destruction of any property, especially SAK’s, it can be an issue if a decision is made without consideration of future requests.
• Again, any decision should be fully vetted by the WV Prosecutors for implications that might not be considered at the time of the kit collection.
• The National Best Practices Sexual Assault Kits report does have Evidence Retention recommendations that start on page 68 of the document, which is page 82 in the pdf. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/250384.pdf
• Also, to note, when developing a policy about this jurisdictions should 1st follow their statutes of limitations in case a victim isn’t sure of destruction. Additionally, Jim was just really hesitant to ever tell law enforcement they can destroy a kit. He says it just opens up too much gray area.
Hence who "owns" the kits once collected?
• See above. This is a difficult conversation. Again, SAKI TTA could do a conference call with the team if you want to try and talk this out.
The other questions were about methods of destruction: Jim Markey on the methods of destruction. He says that each law enforcement agency has (or should have) specific policy directing the property custodian on appropriate destruction methods of any evidence. If you are going to try and provide guidance from a state level, he thought it would be good to get in contact with the International Association for Property & Evidence (IAPE) folks and look for guidance from them. He has a contact there if you would like for me to have him connect you. They provided some insight for another of my sites about another question. One thing he did note was that if there are any jurisdictions that consider the SAK a biohazard, that would complicate destruction. So, it would be good to make sure that none of your agencies make that distinction.
Shipping costs for kits to go from the hospital to the lab (do hospitals, LEAs, or someone else fund that?).
• Since the Direct Deposit method isn’t mainstream yet, everyone thinks that is probably jurisdiction dependent. Basically, there is no wrong way to do this, so it would be important to ask ‘what is the most sustainable method’ and ‘what is going to be easiest when creating the shipping forms’?
• Amy Durall also wondered about the Forensic Medical Examination Fund: https://pai.wv.gov/programsanddepartments/ForensicMedicalExaminationFun…
During the 2019 check-in call, Christina and Rene discussed their current work on the policy reviews. Rene mentioned that they are using what we've sent to work on beginning direct deposit in 2020.
Christina to reach out when they need a SME to call into their group and discuss many of the questions they are coming up with in their conversations.
I spoke to Christina at the Grantees Meeting, and all was well with their Working Group having what they needed for this request.
Please respond to the Performance Metrics below. The Performance Metrics questions are based on the TTA Type indicated in the General Information section of the TTA.
Please submit a signed letter of support from your agency’s executive or other senior staff member. The letter can be emailed to or uploaded with this request. The letter should be submitted on official letterhead and include the following information:
- General information regarding the request for TTA services, i.e., the who, what, where, when, and why.
- The organizational and/or community needs specific to the request for TTA services.
- The benefits or anticipated outcomes from the receipt of TTA services.
By submitting this application to BJA NTTAC, I understand that upon approval of this application for TTA, the requestor agrees to keep BJA NTTAC informed of any circumstances that may impact the delivery of the TTA, including changes in the date of the event, event cancellation, or difficulties communicating with the assigned TTA provider.
Please call [site:phone] if you need further assistance completing this application.