National Sexual Assault Response Team Survey Report

2009

author - Jennifer Zajac


This report summarizes the information gathered by the National Sexual Violence Resource Center 
(NSVRC) via a web-based survey regarding how local, state, territory and tribal communities have 

developed Sexual Assault Response Teams (SARTs). The survey is a follow-up to the national needs 

assessment conducted in 2005 by NSVRC. The information from the current survey will help NSVRC obtain 
an updated picture of SARTs nationwide. 

The NSVRC contacted over 150 agencies (e.g., 
state/territory/tribal sexual assault coalitions; 
Services, Trainees, Officers, Prosecutors (STOP) 
grantees) to complete and distribute the survey 
to their members and other relevant parties. In 
addition, NSVRC posted information about the 
survey on approximately one dozen listservs for 
individuals working in the anti-sexual violence 
field. (See Appendix B for a list of the agencies 
and listservs.) The survey was available for 
completion from December 22, 2008 
to February 20, 2009. 

The first step in writing this report was to 
develop a data set from the raw information 
provided in the surveys. The data set was 
downloaded from the website used to collect 
the survey responses and imported into SPSS (a 
statistical software package) to clean and code 
the data. Through this process, incomplete, 
duplicate, and contradictory responses were 
identified and eliminated. Of the 340 surveys 
submitted by respondents, 257 were valid cases 
that were analyzed further. Eighty-three cases 
were eliminated because they met one or more 
of the following criteria:

-The majority of the survey was incomplete.
These cases represent the majority of the 
eliminated cases (65 cases) and for the 
most part, respondents completed only the 
background information section of the survey. 

-The agency/organization did not havea SART 
team. Although there was no question that 
asked respondents if they have a SART team, 
there were four respondents who indicated 
(usually in the “other” section of the item that 
asked the name of the SART team) that they 
have no SART team. 

-Duplicate forms for the same SART.Fourteen 
agencies submitted multiple forms. In 
each case, the form that included the most 
complete information and/or the form that 
was completed last was included in the data 
set and the other form was deleted. 

Although almost a quarter of the cases 
were eliminated from the data set (83 cases, 
24%), the data set that was used in analyses 
represents the agencies with active SART teams 
(which is the population for whom the survey 
was most appropriate). 


I. Description of the responding agencies and SART Team Administration

Agency types

The largest percentage of responses were from individuals at dual centers serving both sexual violence 
and domestic violence victims (n=64, 25%), followed by sexual assault forensic examiner programs 
(n=52, 20%). The next highest percentage of responses were from rape crisis/recovery agencies (n=50, 
20%) and health care organizations (n=31, 12%). These types of agencies are similar to the agencies that 
completed the survey in 2005. Table 1 provides a complete listing of all of the various types of agencies 
that responded to the survey. 

Table 1. Type of agency responding to the survey

Agency type						Number of respondents (%)

Dual center (domestic violcen and sexual Violence)	64 (25%)
Sexual Assault Foresic Examiner Program			52 (20%)
Rape crisis/recovery agency 				50 (20%)
Health care organization				31 (12%)
Other							17 (7%)
Prosecuting agency					9 (4%)
Law enforcement						8 (3%)
Domestic violence organization				7 (3%)
Dual coaltion (domestic violence and sexual assault)	6 (2%)
Sexual assault coalition				4 (2%)
Higher education					2 (1%)
Public health agency					2 (1%)
Social service organiztion				1 (<1%)
Tirbal government 					1 (<1%)


Position title of the person completing the survey

Most often, the survey was completed by the Sexual Assault Forensic Program Coordinator (n=40, 16%), 
Director (n=35, 14%), Sexual Assault Forensic Examiner (n=29, 11%), SART Coordinator (n=25, 10%), or 
Advocate (n=23, 9%). Below, Table 2 provides a complete listing of respondents by their position title. 

Table 2. Respondent position title

Position Title						Number of respondents (%)

Sexual Assault Forensic Program coordinator		40 (16%)
Director						35 (14%)
Sexual Assault Foresic examiner				29 (11%)
SART coordinator					25 (10%)
Advocate						23 (9%)
Other							21 (8%)
Program coordinator					18 (7%)
Administrator						17 (7%)
Supervisor/Administrator				10 (4%)
Health care professional				8 (3%)
Sexual Assault Response coordinator			6 (2%)
Law enforcement officer					4 (2%)
Counselor						3 (1%)
Educator						3 (1%)
Grant administrator					3 (1%)
Prosecutor						3 (1%)
Volunteer coordinator					3 (1%)
Victim witness specialist				2 (1%)
Attorney						1 (<1%)
Trainer							1 (<1%)


Areas served by the agencies 

There was variety in the areas served by the 
agencies. As shown in Figure 1, the largest 
percentage of respondents indicated that they serve 
only rural areas (n=87, 35%) while the smallest 
percentage of respondents indicated that they serve 
a combination of urban and suburban areas (n=10, 
4%). These findings are interesting, especially if they 
are representative, given that it is often the case 
that rural areas are underserved in terms of social 
services. These percentages are similar to responses 
provided in the 2005 survey. 

In addition to describing the areas they serve in 
terms of rural, urban and/or suburban, respondents 
also indicated whether or not they serve unique 
populations including campuses, military bases, 
or tribal communities. Of the 257 respondents, 8 
(3%) of the respondents serve tribal communities, 
22 (9%) serve a military base or installation, and 
71 (28%) provide services to a campus. While the 
percentage of respondents indicating they serve 
campuses is similar to the figure reported in the 
2005 survey, the percentage of respondents 
indicating they provide services to a military base 
is smaller among the current group of respondents 
(9% in 2009 vs. 15% in 2005). 

Figure 1. Areas served by agencies: Rural, urban, suburban

35%	Rural
17%	Urban
16%	All Three
13%	Suburban
8%	Urban & Rural
8%	Rural & Suburban
4%	Urban & Suburban

Figure 2. Length of time SART Team Approach has been utilized

34%	>10 Years
31%	6-9 Years
19%	3-5 Years
9%	1-2 Years
7%	<1 Year

Administrative details regarding the SARTs

Most of the SART teams are not incorporated/do 
not have 501c3 status (n=152, 75%). However, 55 
respondents indicated that they do not know the 
incorporation status of their SART.

As shown in Figure 2, the largest percentage of 
the SART teams had been in place for 10 or more 
years (n=81, 34%). In comparison, in 2005, the 
largest percentage of respondents indicated their 
SART team had been in existence for 3-5 years. 
The comparatively “older age” of the current SART 
teams may be because many of the same agencies 
responded to this survey and to the survey in 
2005. If this is true, it would indicate that many 
SART teams have sustained themselves over the 
past four years since the last survey.

In terms of administrative oversight of the SART 
teams, the largest percentage of respondents 
indicated that their SART team has a paid leader 
(n=111, 49%) who is either full-time (n=68, 30%) 
or part-time (n=43, 19%). This is a positive 
change from the 2005 survey when the largest 
percentage of respondents indicated that their 
SART had no administrator/coordinator (n=103, 
40%). During the current survey period, 48 
respondents (21%) said their SART team has 
no administrator/coordinator. SART teams also 
described their leadership as a full-time volunteer 
(21, 9%) or part-time volunteer (46, 20%). 
Those agencies that have an administrator/
coordinator for their SART team describe this 
position as permanent (n=161, 88%) rather than 
rotating (n=23, 13%). When the position is rotated, 
it is most frequently rotated annually (n=10, 46%). 
Figure 3 illustrates the percentages of each type of 
administrator/coordinator position in the agencies. 
Where the administrator/coordinator positions 
exist, they are most likely to be housed in 
community-based victim advocacy agencies 
(n=40, 40%) followed by health care facilities 
(n=26, 26%), other locations (n=19, 19%), or 
prosecuting offices other than the Attorney 
General’s offices (n=7, 7%). These locations 
are similar to findings from the 2005 survey. 
In addition, current respondents said their 
leader offices were located in law enforcement 
departments (n=6, 6%) or government-based 
victim advocacy agencies (n=2, 2%) 
In terms of funding for SART teams, the largest 
percentage of respondents (n=100, 39%) indicated 
that they receive no funding for their SART. This 
is a larger percentage than in 2005 when 35% 
of respondents reported their SART receives no 
funding (n=91). Twenty-seven (11%) of respondents 
said they do not know about funding. 

For those SART teams that receive funding, the 
largest percentage of respondents report receiving 
federal funds (51, 20%) and/or local funds (50, 
19%). This marks a change from 2005 when state 
funding (both SART specific and non-SART specific) 
accounted for more funding for teams than local 
funds. These findings are illustrated in Figure 4. 

Figure 3. SART Team Administrator/Coordinator positions

30%	Full-Time Paid
21%	No Admin/Coord.
20%	Part-Time Volunteer
19%	Part-Time Paid
9%	Full-Time Volunteer

Figure 4. Funding for SART Teams

Federal			20%
Local			19%
SART State		19%
Corporate/Foundation	14%
Fundraising		14%
Non-SART State		 8%

Regarding federal funding, the largest number 
of respondents report receiving federal funds 
from VOCA (Victims of Crime Act) (53, 21%)1 
or the STOP Grant Program (35, 14%). Fewer 
reported receiving federal funds through the 
State Coalition Grant Program (7, 3%), Rural 
Grant Program (5, 2%), Encourage Arrest and 
Enforcement of Protection Orders (3, 1%), Campus 
Grant Program (2, <1%), LAV Grant Program (2, 
<1%), or Tribal Government Program (1, <1%). 

1 Note that some (n=3) answered this item even though they said they 
didn’t get federal funding, hence the mismatch of numbers. 



II. SART Teams 

Collaboration

As shown in Figure 5, advocacy, law enforcement agencies, forensic examiners, and prosecution agencies 
were the main agencies on SART teams. These findings are the same as those in 2005. Over 65% of the 
SART teams (171, 67%) had all four of these agencies represented on their SART team. 

Figure 5. Main Agencies on the SART Teams

Advocacy		86%
Law Enforcement		84%
Forensic Examiners	77%
Prosecution		76%
Social Services		42%
Health Care		37%
Crime Lab		22%
Mental Health		22%
Education		21%
Dispatch 		 8%


In addition to the main agencies on their 
SART team, respondents also described 
agencies with whom they currently collaborate. 
Respondents named all of the agencies listed 
in Fig. 5, but also described other agencies 
with whom they collaborate, including 
governmental advocates (n=133, 52%), 
attorneys (n=106, 41%), public health agencies 
(n=83, 32%), and faith-based organizations 
(n=48, 19%). 

In comparison to 2005, many SART teams have a 
formalized interagency agreement with some or 
all of their SART team members. The interagency 
agreements are more frequently written (133, 
52%) rather than verbal (90, 35%). 

Table 3. Interagency agreements

Some SART Team Members		Written: 40 (16%)	Verbal: 41 (16%)
All SART Team Members		Written: 93 (36%)	Verbal: 49 (19%)

Conducting SART Team business

The business of the SART teams may include 
holding meetings, reviewing cases, attending 
training, and developing materials to support and 
guide their work as a SART team. 

The frequency with which SART teams hold 
meetings varies among teams. The largest 
percentage of respondents stated that their 
SART team meets quarterly (n=68, 29%), 
monthly (n=64, 27%), or bimonthly (n=43, 18%). 
Approximately 10% (n=26) stated that they hold 
meetings as issues arise. The percentage of SART 
teams reporting they have never held a meeting 
or no longer hold meetings currently (n=19, 8%) 
is similar to the responses in 2005 (9%). 

One of the tasks taken on during SART team 
meetings is reviewing cases. While 25% of the 
respondents (n=58) said that they review cases 
on a regular basis, 34% (n=81) indicated that they 
review cases as issues arise. Most respondents 
who review cases during SART team meetings 
reported doing so monthly (n=35, 42%), quarterly 
(n=28, 33%), or every other month (n=16, 19%). 
However, 25% (n=64) of the respondents stated 
that their SART team does not review cases. 

Another activity that SART teams may utilize 
is training opportunities and most of the 
respondents indicated that they hold trainings 
specifically for SART team members (n=139, 
64%) although 50 (or 23%) said they do not 
hold training specifically for their SART team 
members. Those who indicated the frequency 
of such trainings usually hold trainings as issues 
arise (n=51, 37%), annually (n=33, 24%), or twice 
a year (n=26, 19%).
 
SART Team services

This section focuses on two services in which 
SART teams engage: 
-Community awareness/educationy 
-Forensic exams. 

Community awareness/education

SART teams often engage in activities to raise 
community awareness of sexual violence and 
provide educational services to the public. 
Respondents were asked to indicate the 
community awareness and education efforts 
they engage in as a team. Compared to reports 
regarding these activities in 2005, a smaller 
percentage of the current respondents report 
their SART teams engage in such activities. In 
2005, the percentage engaging in such activities 
ranged from 6% to 60%, while the current 
figures range from 2% to 34%. In addition, 70 
of the current respondents (27%) indicated they 
do not engage in any community awareness or 
education efforts. Such differences may reflect 
difficult economic times across the nation. 
SART teams directed most of their awareness and 
education efforts to training other responders 
(n=88, 34%) and providing printed materials 
about responding to (n=82, 32%) and preventing 
sexual violence (n=70, 27%). SART teams also 
engaged in rape prevention education efforts 
in the community (n=58, 23%) and in schools 
(n=40, 16%) including peer education programs in 
schools and colleges (n=39, 15%). 

Other printed materials produced and distributed 
by SART teams include survivor handbooks (n=36, 
14%) and multilingual educational materials (n=29, 
11%). In addition, SART teams engaged in very 
“public” awareness and education efforts including 
public service announcements (n=24, 9%), 
magazine/newspaper ads (n=20, 8%), and billboard 
messages (n=5, 2%). In addition, SART teams 
engaged in very “public” awareness and education 
efforts including public service announcements 
(n=24, 9%), magazine/newspaper ads (n=20, 8%), 
and billboard messages (n=5, 2%), see Table 4.

Table 4. Community awareness/education

Type of Community awareness/education		# (%)

Train other responders				88 (34%)

Printed materials on 
responding to sexual violence			82 (32%)

Printed materials on 
preventing sexual violence			70 (27%)

Community-based
rape prevention education			58 (23%)

School-based rape
prevention education				40 (16%)

Peer education programs
in schools and colleges				39 (15%)

Publish survivor handbooks 			36 (14%)

Multilingual educational materials		29 (11%)

Public service announcements 			24 (9%)

Magazine/newspaper ads				20 (8%)

Billboard messages				5 (2%)



Forensic exams 

Forensic exams are most likely to occur in 
hospital settings including either multiple 
regional hospitals (n=79, 31%) or one designated 
hospital (n=70, 27%). Approximately 37% 
(n=94) of the forensic exams are performed in 
a hospital emergency room versus some other 
location in the hospital (n=33, 13%). In addition, 
6 respondents (2%) reported that forensic 
exams occur at a child advocacy center and 3 
respondents (1%) added that forensic exams for 
children are performed at a children’s hospital. 
The forensic exam locations identified this year 
are similar to those reported in 2005.


Table 5. Forensic exam locations

Location of forensic examinations 		# (%)

Hospital emergency room				94 (37%)

Multiple regional hospitals 			79 (31%)

One designated hospital				70 (27%)

Hopital location other 
than emergency room				33 (13%)

Community-based advocacy center			26 (10%)

Community-based health facility			14 (6%)

Campus health facility 				 8 (3%)

Military facility				 2 (1%)

Mobile sites					 2 (1%)



III. SART Team quality assurance measures

Tracking systems

SART teams track certain issues to measure the 
impact of their efforts. SART tracking systems 
are most likely to include case management and 
data collection (n=88, 34%), tracking forensic 
exam kits (n=61, 24%), and incident reports 
(n=52, 20%). In addition, SART teams track 
court-related information such as the court 
docket management system (n=16, 6%), sexual 
assault convictions (n=36, 14%), sentencing 
(n=25, 10%), and sexual assault protection orders 
(n=10, 4%). Though to a lesser extent, some 
SART teams also track probation conditions and 
violations (n=4, 2%), warrants (n=4, 2%), and 
recidivism rates (n=2, 1%). 

SART Team evaluation

In comparison to the 2005 responses, three 
times as many current respondents indicated 
the effectiveness of their SART team had been 
evaluated. In 2005, 18 respondents (7%) stated 
that their SART team had been evaluated 
compared to this survey period, where 54 (23%) 
respondents stated their SART team had been 
evaluated. Most of the evaluations were conducted 
by the SART team (n=36, 14%), rather than a 
funder (n=6, 2%), research team (n=6, 2%), or by a 
consulting evaluation organization (n=2, 1%). 

As shown in Table 6, of those SARTs that had 
been evaluated, most reported increases (rather 
than decreases or no change) in each of the 
issues evaluated. For example, the majority 
of respondents indicated increases in victims’ 
satisfaction with services, the reliability of 
evidence collection, and satisfaction with sexual 
assault trainings. However, many respondents 
reported being unsure of the results of the 
evaluation regarding many of the items. This 
indicates that even when an evaluation has been 
conducted, respondents may not be in a position 
to speak to the results of the evaluation with 
much certainty. 

Table 6. SART Team evaluation results

					Increased	Decreased	No Change	Unsure

Victims' satisfaction with services	29 (69%)	2 (5%)		1 (2%)		10 (24%)
Victims' perceptions of safety		15 (37%)	2 (5%)		9 (22%)		13 (32%)
Law enforcement reports			19 (46%)	2 (5%)		6 (15%)		12 (29%)
Number of cases prosecuted		18 (46%)	2 (5%)		6 (15%)		17 (44%)
Reliability of evidence collection	24 (63%)	  -    		2 (5%)		12 (32%)
Services to underserved populations	12 (36%)	1 (3%)		4 (12%)		16 (48%)
Sexual assault training			27 (66%)	1 (2%)		4 (10%)		9 (22%)
Mental health services			9 (32%)		1 (4%)		6 (21%)		12 (43%)
Services for individuals 
with disabilities			8 (27%)		  -  		7 (23%)		15 (50%)



IV. SART Teams and sustainability

This section of the report describes how SART 
teams differ depending on the number of years 
the SART teams have been in place. Looking at the 
characteristics associated with the SART teams that 
have been in place the longest, may help NSVRC 
identify (and subsequently support) factors that 
contribute to the sustainability of SART teams. 

A closer look at the characteristics of the SART 
teams by “age” revealed the following: 

-SART teams over 3 years old are more 
likely to be administered through a Sexual 
Assault Forensic Examiner programs while 
SART teams under 3 years old tend to be 
administered through Dual Centers. 

-Older SART teams (over 3 years old) are 
more likely to serve rural areas while higher 
percentages of younger SART teams (under 3 
years old) serve urban and suburban areas. 

-The youngest SART teams (those in existence 
for less than one year) are least likely to be 
incorporated. However, SART teams that had 
been in existence for 1-2 years are most likely 
to be incorporated. 

-SART teams are more likely to be funded the 
longer they have been in existence. 

-SART teams that have been in existence less 
than one year were the most likely to have no 
leader/facilitator. However, they were almost 
nearly as likely as the oldest SART team 
(those in existence over 10 years) to have a 
full-time paid leader/facilitator position. 

-SART teams tend to have the same agencies 
on their team regardless of the amount 
of time they have been in existence (e.g., 
advocacy, law enforcement, forensic 
examiners, prosecution). However, the oldest 
SART teams (10 years and older) are more 
likely than younger SART teams to partner 
with crime labs.

-Older SART teams (over 3 years old) are 
more likely to have written interagency 
agreements with team members while SART 
teams under 3 years old are more likely to 
have verbal agreements. 

-SART teams over 5 years old are more likely 
to review cases as a team and hold trainings 
for team members.

-SART teams are more likely to have engaged 
in evaluation (internal or external), the longer 
they have been in existence. 

Appendix A

Listservs used to solicit survey participation

-NSVRC SART Team Listserv (900 multidisciplinary subscribers) 

-NSVRC SANE Coordinator listserv 

-RAINnet listserv 

-College listserv (SAPC) 

-CAVnet listserv 

-US Territory listserv 

Specific agencies contacted to complete 
the survey and share the survey with 
their members:

-State, Territory and Tribal Sexual 
Assault Coalitions 

-International Association of Forensic Nurses 

-International Association of Chiefs of Police 

-Aequitas



About the Author – Jennifer Zajac

Jennifer Zajac is the Director of Program Evaluation and Technical Assistance in the Division of Applied 
Research and Evaluation at the University of Pittsburgh Office of Child Development. Jennifer’s primary 
interest is in supporting organizations to develop/adopt realistic and effective programs and practices and 
to help them demonstrate the worth of their work. Before coming to the University of Pittsburgh, Jennifer 
worked for the Center for Organizational Research and Evaluation (CORE) at Penn State University in Erie, 
PA where she also earned her Bachelor’s Degree in Psychology. While at CORE Jennifer worked with teen 
pregnancy prevention efforts and also evaluated a prison-based fathering program. Jennifer also has a 
Master’s in Community Psychology and Social Change from Penn State University in Harrisburg, PA.


National Sexual Violence Resource Center

The National Sexual Violence Resource Center (NSVRC), founded by the Pennsylvania Coalition Against 
Rape in July 2000, is the nation’s principle source of information regarding all aspects of sexual violence. 
We are committed to assisting the field through Collaboration * Prevention * Resources.


The content of this publication may be reprinted with the following acknowledgement: This material was reprinted, with 
permission, from the National Sexual Violence Resource Center’s publication entitled National Sexual Assault Response 
Team Survey Report, 2009. This report is available by visiting www.nsvrc.org




This project was supported by Grant Number 2009-TA-AX-K042, awarded by the Office on Violence Against Women, U.S. 
Department of Justice. The opinions, findings, conclusions, and recommendations expressed in this publication are those 
of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women.

© National Sexual Violence Resource Center 2011. All rights reserved.




123 North Enola Drive, Enola, PA 17025
Toll free: 877-739-3895 
www.nsvrc.org 
resources@nsvrc.org
On Facebook: facebook.com/nsvrc 
On Twitter: twitter.com/nsvrc