CLEVELAND, Ohio – Ohio has picked a statewide tracking system that will allow victims to anonymously check the status of their rape kits from the time they are collected, to when they are tested, and as they are later stored or destroyed.

The law endorsing the creation of such a tracking system passed last year. It also requires medical facilities, law enforcement, and public and private labs to use it.

The system the state plans to put in place is one built from scratch in 2017 by the Idaho state police forensics division, which provides it for free to other cities, states and territories.

Gov. Mike DeWine, then attorney general, said last year that the system would bolster transparency about evidence in sexual assault cases, which is required by Ohio law in almost all cases to be sent for testing within 30 days.

At least 17 states currently have laws that require evidence kit tracking and at least five other states were considering legislation this year.

Attorney General Dave Yost’s office has hired a contractor to make sure the Idaho software system is integrated and accessible for all the different agencies that will need to share information.

Lawmakers, who approved the law as part of a larger criminal justice bill in December 2018, gave a one-year window from the time the tracking system is created for entities that are part of the “chain of custody” for rape kits to start utilizing it.

The state reimburses medical facilities for the sexual assault evidence kits they collect. In the past, the state was unable to track how many of those kits it paid for were submitted by law enforcement to state, regional or private labs for testing.

Last year, Ohio law enforcement submitted 2,836 sexual assault kits to the Ohio Bureau of Investigation lab for testing. That was 167 percent more kits than were submitted in 2011, when DeWine first urged for all kits to be sent and doesn’t account for evidence tested at local or private labs.

Yost’s office doesn’t have a concrete timeline yet for the system to be operational, a spokesperson said. But the “next step” includes working with medical, lab, law enforcement and victim advocacy partners to develop guidelines a state rules committee will have to approve for the system.

Sen. Stephanie Kunze, a Republican from Hillard, sponsored the tracking legislation in the Ohio Senate. Kunze said she believes the administrative rules for the system can be outlined by March and reviewed by the state’s Joint Committee on Agency Rule Review (JCARR), of which she is a member, so the system can be online next year.

The attorney general’s office will then hold regional training for nurses, law enforcement officers, prosecutors, lab officials and victim advocates, Steve Irwin, a spokesman for Yost’s office said.

A working model

Matthew Gamette, who oversees forensics lab services for the Idaho State Police, said the evidence tracking software was designed to be as simple as possible so that any city, state or entity could easily adapt it:

Sexual assault evidence kits can be tracked using scannable barcodes or tracking numbers.

Unique tracking numbers are given to victims after the kit collection is complete, but any person with the number can type it into a web portal to find out the current status and location of the kit.

See Idaho’s Sexual Assault Kit Tracking portal.

The public portal includes no names or personal identifying information of victims and they aren’t asked to provide any information when they use the system.

“We don’t know how many victims are checking their own cases,” Gamette said. “We don’t want to know. We elected [to not have an] email address, number or anything linked to a specific victim so victims didn’t feel like they could be tracked down.”

In October 2018, Idaho’s system was searched for information 1,100 times. Of those searches, 995 were law enforcement, hospitals or labs, and 145 were anonymous users, according to the annual report.

In Idaho, victims can check on the testing status of their kits, and they also can see the results, including whether a DNA profile or profiles have been found or if DNA has been entered into the Combined DNA Index System or CODIS, and whether a hit or match has been established.

What information will be available to Ohio victims isn’t outlined in the legislation. Members of an advisory board appointed by DeWine, which met twice last year, appeared reticent for Ohio’s system to make information on DNA profiles or CODIS hits or matches available to victims, according to notes of an August 2018 meeting.

“This is information more appropriate for law enforcement to communicate,” the notes state.

Analyzing results

Gamette said the Idaho tracking system, which went online in 2016, has provided invaluable information for the state lab and legislators in his state.

Lawmakers get kit-testing status updates every 90 days, and an annual report tallies the number of evidence kits: purchased and distributed, collected at medical facilities, turned over to law enforcement, properly submitted for testing and those that garner DNA database hits. The report also lists law enforcement agencies that did not adhere to the process and, for those that did, how long it took for kits to be submitted.

For instance, last year it took Idaho law enforcement agencies 17 days, on average, to send a kit for testing. That was an improvement from the prior year, when it took an average of 60 days.

Each law enforcement agency also has to provide a breakdown of reasons for any kits it does not send for testing.

The report is vital for helping the state determine the level of resources needed for kits to be tested most efficiently, and to identify areas for improvement in the collection and testing processes, Gamette said.

Most recently, Gamette said, based on concerns from lawmakers, the system started tracking whether police complete followed up investigations on DNA hit information.

That helped lawmakers and the public understand that testing kits only solves about a quarter of the problem, Gamette said. “You also need to get [additional] resources to investigate the cases and resources to prosecute the suspects.”

Kunze said she thinks the system will be invaluable tool for increasing transparency for survivors who deserve to have information about their cases. Having an annual report or data available for legislators and for others who use the system also would increase accountability, she said.

“I think that’s part of the goal,” Kunze said. “To prevent a situation ever again where kits get backlogged…or not tested for whatever reason.” The hope is the more that can be learned, the more assaults can be prevented, she said.

Best practices

Rosa Beltre, Ohio Alliance to End Sexual Violence executive director, said training is key to make sure medical staff, law enforcement and staff at state and private labs properly use the system.

There is also a need for a central place that a sexual assault survivor can call with questions about how to use the system or about information that is provided so that they are not bounced around and their trauma isn’t made worse by not being able to get clear information about their case.

“That’s where I continue to be concerned that those things are not ironed out,” said Beltre, who was a member of the advisory board that met twice in prior to legislation being passed.

Gamette said he doesn’t have a whole lot of feedback from victims or survivors because the system doesn’t track their use for confidentiality reasons. He said that he’s heard of two instances where victims contacted state lawmakers or employers to resolve problems with using the system since it went online in 2016.

Beltre said agreement on what information sexual assault survivors will be able to get from the system also is important, including the results of DNA testing.

“That’s the part we are still missing,” Beltre said.