Talk:Rape kit

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Medleya. Peer reviewers: Patriqueliu, Slklose.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Anr5404.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dcheim, Ballstatesoccer40, MrsJWalda, Jazzminn1010, Coffeecat1. Peer reviewers: Amborder.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Other items needed for a forensic/medical exam and treatment
Unless someone has a citation, I'm not so sure that a shovel is commonly used in a forensic/medical exam related to rape. I am going to remove it for now, but will gladly put it back if someone has a reference. Life Now (talk) 20:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

CBS news story about rape kits not being tested
CBS news did a story on how most rape kits aren't tested, because of the cost. Terrifying and outrageous. Should that be in this article? Or would it make victims who look up information about it, less likely to report? They even make the victims pay for it in some areas.  D r e a m Focus  01:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to update article
I am a student at the University of Chicago Law School taking a course on feminist economics. I am interested in updating this article to provide additional context for understanding the backlog problem in the United States. My early thoughts for accomplishing this include the following: I am very interested in receiving feedback on my proposed changes. I have added a list of potential references to my user page and welcome any suggestions for additional sources. Medleya (talk) 15:06, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * update the article headings and organization to better reflect the article's current backlog focus
 * expand the current "description and use" section to include collection procedures and requirements generally, as well as a description of the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS)
 * add a general overview of the backlog problem, including broader statistics and an explanation of why the backlog exists based on findings from recent studies
 * update the legal efforts by states and the federal government to combat the problem and describe the efficacy of such initiatives based on findings from recent studies
 * update the federal funding section to include the National Sexual Assault Kit Initiative by the Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Assistance

Expansion and reorganization
I am looking forward to updating this article over the course of the next two weeks as part of a course at the University of Chicago Law School. My initial proposal (above) focused on the United States, but I have decided to work towards creating a more global perspective instead. The following is a detailed description and rationale for my proposed changes:

Intentions Generally:
 * Expand article to include more global perspective. “Rape kit” focuses on the United States without indicating that in the title. I intend to expand the article to cover the use of rape kits around the world and the associated barriers to their use. In addition to the backlog problem in the United States, pertinent global issues include: rape kit shortages, incomplete collection of specimens (e.g., South Africa), and rape kit inaccessibility (e.g., in Canada & rural America & Nigeria).
 * Improve article headings and organization. The organizational structure and headings require thoughtful revision to provide readers with a clearer preview of the article’s core points.

Work Plan:
 * Add “Process” subsection after “Description and use” subsection. I intend to add information on collection procedures and requirements generally, including information (with headings) on the following:
 * Timing: add information on when rape kits need to be administered following sexual assault
 * Facilities: add description of the facilities that have rape kits and conduct the medical exam.
 * Examiners: add description of who can administer the examination, e.g., Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE) & Sexual Assault Response Team (SART); add information on the training required
 * Evidence collection: add description of the type of evidence that is collected, and then compiled into the kit
 * Storage: add description of the gen
 * Testing: add description of the various ways kits end up being tested, e.g. by victim request, by law, etc.; add information clarifying the relationship between kits and their submission to various DNA indexing systems, e.g. the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) in the United States


 * Add “Influence” subsection after new “Process” subsection. I intend to add information on the influence of forensic evidence on case outcomes of rape incidents, including statistics on the rates of matches, prosecutions and convictions connected to rape kits.
 * Add “Barriers to use” section. I intend to organize by problem type, potentially with links to later country material (in a “By country” subsection), or with subparts within the barriers with country-specific information. The barriers I’ve identified include:
 * Backlog problem
 * Inaccessibility
 * Shortages
 * Destruction
 * Cost barriers


 * Add additional country-specific information. I intend to add addition country-specific information, but am still debating on the organization. I am considering adding the information either under the corresponding barrier-type or under new subsection labeled “By country.”  I’ve located information on rape kit use and barriers in the following countries:
 * Canada (shortages)
 * India (unavailability of rape kits, lack of properly trained examiners, and intentions to set up crisis centers to perform examinations for rape kit)
 * Kenya (introduction of a locally-assembled rape kit into health facilities)
 * Nigeria (non-availability of rape kits)
 * South Africa (incomplete kits, i.e., missing proper specimens; insufficient examiner training and facilities)

I am very interested in receiving feedback on my proposed expansion and reorganization. Any tips on other countries to look at would be very helpful as well. Thanks! Medleya (talk) 23:49, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review
Great work so far! I think it’s great that you have added so much to the current state of rape kit usage and its obstacles. If I were to suggest anything, it would be to include illustrations (pictures of a rape kit or of the components of a generic rape kit would be a really great addition) and to watch out for the current balance of the article. Although well written, the article focuses a lot on hindrances to usage in the United States. While this is valuable and shouldn’t be removed, I also feel like it currently outweighs the writing done on a rape kit and its primary usage. This makes it less so an encyclopedia entry and more so like a directed literature review. I’m sure it’ll balance out well after you have completed the article, but that is what I would watch out for while continuing to develop it! Patriqueliu (talk) 02:24, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your suggestions! I completely agree with the balance issue. I hope to take the specific information on the rape kit backlog in the United States and move it to its own article! Medleya (talk) 13:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Peer review 2
Hi April, First, I want to say that the information you have added so far has truly developed the article and shed light on the important issues in the topic. The article is understandable by all audiences as well. As for suggestions, I think you could develop the introduction to touch upon the important issues of impacts and barriers that you explain later. I also believe you could use illustrations to make the article more inviting and to create a larger impact on the audience. Lastly, I think you could add more information on suggested reforms and best practices. Slklose (talk) 06:13, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your thoughtful comments! I love the idea of expanding the overview section and will certainly work to do so. Developing a section on reforms and best practices is a great idea as well. If I don't manage to cover it in my final contribution, I certainly hope a future editor will! Medleya (talk) 13:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to split article
I am currently editing this article to give it a more global perspective. I find that the amount of information on the rape kit backlog in the United States overwhelms the article, and yet still needs further expansion. To remedy this, I'd like to create a new page entitled "Rape kit backlog in the United States." The current article will still describe the backlog problem, and include a short summary in the "by country" section, but will then link to the new page that will provide a more detailed account of causes, funding, legislation, and state-specific information. I am interested to hear feedback on this proposal! Thanks! Medleya (talk) 13:37, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rape kit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101021015402/http://www.goodhousekeeping.com/family/celebrity/mariska-hargitay-rape-kit-backlog to http://www.goodhousekeeping.com/family/celebrity/mariska-hargitay-rape-kit-backlog

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:59, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Testing of Male Victims of Sexual Assault
In a quick scan of the article, I didn't see anything to do with the use of these examination kits on male victims of sexual assault. Did I miss something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Godofredo29 (talk • contribs) 02:35, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Can anyone find how many rape kits are used and tested?
I've been researching this, and all I can find are numbers of rape kits used but not tested. How many are used and tested? It seems like an important number. Can someone find it and add it? PapayaSF (talk) 00:42, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I added to this article under the backlog section that the real number of tested versus untested is unknown because there is no system to keep track of the kits. If anyone has more resources that add it would greatly improve the article.Jpena6 (talk) 15:07, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Goddard, Vitullo, and reliable sources
I'm happy to see Marty Goddard's role discussed in the article, as is overdue. I'm a little concerned, however, that the material surrounded her (here and in the article on her) is so heavily sourced to the recent NYTimes piece, which I note is apparently in the Opinion section. I also note that the article on Louis R. Vitullo is probably not WP:NPOV right now. Perhaps there are stronger sources that emphasize Goddard's role? With the current sources, I suggest that generally we should say in wikivoice that the kits were developed by Goddard and Vitullo (which is supported already by the 1978 nytimes article), and attribute (per WP:RSEDITORIAL) statements from the recent opinion piece to the author. pinging you as originator of the article on Goddard, and as having thought about the sourcing recently. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:03, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi . That NYT article was what drove me to create the Marty Goddard article, and is likely the source of most of the recent interest in her. While it's classed as an opinion, it reads as more of a reflective essay than a standard newspaper op-ed. I would presume it was held to the same standards of factual accuracy as regular NYT articles, and I felt I could trust its factual accuracy when writing the Goddard article. The most controversial statement in the Goddard article (that Vitullo yelled at Goddard when she brought him the design for rape test kits), I did explicitly ascribe to a source.
 * I agree with you that it is hard to tell what the relative contributions of Goddard and Vitullo (and perhaps others) were to designing the kits, and it would be interesting to see more written about this, although I don't know that the 1978 article is more accurate just because it is not labelled as an "opinion". Because of that uncertainty, I originally wrote at the Goddard article that she was "instrumental in developing" the kit, which got changed to just "developed" and then "invented". I would be fine with using my original language, but perhaps we should check with the editors who modified it. Tdslk (talk) 02:48, 26 June 2020 (UTC)