This file was prepared for electronic distribution by the inforM staff.
Questions or comments should be directed to inform-editor@umail.umd.edu.


                           Appendix A 

Methodology

How did we arrive at today's findings? Below, we summarize a
methodology intended to err on the conservative side -- eliminating
at each step of the way, possible sources of error.

The Data Request

Several months ago, the Judiciary Committee sent out requests to
state criminal justice statistical analysis centers in all 50
states. We specifically asked for any available data relating to
the disposition of criminal prosecutions for the following crimes:
murder, assault, kidnapping, child abuse, and rape. Additionally,
we asked for information relating to the sentencing of convicted
persons for the same set of crimes. In each case, we requested a
specific breakdown of offenses covered. For example, if a state
provided us with information labeled "sex offenses," we requested
a further breakdown of offenses covered -- for example: forcible
rape, statutory rape, aggravated sexual assault, etc. Each state
responded differently to our requests. In several instances, states
had none of the requested information, and in others, data was
readily accessible. The charts contained within this report present
the final compilation of this information, provided that it met the
standards of data accountability set forth below.

Data Integrity

The Committee took great pains to ensure that all figures could
withstand the highest levels of scrutiny. The prevalence of rape --
and the criminal justice system's response -- has been a hotly
debated issue in recent years. Above all, we felt it imperative to
produce a report that responds to the areas of disagreement with
consistent, thorough data. Thus, we developed a check-point system
that was then applied to each states' data to determine whether
that state would be included in the report.

Checkpoint 1: Consistent Information 

     * While every effort was made to garner data from as many
     states as possible, not every state was able to respond to our
     request with suitable information. The data in Chapter IV
     includes only those states that could provide figures that
     were compatible with our standards. For instance, some states
     were unable to provide information that could be broken down
     among various degrees of sexual assault, others did not
     distinguish among types of "sex offenses," while still other
     states provided information on multiple offenses. Where this
     was the case, only data that reflected forcible rape however
     it may be defined in the state's law, was ultimately used.

Checkpoint 2: Limiting Data to Forcible Rape Only 

     * We included only those cases we knew to be forcible rape,
     and only from those states that were able to provide a
     breakdown of their figures' coverage. For example, if a state
     provided a certain number of convictions for "sexual
     offenses," we included that states's figure only if we could
     verify from that state that the term sexual offense excluded
     non-forcible rape offenses such as statutory rape, fondling,
     or lewd and lascivious behavior.

Checkpoint 3: Classifying Sentencing Data Conservatively 

     * Sentencing data was classified conservatively. Any sentence
     that could have involved incarceration was included as an
     offense involving prison time, even if the prison or jail time
     involved was minimal. For example, states often classify
     offenses as "probation plus jail" -- all such sentences are
     included in the incarceration category.

Checkpoint 4: Jail/Prison Difference

     * In compiling the jail/prison comparison, we were careful to
     ensure that those individuals included in the jail category
     fit particular standards. Several states specifically listed
     a category of "jail," as opposed to prison or another form of
     incarceration. Other states' categories (e.g. "split sentence"
     or "suspended sentence") were included in the "jail" category
     only if the state confirmed that characterization after a
     telephone inquiry.

Checkpoint 5: Time Period of the Report 

     * We sought to present data that represented one particular
     time period -- calendar year 1990. Nevertheless, there were a
     few states included in the Chapter IV compilation that
     possessed data only from a more recent time period. Where such
     is the case, we have so indicated.