Strengthening Prosecutors Capacities for Sexual Crime Investigations: Evidence from Colombia

Last registered on June 02, 2018

View Trial History

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title

Strengthening prosecutors capacities for sexual crime investigations: Evidence from Colombia

RCT ID

AEARCTR-0003010

Initial registration date

May 31, 2018

Initial registration date is when the trial was registered.

It corresponds to when the registration was submitted to the Registry to be reviewed for publication.

First published

June 02, 2018, 6:42 AM EDT

First published corresponds to when the trial was first made public on the Registry after being reviewed.

Locations

Country

Colombia

Region

Latin America

Primary Investigator

Name

Pilar CAF

Affiliation

CAF - Development Bank of Latin America

Contact Primary Investigator

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Name

Lesbia Maris

PI Affiliation

CAF - Development Bank of Latin America

Contact Investigator

PI Name

Juan Vargas

PI Affiliation

Universidad del Rosario

Contact Investigator

PI Name

Martin Rossi

PI Affiliation

Universidad de San Andrés

Contact Investigator

Additional Trial Information

Status

Completed

Start date

2017-08-01

End date

2018-05-31

Keywords

Crime, Violence, & Conflict, Gender

Additional Keywords

criminal justice, criminal prosecution, sexual assault prosecution, legal systems, prosecuting attorneys

JEL code(s)

Secondary IDs

Abstract

Sexual violence’s victims face negative consequences, both physical and psychological, that could last throughout their lifetime. Despite their severity, sexual crimes are usually underreported because victims are afraid, are being pressured by their offenders or simply because they lack the relevant information about the process or do not trust the justice system. Furthermore, cases that are effectively reported tend to be poorly managed and are frequently influenced by social prejudices that can bias the prosecutorial processes. To our knowledge, there is limited empirical evidence about the effectiveness of different strategies aimed at improving the investigation and judicial process through training focused on reducing biases and pre-conception on the part of the prosecutors. Along with the Office of the Attorney General, we conducted a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the impact on the investigation process of sexual cases of a training workshop ("Taller de socialización del “Protocolo de investigación y judicialización de violencia sexual”) for Colombian prosecutors. The workshop is part of an initiative led by the Office of the Attorney General aimed at improving the quality and outcomes of sexual crimes cases by providing prosecutors with tools to overcome technical and investigative obstacles in an unbiased and victim-centered way.

External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation

CAF, Pilar et al. 2018. "Strengthening prosecutors capacities for sexual crime investigations: Evidence from Colombia." AEA RCT Registry. June 02. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.3010-1.0

Former Citation

CAF, Pilar et al. 2018. "Strengthening prosecutors capacities for sexual crime investigations: Evidence from Colombia." AEA RCT Registry. June 02. https://www.socialscienceregistry.org/trials/3010/history/30248

Sponsors & Partners

There is information in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access.

Request Information

Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)

The training workshops aim to strengthen prosecutors’ capacities on how to effectively manage sexual crimes. Specifically, the main goals of the training workshops are:
(1) Familiarize prosecutors with conceptual terms related to sexual violence and how to approach the investigation process.
(2) Introduce how prejudices and biases can affect investigation processes and how to prevent them.
(3) Crime details and research acts that must be take into account.
(4) Effective trial strategies.
(5) How to treat the victim and apply differential approaches on this type of cases.
This workshop is targeted to judicial investigators and judicial police officers who have the higher proportion of sexual crime cases on their Sectional Division.
Intervention will be done by Setional Division during 2 days (or 16 hours).

Intervention Start Date

2017-10-01

Intervention End Date

2017-12-31

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)

Primary outcomes are divided into two main categories (1) process and (2) stages

1) Process: these outcomes are related to the fluency of the investigation process. These variables are measured in number of days
-Interview: days from the start of the investigation to the interview
-Imputation: days from the start of the investigation to the imputation
-Prosecution: days from the start of the investigation to the prosecution; and from the imputation to the prosecution
-Case unsolved: days from the start of the investigation to moment when it is decided the case cannot be solved; and from the imputation to the date when it is decided that the case cannot be solved.

2) Stages: binary variables that capture what stages did the investigation process reached for each sexual case:
-Interview
-Imputation
-Prosecution
-Case unsolved
-Trial

Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Primary outcomes will be constructed using information from SPOA (acronym for Sistema Penal Oral Acusatorio, also the name of Colombia’s criminal justice system) which is a reporting and follow-up automated system.
With the training it is expected that the prosecution of sex crime cases is conducted more effectively, increasing the probability of resolution and guaranteeing at the same time, the physical and emotional well-being of victims. Specifically, we expect the training to affect:
• The speed with which investigative actions are ordered, especially at the beginning of the investigation, and specifically related to the collection of evidence.
• The quantity and quality with which the victims collaborate with the investigation process.
• The quality of investigative actions throughout the whole investigative process.
• The probability that cases evolve to a successful resolution.

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)

(3) Investigation quality and final outcomes: improve internal management of Sectional Division in terms of the flow of sexual crimes.
-Number of sexual crimes
-Number of imputations
-Number of cases with interviews
-Number of cases with prosecution
-Number of filed cases
-Number of cases at initial investigation stage
-Number of cases at pre-trial stage
-Number of cases at trial stage
-Number of active cases
-Number of penalties

Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary outcomes will also be constructed using information from SPOA.
If cases are handled more effectively by prosecutors, and if they evolve successfully, we expect that the number of sex assaults reports increases, as well as the overall performance of sectional divisions in terms of number of cases in each phase.

Experimental Design

As the training occurs at the Sectional Division level and all sectionals had to receive the training, we divided the 35 divisions in two groups (18 in the treatment group and 17 in the control group), that would receive the training with a six-month difference. We also stratified by type of Sectional Division. Sectional divisions are grouped by types depending on the number of subdirections each one of them has on their charge.
In each sectional division, only 12 or 13 prosecutors could participate in the training. We created a ranking of prosecutors in each Sectional Division according to their individual load of sexual crime cases (from highest to lowest). The first 12 prosecutors were chosen for the workshop, and in some cases, this number was lower because there were less than 12 prosecutors in some Sectional Divisions. Also, 6 additional prosecutors were chosen to replace the selected ones in case that one of the originally chosen could not attend the training workshop (for Sectional Divisions that had fewer prosecutors, this number was smaller or simply did not exist).

Experimental Design Details

Randomization Method

Randomization done in office by a computer using Stata

Randomization Unit

Sectional Division

Was the treatment clustered?

Yes

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters

35 sectionals

Sample size: planned number of observations

We would be studying for each sectional all the reports received during the first six months of 2018. Each sectional division receives on average 100 sexual crime reports between january and may. Thus, we should have about 3,500 cases in our dataset.

Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms

18 sectionals in the treatment group and 17 in the control group.

Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)

Supporting Documents and Materials

IRB