{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01221264367816092, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.47906976744186, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Examining Connections between the Police and Prosecution in Sexual Assault Case Processing: Does the Use of Exceptional Clearance Facilitate a Downstream Orientation?

Abstract After several decades of research on how the criminal justice system handles reports of sexual assault, the attrition of cases at the police and prosecutor stages continues to draw the attention of policy makers, victim advocates, and academics. Such attrition has implications for thousands of victims and their alleged offenders each year. Current estimates show that significant rates of attrition persist and vary across jurisdictions. Recent work in two jurisdictions reveals a pattern of exceptional clearances being used to close sexual assault cases reported to the police and that prosecutors are weighing in at the arrest stage. Broadening this analysis we use incident data from a multitude of jurisdictions that report to the National Incident Based Reporting System (NIBRS) in combination with data from other law enforcement sources to investigate how legal and extra-legal incident factors as well as agency factors differentiate the decision to clear cases by exceptional means from clearance by arrest. We find that agency, legal, and extra-legal factors predict the use of exceptional clearance relative to arrest and discuss how these findings suggest a downstream orientation in case processing.