304 - Recruitment Methods for Evaluating Civil Legal Services Supporting Sexual Assault Survivors

Abstract Information: Evaluating the needs and experiences of sexual assault survivors seeking civil legal services is critical for improving this support system However, there have been no evaluations of this system for this population. Instead studies have evaluated the perspectives of service providers themselves (e.g., advocates). Recruiting survivors for evaluations provides unique challenges due to survivor privacy and confidentiality concerns, risk of retraumatization or harm to survivors, and survivors’ fears of judgment. Despite being a harder-to-reach population, it is integral to include survivor voices in our evaluations and not simply rely on easier-to-reach advocates. This poster explores how we developed trauma-informed qualitative recruitment methods that balance the need for robust evaluation data with the well-being and safety of survivors. Our examples come from a state-wide, practical participatory, qualitative evaluation of adult sexual assault survivors’ experiences seeking civil no contact orders. Survivors are a heterogenous group. To understand the breadth of their experiences, we proposed sampling survivors from urban and rural communities. To obtain sufficient diversity representing the local populations, we sought sufficient subsamples of Black and Latine survivors, who are often underrepresented in evaluations of services for sexual assault survivors. We also offered recruitment and interviewing in Spanish. The poster discusses our recruitment methods, as well as our challenges, successes, and lessons learned. Stakeholders provided multiple rounds of feedback on our recruitment materials. Participants were recruited from places where survivors connect to services related to the civil legal system: rape crisis centers, legal aid agencies, and courthouses. Our recruitment materials emphasized their choice to participate or not without negative consequences, interviewer training, confidentiality, and the plan to use findings to improve services. We also provided transparency about the extent to which they would have to talk about the trauma during interviews. Survivors could then opt into learning more about the study from the evaluation team without committing to participation. Interested survivors were given control over deciding how the evaluation team should contact them (phone, email, text, not at all), when, and the language the team should use (e.g., can we say the evaluation is related to sexual assault? Can we leave a message?). Then members of the evaluation team contacted interested survivors by email and phone to re-screen for eligibility, discuss logistics, address any questions and/or concerns prior to asking if they wanted to participate.