‘DIY swab kits? It’s better than doing nothing’: the controversial scheme to tackle rape on campus

[IwantToRetire]

... Enough says it was launched following advice from police, criminologists, lawyers and psychologists. It has since handed out 7,000 free kits to students at Bristol University and the University of the West of England (UWE) and says that 270 rapes have been reported to its online platform so far, and seven kits have been sent for lab testing.

Its aim is to sell the kits at £20 each to universities, schools and workplaces. “Our DNA kits give power to survivors and deter perpetrators,” its orange leaflets promise. The issue is: how?

Every major organisation involved in tackling sexual violence is strongly opposed to self-swabbing. Enough’s critics include the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC), Bristol University, UWE, Rape Crisis England and Wales, Bristol city council and the Faculty of Forensic and Legal Medicine (FFLM), a charity that maintains professional standards. They say that self-swabs do not always provide reliable evidence that can be used in criminal proceedings and may not be admissible in court, and that, if survivors self-swab instead of interacting with services such as the police or NHS, they miss out on help such as psychological and forensic assessment – which would be provided at a sexual assault referral centre (Sarc).

There are 55 independent Sarcs in England, offering victims – whether or not they decide to report to the police – therapeutic care, medical and forensic examination including emergency contraception, and testing for sexually transmitted infections. Sarcs arrange counselling and address safeguarding, and can also offer vital tests for collecting the jigsaw pieces that may lead to a conviction, such as toxicology results and clothing fibres.

Is their opposition justified? Or can Enough, as it hopes, help the 75% of students who are sexually assaulted and “do nothing”, according to young people’s sexual health charity Brook? ...

Only a few paragraphs from quite a long detailed article by Yvonne Roberts in the Observer https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/feb/16/diy-swab-kits-scheme-campus-rape

I worked for a lot of years as a CSI. I’ve dealt with lots of sexual offences and attended many forensic medical examinations.
There is so much wrong with this idea that ‘doing nothing’ would almost certainly be better.

The impression I got from the article which I think did make an effort to speak to a range of organisations etc., was that (in universities) young women feel so unsupported, have no hope of authorities supporting them, that this DIY approach is the only answer.

Which is awful.

And as in the article I start a thread for re "consent", there is never any in depth look at the source of the problem, ie men.

I’m not saying doing nothing is a good option, and I agree that we need to get to the source of the problem (men and their attitudes), but giving a woman a kit to swab herself is absolutely pointless.
There are specific procedures that have to be adhered to so the evidence would be admissible in court. The person who obtains the sample has to be a medical professional who can establish their forensic credentials in court. They have to be able to guarantee exactly where the swab touched so the offence can be correctly made out.
So what you’re going to have is a woman who’s already traumatised, putting herself through obtaining the samples (which wouldn’t be fun) only to be told ‘sorry, we can’t use those, you might as well not have bothered.’

Thanks, this is really interesting. I hope it evolves into something that can bring about change. I don't know much about dna testing but from the article and pp it sounds potentially an own goal.

I know and in fact the article spells this out.

And that's why I am saying that even knowing this (young) women are so disillusioned they are going for this.

I was wondering if they are posting on social media that they have taken a swab just to let some man know they didn't listen.

ie this is all they have left to say they did object.

I don’t see how their approach could have any benefit. If you use the kit and send it off to be processed- what then? You get back a DNA profile? How does that do anything for you as a victim of sexual assault?

Its evidence as to confirming who you say has raped you.

As spelt out in the article this is in fact the service offered by SARCs (which to few women know about). If you have been raped you can go to a SARC without having to talk to the police.

There qualified staff can take a swab etc., and store the results. Sometimes this shows there is someone who is a serial rapist.

I think in the instance when a case goes to court reference can be made to evidence that other women have accused the same person.

For the students if they dont want to go to the police or SARCs is would make sense to keep a database of the DNA or whatever results they get and it might indicate that there is not in fact a wide spread attitude among young men at universities, but in fact a small group of young men who are the repeat perpetrators.

I have a horrible or maybe sad feeling that many young women dont want to or refuse to believe that what older women have set up, or said would be a good thing, just isn't. So when presented with something that seems more of their generation they accept that without thinking what the point of it is.

Or maybe just the act of using the swab makes them feel empowered??

Dont Universities themselves, or Student Unions run information sessions for new students about sexual violence.

Except it isn’t useful evidence- because all you have is (potentially) a DNA profile. You don’t have, and can’t require, a way to match that with the person you accuse.

What are you supposed to do with it?

Sorry. Pressed post too soon.

I do get the idea of collecting accusations from lots of women to develop a case against a serial rapist. But most of the time women know the person they accuse - the database of accusations is a great idea. I do think we could use some external pressure on police to improve their approach to rape in this way. But the DNA kits seem like theatre.

is there an exemption from needing consent to process DNA in these circumstances?

I do think we could use some external pressure on police to improve their approach to rape in this way.

But we also need to do something to let women know there are centres where they can go and get this done professionally, get support and not be forced to talk to the police. ie SARCs Why dont women know about them?

But the DNA kits seem like theatre.

This is an example of why feminist initiatives grow. It seems every generation of women only want to support something their age group had set up.

Although as I have said up thread, it maybe that younger women are now so lacking in belie in anything changing, that theatre seems as useful as anything else.

The tests haven't been trialled in court so whether they stand up evidentially is yet to be decided.
If someone attended a Sarc the samples could be used in a future trial or just stored if they didn't want to report to police. They would be given support at a sarc as well.

The fact they are charging for these kits shows it's not an act of kindness. It's a business idea. It's not in the users best interest.

Although as I have said up thread, it maybe that younger women are now so lacking in belie in anything changing, that theatre seems as useful as anything else.

I can see why women might feel that’s the case. My point is that this doesn’t seem like a good idea because theatre won’t improve things either (and I see the possibility it could make things worse).

I don’t think it’s necessarily the case that it’s a business idea rather than a mission driven approach that’s trying to be sustainable. Lots of charities look for more reliable approaches to funding than relying on donations and grants.

it said in the article that if a case comes to court, the question at issue is consent, not usually identity- so even if the swab was admitted in court and was able to identify the accused (which would depend on him giving a sample, either under orders from the court or voluntarily).....even then, the prosecution would have to prove he knew she did not consent, or should have done

so it is really pointless

agree with all pps, student unions need to promote SARCs to students

This is one of the worst things I have every read.

I was raped as a student at university by my ex boyfriend. I gave a statement to a police officer at my halls, and then they took me to what I think was a SARC - there were police officers there so I’m not sure if it was or not. During the interview there they raised eyebrows and made comments about the clothes I had been wearing (I had been at a fancy dress party and had been wearing a fairly short skirt and a corset style top, but it was nothing totally outrageous in the scheme of club attire - not that it should matter anyway) and I found them generally judgmental and unsympathetic. I turned down swabs and forensic stuff because I felt it would be retraumatising and I knew I wouldn’t have the guts to go through a trial, and was terrified of my ex who had been very manipulative and controlling while we’d been together.

I hope in the 10 - 15 years since, that people who work at SARCs or police officers dealing with victims are much better trained and not making snide comments about what they were wearing or whether they chose to let the bloke walk them home etc etc etc. But if they haven’t then that should absolutely be the first step before anything else. I felt like that experience was just a pointless reliving of a horrible event, where I was judged by the people who were meant to be helping me. It felt like that’s what the whole process to trial etc would be like, and I couldn’t face the humiliation.

I understand why a self test kit might seem appealing in circumstances like mine. I think I’d have felt like it was a safer option. But like everyone’s pointed out, it’s unlikely to be good evidence as there will be doubts over whether it was done accurately etc, and anyway, most cases turn on consent rather than proving the intercourse happened at all. So it just feels like it’s misleading victims and failing to address the actual underlying reasons we have women scared to come forward and abysmal prosecution rates even when they do.

I feel like these days women are being continuously gaslit about reporting rape.

The intentions are good, the people doing the messaging want to be more woman-centered. They want to be understanding of all the very valid reasons a woman might be hesitant to call the police in the first few minutes after she has been attacked. None of this kindness is going to increase rape conviction rates.

Successful prosecution and conviction requires evidence. It requires more than just two people telling their story of how events unfolded on some night, however long ago. It absolutely requires a strict chain of custody on any physical evidence that can be gathered. It requires admitting that sometimes the physical evidence can be hard to distinguish between consensual and nonconsensual sex.

its not just sexism and society’s attitudes about promiscuity that make rape conviction rates low. It’s a crime where gathering evidence is hard. If we aren’t honest about that, we are never going to get better at getting these men into prison where they belong.

a self-swab kit is going to be absolutely ripped apart in court by even the most inexperienced barrister, if it is even allowed to be admitted into evidence at all.

SARCs were originally quite small operations which grew out of Rape Crisis provison.

I think most are now run or at least funded as part of the NHS.

So not sure who does staff training or monitors them, but as far as I know it would not be standard to have police present. That is the whole point of them.

See https://rapecrisis.org.uk/get-help/sexual-assault-referral-centres-sarcs/

I wonder that NUS doesn't circulate this information, particularly to new students, many of whom may never have lived away from home.

Have checked, it was a SARC - it looks like you can refer yourself without police involvement or you can be referred there by the police. I’m fairly sure the people I spoke to there were police officers but it was a pretty horrible experience and I may be misremembering! Whoever they were, perpetuating rape myths is clearly not a good start!

I think I was perhaps offered counselling but we’re talking literally the day after it happened, so I wasn’t at all in a place to want that sort of support at that time. I didn’t know about the SARC before the police took me there - the first place I went was the doctors to get the morning after pill, and it was a nurse quite sternly asking why I hadn’t used protection who I told first.

I agree that better information about support services would be a very good thing, especially those without police involvement because the feelings afterwards can be extremely complicated and it can be very frightening to go to the police.

Sorry if it sounded like I was questioning your experience, which seems to have been awful.

It was more that I know the original idea had come from women who had experience of supporting women who had been raped, and am left wondering whether an NHS run service will be able or want to apply standards that come from RCCs rather than the large bureaucracy that the NHS is.

Not at all, it seems odd to me thinking back about it now too, and I really hope I got a rogue bad person instead and/ or that things have improved significantly since.

I agree that it might not be the best thing for them to be absorbed into an NHS service. There are obviously parts the NHS can input on, or which require a health perspective, but it’s a very niche thing and needs really careful management as its own service I think. I remember being quite scared when I told the nurse that I was telling someone ‘in authority’ and I would be forced to report it to the police. I wonder if them being under the NHS umbrella might give that impression to people - but that might have just have been my own irrational fear and not something common.

This isn’t correct. They were set up as a joint initiative between the health service and the police. In some areas the NHS take the lead in managing the SARC, in other areas it’s the police.
The idea was for it to be a ‘one stop shop’. Victims could go (or be taken) to the SARC, have the forensic medical exam, get certain medical treatment (MAP, STD screening, HIV prophylaxis) without needing to go anywhere else and have to explain what had happened all over again.
They could then work with a trained police officer (if they chose to report) to give their statement in a purpose designed interview suite at the SARC. So the police are very much present, although not normally in uniform.
They could also subsequently access ISVA support and counselling at the SARC.
Many years ago I helped to set up the SARC in my area. Its establishment was very much driven by the police. We were (and still are) very passionate about providing the best service possible, but as with everything, funding has always been an issue and the service overstretched.
Although in theory we should be shouting about SARCs from the rooftops, I really think they would buckle under the weight of increased demand.

I'm a forensic nurse examiner. self swabbing is utterly pointless. in the early covid days we sent swab packs out with police officers so people could self swab at home as we weren't allowed to bring anyone into the SARC and our professional body thought this was a good idea. not one of those cases has seen the inside of a court room where the forensics are integral to the case.
anyone over the age of 16 can attend a SARC without reporting to the police and receive the exact same standard of medical, emotional and forensic care as a police case. samples are stored in chain of evidence freezer should someone need thinking time and look at their options without losing the forensic window.
that isn't to detract from how awful it is all round to proceed with a report of sexual assault. the overwhelming majority come down to consent and forensics are useless.
these self swab kits give a false sense of access to justice and don't provide the aftercare and support that is often more important than any forensic sampling.
access to emergency contraception, hepatitis b accelerated immunisation, HIV PEPSE, injuries assessed and documented, emotional support, giving choices and control back, referrals to other services, protected time and space to work through the next steps whatever they might be - the list goes on.
in my view (and the view of all my colleagues) self swab packs should be banned.

@igivein
the majority of SARC contracts are NHS and PCC funded but it is a private company that runs them for profit.
some pockets of them remain under the NHS and some smaller providers run others.
i won't name the company here as they are famously litigious and i am aware of journalists keen to lift the lid on their financial practices and profits and the standards of training of staff that fall way short compared to smaller or NHS providers.
they would only sink under demand because the central funding does not convert into the frontline provision.
i am looking to leave, not because i don't care or feel passionate about the care i give, but because i can't work for the primary provider in England who are circling to snap up where my SARC is and i can't allow my integrity and professionalism be compromised as a result. i'm not alone in this.

these self swab kits give a false sense of access to justice and don't provide the aftercare and support that is often more important than any forensic sampling.

This is very true @SANEFNE, and it feels particularly unfair and misleading in a way that women might be given these when they have no real use and prevent information and resources for support.

i’m very sorry to hear you’re thinking of leaving due to management changes/ buy outs - that sounds like it’s very bad for the service you work at. I’m surprised to hear they’re run for profit.