Context
The state of rape kit tracking in South Africa
South Africa has no public-facing system that allows survivors to check the status of their sexual assault forensic evidence kit. The DNA backlog is a documented national crisis. Survivors are not notified when their kits are tested, when cases are opened, or when evidence is destroyed.
232,697
DNA cases overdue
SAPS Annual Report 2024/25
None
Public kit tracking system
No survivor-facing portal exists
No law
Mandatory testing obligation
No equivalent to US SAFE-T Act
No right
Survivor notification right
No statutory right to status updates
Prototype
What a kit tracker should look like
This demonstrates what survivors in South Africa should be able to access. The kit number format is illustrative. No real data is stored or retrieved here.
✓
Kit collected at health facility
14 March 2024 · Groote Schuur Hospital, Cape Town
Sexual assault examination completed. Kit sealed and reference number assigned.
✓
Kit received by SAPS investigating unit
15 March 2024 · Mowbray SAPS
Chain of custody documented. Case number assigned: CAS 214/03/2024.
✓
Kit submitted to Forensic Science Laboratory
22 March 2024 · FSL Western Cape
Kit entered into SAPS LIMS system and placed in queue for DNA analysis.
→
Awaiting DNA analysis
Current status · 232 days in queue
South Africa's DNA backlog stands at 232,697 overdue cases. No estimated completion date is available. You will not automatically be notified when your kit is tested — this system does not currently exist in South Africa.
○
DNA analysis complete
Pending
○
Results returned to investigating officer
Pending
What should exist
Minimum features this system needs
These are the features a survivor-facing kit tracking system in South Africa would need to be meaningful, modeled on what exists, partially, in US state systems.
Anonymous access via kit number
Status checks without registering, without providing a name, and without contacting police. Kit number only.
Real-time location in the chain
Which facility holds the kit. Whether it has been submitted to the FSL. Whether it is in the queue or tested.
Opt-in notifications
SMS or email alerts when kit status changes, without requiring ongoing contact with police.
Queue position and estimated wait
Given the scale of the backlog, survivors deserve an approximate wait time. The FSL holds this data.
Case status linkage
Whether the CAS number has an active investigation, is closed, or has been referred to the NPA.
Destruction notification
Survivors should be notified before their kit is destroyed. Currently no such obligation exists in law.
Legislative gaps
What needs to change in law
None of the above is possible without legislative change. South Africa has no equivalent to the US SAFE-T Act.
No mandatory testing obligation
South African law does not require that all rape kits submitted to the FSL be tested. The decision rests with the investigating officer. Kits can sit indefinitely or be destroyed without testing.
No survivor right to status information
The Criminal Procedure Act does not give survivors a statutory right to know the status of their forensic evidence. They must rely on the goodwill of the investigating officer.
No national kit tracking system
SAPS uses internal LIMS records, but these are not accessible to survivors or their legal representatives via any public portal.
No destruction notification requirement
There is no legal requirement to notify a survivor before forensic evidence in their case is destroyed. Retention periods under the Criminal Procedure Act do not trigger survivor notification.
Context
The state of rape kit tracking in the United States
The SAFE-T Act (2022) requires states receiving VAWA funding to establish a statewide kit tracking system accessible to survivors. As of 2024, implementation is uneven. Many states have systems; not all are survivor-accessible.
2022
SAFE-T Act signed
Federal mandate for kit tracking
~400K
Untested kits estimated
Joyful Heart Foundation End the Backlog
Varies
State implementation
No uniform standard enforced
~20%
Rapes reported to police
RAINN, based on NCVS data
Prototype
What a kit tracker should look like
This demonstrates what a survivor-facing portal in the United States should look like. The kit number is illustrative. No real data is stored or retrieved.
✓
Kit collected at SANE exam
3 June 2024 · Bellevue Hospital Center, New York
Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner examination completed. Kit sealed and tracking number assigned.
✓
Kit received by law enforcement
4 June 2024 · NYPD Manhattan Special Victims
Chain of custody documented. NYPD case number assigned.
✓
Kit submitted to crime laboratory
11 June 2024 · NYPD Crime Lab
✓
DNA analysis complete
29 August 2024
DNA profile developed. Results submitted to CODIS for comparison.
→
CODIS comparison in progress
Current status
Your DNA profile has been entered into the FBI's Combined DNA Index System. You will be notified if a match is found.
○
Results returned to investigator
Pending CODIS result
State-by-state
Survivor access to kit status, by state
The SAFE-T Act requires states to have a tracking system but does not prescribe what survivor access must look like. Data as of 2024. Sources: Joyful Heart Foundation End the Backlog; NIJ SAKI programme.
| State | Tracking system | Survivor portal | Mandatory testing | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| California | Yes | Yes | Yes | SAFE California Act (2016); CalKit portal |
| New York | Yes | Partial | Yes | SAKTI system; law enforcement access only in some jurisdictions |
| Texas | Yes | Yes | Yes | Texas DPS CODIS-linked survivor portal; among the most comprehensive |
| Illinois | Yes | Yes | Yes | Illinois SAESA (2010); early national leader |
| Michigan | Yes | Yes | Yes | Michigan model cited by JHF as a national standard |
| Ohio | Yes | Partial | Yes | Statewide tracking exists; portal access varies by county |
| Florida | Yes | Partial | Partial | FDLE tracking system; not all jurisdictions report |
| Georgia | Partial | No | No | GBI internal system; no public survivor portal |
| Tennessee | Yes | No | Yes | Mandatory submission since 2011; no survivor portal |
| Alabama | No | No | No | No statewide system; individual jurisdictions only |
| Mississippi | No | No | No | Among states with least SAFE-T implementation progress |
| Colorado | Yes | Yes | Yes | Colorado SAKII online portal; model programme |
| Washington | Yes | Yes | Yes | Washington State Patrol SAEK portal |
| Minnesota | Yes | Partial | Yes | BCA tracking; survivor access through advocate offices |
| Louisiana | Partial | No | Partial | Significant backlog; partial legislative framework |
Federal framework
What the SAFE-T Act requires
The SAFER Act (2013) and the SAFE-T Act (2022) together form the federal floor. Neither is self-executing — both operate through grant conditions tied to VAWA funding.
SAFER Act, 2013
Required states receiving federal STOP VAWA grants to audit existing kit backlogs and report results. Established the Sexual Assault Kit Initiative (SAKI) grant programme through the Bureau of Justice Assistance.
SAFE-T Act, 2022
Requires states, as a condition of VAWA funding, to establish a statewide kit tracking system by which survivors can access the status of their kit anonymously. Does not specify the technical form of the system or prescribe timelines for testing.
The gap
Federal law sets a floor but does not mandate timelines for testing, notifications when results are obtained, or alerts before kit destruction. These protections exist in some states by state law but not uniformly across the country.
Mariska Hargitay and the Joyful Heart Foundation
The End the Backlog campaign, launched in 2009, directly influenced the SAFER Act and the SAKI programme. The conviction Mariska stated in 2024 — that survivors have the right to access the status of their kits — reflects a standard federal law now requires, but that states have implemented unevenly.