Commissioners

ExEcutivE Summary

www.nprec.us

JUNE 2009 Commissioners

Reggie B. Walton, Chair John A. Kaneb, Vice -Chair

James E. Aiken Jamie Fellner Pat Nolan Gustavus A. Puryear IV Brenda V. Smith Cindy Struckman -Johnson

References for quotations and other source materials mentioned in this executive summary are provided in the Commission’s full report. Executive Summary

ape is violent, destructive, and a crime—no less so when the victim is incarcerated. Until recently, however, the public viewed sexual abuse as an inevitable feature of confinement. Even as courts and human rights standards increasingly confirmed that Rprisoners have the same fundamental rights to safety, dignity, and justice as individuals living at liberty in the community, vulnerable men, women, Sexual abuse is “not part of and children continued to be sexually victimized by other prisoners and the penalty that criminal corrections staff. Tolerance of sexual abuse of prisoners in the government’s custody is totally incompatible with American values. offenders pay for their Congress affirmed the duty to protect incarcerated individuals from offenses against society.” sexual abuse by unanimously enacting the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003. The Act called for the creation of a national Commission to study the —U.S. Supreme Court causes and consequences of sexual abuse in confinement and to develop standards for correctional facilities nationwide that would set in motion a process once considered impossible: the elimination of prison rape. This executive summary briefly discusses the Commission’s nine findings on the problems of sexual abuse in confinement and select policies and practices that must be mandatory everywhere to remedy these problems. It also covers recommendations about what leaders in government outside the corrections profession can do to support solutions. The findings are discussed in detail and thoroughly cited in the body of the report, where readers will also find information about all of the Commis- sion’s standards. Full text of the standards is included as an appendix to the report. In the years leading up to the passage of PREA and since then, corrections leaders and their staff have developed and implemented policies and practices to begin to prevent sexual abuse and also to better respond to victims and hold perpetrators accountable when prevention fails. They have been aided by a range of robust Federal initiatives, support from professional corrections associations, and advocates who have vo- cally condemned sexual abuse in confinement. The landscape is changing. Training curricula for corrections staff across the country now include information about sexual abuse in confinement and how to prevent it.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 Some agencies and facilities have formed sexual assault response teams to revolutionize their responses to sexual abuse. Despite these and other achievements, much remains to be done, especially in correctional environments in which efforts to address the problem of sexual abuse have been slow to start or have stalled. Protection from sexual abuse should not depend on where someone is incarcerated or supervised; it should be the baseline everywhere. More than 7.3 million Americans are confined in U.S. correctional Many of the Commission’s facilities or supervised in the community, at a cost of more than $68 bil- standards reflect what lion annually. Given our country’s enormous investment in corrections, we should ensure that these environments are as safe and productive as corrections professionals they can be. Sexual abuse undermines those goals. It makes correctional acknowledge to be good environments more dangerous for staff as well as prisoners, consumes scarce resources, and undermines rehabilitation. It also carries the poten- practices—and are already tial to devastate the lives of victims. The many interrelated consequences operational in some places— of sexual abuse for individuals and society are difficult to pinpoint and nearly impossible to quantify, but they are powerfully captured in indi- or are requirements vidual accounts of abuse and its impact. under existing laws. Former prisoner Necole Brown told the Commission, “I continue to contend with flashbacks of what this correctional officer did to me and the guilt, shame, and rage that comes with having been sexually violated for so many years. I felt lost for a very long time struggling with this. . . . I still struggle with the memories of this ordeal and take it out on friends and family who are trying to be there for me now.” Air Force veteran Tom Cahill, who was arrested and detained for just a single night in a San Antonio jail, recalled the lasting effects of being gang-raped and beaten by other inmates. “I’ve been hospitalized more times than I can count and I didn’t pay for those hospitalizations, the tax payers paid. My career as a journalist and photographer was completely derailed. . . . For the past two decades, I’ve received a non-service con- nected security pension from the Veteran’s Administration at the cost of about $200,000 in connection with the only major trauma I’ve ever suffered, the rape.” Since forming, the Commission has convened public hearings and expert committees, conducted a needs assessment that involved site visits to 11 diverse correctional facilities, and thoroughly reviewed the relevant literature. Throughout the process, corrections leaders, survivors of sexual abuse, health care providers, researchers, legal experts, advocates, and academics shared their knowledge, experiences, and insights about why sexual abuse occurs, under what circumstances, and how to protect people. The Commission used what it learned about the nature and causes of sexual abuse in correctional settings and its impact to develop mandatory standards to prevent, detect, and punish sexual abuse. Two 60-day periods of public comment were critical junctures in the creation of the

2 NATIONAL PRISON RAPE ELIMINATION COMMISSION REPORT standards. The Commission tailored the standards to reflect the full range Protection from sexual of correctional environments across the country: adult prisons and jails; lockups and other short-term holding centers; facilities for juveniles; immi- abuse should not depend gration detention sites; and probation, parole, and other forms of community on where someone is corrections. Many standards reflect what corrections professionals recognize as good practices—and are already operational in some places—or are incarcerated or supervised; requirements under existing laws. If correctional agencies incur new costs it should be the baseline to comply with the Commission’s standards, those costs are not substantial everywhere. compared to what these agencies currently spend and are necessary to fulfill the requirements of PREA. The Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution forbids cruel and unusual punishment—a ban that requires corrections staff to take reasonable steps to protect individuals in their custody from sexual abuse whenever the threat is known or should have been apparent. In Farmer v. Brennan, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that deliberate indifference to the substantial risk of sexual abuse violates an incarcerated individual’s rights under the Eighth Amendment. As the Court so aptly stated, sexual abuse is “not part of the penalty that criminal offenders pay for their offenses against society.”

F I N D I N G 1

Protecting prisoners from sexual abuse remains a challenge in correctional facilities across the country. Too often, in what should be secure environments, men, women, and children are raped or abused by other incarcerated individuals and corrections staff.

lthough the sexual abuse of prisoners is as old as prisons them- A 2007 survey of State and selves, efforts to understand the scale and scope of the problem Federal prisoners suggests Aare relatively new. The first study specifically of prevalence— examining abuse in the Philadelphia jail system—was published in 1968. that an estimated 60,500 The most rigorous research produced since then—mainly of sexual abuse individuals were sexually among incarcerated men—has yielded prevalence rates in the mid-to-high teens, but none of these are national studies. abused during the 12 With an explicit mandate from Congress under PREA, the Bureau months leading up to of Justice Statistics (BJS) launched a groundbreaking effort to produce national incidence rates of sexual abuse by directly surveying prisoners. the survey. The survey results may not capture the full extent of the problem, but they confirm the urgent need for reform. The Commission recommends that BJS continue this important work and that Congress provide the necessary funding.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 BJS conducted the first wave of surveys in 2007 in a random sample of 146 State and Federal prisons and 282 local jails. A total of 63,817 incarcerated individuals completed surveys, providing the most comprehensive snapshot of sexual abuse in prisons and jails to date. Four-and- a-half percent of prisoners surveyed reported experiencing sexual abuse one or more times during the 12 months preceding the survey or over The sexual abuse of prisoners their term of incarceration if they had been confined in that facility for less than 12 months. Extrapolated to the national prison population, an is widespread, but rates vary estimated 60,500 State and Federal prisoners were sexually abused during across facilities—from a low of that 12-month period. zero to a high of 15.7 percent. Although sexual abuse of prisoners is widespread, rates vary across facilities. For example, 10 facilities had comparatively high rates, between 9.3 and 15.7 percent, whereas in six of the facilities no one reported abuse during that time period. More prisoners reported abuse by staff than abuse by other prisoners: 2.9 percent of respondents compared with about 2 percent. (Some prisoners reported abuse by other inmates and staff.) The rate of sexual abuse in jails appears to be slightly lower: 3.2 percent of inmates surveyed reported that they had been sexually abused at least once during the prior 6 months or since they had been confined in that facility. Again, reports of abuse by staff were more common than reports of abuse by other incarcerated persons: 2 percent of respondents compared with 1.6 percent. BJS has not surveyed individuals in halfway houses, treatment facilities, and other community-based correctional settings or individuals on probation or parole. As the Commission’s report goes to press, BJS is conducting the first nationally representative survey of sexual abuse among adjudicated youth in residential juvenile facilities. In a preparatory pilot study, BJS interviewed 645 youth in nine facilities—sites that volunteered to participate in the pilot and were selected based on convenience. Nearly one out of every five youth surveyed (19.7 percent) reported at least one nonconsensual sexual contact during the preceding 12 months or since they had arrived at the facility. Youth were just as likely to report abuse by staff as they were to report nonconsensual sexual encounters with their peers in the facility. These preliminary results are not necessarily an indicator of rates nationally because more than a quarter of the youth interviewed had been adjudicated for perpetrating a sexual assault, compared to less than 10 percent of youth in residential placement nationally. In conducting this research, BJS has taken advantage of evolving survey technology, using laptop computers with touch screens and an ac- companying recorded narration to guide respondents—especially helpful for individuals with limited reading abilities. This method increases the likelihood of capturing experiences of sexual abuse among individuals who would be afraid or ashamed to identify as a victim in face-to-face interviews. Prisoners still must believe strangers’ assurances of confidentiality,

4 NATIONAL PRISON RAPE ELIMINATION COMMISSION REPORT however—a huge barrier for some—so the likelihood of underreporting still exists. Researchers also recognize that prevalence levels can be artifi- cially elevated by false allegations. BJS designs its surveys to ask questions of prisoners in several different ways and also uses analytic tools to assess data for false reports.

F I N D I N G 2

Sexual abuse is not an inevitable feature of incarceration. Leadership matters because corrections administrators can create a culture within facilities that promotes safety instead of one that tolerates abuse.

n 2006, the Urban Institute surveyed 45 State departments of corrections about their policies and practices on preventing sexual abuse and Iconducted in-depth case studies in several States. Not surprisingly, the surveys and case studies identified strong leadership as essential to creating the kind of institutional culture necessary to eliminate sexual abuse Leaders need the right staff in correctional settings. The Commission has defined clear standards that to create a genuine culture corrections administrators can and must champion to prevent sexual abuse and make facilities safer for everyone—reforms in the underlying culture, of zero tolerance. Rigorous hiring and promotion, and training and supervision that vanguard mem- vetting is crucial; so are bers of the profession are already implementing. To begin with, every correctional agency must have a written supporting and promoting policy mandating zero tolerance for all forms of sexual abuse in all set- staff that demonstrate tings, whether it is operated by the government or by a private company working under contract with the government. Although not mandated commitment to preventing under the standards, collective bargaining agreements should feature an sexual abuse. explicit commitment from unions and their members to support a zero- tolerance approach to sexual abuse. Without it, there is little common ground upon which to build when negotiating the many specific policies and procedures to prevent and respond to sexual abuse. Ultimately, the culture of an institution is shaped by people not by policies. Leaders need the right staff to create a genuine culture of zero tolerance. In particular, administrators must thoroughly screen all new job applicants and make promotions contingent on a similarly careful review of each staff member’s behavior on the job to prevent hiring, retaining, or promoting anyone who has engaged in sexual abuse. Conducting criminal background checks, making efforts to obtain relevant information from past employers to the extent permissible under law, and questioning applicants about past misconduct must be mandatory. Rigorous vetting is not enough, however. Correctional agencies urgently need support in

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5 developing competitive compensation and benefits packages so that they can recruit and retain appropriate staff. Equally important, administrators should support and promote staff that demonstrate a commitment to preventing sexual abuse. Even qualified individuals need training on sexual abuse to fulfill their job responsibilities. Only through training can staff understand the dynamics of sexual abuse in a correctional environment, be well informed about the agency’s policies, and acquire the knowledge and skills nec- Direct supervision is the essary to protect prisoners from abuse and respond appropriately when most effective mode of abuse does occur. The Commission recognizes the corrections profession’s investment to date in training staff and the fruits of those efforts. The supervision for preventing Commission designed its standards to ensure that no facility is left behind sexual abuse and should be and that training everywhere meets certain basic criteria. Additionally, the Commission recommends that the National Institute of Corrections used wherever possible. continue the training and technical assistance it has provided in the years leading up to PREA and since then and that Congress provide funding for this purpose. The corollary to staff training is a strong educational program for prisoners about their right to be safe and the facility’s commitment to holding all perpetrators of sexual abuse—staff and inmates—accountable. Facilities must convey at least basic information during intake in languages and other formats accessible to all prisoners. Armed with this information, prisoners are better able to protect themselves and seek help from staff before abuse occurs. Supervision is the core practice of any correctional agency, and it must be carried out in ways that protect individuals from sexual abuse. The Commission believes it is possible to meet this standard in any facility, regardless of design, through appropriate deployment of staff. Direct supervision, which features interaction between staff and prisoners, should be used wherever possible because it is the most effective mode of supervision for preventing sexual abuse and other types of violence and disorder. In addition, correctional facilities must assess, at least annually, the need for and feasibility of incorporating additional monitoring equipment. Tech- nologies are not replacements for skilled and committed security officers, but they can greatly improve what good officers are able to accomplish. The Commission recommends that the National Institute of Corrections help correctional agencies advance their use of monitoring technologies and that Congress fund this assistance. Cross-gender supervision is an area in which the Commission has set clear standards. Some of the widespread abuse that occurred in women’s prisons across Michigan in the 1990s was facilitated by rules that required officers, including men, to meet a daily quota of pat-down searches for weapons, drugs, or other contraband. Physical searches are necessary security procedures. The potential for abuse is heightened, however, when

6 NATIONAL PRISON RAPE ELIMINATION COMMISSION REPORT staff of the opposite gender conduct them. In the Commission’s view, the risks are present whether the officers are female or male. Historically, few women worked in corrections, but this is rapidly changing. The Commission understands that cross-gender supervision can have benefits for incarcerated persons and staff. The Commission’s standard on this issue is not intended to discourage the practice generally or to reduce employment opportunities for men or women. However, strict limits on cross-gender searches and the viewing of prisoners of the opposite gender who are nude or performing bodily functions are necessary because of the inherently personal nature of such encounters. Court decisions have recognized that both male and female prisoners retain some rights to privacy, especially in searches of their bodies and in being observed in states of undress by staff of the opposite gender. With proper leadership practices and clear policies, corrections administrators can foster a culture that promotes safety. The Commission’s standards are intended to support these efforts. In addition, the Commis- sion recommends that the Bureau of Justice Assistance continue to provide grants to diverse correctional agencies to support the development of innovative practices and programs and that Congress fund this important work as well as continued research by the National Institute of Justice on the nature of sexual abuse in correctional facilities.

F I N D I N G 3

Certain individuals are more at risk of sexual abuse than others. Corrections administrators must routinely do more to identify those who are vulnerable and protect them in ways that do not leave them isolated and without access to rehabilitative programming.

reventing sexual abuse depends in part on risk assessment. Unfor- tunately, knowledge in this area is still limited. Research to date has Pfocused on vulnerability to abuse by other prisoners, rather than by staff, and on the risks for men and boys rather than for women and girls. This caveat aside, some risk factors do stand out. Youth, small stature, and lack of experience in correctional facilities appear to increase the risk of sexual abuse by other prisoners. So does having a mental disability or serious mental illness. Research on sexual abuse in correctional facilities consistently documents the vulnerability of men and women with non-heterosexual orientations and transgender individuals. A 1982 study in a medium-security men’s facility in California, for example, found the rate of abuse was much higher among gay prisoners (41 percent)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7 than heterosexual prisoners (9 percent). A history of sexual victimization, either in the community or in the facility in which the person is incarcerated, tends to make people more vulnerable to subsequent sexual abuse. Unless facility managers and administrators take decisive steps to protect these individuals, they may be forced to live in close proximity or even in the same cell with potential assailants. When Alexis Giraldo was sentenced to serve time in the California correctional system, her male- Evidence-based screening to-female transgender identity and appearance as a woman triggered a for risk of sexual abuse recommendation to place her in a facility with higher concentrations of transgender prisoners, where she might be safer. Yet officials ignored the must become routine recommendation and sent her to Folsom Prison in 2006, where she was nationwide, replacing the raped and beaten by two different cellmates. Some correctional agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Pris- subjective assessments that ons and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, now many facilities still rely use written instruments to screen all incoming prisoners specifically for risk of sexual assault. Evidence-based screening must become routine na- on and filling a vacuum tionwide, replacing the subjective assessments that many facilities still in facilities where no rely on and filling a vacuum in facilities where no targeted risk assess- targeted risk assessments ments are conducted. The Commission’s standards in this area accelerate progress toward this goal by setting baseline requirements for when and are conducted. how to screen prisoners for risk of being a victim or perpetrator of sexual abuse. To be effective, the results of these screenings must drive decisions about housing and programming. Courts have commented specifically on the obligation of correctional agencies to gather and use screening information to protect prisoners from abuse. The Commission is concerned that correctional facilities may rely on protective custody and other forms of segregation (isolation or solitary confinement) as a default form of protection. And the Commission learned that desperate prisoners sometimes seek out segregation to escape attack- ers. Serving time under these conditions is exceptionally difficult and takes a toll on mental health, particularly if the victim has a prior history of mental illness. Segregation must be a last resort and interim measure only. The Commission also discourages the creation of specialized units for vulnerable groups and specifically prohibits housing prisoners based solely on their sexual orientation or gender identity because it can lead to demoralizing and dangerous labeling. The Commission is also concerned about the effect of crowding on efforts to protect vulnerable prisoners from sexual abuse. Crowded facilities are harder to supervise, and crowding systemwide makes it difficult to carve out safe spaces for vulnerable prisoners that are less restrictive than segregation. When Timothy Taylor was incarcerated in a Michigan prison, internal assessments suggested that he was likely to be a target of sexual abuse because of his small size—he was five feet tall and 120 pounds— and diminished mental abilities, yet he was placed in a prison dormitory

8 NATIONAL PRISON RAPE ELIMINATION COMMISSION REPORT to save bed space for new arrivals. Shortly thereafter, he was sexually assaulted by another prisoner. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 19 States and the Fed- eral system were operating at more than 100 percent of their highest capacity in 2007. An equal number of States operated at somewhere between 90 and 99 percent of capacity. When facilities operate at or beyond capacity, prisoners also have fewer or no opportunities to participate in education, Crowded facilities are harder job training, and other programming. Idleness and the stress of living in to supervise, and crowding crowded conditions often lead to conflict. Meaningful activities will not end sexual abuse, but they are part of the solution. It is critical that law- systemwide makes it difficult makers tackle the problem of overcrowding. If facilities and entire systems to carve out safe spaces for are forced to operate beyond capacity and supervision is a pale shadow of what it must be, our best efforts to identify and protect vulnerable indi- vulnerable prisoners that are viduals will be stymied. less restrictive than solitary Classification has evolved from little more than ad hoc decisions to confinement and other an increasingly objective, evidence-based process. Although knowledge about the risk factors associated with sexual abuse is far from complete, forms of segregation. corrections administrators can identify and protect many vulnerable individuals from abuse.

F I N D I N G 4

Few correctional facilities are subject to the kind of rigorous internal monitoring and external oversight that would reveal why abuse occurs and how to prevent it. Dramatic reductions in sexual abuse depend on both.

he most effective prevention efforts are targeted interventions that reflect where, when, and under what conditions sexual abuse oc- Tcurs. Sexual abuse incident reviews, as required under the Commis- sion’s standards, produce the kind of information administrators need to deploy staff wisely, safely manage high-risk areas, and develop more effective policies and procedures. A number of State departments of corrections already conduct some type of review. Correctional agencies also must collect uniform data on these incidents, including at least the data necessary to answer all questions on the most recent version of the Bureau of Justice Statistics Survey on Sexual Violence. In aggregate form, the data can reveal important patterns and trends and must form the basis for corrective action plans that, along with the aggregated data, are released to the public. Transparency is essential. Even the most rigorous internal monitoring, however, is no substitute for opening up correctional facilities to outside review. The Commission

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 9 requires detailed, robust audits of its standards by independent auditors at least every 3 years. The auditor must be prequalified through the U.S. De- partment of Justice to perform audits competently and without bias. The Commission recommends that the National Institute of Corrections design and develop a national training program for auditors and that Congress provide funding specifically for this purpose. The Commission also supports external oversight beyond the mandatory audits. In particular, the Commission endorses the American Bar Association’s 2006 resolution urging Federal, State, and territorial governments to establish independent public entities to regularly monitor and Even the most rigorous report on the conditions in correctional facilities operating within their internal monitoring is no jurisdiction. Oversight by inspectors general, ombudsmen, legislative committees, or other bodies would work hand-in-hand with regular audits of substitute for opening up the Commission’s standards. correctional facilities to Courts provide a crucial role, especially when other modes of oversight fail. Civil court cases can spark reforms reaching far beyond the indi- outside review. vidual plaintiffs to protect other prisoners. The Commission is convinced that the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) that Congress enacted in 1996 has compromised the regulatory role of the courts and the ability of incarcerated victims of sexual abuse to seek justice in court. Under the PLRA, prisoners’ claims in court will be dismissed unless they have exhausted all “administrative remedies” available to them within the facility. In testimony to a House Judiciary Subcommittee, Garrett Cunning- ham recalled, “At first, I didn’t dare tell anyone about the rape. . . . I would have had to file a first prison grievance within 15 days [to begin the process of exhausting the facility’s administrative remedies]. . . . Even if I had known, during those first 15 days, my only thoughts were about suicide and. . . how to get myself into a safe place. . . so I would not be raped again.” The Commission recommends that Congress amend two aspects of the PLRA for victims of sexual abuse: the requirement that prisoners exhaust all internal administrative remedies before their claims can proceed in court and the requirement to prove physical injury to receive compen- satory damages, which fails to take into account the very real emotional and psychological injuries that often follow sexual assault. In the mean- time, correctional agencies must deem that victims of sexual abuse have exhausted their administrative remedies within 90 days after the abuse is reported—or within 48 hours in emergency situations—regardless of who reports the incident and when it allegedly occurred. Corrections administrators need robust mechanisms and systems to monitor their facilities, identify problems, and implement reforms. They must apply that discipline internally and accept it from outside. The very nature of correctional environments demands that the government and the public have multiple ways to watch over correctional settings and in- tervene when individuals are at risk.

10 NATIONAL PRISON RAPE ELIMINATION COMMISSION REPORT F I N D I N G 5

Many victims cannot safely and easily report sexual abuse, and those who speak out often do so to no avail. Reporting procedures must be improved to instill confidence and protect individuals from retaliation without relying on isolation. Investigations must be thorough and competent. Perpetrators must be held accountable through administrative sanctions and criminal prosecution.

ven when prisoners are willing to report abuse, their accounts are not necessarily taken seriously and communicated to appropriate Eofficials within the facility. “When I told one of the guards I trusted how tired I was of putting up with abuse [by other youth in a Hawaii facility], he told me to just ignore it,” Cyryna Pasion told the Commission. Ac- cording to a 2007 survey of youth in custody by the Texas State Auditor’s Office, 65 percent of juveniles surveyed thought the grievance system did not work. Changing that dynamic begins by providing easy ways for individuals to report sexual abuse they have experienced or know about, backed We need to create up by clear policies requiring staff and administrators to act on every alle- correctional environments gation. Although some correctional systems and individual facilities have made great strides in this area in recent years, the Commission’s standards in which prisoners feel safe guarantee that all prisoners can easily report abuse, that staff are required reporting sexual abuse to report abuse, and that reports are taken seriously in every facility across and are confident that the country. A serious response to every report of sexual abuse is also the best way to handle any false allegations. their allegations will be Victims and witnesses often are bullied into silence and harmed investigated. if they speak out. In a letter to the advocacy organization Just Detention International, one prisoner conveyed a chilling threat she received from the male officer who was abusing her: “Remember if you tell anyone any- thing, you’ll have to look over your shoulder for the rest of your life.” Ef- forts to promote reporting must be accompanied by policies and protocols to protect victims and witnesses from retaliation. And because some incarcerated individuals will never be comfortable reporting abuse internally, facilities must give prisoners the option of speaking confidentially with a crisis center or other outside agency. Facilities have a duty to thoroughly investigate every allegation of sexual abuse without delay and to completion, regardless of whether or not the alleged victim cooperates with investigators. Six years after the passage of PREA, many statewide correctional systems and individual facilities now

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 11 have policies, protocols, and trained staff in place to investigate allegations of sexual abuse. Yet there are still facilities—particularly those that confine juveniles, those under the umbrella of community corrections, and smaller jails—that lag behind in this crucial area. The Commission’s standard establishing the duty to investigate is followed by a detailed standard to en- Many individuals sure the quality of investigations. Unless investigations produce compelling responsible for evidence, corrections administrators cannot impose discipline, prosecutors will not indict, and juries will not convict abusers. investigating allegations In particular, when the sexual abuse has occurred recently and the of sexual abuse lack the allegation is rape, facilities must offer female and male victims a forensic exam by a specially trained professional. An evaluation of sexual assault training to be effective. nurse examiner (SANE) programs published in 2003 by the National Insti- Unless investigations tute of Justice found that they improve the quality of forensic evidence and increase the ability of law enforcement to collect information, file charges, produce compelling and prosecute and convict perpetrators while also providing better emer- evidence, corrections gency health care. Correctional facilities must also implement a proto- administrators cannot col that dictates how to collect, maintain, and analyze physical evidence and that stipulates the responsibilities of the forensic examiner and other impose discipline, responders—drawing on “A National Protocol for Sexual Assault Medical prosecutors will not Forensic Examinations, Adults/Adolescents” created by the Department of Justice in 2004 to improve investigations of sexual abuse in the community. indict, and juries will To facilitate the implementation of this standard, the Commission recom- not convict abusers. mends that the Department of Justice adapt the protocol specifically for use in correctional facilities nationwide. The work of investigating sexual abuse in a correctional environment is complex, requiring skill and sensitivity. According to a report published in 2007 by the National Institute of Corrections, many sexual abuse investigators are so unfamiliar with the dynamics inside a correctional facility that they cannot operate effectively. Because the deficits in some jurisdictions are so great, the Commission’s standard in this area requires facilities to ensure that investigators are trained in up-to-date approaches and specifies certain minimum training requirements. And whenever correctional agencies outsource investigations to local law enforcement agencies, they must attempt to forge a memorandum of understanding with the agency specifying its role and responsibilities. Investigators do not work alone; any report of sexual abuse in a correctional facility must also trigger an immediate response from security staff; forensic, medical, and mental health care practitioners; and the head of the facility. To meet the needs of victims while conducting a thorough investigation, these professionals must coordinate their efforts. No national data have been collected on how often correctional facilities investigate reported abuses, and there is no body of research describing the quality of those investigations. But correctional facilities

12 NATIONAL PRISON RAPE ELIMINATION COMMISSION REPORT substantiate allegations of sexual abuse at very low rates. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, facilities substantiated just 17 percent of all allegations of sexual violence, misconduct, and harassment investigated in 2006. In 29 percent of the alleged incidents, investigators concluded that sexual abuse did not occur. But in the majority of allegations (55 percent) investigators could not determine whether or not the abuse oc- Until more cases are curred. Substantiation rates in some states are considerably lower than the successfully prosecuted, rate nationally. Standards that mandate investigations and improve their quality should increase the proportion of allegations in which the finding abusers will be subject is definitive and perpetrators can be held accountable. only to administrative Despite that fact that most incidents of sexual abuse constitute a crime in all 50 States and under Federal law, very few perpetrators of discipline, making it especially sexual abuse in correctional settings are prosecuted. Only a fraction of important for these sanctions cases are referred to prosecutors, and the Commission repeatedly heard testimony that prosecutors decline most of these cases. Undoubtedly, some to be fair and sufficiently investigations do not produce evidence capable of supporting a successful tough to deter abuse. prosecution. But other dynamics may be at play: some prosecutors may not view incarcerated individuals as members of the community and as deserving of their services as any other victim of crime. Allegations of sexual abuse must also trigger an internal administrative investigation, and when the allegations are substantiated, the perpetrator must be disciplined. Until more cases are successfully prosecuted, many inmate and staff perpetrators of serious sexual abuse will be subject only to administrative discipline, making sanctions especially important. Individuals conducting administrative investigations must base their conclusions on what the “preponderance of the evidence” shows—a standard less stringent than that required to convict someone of a crime but adequate to protect individuals from being labeled as perpetrators and sanc- tioned internally without cause. Sanctions must be fair, consistent, and sufficiently tough to deter abuse. It is crucial that labor and management reach agreements that allow reassigning officers during an investigation when safety is at issue and appropriate sanctions for staff perpetrators. Prisoners should never be punished for sexual contact with staff, even if the encounter was allegedly consensual. The power imbalance between staff and prisoners vitiates the possibility of meaningful consent, and the threat of punishment would deter prisoners from reporting sexual misconduct by staff. Everyone who engages in sexual abuse in a correctional setting must be held accountable for their actions. There has been too little accountability for too long. The Commission’s standards in these areas encourage incarcerated individuals and staff to report abuse and require correctional facilities to protect those who speak out, conduct effective investigations, and ensure appropriate punishment.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 13 F I N D I N G 6

Victims are unlikely to receive the treatment and support known to minimize the trauma of abuse. Correctional facilities need to ensure immediate and ongoing access to medical and mental health care and supportive services.

s corrections administrators work to create a protective environment in the facilities they manage, they also have a legal duty to ensure Athat when systems fail and abuse occurs, victims have access to appropriate medical and mental health services. Healing from sexual abuse is difficult; without adequate treatment, recovery may never occur. Although sexual abuse typically leaves few visible scars, most victims report persistent, if not lifelong, mental and physical repercussions. After Sunday Daskalea was abused on multiple occasions by staff and other inmates in the District of Columbia jail, she became crippled by fear and anxiety. She slept only during the day, afraid of what might happen to her at night. Even after being released, Daskalea suffered from insomnia, struggled with eating disorders, and spent months emotionally debilitated, The psychological effects withdrawn and depressed. At age 18, Chance Martin was sexually abused of sexual abuse can while incarcerated in the Lake County Jail in Crown Point, Indiana. “I’ve abused drugs and alcohol and tried to kill myself on the installment plan,” re-traumatize victims for Martin told the Commission. years following an assault, The psychological aftereffects of sexual abuse are well document- and studies show that ed. They include posttraumatic stress disorder, anxiety disorders, fear of loud noises or sudden movements, panic attacks, and intense flashbacks victims have more physical to the traumatic event. Each of these consequences alone has the ability to health problems than non- re-traumatize victims for years. The trauma can also lead to serious medical conditions, including cardiovascular disease, ulcers, and a weakened abused individuals. immune system. Studies indicate that sexual abuse victims have poorer physical functioning in general and more physical ailments than non- abused individuals, even after controlling for emotional disturbances such as depression. In addition, many victims are physically injured during the course of a sexual assault. A study of incarcerated men showed that more than half of all sexual assaults resulted in physical injury. Moreover, the study found that internal injuries and being knocked unconscious were more common outcomes of sexual abuse than of other violent encounters in prison. Exposure to HIV and other sexually transmitted infections are other potential consequences of sexual abuse. Michael Blucker tested negative for HIV when he was admitted to the Menard Correctional Center in Illinois, but approximately 1 year later, after being raped multiple times by

14 NATIONAL PRISON RAPE ELIMINATION COMMISSION REPORT other prisoners, he tested positive. According to testimony before the Com- mission, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) lacks data to assess the extent to which sex in correctional facilities, whether rape or consensual, contributes to the high prevalence of HIV in prisons and jails. One CDC study did find that individuals in confinement may contract HIV in a variety of ways, including sexual contact. Because of the disproportionate representation of minority men and women in correctional settings, it is likely that the spread of these diseases in confinement would have an even greater impact in minority communities. As such, the Commission recommends that Congress provide funding to appropriate entities for research into whether consensual and/or nonconsensual sexual activity in the correctional system plays a role in infect- ing populations outside of corrections with HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted infections. It has been more than three decades since the Supreme Court established in Estelle v. Gamble that deliberate indifference to the health of prisoners is a form of cruel and unusual punishment. Since then, correctional agencies have struggled, and sometimes failed with tragic results, to meet the medical and mental health care needs of a large and often ill prisoner population. Correctional health care is underfunded nearly everywhere, and most facilities are in dire need of additional skilled and compassionate health care practitioners. Recently, independent researchers analyzed the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ 2002 survey of jail inmates and 2004 survey of State and Federal prisoners and found that many prisoners with persistent problems had never been examined by a health care professional in the facility where they were incarcerated. The failing was much worse in jails than in prisons: 68 percent of jail inmates with medical problems reported Correctional health care never being examined, compared with 14 percent of Federal prisoners and is underfunded nearly 20 percent of State prisoners. Given the potentially severe and long-lasting medical and mental everywhere, and most health consequences of sexual abuse, facilities must ensure that victims facilities are in dire need have unimpeded access to emergency treatment and crisis intervention and to ongoing health care for as long as necessary—care that matches of additional skilled and what is generally acceptable to medical and mental health care profession- compassionate health als. Because some victims feel pressure to conceal abuse, all health care practitioners must have the training to know when a prisoner’s mental or care practitioners. physical health problems might indicate that abuse has occurred. Health care practitioners working in correctional facilities, like all staff, have a duty to report any indications of sexual abuse and must alert prisoners about their duty before providing treatment. Confidential treatment is not in the best interest of the victim or the safety of the facility. At the same time, they must provide care regardless of whether the victim names the perpetrator. Without such a policy, sexual abuse victims may decide that the risk of retaliation is too great and choose not to seek treatment.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 15 Because some victims will never feel comfortable or safe disclosing their experience of sexual abuse to a corrections employee, agencies must give prisoners information about how to contact victim advocates and other support services in the community—underscoring that their communications will be private and confidential to the extent permitted by law. Collaborations with community-based service providers can also increase the likelihood that victims of sexual abuse are supported as they transition from a correctional facility back to their home communities. For some victims of sexual abuse, cost may be a barrier to treat- Victims are entitled to ment. In the majority of States, legislatures have passed laws authorizing treatment whether or not correctional agencies to charge prisoners for medical care—fees as little as $5 that are beyond the means of many prisoners. Under the Commission’s they name the perpetrator standards, agencies must provide emergency care to victims of sexual of the abuse. abuse free of charge. Additionally, the Commission encourages correctional systems to define common and persistent aftereffects of sexual abuse as chronic conditions and to exempt them from fees. Financial barriers to treatment come in other forms, as well. Guide- lines for distributing funds provided under the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) prohibit serving any incarcerated persons, including victims of sexual abuse. Similarly, grants administered under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) cannot be used to assist anyone convicted of domestic or dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking. All survivors of sexual abuse need and deserve treatment and support services. The Commission recommends that the VOCA grant guidelines be changed and that Con- gress amend VAWA. Unimpeded access to treatment by qualified medical and mental health care practitioners and collaboration with outside providers are critical to ensuring that victims of sexual abuse can begin to heal.

F I N D I N G 7

Juveniles in confinement are much more likely than incarcerated adults to be sexually abused, and they are particularly at risk when confined with adults. To be effective, sexual abuse prevention, investigation, and treatment must be tailored to the developmental capacities and needs of youth.

daily snapshot of juveniles in custody in 2006 showed that approximately 93,000 youth were confined in juvenile residential fa- A cilities in the United States and more than half of them were 16 years or younger. Preventing, detecting, and responding to sexual abuse in

16 NATIONAL PRISON RAPE ELIMINATION COMMISSION REPORT these facilities demands age-appropriate interventions. The Commission’s set of standards for juvenile facilities parallels those for adult prisons and jails, with modifications to reflect the developmental capacities and needs of youth. When the State exercises custodial authority over children, “its responsibility to act in the place of parents (in loco parentis) obliges it to take special care.” Youth may pass through the justice system once or twice, never to return. Yet if they are sexually abused, they may live with lifelong consequences that can include persistent mental illness and tendencies toward substance abuse and criminality. Juvenile justice agencies thus have a responsibility and a challenge: prevent sexual abuse now, or risk long-term consequences for victims. Rates of sexual abuse appear to be much higher for confined youth than they are for adult prisoners. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics Youth who are sexually (BJS), the rate of sexual abuse in adult facilities, based only on substanti- abused may live with ated allegations captured in facility records, was 2.91 per 1,000 incarcer- lifelong consequences ated prisoners in 2006. The parallel rate in juvenile facilities was more than five times greater: 16.8 per 1,000. The actual extent of sexual abuse in that can include residential facilities is still unknown. BJS is currently conducting the first persistent mental illness nationally representative survey of confined youth. Juveniles are ill-equipped to respond to sexual advances by older, and tendencies toward more experienced youth or adult caretakers. Based on reports of rampant substance abuse and physical violence and sexual abuse in a juvenile correctional facility in Plainfield, Indiana, the U.S. Department of Justice began investigating criminality. conditions of confinement in 2004. Investigators were shocked by the age and size disparity between many of the youth involved. Youth as old as 18 were assaulting or coercing children as young as 12; children weighing as little as 70 pounds were sexually abused by youth outweighing them by 100 pounds. Simply being female is a risk factor. Girls are disproportionately represented among sexual abuse victims. According to data collected by BJS in 2005–2006, 36 percent of all victims in substantiated incidents of sexual violence were female, even though girls represented only 15 percent of confined youth in 2006. And they are much more at risk of abuse by staff than by their peers. Pervasive misconduct at a residential facility for girls in Chalkville, Alabama, beginning in 1994 and continuing through 2001, led 49 girls to bring charges that male staff had fondled, raped, and sexually harassed them. Abusive behavior is not limited to male staff. In 2005, the Department of Justice found that numerous female staff in an Oklahoma juvenile facility for boys had sexual relations with the youth under their care. Youth are also vulnerable to sexual victimization while under juvenile justice supervision in the community. Nearly half (48 percent) of the more than 1.1 million youth who received some juvenile court sanction in 2005 were placed under the supervision of State, local, or county probation

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 17 officers or counselors. A 50-year-old man who had served as a youth probation officer for 11 years with the Oregon Youth Authority was convicted of sexually abusing boys in his care, including a 14-year-old mentally disabled boy with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Victims and their families had complained for years about this officer, but officials took no action. Staff training and supervision are crucial. Staff need to understand the distinctive nature of sexual abuse involving children and teens and its potential consequences. Their responsibilities—including a duty to report any information about abuse—must be clear, and they must be informed that they will be held accountable for their actions and omissions. Admin- Simply being female is a istrators must uphold these policies and ensure that every report of abuse risk factor: girls are over is promptly investigated. Although research has yet to pinpoint the characteristics of youth represented among young who are at greatest risk of being victimized or perpetrating sexual abuse in victims of sexual abuse. juvenile facilities, many of the factors associated with vulnerability to sexual abuse among adults also appear to place juveniles at risk. In addition to screening all youth, facilities can take a simple step to protect youth from sexual abuse: encourage all residents during intake to tell staff if they fear being abused. This message, combined with affirmative statements about the facility’s commitment to safety and zero tolerance of sexual abuse, makes it more likely that vulnerable youth will seek protection when they need it—before an assault occurs. Youth may be segregated only as a last resort and for short periods of time when less restrictive measures are inadequate to keep them safe. Reducing sexual abuse also requires creating conditions that encourage youth to report abuse. Internal reporting procedures must be simple and secure; victims and witnesses must have unimpeded access to their families, attorneys, or other legal representatives; and facilities must provide parents and lawyers with information about the rights of residents and internal grievance procedures. Because many youth fail to recognize certain coercive and harmful behaviors as “abuse,” juvenile facilities must improve sexual education programs and sexual abuse prevention curricula. Youth who perpetrate sexual violence in juvenile facilities present a challenge for facility administrators who must apply developmentally appropriate interventions. They may need treatment as much as, or more than, punishment. Studies have shown that youth who commit sexual offenses typically have a history of severe family problems. Correctional medical and mental health practitioners must be trained to recognize the signs of sexual abuse and to provide age-appropriate treatment. And because young victims may lack the confidence to seek help from corrections staff, they must have access to victim advocates in the community to ensure that they are not left without support and treatment. More than any other group of incarcerated persons, youth incarcerated with adults are probably at the highest risk for sexual abuse.

18 NATIONAL PRISON RAPE ELIMINATION COMMISSION REPORT According to BJS, 7.7 percent of all victims in substantiated incidents of violence perpetrated by prisoners in adult facilities in 2005 were under the age of 18. Data collected by BJS in 2006 show that on any given day, almost 8,500 youth under the age of 18 are confined with adults in prisons and jails. Civil rights attorney Deborah LaBelle told the Commission that 80 percent of the 420 boys sentenced to life without parole in Michigan, Illinois, and Missouri reported that, within the first year of their sentence, they had been sexually assaulted by at least one adult male prisoner. Be- cause of the extreme risk of sexual victimization for youth in adult facilities, the Commission urges that individuals under the age of 18 be held separately from the general population. The Commission’s inquiry into the sexual abuse of youth in juvenile justice and adult corrections has revealed disturbing information about its prevalence, gravity, and consequences. Hope lies in the fact that necessary precautions and remedies are clear and rehabilitation remains a guiding principle in the field of juvenile justice.

F I N D I N G 8

Individuals under correctional supervision in the community, who outnumber prisoners by more than two to one, are at risk of sexual abuse. The nature and consequences of the abuse are no less severe, and it jeopardizes the likelihood of their successful reentry.

y the end of 2007, there were more than 5.1 million adults under correctional supervision in the community, either on probation Bor parole, and the numbers are growing. They too are at risk of sexual abuse. As both Federal and State governments attempt to reduce incarceration costs in the face of looming deficits, the number of individuals under some form of community supervision—before, after, or in lieu of confinement—is likely to rise. Despite the number of individuals under supervision in the community, there is a lack of research on this population, and responses to PREA have been slow to take root in this area of Community corrections corrections. The Commission has developed a full set of standards govern- agencies, just like prisons ing community corrections. Community corrections encompasses a diverse array of agencies, and jails, have a special facilities, and supervision structures on the Federal, State, and local levels. responsibility to protect the Supervision can occur in halfway houses, prerelease centers, treatment facilities, and other residential settings. Nonresidential supervision can individuals they supervise include probation, parole, pretrial supervision, court-mandated substance from sexual abuse. abuse treatment, court diversionary programs, day-reporting centers,

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 19 community service programs, probation before judgment, furloughs, electronic monitoring, and home detention. As in other correctional settings, courts have found that sexual abuse in community corrections violates the Eighth Amendment of the Drawing and maintaining U.S. Constitution prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment. As a result, boundaries is a challenge community corrections agencies, like prisons and jails, have a special responsibility to protect the people they supervise. Courts also have de- even for community termined that the authority staff have over the individuals they monitor corrections staff with the makes a truly consensual sexual relationship impossible. Community corrections agencies are accountable for sexual abuse incidents, regardless of best intentions, and the whether the circumstances in which the abuse occurred were under the autonomous nature of their direct control of the agency or a separate organization working under contract with the agency. Anyone in a supervisory position can be held liable work makes it easier to for abuse. For example, in Smith v. Cochran, Pamela Smith was in jail but conceal sexual misconduct. participating in a work release program. Her supervisor on the job sexually assaulted her, and the court ruled that important “penological responsibilities” had been delegated to him. Although individuals under correctional supervision in the community may experience sexual abuse at the hands of other supervisees, the dynamics of supervision make them particularly vulnerable to abuse by staff. Coercion and threats carry great weight because individuals under supervision are typically desperate to avoid being incarcerated. Staff also have virtually unlimited access to the individuals they supervise, sometimes in private and intimate settings. In Ramsey County, Minne- sota, for example, a male community corrections officer visiting a former prisoner’s apartment to discuss her failure in a drug treatment program instead requested and had sex with her. The diverse roles and obligations of staff present risks. They operate as enforcement officers in the interest of public safety and also function as counselors and social workers. Drawing and maintaining boundaries is a challenge even for staff with the best intentions. Moreover, because community corrections staff operate with significantly less direct supervision than their counterparts in secure facilities, it is easier for them to conceal sexual misconduct. Clear policies rooted in an ethic of zero tolerance for sexual abuse coupled with good training can mitigate these dangers by giving staff the direction, knowledge, and skills they need to maintain appropriate relationships with the individuals they supervise. Of course, preventing sexual abuse begins with hiring the right staff. Although community corrections agencies face significant challenges in preventing abuse, they may have advantages in responding to victims. By definition, community corrections agencies tend to have access to skilled professionals and other resources that are beyond the reach of many secure correctional facilities, especially prisons sited in re- mote locations. For example, coordinated sexual assault response teams,

20 NATIONAL PRISON RAPE ELIMINATION COMMISSION REPORT widely recognized as an optimal way to respond to incidents of sexual abuse, exist in many communities and may be available to partner with local correctional agencies. Partnerships with victim advocates and counselors in the community also ensure that people under correctional supervision are able to disclose abuse and receive treatment confidentially, if they so choose. Some individuals under supervision will disclose abuse that occurred while they were incarcerated. Agencies must report past abuse to the facilities where the abuse occurred. This is necessary to trigger an investigation and also to improve the accuracy of facility records and provide insights on reasons incarcerated victims of sexual abuse remain silent. The mission of community corrections is centered on helping offenders establish productive and law-abiding lives. Protecting them from sexual abuse and helping victims recover from past abuses is an essential part of that mission.

F I N D I N G 9

A large and growing number of detained immigrants are at risk of sexual abuse. Their heightened vulnerability and unusual circumstances require special interventions.

reventing, detecting, and responding to sexual abuse of immigrants in custody require special measures not included in the Commis- Psion’s standards for correctional facilities. These measures are contained in a set of supplemental standards that apply to any facility that houses individuals detained solely because their right to remain in the United States is in question. The Commission’s work in this area advances efforts by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to protect detainees from sexual abuse. In the 15 years from 1994 to 2009, the number of immigrants held in detention pending a judicial decision about their legal right to remain in the United States increased nearly 400 percent. For the 2009 fiscal year, ICE For the 2009 fiscal year, ICE has budgeted enough money to detain 33,400 people on any given night expects to detain 33,400 and more than 400,000 people over the course of the year. The population of immigration detainees includes adults, thousands of “unaccompanied” people on any given night children, and whole families confined together. and more than 400,000 The prevalence of sexual abuse among immigration detainees is unknown and has yet to receive the attention and research it merits, but over the course of the year. accounts of abuse by other detainees and staff have been coming to light for more than 20 years. Many factors—personal and circumstantial, alone or in combination—make immigration detainees especially vulnerable to

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 21 sexual abuse. One of the most pervasive factors is social isolation. Indi- viduals are often confined far from family or friends and may not speak the language of other detainees or staff. Those who have already suffered terrifying experiences in their home countries or in the United States can be almost defenseless by the time they are detained and may even expect to be abused. Preventing abuse requires precautions beyond those mandated for other prisoners. In particular, when immigration detainees are confined in ordinary prisons, jails, and lockups—a common practice—they must be housed apart from the general population, but they should not be placed in segregation. Depending on the conditions in protective custody cells and units, the experience can enhance the feeling of aloneness already common among immigration detainees and lead to depression and other problems. Families who are in ICE custody are currently detained in several facilities in the United States. Stays are not always brief: women with children, including babies and toddlers, may be detained for days, weeks, or even months. In testimony before a congressional subcommittee on immigration, Texas Representative Sheila Jackson noted that families in these facilities often are “deprived of the right to live as a family unit, denied adequate medical and mental health care, and face overly harsh disciplinary tactics.” Facilities face the challenge of protecting residents of all ages from sexual abuse while also preserving family unity. One specific chal- The fear of deportation lenge is ensuring that both adults and children can report sexual abuse is a tool in the hands in a confidential manner, which is especially important for situations in which children are at risk of abuse within the family unit. of abusive officers, Because immigration detainees are confined by the agency with the both to coerce sex and power to deport them, officers have an astounding degree of leverage— especially when detainees are not well informed of their rights and lack to silence victims. access to legal counsel. The Commission learned that officers have propo- sitioned women whose cases they control, telling them that if they want to be released they need to comply with their sexual demands. The fear of deportation cannot be overstated and also functions to silence many individuals who are sexually abused. Those brave enough to speak out may face retaliation. After women detainees at the Krome immigration detention facility in Miami reported sexual abuse by staff, several of them wrote, “We are afraid. . . each time one of us is interviewed by investigating officers. . . . [S]ome of the women who have given statements have either been transferred or deported to their countries.” Transfers can completely derail the complaint process, which has lasting consequences for victims who may be eligible for a special visa to remain in the United States. When staff cannot protect victims and witnesses in the facility where the abuse occurred, ICE must consider releasing and monitoring them in the community during the course of the investigation.

22 NATIONAL PRISON RAPE ELIMINATION COMMISSION REPORT There also are institutional barriers that block or discourage victims and witnesses from reporting abuse. Grievance procedures can seem impossibly complex, especially for detainees who speak languages other than English or Spanish. A 2006 audit by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Office of the Inspector General revealed that detainees often do not receive information on reporting abuse and other grievances in a language they can understand. Although detainees have periodic contact with immigration judges, those judges have no jurisdiction over the conditions of their detention. Even advocacy groups in the local community may lack the language skills More than other incarcerated and cultural competency to assist them. Detainees need access to outside victims of sexual abuse, entities able and authorized to receive and respond to reports of sexual abuse. Specifically, facilities must provide immigration detainees with ac- immigration detainees depend cess to telephones with free, preprogrammed numbers to ICE’s Office for on outside entities for help— Civil Rights and Civil Liberties and to the Department of Homeland Secu- rity’s Office of the Inspector General. They also must have access to tele- from consulates to counselors phones to contact diplomatic or consular personnel from their countries of who specialize in assisting citizenship, along with a list of those phone numbers. Detainees who are victims of sexual abuse also need a lifeline to immigrant victims of crime. outside organizations with experience counseling immigrant victims of crime and assurances that their communications with outside advocates are confidential to the extent permitted by law. At the same time, facilities must still ensure that their own staff have the training to respond in culturally appropriate ways to sexual abuse. Protection for all immigration detainees and services for victims of sexual abuse are not what they should be. And little is known about this fast-growing area of confinement, one in which preventing, detecting, and responding to sexual abuse is especially challenging.

he Commission sunsets 60 days following the submission of its report and standards to Congress, the President, the Attorney General, Tand other Federal and State officials. The real work of implementation begins then, particularly on the part of the Attorney General and his staff. Within a year of receiving the Commission’s report and standards, the Attorney General is required to promulgate national standards for the detection, prevention, reduction, and punishment of detention facility sexual abuse. The Commission recommends that the Attorney General establish a PREA Advisory Committee pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972. The purpose of the Advisory Committee is to assist the Attor- ney General with the promulgation of the PREA standards and thereafter assess their implementation and propose amendments as needed to increase their efficacy. The Commission also recommends that the Attorney

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 23 General create a full-time Special Assistant for PREA within the Office of the Deputy Attorney General. The Special Assistant would have primary The Commission has seen responsibility for ensuring the implementation of the standards as central ideas transformed to the national effort of eliminating prison rape. PREA represents a sea change in public consciousness and in nation- into actions that al commitment to protecting individuals under correctional supervision have the potential to from sexual abuse. Already, the Commission has seen ideas transformed into actions that by all accounts have the potential to improve safety. This improve safety. This is is just the beginning. When the Attorney General issues mandatory stan- just the beginning. dards, they will accelerate the pace of reform and ensure that the same fundamental protections are available in every correctional and detention setting. Our obligations, both moral and legal, require nothing less.

24 NATIONAL PRISON RAPE ELIMINATION COMMISSION REPORT ExEcutivE Summary

www.nprec.us

JUNE 2009 Commissioners

Reggie B. Walton, Chair John A. Kaneb, Vice -Chair

James E. Aiken Jamie Fellner Pat Nolan Gustavus A. Puryear IV Brenda V. Smith Cindy Struckman -Johnson

References for quotations and other source materials mentioned in this executive summary are provided in the Commission’s full report. STANDARDS FOR THE PREVENTION, DETECTION, RESPONSE, AND MONITORING OF SEXUAL ABUSE IN ADULT PRISONS AND JAILS STANDARDS FOR THE PREVENTION, DETECTION, RESPONSE, AND MONITORING OF SEXUAL ABUSE IN ADULT PRISONS AND JAILS

INCLUDING SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS FOR FACILITIES WITH IMMIGRATION DETAINEES

PREFACE

Ours has been a daunting task, albeit a deeply motivating and compelling one—to provide the President, members of Congress, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services with national standards by which to detect, prevent, reduce, and punish prison rape.

As we submit these standards to the Attorney General for review and approval, I and my col- leagues on the Commission believe that they are as urgently needed now as they were in 2003 when Congress mandated this groundbreaking project as part of the Prison Rape Elimination Act. Sexual abuse of incarcerated individuals remains a persistent problem, with life-altering consequences for victims, for the integrity of correctional institutions, and for fundamental principles of justice. We discuss the problem in great detail in our report; this standards document and its companion volumes are our blueprint for lasting nationwide change.

The standards development process benefited from, and indeed could not have happened without, the contributions of dozens of private and governmental organizations and more than 400 individuals—corrections professionals, academics, researchers, practitioners, and survivors of sexual abuse in confinement—who provided testimony at hearings, advice at expert committee and stakeholder meetings, and input during an extensive public comment period. In finalizing these standards and incorporating their expertise, our discussions have been long and lively and our debates rigorous. We are particularly grateful for the insights and lessons learned from early reformers—corrections professionals who have been working to prevent sexual abuse in their facilities since long before the passage of the Prison Rape Elimina- tion Act and who continue to do so.

Each set of standards has been customized to ensure validity for particular conditions of confinement. The members of the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission are confident that the implementation of these national standards can have a substantial and salutary effect on the safety of prisons, jails, lockups, immigration detention centers, juvenile detention facilities, and community correctional facilities.

We are proud to entrust the enactment and implementation of these standards to the many capable policymakers and professionals who will now take up the torch. It has been an honor for us to play a part in the elimination of sexual abuse in confinement. A just and civil society should strive for nothing less.

The Honorable Reggie B. Walton, Chair

Preface iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION...... 1

GLOSSARY ...... 3

I. PREVENTION AND RESPONSE PLANNING...... 9

PREVENTION PLANNING (PP)...... 9 PP-1: Zero tolerance of sexual abuse...... 9 PP-2: Contracting with other entities for the confinement of inmates...... 10 PP-3: Inmate supervision ...... 10 PP-4: Limits to cross-gender viewing and searches...... 11 PP-5: Accommodating inmates with special needs...... 13 PP-6: Hiring and promotion decisions ...... 13 PP-7: Assessment and use of monitoring technology...... 15

RESPONSE PLANNING (RP)...... 15 RP-1: Evidence protocol and forensic medical exams...... 15 RP-2: Agreements with outside public entities and community service providers...... 17 RP-3: Agreements with outside law enforcement agencies...... 18 RP-4: Agreements with the prosecuting authority...... 19

II. PREVENTION...... 21

TRAINING AND EDUCATION (TR) ...... 21 TR-1: Employee training...... 21 TR-2: Volunteer and contractor training...... 22 TR-3: Inmate education...... 23 TR-4: Specialized training: Investigations...... 24 TR-5: Specialized training: Medical and mental health care...... 26

SCREENING FOR RISK OF SEXUAL VICTIMIZATION AND ABUSIVENESS (SC)...... 27 SC-1: Screening for risk of victimization and abusiveness...... 27 SC-2: Use of screening information...... 30

III. DETECTION AND RESPONSE...... 33

REPORTING (RE)...... 33 RE-1: Inmate reporting...... 33 RE-2: Exhaustion of administrative remedies...... 34 RE-3: Inmate access to outside confidential support services...... 36 RE-4: Third-party reporting...... 37

Table of Contents v OFFICIAL RESPONSE FOLLOWING AN INMATE REPORT (OR)...... 37 OR-1: Staff and facility head reporting duties...... 37 OR-2: Reporting to other confinement facilities...... 38 OR-3: Staff first responder duties...... 39 OR-4: Coordinated response...... 40 OR-5: Agency protection against retaliation...... 41

INVESTIGATIONS (IN)...... 42 IN-1: Duty to investigate ...... 42 IN-2: Criminal and administrative agency investigations...... 43 IN-3: Evidence standard for administrative investigations...... 46

DISCIPLINE (DI)...... 46 DI-1: Disciplinary sanctions for staff ...... 46 DI-2: Disciplinary sanctions for inmates ...... 47

MEDICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH CARE (MM)...... 49 MM-1: Medical and mental health screenings—history of sexual abuse...... 49 MM-2: Access to emergency medical and mental health services...... 50 MM-3: Ongoing medical and mental health care for sexual abuse victims and abusers...... 51

IV. MONITORING...... 53

DATA COLLECTION AND REVIEW (DC)...... 53 DC-1: Sexual abuse incident reviews...... 53 DC-2: Data collection ...... 54 DC-3: Data review for corrective action...... 55 DC-4: Data storage, publication, and destruction ...... 56

AUDITS (AU)...... 57 AU-1: Audits of standards...... 57

V. SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS FOR FACILITIES WITH IMMIGRATION DETAINEES...... 59

COMPLIANCE WITH PREA STANDARDS ...... 59

SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS...... 60 ID-1: Supplement to RP-2: Agreements with outside public entities and community service providers ...... 60 ID-2: Supplement to TR-1, TR-4, and TR-5: Employee training and specialized training of investigators and medical and mental health care ...... 61 ID-3: Supplement to TR-3: Inmate education ...... 62 ID-4: Detainee handbook ...... 63 ID-5: Supplement to SC-1: Screening for risk of victimization and abusiveness ...... 64 vi Standards for the Prevention, Detection, Response, and Monitoring of Sexual Abuse in Adult Prisons and Jails ID-6: Supplement to SC-2: Use of screening information ...... 65 ID-7: Supplement to RE-1: Inmate reporting ...... 65 ID-8: Supplement to RE-3: Inmate access to outside confidential support services ...... 66 ID-9: Protection of detainee victims and witnesses ...... 67 ID-10: Supplement to MM-3: Ongoing medical and mental health care for sexual abuse victims and abusers ...... 68 ID-11: Supplement to DC-2: Data collection ...... 69

SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS FOR FAMILY FACILITIES...... 69 IDFF-1: Screening of immigration detainees in family facilities...... 69 IDFF-2: Reporting of sexual abuse in family facilities...... 70 IDFF-3: Investigations in family facilities...... 70 IDFF-4: Access to medical and mental health care in family facilities...... 71

APPENDIX A: RESPONSIBILITIES OF FORENSIC MEDICAL EXAMINERS ...... 73

APPENDIX B: TRAINING TOPICS AND PROCEDURES...... 75

APPENDIX C: INCIDENT-BASED DATA COLLECTION...... 79

APPENDIX D: NPREC STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT EXPERT COMMITTEE MEMBERS...... 81

APPENDIX E: STANDARDS IMPLEMENTATION NEEDS ASSESSMENT...... 87

Table of Contents vii

INTRODUCTION

Sexual abuse of people in confinement violates their basic human rights, impedes the likelihood of their successful reentry into the community, and violates the Government’s obligation to provide safe and humane conditions of confinement. No prison sentence, regardless of the crime, should ever include rape. A core priority of any confinement facility must be safety, which means protecting the safety of all—the public, the staff, and the inmate population. In recognition of this, Congress formed the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission (NPREC or Commission) to develop national standards that will help eliminate prison rape and other forms of sexual abuse in confinement.

The Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) of 2003 requires agencies to comply with the national standards proposed by the Commission and approved and promulgated by the Attorney General to eliminate sexual abuse in confinement. Fundamental to an agency’s success will be its commitment to zero tolerance of sexual abuse—a recognition that sexual abuse in confinement facilities is unacceptable under any circumstances and as dangerous a threat to institutional security as an escape or homicide. Agencies must demonstrate zero tolerance not merely by words and written policy, but through their actions, including what they do to prevent sexual abuse and their response when it occurs.

The standards developed by NPREC are organized as follows:

Standard Statement Assessment Checklist Discussion

Mandatory Not mandatory: Not mandatory: tool for tracking provides commentary compliance and guidance

Each standard statement contains mandatory requirements. Under each standard statement is an assessment checklist. The assessment checklists are designed as a tool for agencies and facilities to self-assess and track their progress toward meeting the standards. They are also meant to be a starting point for the external audit of a facility’s compliance with the standards. The agency head, facility head, PREA coordinator, or a designee must complete the assessment checklists for every standard. Although answering “yes” to each checklist item is not mandatory, meeting the requirements in the standard is mandatory. Therefore, when completing a given checklist, if an official answers “no” to a checklist question but believes the facility/agency is meeting the requirements of the standard using a different process or procedure, he or she should explain how the alternative process or procedure meets the standard. The PREA coordinator or other official should attach documentation of compliance with the standard to the checklist unless compliance is self-evident.

After each assessment checklist is a discussion of the standard. Discussion sections provide expla- nation for the rationale of the standard and, in some cases, offer guidance for achieving compliance with it. Although the discussion sections sometimes offer further clarification on the meaning of terms or phrases used in the standard, the glossary should be used as the primary source for the meaning of terms or phrases. The discussion sections do not contain any additional mandatory

Introduction 1 requirements. When mandatory requirements are mentioned in a discussion section, they have been drawn directly from the standard statement.

In crafting these standards, NPREC has kept in mind the following overarching considerations: (1) agency and facility heads should retain the flexibility, responsibility, and authority to establish systems, practices, and protocols that will eliminate sexual abuse in their confinement facilities; (2) successful compliance with the standards and elimination of sexual abuse require ongoing systemic efforts to assess and adjust policies, practices, and the allocation of resources to address problems and improve safety; and (3) greater transparency of the agency’s sexual abuse data and efforts to prevent, detect, and respond to sexual abuse will improve public trust and confidence in our Nation’s prisons and jails and aid in the elimination of sexual abuse in confinement.

These standards are the product of lengthy study, consultation, and reflection. The Commission held eight public hearings, during which more than 100 witnesses testified, including corrections leaders, survivors of sexual abuse in confinement, researchers, investigators, prosecutors, and advocates for victims and the incarcerated. In addition, the Commission convened expert committees comprising similarly diverse stakeholders with broad correctional expertise to help inform the content of the standards during the drafting process. Site visits to a cross-section of confinement facilities enabled the Commission to receive feedback on the draft standards from a variety of corrections officials. NPREC also conducted a thorough review of the literature and commissioned its own research to address some of the unanswered questions about the causes and consequences of sexual abuse in confinement. Finally, during its 60-day public comment period, the Commission received and considered comments on the standards, many extensive in nature, from more than 225 individuals or entities representing a wide range of perspectives.

The Commission believes that full adoption of these standards by all of the Nation’s prisons and jails is necessary to achieve the elimination of sexual abuse in confinement facilities as Congress intended in passing PREA.

2 Standards for the Prevention, Detection, Response, and Monitoring of Sexual Abuse in Adult Prisons and Jails GLOSSARY

The following terms are used throughout the standards, and agencies should note and understand the definitions of these terms as provided below to ensure proper compliance with the standards. The Commission wishes to draw special attention to the fact that the definitions of sexually abusive conduct that appear here differ from the definitions used by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). The Commission recognizes that the BJS definitions have been used by agencies for data collection purposes but has formulated somewhat different definitions to capture the full range of conduct the standards seek to address. Additionally, the Commission has deliberately excluded definitions for inmate-on-inmate indecent exposure and voyeurism. Legal definitions for indecent exposure and voyeurism rely on the concept of a sphere of privacy, and although inmates have a legally cognizable privacy interest, that interest is extremely limited by penological interests. Because the extent of inmates’ privacy rights necessarily varies according to legitimate penological needs, so too would the circumstances in which it would be appropriate to penalize inmates for indecent exposure and voyeurism, complicating the task of setting forth a clear policy and consistent practice of enforcement. The reality is that inmates are in states of undress around other inmates and staff on a regular basis, raising the possibility that inmates might be penalized for conduct that is part of the ordinary course of life in confinement.

Agency: The unit of a governing or corporate authority with direct responsibility for the operation of any facility that confines inmates or detainees, including the implementation of policy as set by the governing or corporate authority.

Agency head: The chief authority of a Federal, State, or local correctional or law enforcement system.

Allegation: An oral, written, or electronic statement that sexual abuse has occurred or might occur that is provided to a staff member or outside agency.

Audit: A thorough investigatory review of information, including written records and interviews with staff and inmates, to determine whether and the extent to which an agency’s and/ or facility’s policies, practices, and protocols comply with the PREA standards.

Auditor: An individual or entity that the jurisdiction employs or retains by contract to perform audits. An auditor may also be authorized by law, regulation, or the judiciary to perform audits; however, an auditor cannot be an agency employee. An auditor is able and prequalified by the U.S. Department of Justice to perform audits competently and without bias. Prequalifi- cation does not require prior employment with any particular agency.

Contractor: A person who provides services other than direct services to inmates on a recurring basis according to a contractual agreement with the agency (e.g., maintenance contractors).

Credibility assessment: An investigator’s process of conducting interviews and weighing evidence to determine the truthfulness of victim, witness, and suspect statements.

Glossary 3 Critical incident: An occurrence or event, natural or human-caused, that requires an immediate response to protect life, facility safety, or property.

Cultural competence: The ability to work and communicate effectively with people of -di verse racial, ethnic, religious, and social groups based on an awareness and understanding of differences in thoughts, communications, actions, customs, beliefs, and values.

Employee: A person who works directly for the agency or facility or a person who provides direct services to inmates in a facility on a recurring basis according to a contractual agreement with the agency (e.g., contracted medical and mental health providers or contracted food service providers).

Facility: A place, institution, building (or part thereof), set of buildings, or area (whether or not enclosing a building or set of buildings) that is used for the confinement of individuals. A facility may be owned by a public or private agency.

Facility head: The chief authority of an individual confinement facility operated by a Federal, State, or local correctional or law enforcement agency or by a private entity (whether for-profit or nonprofit).

Gender identity: A person’s internal, deeply felt sense of being male or female, regardless of the person’s sex at birth.

Gender nonconforming: A person whose gender identity and/or expression do not conform to gender stereotypes generally associated with his or her birth sex.

Immigration detainee: Any person who is in the actual or constructive custody of the De- partment of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Customs and Border Protection, or the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) pending conclusion of immigration proceedings. ICE houses some detainees in facilities that it owns and operates and contracts with local, State, Federal, and private facilities to hold others. Unaccompanied minors in immigration detention are under the care and custody of ORR and are housed in foster care, shelters, group homes, and secure juvenile detention centers. Customs and Border Protection detains both adults and youth for short periods of time in holding cells before they are moved into ICE custody.

Inmate: Any person incarcerated or detained in any adult facility.

Intersex: A condition usually present at birth that involves reproductive, genetic, or sexual anatomy that does not seem to fit the typical definitions of female or male.

Jurisdiction: A legal entity of government with geographic boundaries, such as the United States, a State, a county, or a municipal entity.

4 Standards for the Prevention, Detection, Response, and Monitoring of Sexual Abuse in Adult Prisons and Jails Lockup: A temporary holding facility of a Federal, State, or local law enforcement agency. Lockups include locked rooms, holding cells, cell blocks, or other secure enclosures under the control of a law enforcement, court, or custodial officer. Lockups are primarily used for the temporary confinement of individuals who have recently been arrested or are being transferred to or from a court, local jail, State prison, or other facility.

Medical practitioner: A health professional who, by virtue of education, credentials, and experience, is permitted by law to evaluate and care for patients within the scope of his or her professional practice. A “qualified medical practitioner” refers to such a professional who has also successfully completed specialized training for treating sexual abuse victims.

Mental health practitioner: A mental health professional who, by virtue of education, credentials, and experience, is permitted by law to evaluate and care for patients within the scope of his or her professional practice. A “qualified mental health practitioner” refers to such a professional who has also successfully completed specialized training for treating sexual abuse victims.

Need to know: A criterion for limiting access of certain sensitive information to individuals who require the information to make decisions or take action with regard to an inmate’s safety or treatment or to the investigative process.

Pat-down search: A superficial running of the hands over the body of an inmate by an employee to determine whether the inmate possesses contraband.

PREA coordinator: A senior-level position that reports directly to the agency head. The PREA coordinator’s responsibilities include developing, implementing, and overseeing the agency’s plan to comply with the PREA standards. He or she is also responsible for ensuring the completion of the assessment checklists in this body of standards. The PREA coordinator is a full- time position in all State prison systems and agencies that operate large jails (more than 500 inmates) but may be a part-time position in agencies that operate medium (101–500 inmates) and small jails (100 inmates or fewer).

Preponderance of the evidence standard: The standard of proof used in most civil cases that requires the party bearing the burden of proof to present evidence that is more credible and convincing than the evidence presented by the other party. This standard is satisfied if the evidence shows that it is more probable than not that an event occurred. Preponderance of the evidence is a lesser standard of proof than “beyond a reasonable doubt,” which is required to convict in a criminal trial.

Protocol: Written instructions that guide the implementation of policies.

Report: Any allegation of sexual abuse. See definition ofallegation .

Security staff: Employees responsible for the supervision and control of inmates in housing units, recreational areas, dining areas, and other program areas of the facility.

Glossary 5 Sexual abuse: Encompasses (1) inmate-on-inmate sexual abuse, (2) inmate-on-inmate sexual harassment, (3) staff-on-inmate sexual abuse, and (4) staff-on-inmate sexual harassment.

(1) Inmate-on-inmate sexual abuse: Encompasses all incidents of inmate-on-inmate sexually abusive contact and inmate-on-inmate sexually abusive penetration.

Inmate-on-inmate sexually abusive contact: Non-penetrative touching (either directly or through the clothing) of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks without penetration by an inmate of another inmate without the latter’s consent, or of an inmate who is coerced into sexual contact by threats of violence, or of an inmate who is unable to consent or refuse.

Inmate-on-inmate sexually abusive penetration: Penetration by an inmate of another inmate without the latter’s consent, or of an inmate who is coerced into sexually abusive penetration by threats of violence, or of an inmate who is unable to consent or refuse. The sexual acts included are: • Contact between the penis and the vagina or the anus; • Contact between the mouth and the penis, vagina, or anus; or • Penetration of the anal or genital opening of another person by a hand, finger, or other object.

(2) Inmate-on-inmate sexual harassment: Repeated and unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, verbal comments, or gestures or actions of a derogatory or offensive sexual nature by one inmate directed toward another.

(3) Staff-on-inmate sexual abuse: Encompasses all occurrences of staff-on-inmate sexually abusive contact, staff-on-inmate sexually abusive penetration, staff-on-inmate indecent exposure, and staff-on-inmate voyeurism. Staff solicitations of inmates to engage in sexual contact or penetration constitute attempted staff-on-inmate sexual abuse.

Staff-on-inmate sexually abusive contact: Non-penetrative touching (either directly or through the clothing) of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks by a staff member of an inmate with or without the latter’s consent that is unrelated to official duties.

Staff-on-inmate sexually abusive penetration: Penetration by a staff member of an inmate with or without the latter’s consent. The sexual acts included are: • Contact between the penis and the vagina or the anus; • Contact between the mouth and the penis, vagina, or anus; or • Penetration of the anal or genital opening of another person by a hand, finger, or other object.

Staff-on-inmate indecent exposure: The display by a staff member of his or her uncov- ered genitalia, buttocks, or breast in the presence of an inmate.

Staff-on-inmate voyeurism: An invasion of an inmate’s privacy by staff for reasons unrelated to official duties or when otherwise not necessary for safety and security reasons,

6 Standards for the Prevention, Detection, Response, and Monitoring of Sexual Abuse in Adult Prisons and Jails such as peering at an inmate who is using a toilet in his or her cell; requiring an inmate to expose his or her buttocks, genitals, or breasts; or taking images of all or part of an inmate’s naked body or of an inmate performing bodily functions and distributing or publishing them.

(4) Staff-on-inmate sexual harassment: Repeated verbal comments or gestures of a sexual nature to an inmate by a staff member. Such statements include demeaning references to gender, sexually suggestive or derogatory comments about body or clothing, or obscene language or gestures.

Staff:Employees and volunteers.

Strip search: A search that requires a person to remove or arrange some or all of his or her clothing so as to permit a visual inspection of the underclothing, breasts, buttocks, or genitalia of such person.

Substantiated allegation: An allegation that was investigated and the investigation determined that the alleged event occurred.

Transgender: A term describing persons whose gender identity and/or expression do not conform to the gender roles assigned to them at birth.

Unfounded allegation: An allegation that was investigated and the investigation determined that the alleged event did not occur.

Unsubstantiated allegation: An allegation that was investigated and the investigation produced insufficient evidence to make a final determination as to whether or not the event occurred.

Victim advocate: An individual, who may or may not be affiliated with the agency, who provides victims with a range of services during the forensic exam and investigatory process. These services may include emotional support, crisis intervention, information and referrals, and advocacy to ensure that victims’ interests are represented, their wishes respected, and their rights upheld.

Video monitoring system: An integrated security system consisting of installed cameras monitored by employees, which augments and/or enhances the ability of employees to provide the sight and sound supervision necessary to prevent, detect, contain, and respond to incidents of sexual abuse.

Visual body cavity search: A visual inspection of a body cavity, defined as a rectal cavity or vagina, for the purpose of discovering whether contraband is concealed in it.

Volunteer: An individual who donates his or her time and effort on a recurring basis to enhance the activities and programs of the agency.

Glossary 7

I. PREVENTION AND RESPONSE PLANNING Prevention Planning (PP) Zero tolerance of sexual abuse PP-1 The agency has a written policy mandating zero tolerance toward all forms of sexual abuse and enforces that policy by ensuring all of its facilities comply with the PREA standards. The agency employs or designates a PREA coordinator to develop, implement, and oversee agency efforts to comply with the PREA standards.

Assessment Checklist YES NO (a) Does the agency have a written policy mandating zero tolerance toward all forms of sexual abuse? (b) Does the agency ensure that all of its facilities comply with the PREA standards? (c) Does the agency employ or designate a PREA coordinator to develop, implement, and oversee agency efforts to comply with the PREA standards?

Discussion Eliminating sexual abuse in confinement requires first and foremost a commitment to safety as a core mandate of confinement operations. Agency and facility heads will be responsible not only for ensuring that staff and inmates are informed of the agency’s zero-tolerance policy toward sexual abuse but for setting a tone that signals true commitment to an institutional culture of safety and security for all inmates and staff. The agency head will also be responsible for employing or designating a PREA coordinator to manage and oversee the agency’s efforts to comply with the PREA standards. The PREA coordinator’s job should include: (1) developing written policies that follow correctional best practices and meet the intent of the PREA standards; (2) developing and implementing a training plan that fulfills the PREA training standards; (3) monitoring inmate screening procedures, investigations, and medical and mental health care treatment according to the PREA standards; (4) supervising the agency’s data collection efforts; and (5) providing appropriate access and materials to auditors. By definition, the PREA coordinator will be a senior-level position reporting directly to the agency head. In that capacity, the PREA coordinator should provide routine updates to the agency head, including at executive-level meetings, on his or her areas of responsibility; progress reports on standards implementation and compliance; and notice of any problems or challenges that need to be addressed.

To ensure successful compliance with the PREA standards, the PREA coordinator may need to develop strategies to address the culture of the agency or facility(ies) to determine the levels of staff and inmate resistance or openness to PREA standards implementation. Examples of strategies may include conducting or coordinating assessments by surveying staff members and inmates to understand their attitudes, beliefs, and values that support or conflict with a “reporting” culture that creates safety and security. Based on the results of the assessment, the PREA coordinator and facility head(s) should work with key staff on all levels to design strategies that create a cultural “readiness” for change (e.g., development of new policies, staff briefings, video briefings from leadership for staff, and strategic planning meetings), training programs, and other systems to change the culture to one in which staff and inmates embrace the goals and values of PREA and institutional safety.

I. Prevention and Response Planning 9 Contracting with other entities for the confinement of inmates PP-2 If public correctional agencies contract for the confinement of their inmates, they do so only with private agencies or other entities, including other government agencies, committed to eliminating sexual abuse in their facilities, as evidenced by their adoption of and compliance with the PREA standards. Any new contracts or contract renewals include the entity’s obligation to adopt and comply with the PREA standards and specify that the public agency will monitor the entity’s compliance with these standards as part of its monitoring of the entity’s performance.

Assessment Checklist YES NO (a) Does the public agency contract for the confinement of inmates only with private agencies and other entities, including other government agencies, that agree to adopt and comply with the PREA standards? (b) Do all new contracts and contract renewals include an obligation to adopt and comply with the PREA standards? (c) Do all new contracts and contract renewals specify that the public agency will monitor the entity’s compliance with the PREA standards as part of its monitoring of the entity’s performance?

Discussion The goal of this standard is to ensure that all inmates, regardless of whether they are housed in public or private confinement settings, are protected from sexual abuse. Public agencies that contract with private agencies or other entities, including other government agencies, to confine their inmates are responsible for ensuring such protection of all inmates by contracting only with those companies or other entities that adopt and comply with PREA standards.

Inmate supervision PP-3 Security staff provides the inmate supervision necessary to protect inmates from sexual abuse. The upper management officials responsible for reviewing critical incidents must examine areas in the facility where sexual abuse has occurred to assess whether physical barriers may have enabled the abuse, the adequacy of staffing levels in those areas during different shifts, and the need for monitoring technology to supplement security staff supervision (DC-1). When problems or needs are identified, the agency takes corrective action (DC-3).

Assessment Checklist YES NO (a) Does security staff provide the supervision of inmates necessary to protect them from sexual abuse? (b) Do the upper management officials responsible for reviewing critical incidents examine areas in the facility where sexual abuse has occurred to assess the following? • Physical barriers that may have enabled the abuse • Adequacy of staffing levels in those areas during different shifts • Monitoring technology needs (c) When problems or needs are identified, does the agency take corrective action? (Attach description of corrective actions taken.)

10 Standards for the Prevention, Detection, Response, and Monitoring of Sexual Abuse in Adult Prisons and Jails Discussion Adequate security staff supervision of inmates is an essential component of any agency’s sexual abuse prevention strategy. It enables security staff to identify aggressive or coercive inmate behavior before it escalates to sexual abuse, to identify signs of inappropriate staff relationships developing with inmates before they become abuse, to respond immediately to prevent or end incidents of abuse by inmates or staff, and, when an incident does occur, to rapidly take the steps necessary for an effective response. For many facilities, adequate security staff supervision is achieved by using a direct supervision model to manage the inmate population. Direct supervision, widely extolled as a best practice, is a method of inmate management whereby officers are in continuous direct contact with inmates, enabling them to interact with and observe inmates at all or most times. When feasible, given the security level of the inmate population and any constraints stemming from the physical design of the facility, the Commission recommends that facilities strive to meet this standard by employing a direct supervision model.

Additionally, to ensure that any deficiencies in inmate supervision are promptly identified and corrected, the standard requires the upper management officials responsible for reviewing critical incidents to examine known areas where sexual abuse has occurred to assess and take corrective action regarding any physical barriers that may have enabled the abuse, any problems with staffing levels in those areas at different times of the day, and any needs for monitoring technology to supplement security staff supervision. In examining known areas where sexual abuse has occurred, for example, they may find blind spots or inadequate staffing patterns on particular shifts, which require new or different staff deployment schemes and/or the addition or adjustment of cameras. More sophisticated video security monitoring systems and/or radio frequency identification systems may also be useful tools for monitoring staff and inmate movement and location. The team of upper management officials may also discover that, to remedy the risk posed by physical barriers, other creative adaptations to facility design may be required. They ought to examine each area carefully and take corrective action to ensure that inmates in all areas of the facility are safe from sexual abuse. Moreover, when patterns of abuse have been identified in reviews (DC-1, DC-3), either at a given time of day, in a particular area, or involving certain types of inmates, facility leadership should take action to ensure increased supervision during those times, in those areas, or for those groups of inmates.

Limits to cross-gender viewing and searches PP-4 Except in the case of emergency, the facility prohibits cross-gender strip and visual body cavity searches. Except in the case of emergency or other extraordinary or unforeseen circumstances, the facility restricts nonmedical staff from viewing inmates of the opposite gender who are nude or performing bodily functions and similarly restricts cross-gender pat-down searches. Medical practitioners conduct examinations of transgender individuals to determine their genital status only in private settings and only when an individual’s genital status is unknown.

I. Prevention and Response Planning 11 Assessment Checklist YES NO (a) Except in the case of emergency, does the facility prohibit cross-gender searches of the following types? • Strip • Visual body cavity (b) Except in the case of emergency or other extraordinary or unforeseen circumstances, does the facility restrict cross-gender viewing by nonmedical staff of inmates who are nude or performing bodily functions? (c) Except in the case of emergency or other extraordinary or unforeseen circumstances, does the facility restrict cross-gender pat-down searches? (d) Are examinations of transgender individuals to determine their genital status conducted only by medical practitioners in private settings and only when an individual’s genital status is unknown?

Discussion The goal of this standard is to protect the privacy and dignity of inmates and to reduce opportunities for staff-on-inmate sexual abuse by prohibiting cross-gender strip and visual body cavity searches, setting limits on cross-gender viewing of inmates by nonmedical staff, and restricting cross-gender pat-down searches.

This standard imposes a strong prohibition on cross-gender strip and visual body cavity searches, except in the case of emergency. Performance of these more intrusive strip and body cavity searches should be undertaken only by specially trained, designated employees of the same gender and conducted in conformance with hygienic procedures and professional practices. Agencies without adequate security staff of the same gender as the inmate population may want to consider training non-security staff to conduct these searches.

This standard does not place a prohibition on cross-gender pat-down searches and viewing of inmates but requires these actions to be strictly limited in practice and only in the case of emergency or other extraordinary or unforeseen circumstances. The Commission recognizes that many State and local laws already restrict cross-gender viewing of inmates and encourages agencies to consult and follow their relevant State and local laws. The Commission likewise acknowledges that cross-gender supervision, in general, can prove beneficial in certain confinement settings and in no way intends for this standard to limit employment (or post assignment) opportunities for men or women.

Agencies are encouraged to use a number of tools to aid compliance with this standard, including the use of privacy panels for shower and toilet areas and making verbal announcements when a staff member of the opposite gender is in an area. Also, in addition to prohibiting cross-gender strip and visual body cavity searches, each agency is encouraged to have a strong, legally based policy regarding all searches (including same-gender searches) that gives proper regard to the inmate’s rights to privacy and dignity.

In some facilities, employees conduct strip or body cavity searches of transgender individuals ostensibly to determine their genital status. All too frequently, such examinations are not necessary because the individual’s genital status was already determined at an initial medical screening. To protect the privacy and dignity of transgender individuals, this standard prohibits examinations to determine genital status when that status has already been ascertained.

12 Standards for the Prevention, Detection, Response, and Monitoring of Sexual Abuse in Adult Prisons and Jails Additionally, this standard requires that examinations to determine genital status be conducted in private and by medical practitioners.

Accommodating inmates with special needs PP-5 The agency ensures that inmates who are limited English proficient (LEP), deaf, or disabled are able to report sexual abuse to staff directly, through interpretive technology, or through non- inmate interpreters. Accommodations are made to convey all written information about sexual abuse policies, including how to report sexual abuse, verbally to inmates who have limited reading skills or who are visually impaired.

Assessment Checklist YES NO (a) Are all LEP, deaf, and disabled inmates able to report sexual abuse to staff directly, through interpretive technology, or through non-inmate interpreters? (b) Are accommodations made to convey all written information about sexual abuse policies, including how to report sexual abuse, verbally to inmates with limited reading skills or who are visually impaired?

Discussion The ability of all inmates to communicate effectively and directly with staff, without having to rely on inmate interpreters, is crucial for ensuring that they are able to report sexual abuse as discreetly as possible. It is never desirable or sufficient for inmates to serve as interpreters or translators for other inmates to report abuse because it compromises confidentiality and places some inmates in a position of undue influence over others. It is likewise critical that all inmates be informed of the agency’s policies, including how to report, in a way and format that they understand. If the language and communication needs of the inmate population are unknown, the facility head or PREA coordinator may need to conduct an assessment of those needs and develop policies and protocols to address them. Having strong policies and protocols will help staff ensure the safety of LEP, deaf, and disabled inmates as well as those inmates who have limited reading skills or who are visually impaired.

Hiring and promotion decisions PP-6 The agency does not hire or promote anyone who has engaged in sexual abuse in an institutional setting or who has engaged in sexual activity in the community facilitated by force, the threat of force, or coercion. Consistent with Federal, State, and local law, the agency makes its best effort to contact all prior institutional employers for information on substantiated allegations of sexual abuse; must run criminal background checks for all applicants and employees being considered for promotion; and must examine and carefully weigh any history of criminal activity at work or in the community, including convictions for domestic violence, stalking, and sex offenses. The agency also asks all applicants and employees directly about previous misconduct during interviews and reviews.

I. Prevention and Response Planning 13 Assessment Checklist YES NO (a) Consistent with Federal, State, and local law, does the agency make its best effort to contact all prior institutional employers for information on substantiated allegations of sexual abuse? (b) Does the agency disqualify applicants or employees being considered for promotion upon learning of the following? • Any history of substantiated allegations of sexual abuse in an institutional setting • That they have engaged in sexual activity in the community facilitated by force, the threat of force, or coercion (c) Does the agency run criminal background checks for all applicants and employees being considered for promotion? (d) D oes the agency carefully consider any history of criminal activity at work or in the community, including the following? • Any convictions for domestic violence • Any convictions for stalking • Any convictions for sex offenses committed in the community (e) Does the agency ask all applicants and employees directly about previous misconduct during interviews and reviews?

Discussion An agency will not be able to meet its zero-tolerance goal if it employs or promotes anyone who has engaged in sexual abuse in an institutional setting or who has engaged in sexual activity facilitated by force, the threat of force, or coercion. Coercion includes but is not limited to using a position of authority or power to compel someone to engage in sexual activity. Changing institutional culture and eliminating sexual abuse can be difficult enough without adding the un- necessary additional risk of hiring or retaining individuals whose conduct has demonstrated a lack of personal commitment to PREA’s goals. In addition to making its best effort to contact all prior institutional employers for information on substantiated allegations of sexual abuse, the agency should have a consistent, proactive policy on asking applicants and employees directly about previous misconduct during interviews or reviews. In jurisdictions in which prospective employers are limited in their inquiry of previous employment or criminal background, the agency should consider having job applicants sign waivers, if not prohibited by law, stating that they waive their legal rights to claim libel, defamation, or slander regarding any information given during reference checks about their disciplinary history involving sexual abuse.

Although many agencies already run routine criminal background checks for applicants, the standard requires agencies to run criminal background checks, where allowable by law, both for all applicants and for employees being considered for promotion to ensure that agencies are always up to date on any criminal activity perpetrated by applicants or employees since gain- ing employment. The standard does not prescribe how to evaluate criminal histories because the Commission recognizes that the agency will have to consider each criminal history on a case-by-case basis and within a larger context of the person’s background, life experiences, and work history. When considering previous criminal activity, the agency will have to weigh a number of factors, including the nature and number of offenses and how much time has passed since any convictions, to determine whether to hire or promote an individual.

14 Standards for the Prevention, Detection, Response, and Monitoring of Sexual Abuse in Adult Prisons and Jails Assessment and use of monitoring technology PP-7 The agency uses video monitoring systems and other cost-effective and appropriate technology to supplement its sexual abuse prevention, detection, and response efforts. The agency assesses, at least annually, the feasibility of and need for new or additional monitoring technology and develops a plan for securing such technology.

Assessment Checklist YES NO (a) Does the agency use video monitoring systems and other cost-effective and appropriate technology to supplement its sexual abuse prevention, detection, and response efforts? (b) At least annually, does the agency assess the feasibility of and need for new or additional monitoring technology and develop a plan for securing such technology?

Discussion Video monitoring systems and other technology are invaluable tools for eliminating sexual abuse. Video monitoring systems, when properly designed, managed, maintained, updated, and fully integrated into the agency’s various other security systems, can serve as highly objective mechanisms for preventing, detecting, and responding to sexual abuse. The Commission recognizes, however, that some agencies may not have the resources immediately available to acquire and implement new technology solutions or improve existing ones and so requires those agencies to conduct an annual assessment of technology needs and to develop a plan to secure new or additional monitoring technology if needed. For all agencies, technology should be adapted to the population as well as to the age and design of each particular facility.

Response Planning (RP)

Evidence protocol and forensic medical exams RP-1 The agency follows a uniform evidence protocol that maximizes the potential for obtaining usable physical evidence for administrative proceedings and criminal prosecutions. The protocol must be adapted from or otherwise based on the 2004 U.S. Department of Justice’s Office on Violence Against Women publication “A National Protocol for Sexual Assault Medical Forensic Examinations, Adults/Adolescents,” subsequent updated editions, or similarly comprehensive and authoritative protocols developed after 2004. As part of the agency’s evidence collection protocol, all victims of inmate-on-inmate sexually abusive penetration or staff-on-inmate sexually abusive penetration are provided access to forensic medical exams performed by qualified forensic medical examiners. Forensic medical exams are provided free of charge to the victim. The facility makes available a victim advocate to accompany the victim through the forensic medical exam process.

I. Prevention and Response Planning 15 Assessment Checklist YES NO (a) Has the agency developed a written protocol adapted from or otherwise based on the U.S. Department of Justice’s “A National Protocol for Sexual Assault Medical Forensic Examinations, Adults/Adolescents,” any subsequent updated editions, or similarly comprehensive and authoritative protocols developed after 2004? (b) Does the facility provide victims of inmate-on-inmate sexually abusive penetration or staff-on-inmate sexually abusive penetration with access to a forensic medical exam? (c) Are all forensic medical exams provided by the facility performed by a qualified forensic medical examiner? (d) Are forensic medical exams provided free of charge to the victim? (e) Does the facility make available a victim advocate to accompany the victim through the forensic medical exam process?

Discussion At the time of publication of this body of standards, the 2004 U.S. Department of Justice’s Office on Violence Against Women publication “A National Protocol for Sexual Assault Medical Foren- sic Examinations, Adults/Adolescents” is considered the “gold standard” of sexual assault evidence protocols by both the law enforcement and the forensic medical examiner communities. The protocol can be found electronically at the following Web address: http://www.ncjrs.gov/ pdffiles1/ovw/206554.pdf. The agency head should review the national protocol or a subsequent updated edition and incorporate it into the agency’s current protocol or use it to develop a new agency protocol by adapting the national protocol to fit the agency’s needs, resources, and policies. The agency head may find it particularly helpful to consult Appendix A of the national protocol, which provides guidance on how jurisdictions can customize the national protocol to meet specific local needs, challenges, policies, and statutes.

The agency head should ensure that all medical and mental health practitioners who treat inmate victims of sexual abuse understand the importance of conducting prompt examinations to identify medical and mental health needs and minimize the loss of evidence. It is critical that victims’ acute medical and mental health needs be evaluated and addressed before evidence is collected on-site or before they are transported off-site for evidence collection. Key elements of proper evidence collection, discussed at length in the national protocol, include: (1) instructing victims not to wash, brush their teeth, change their clothes, urinate, defecate, smoke, drink, or eat until they have been initially evaluated by a forensic medical examiner (OR-3) and (2) educating individuals involved in the handling, documentation, transfer, and storage of evidence about how to preserve evidence and maintain the chain of custody.

Additionally, the forensic medical exam is an important element of both evidence collection and treatment for recent sexual abuse victims. When possible, it is considered best practice to transport victims to outside health care providers for forensic medical exams to avoid any conflict or appearance of conflict of interest regarding potential evidence or treatment of the victim. If a facility does not have access to any community providers able to perform forensic medical exams or if a specific inmate in need of an exam has been deemed a flight risk or too dangerous to transport out of the facility, it should take steps to contract with qualified independent medical practitioners to perform the forensic exams at the facility. When an individual inmate has been deemed a flight risk or too dangerous to transport out of the facility, the facility head should document in writing at the time the decision is made the factors that led to the decision not to transport the inmate off-site. Please see Appendix A for more on the responsibilities of forensic medical examiners.

16 Standards for the Prevention, Detection, Response, and Monitoring of Sexual Abuse in Adult Prisons and Jails Agreements with outside public entities and community service providers RP-2 The agency maintains or attempts to enter into memoranda of understanding (MOUs) or other agreements with an outside public entity or office that is able to receive and immediately forward inmate reports of sexual abuse to facility heads (RE-1). The agency also maintains or attempts to enter into MOUs or other agreements with community service providers that are able to: (1) provide inmates with confidential emotional support services related to sexual abuse and (2) help victims of sexual abuse during their transition from incarceration to the community (RE-3, MM-3). The agency maintains copies of agreements or documentation showing attempts to enter into agreements.

Assessment Checklist YES NO (a) Does the agency maintain an agreement or attempt to enter into an agreement with an outside public entity or office that is able to receive and immediately forward inmate reports of sexual abuse to facility heads? b) Does the agency maintain or attempt to enter into agreements with community service providers that are able to do the following? • Provide inmates with confidential emotional support services related to sexual abuse • Help victims of sexual abuse during their transition from incarceration to the community (c) Does the agency maintain copies of agreements or documentation showing attempts to enter into agreements?

Discussion Working to establish partnerships with outside public entities and community service providers will enable the agency to meet the requirements of standards RE-1, RE-3, and MM-3 most effectively. Forging these partnerships will allow the agency to provide the range of services available in the community and will give inmates the choice to speak to someone not affiliated with the agency if they feel more comfortable doing so. When an agency es- tablishes an MOU with an outside public entity or office to receive inmate reports of sexual abuse, it should make clear that the outside public entity is responsible for forwarding those reports back to the agency immediately upon receipt, unless the inmate requests confidentiality (RE-1). For cases in which facilities are located in areas lacking adequate community service providers willing to provide transition services to inmates, the agency head should consider researching regional or national agencies or groups that inmates may be able to access by telephone or, if no other alternative is possible, by mail and provide inmates with that contact information. For cases in which facilities are located in areas lacking adequate community service providers willing to provide victim support services to inmates, the agency or facility head is required by RE-3 to identify regional and/or national agencies or groups that inmates may be able to access by telephone or, if no other alternative is possible, by mail and provide inmates with that contact information.

Although the Commission recognizes that correctional agencies may not be able to persuade outside public entities or community service providers to enter into agreements, it nonetheless requires agencies to try to enter into agreements. For correctional agencies that successfully enter into agreements with outside public entities and community service providers, the Commission recommends that agreements contain the following elements: (1) the purpose of the agreement; (2) the respective roles and responsibilities of the correctional agency and outside public entity or community service provider; (3) the procedures for how

I. Prevention and Response Planning 17 and when community service providers are able to gain entry into a facility; (4) the level of security supervision community service providers will have while in a facility; (5) the safety precautions that community service providers should take when working with inmates; and (6) any laws, rules, and/or regulations relevant to the service being provided, including laws granting privilege and agency rules governing confidentiality for disclosures about sexual abuse made to community service providers.

Agreements with outside law enforcement agencies RP-3 If an agency does not have the legal authority to conduct criminal investigations or has elected to permit an outside agency to conduct criminal or administrative investigations of staff or inmates, the agency maintains or attempts to enter into a written MOU or other agreement specific to investigations of sexual abuse with the law enforcement agency responsible for conducting investigations. If the agency confines inmates under the age of 18 or other inmates who fall under State and local vulnerable persons statutes, the agency maintains or attempts to enter into an MOU with the designated State or local services agency with the jurisdiction and authority to conduct investigations related to the sexual abuse of vulnerable persons within confinement facilities. When the agency already has an existing agreement or long-standing policy covering responsibilities for all criminal investigations, including sexual abuse investigations, it does not need to enter into a new agreement. The agency maintains a copy of the agreement or documentation showing attempts to enter into an agreement.

Assessment Checklist YES NO (a) If the agency does not have the legal authority to conduct criminal investigations or has elected to permit an outside agency to conduct criminal or administrative investigations of staff or inmates, has the agency established or attempted to establish a written MOU or other agreement specific to investigations of sexual abuse with the law enforcement agency responsible for conducting investigations? (b) If the agency confines inmates under the age of 18 or other inmates who fall under State and local vulnerable persons statutes, has the agency established or attempted to establish an MOU with the designated State or local services agency with the jurisdiction and authority to conduct investigations related to the sexual abuse of vulnerable persons within confinement facilities? (c) Does the agency maintain a copy of the agreement or documentation showing attempts to enter into an agreement?

Discussion Standing agreements between correctional agencies and outside law enforcement agencies out- lining how they will work together while investigating an incident of sexual abuse are important for ensuring that investigations into allegations of sexual abuse are timely and effective. Although the Commission recognizes that correctional agencies may not be able to persuade outside law enforcement agencies to enter into agreements, it nonetheless requires agencies to try to enter into agreements. For correctional agencies that successfully enter into agreements with outside law enforcement agencies, the Commission recommends that agreements contain the following elements: (1) the criteria, protocol, and timetables for referring an allegation of sexual abuse to the outside law enforcement agency for investigation; (2) the respective roles and responsibilities for conducting sexual abuse investigations; (3) the respective roles and

18 Standards for the Prevention, Detection, Response, and Monitoring of Sexual Abuse in Adult Prisons and Jails responsibilities of the correctional and law enforcement agencies for collecting evidence in accordance with the correctional or law enforcement agency’s evidence protocol; (4) detailed information on how criminal and administrative investigations will be coordinated between the agencies; (5) description of what information will and will not be shared between agencies; (6) the protocol for reporting progress on investigations to corrections officials; (7) the location where closed case files will be maintained; (8) the protocol for informing the victim of the progress and outcome of the investigation(s); and (9) a schedule of regular meetings between the agency and law enforcement supervisors to review the efficacy of the agreement and to recommend or make any changes, as necessary.

If the agency confines any inmates under the age of 18 or inmates who fall under State or local vulnerable persons statutes, an outside services agency will likely have the authority and jurisdiction to conduct separate investigations into allegations of sexual abuse committed against such vulnerable persons in confinement. If this is the case, the agency should enter or attempt to enter into an MOU with the State or local services agency, as it would with any law enforcement agency with the authority to conduct investigations, and follow the same recommendations listed above.

Agreements with the prosecuting authority RP-4 The agency maintains or attempts to enter into a written MOU or other agreement with the authority responsible for prosecuting violations of criminal law. The agency maintains a copy of the agreement or documentation showing attempts to enter into an agreement.

Assessment Checklist YES NO (a) Has the agency established or attempted to establish a written MOU or other agreement with the authority responsible for prosecuting violations of criminal law? (b) Does the agency maintain a copy of the agreement or documentation showing attempts to enter into an agreement?

Discussion Greater collaboration and communication between correctional agencies and prosecutors can dramatically affect the success of sexual abuse prosecutions, improving accountability and preventing the recurrence of incidents of sexual abuse. The Commission urges the agency head to maintain regular, ongoing discussions with prosecutors about issues related to any allegations of criminal conduct in the agency.

Although the Commission recognizes that correctional agencies may not be able to persuade prosecuting authorities to enter into agreements, it nonetheless requires agencies to try to enter into agreements. For correctional agencies that successfully enter into agreements with prosecutors, the Commission recommends that agreements contain the following elements: (1) the purpose of the agreement (e.g., to ensure effective prosecution of sexual abuse in confinement settings), (2) identification of the liaison position within each agency/office, (3) a schedule for joint training of investigators and prosecutors, (4) objective criteria for prosecution referral, (5) a description of the necessary evidence and relevant paperwork prosecutors will need from the agency to prosecute a case of sexual abuse, (6) timeframes for submission of criminal cases to prosecutors, (7) a requirement that prosecutors report back to correctional agencies after each

I. Prevention and Response Planning 19 case is reviewed, (8) the respective roles and responsibilities of the correctional agency and the prosecuting authority if the prosecutor decides to prosecute, and (9) a schedule of regular meetings between the agency and prosecution supervisors to review the efficacy of the agreement and to recommend or make any changes, as necessary.

20 Standards for the Prevention, Detection, Response, and Monitoring of Sexual Abuse in Adult Prisons and Jails II. PREVENTION Training and Education (TR)

Employee training TR-1 The agency trains all employees to be able to fulfill their responsibilities under agency sexual abuse prevention, detection, and response policies and procedures; the PREA standards; and relevant Federal, State, and local law. The agency trains all employees to communicate effectively and professionally with all inmates. Additionally, the agency trains all employees on an inmate’s right to be free from sexual abuse, the right of inmates and employees to be free from retaliation for reporting sexual abuse, the dynamics of sexual abuse in confinement, and the common reactions of sexual abuse victims. Current employees are educated as soon as possible following the agency’s adoption of the PREA standards, and the agency provides periodic refresher information to all employees to ensure that they know the agency’s most current sexual abuse policies and procedures. The agency maintains written documentation showing employee signatures verifying that employees understand the training they have received.

Assessment Checklist YES NO (a) Do employees receive the training necessary to fulfill their responsibilities under agency sexual abuse prevention, detection, and response policies and procedures; the PREA standards; and relevant Federal, State, and local law? (b) Does the agency train all employees to communicate effectively and professionally with all inmates? (c) Does the agency train all employees on the following topics? • An inmate’s right to be free from sexual abuse • The right of inmates and employees to be free from retaliation for reporting sexual abuse • The dynamics of sexual abuse in confinement • The common reactions of sexual abuse victims (d) Does the agency provide periodic refresher training to ensure that all employees are educated on the agency’s most current sexual abuse policies and procedures? (e) Following training, does the agency require employees to sign documentation stating that they understand the training they have received and maintain documentation of these signatures?

Discussion Under this standard, each agency must provide employees with the knowledge and skills to prevent sexual abuse from occurring, to identify signs that sexual abuse may be occurring, and to take the appropriate actions when they learn of recent or historical incidents of sexual abuse. Additionally, it is important that all employees are trained to communicate effectively and professionally with all inmates, including those of different races, ethnicities, cultural or religious backgrounds, ages, genders, and sexual orientations as well as inmates with differ- ing cognitive abilities. Good communication encourages greater trust between employees and inmates, which may remove one of the obstacles to inmate reporting of sexual abuse.

Employee training can take place in multiple venues, including roll calls, on-the-job training, new employee orientations, and pre-service or in-service academies. It is recommended that

II. Prevention 21 an agency’s sexual abuse training programs be accompanied by clear sexual abuse prevention policies developed with an eye toward overcoming any anticipated employee resistance to or concerns about such policies. When putting together a training plan, agency administrators and/or PREA coordinators may find it helpful to consult the many resources and training materials already available, including those developed by other local, State, and Federal correctional agencies; the National Institute of Corrections (NIC); and the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA).

A full list of suggested employee training topics and procedures is provided in Appendix B. Although Appendix B is not an exhaustive or exclusive list, agencies may wish to use these items as a starting point for developing their own employee training curriculum and programs.

Volunteer and contractor training TR-2 The agency ensures that all volunteers and contractors who have contact with inmates have been trained on their responsibilities under the agency’s sexual abuse prevention, detection, and response policies and procedures; the PREA standards; and relevant Federal, State, and local law. The level and type of training provided to volunteers and contractors is based on the services they provide and level of contact they have with inmates, but all volunteers and contractors who have contact with inmates must be notified of the agency’s zero-tolerance policy regarding sexual abuse. Volunteers must also be trained in how to report sexual abuse. The agency maintains written documentation showing volunteer and contractor signatures verifying that they understand the training they have received.

Assessment Checklist YES NO (a) Does the agency ensure that all volunteers and contractors who have contact with inmates have been trained on their responsibilities under the agency’s sexual abuse prevention, detection, and response policies and procedures; the PREA standards; and relevant Federal, State, and local law? (b) Does the agency tailor its training for volunteers and contractors based on the services they provide and the level of contact they have with inmates? (c) Are all volunteers and contractors who have contact with inmates notified of the agency’s zero-tolerance policy regarding sexual abuse? (d) Are all volunteers trained in how to report sexual abuse to security staff and/or other parties, when appropriate? (e) Following training, does the agency require volunteers and contractors to sign documentation stating that they understand the training they have received and maintain documentation of these signatures?

Discussion Because many volunteers have frequent contact with inmates, it is important that all volunteers for the agency receive basic training on the PREA standards, the agency’s zero-tolerance policy, and their responsibilities for reporting sexual abuse to security staff. Additionally, any contractors who have any contact with inmates, however minimal, will also need to be trained on the agency’s zero-tolerance policy. The agency may choose to provide more detailed training for all or some subset of volunteers in its facilities, including many of the same topics suggested for employee training in Appendix B.

22 Standards for the Prevention, Detection, Response, and Monitoring of Sexual Abuse in Adult Prisons and Jails Volunteers may be trained off-site by their volunteer organization as long as the organization’s training program meets the minimum requirements outlined in this standard. In these instances, the facility must verify that the off-site training meets the requirements of this standard and maintain documentation that volunteers have received and understand this training, as mandated by the standard. If the agency trains volunteers, agency administrators and/or PREA coordinators may find it helpful to consult the many resources and training materials already available, including those developed by other local, State, and Federal correctional agencies; NIC; and BJA.

Inmate education TR-3 During the intake process, staff informs inmates of the agency’s zero-tolerance policy regarding sexual abuse and how to report incidents or suspicions of sexual abuse. Within a reasonably brief period of time following the intake process, the agency provides comprehensive education to inmates regarding their right to be free from sexual abuse and to be free from retaliation for reporting abuse, the dynamics of sexual abuse in confinement, the common reactions of sexual abuse victims, and agency sexual abuse response policies and procedures. Current inmates are educated as soon as possible following the agency’s adoption of the PREA standards, and the agency provides periodic refresher information to all inmates to ensure that they know the agency’s most current sexual abuse policies and procedures. The agency provides inmate education in formats accessible to all inmates, including those who are LEP, deaf, visually impaired, or otherwise disabled as well as inmates who have limited reading skills. The agency maintains written documentation of inmate participation in these education sessions.

Assessment Checklist YES NO (a) During the intake process, does staff inform inmates of the agency’s zero-tolerance policy regarding sexual abuse? (b) During the intake process, does staff tell inmates how to report incidents or suspicions of sexual abuse? (c) Does the agency provide comprehensive education to inmates within a reasonably brief period of time following the intake process? (d) Does the comprehensive education for inmates include the following topics? • An inmate’s right to be free from sexual abuse and free from retaliation for reporting abuse • The dynamics of sexual abuse in confinement • The common reactions of sexual abuse victims • Agency sexual abuse response policies and procedures (e) Does the agency provide periodic refresher training to ensure that all inmates are educated on the agency’s most current sexual abuse policies and procedures? (f) Does the agency make training information available in formats accessible to all inmates, including those who are LEP, deaf, visually impaired, or otherwise disabled and inmates who have limited reading skills? (g) Does the facility verify inmate attendance at training sessions and maintain this written verification?

II. Prevention 23 Discussion Inmates need to be educated about the agency’s sexual abuse policies so they understand how to protect themselves against sexual abuse, how to report sexual abuse, what will happen following a report, and the consequences for committing sexual abuse. A strong inmate education program will send a message to inmates that sexual abuse is taken seriously and that the agency will protect inmates who report incidents of sexual abuse and refer investigations for disciplinary action and/or criminal prosecution. In addition to determining an appropriate timeframe for providing comprehensive education to new inmates, the agency should develop a plan for providing the inmate education program to current inmates to ensure that training is provided within a reasonable period of time after the adoption of the PREA standards, as required by this standard.

Staff conducting the training should consider using some of the following tools, depending on the learning needs of the population they are training: videos, written materials, and structured discussions. As with developing a staff or volunteer training program, when putting together an inmate training plan, agency administrators and/or PREA coordinators may find it helpful to consult the many resources and training materials already available, including those developed by other local, State, and Federal correctional agencies; NIC; and BJA.

Staff may need to train inmates in small groups and in settings with few distractions, due to the sensitive nature of the material. As this standard requires that all inmates receive the required education, the agency will need to ensure that it has an effective plan for providing education to inmates in solitary confinement or protective custody. In addition to training sessions provided at specific times, the agency should ensure key information is continually and readily available and/ or visible to the inmate population through posters, inmate handbooks, or other written formats.

Specialized training: Investigations TR-4 In addition to the general training provided to all employees (TR-1), the agency ensures that agency investigators conducting sexual abuse investigations have received comprehensive and up-to- date training in conducting such investigations in confinement settings. Specialized training must include techniques for interviewing sexual abuse victims, proper use of Miranda- and Garrity-type warnings, sexual abuse evidence collection in confinement settings, and the criteria and evidence required to substantiate a case for administrative action or prosecution referral. The agency maintains written documentation that investigators have completed the required specialized training in conducting sexual abuse investigations.

24 Standards for the Prevention, Detection, Response, and Monitoring of Sexual Abuse in Adult Prisons and Jails Assessment Checklist YES NO (a) Does the agency ensure that all agency investigators conducting sexual abuse investigations have received training in conducting such investigations in confinement settings? (b) Does specialized training for sexual abuse investigators include the following? • Techniques for interviewing sexual abuse victims • Proper use of Miranda- and Garrity-type warnings • Sexual abuse evidence collection in confinement settings • Criteria and evidence required to substantiate a case for administrative action or prosecution referral (c) Does the agency verify that investigators have completed specialized training in conducting sexual abuse investigations and maintain written verification?

Discussion Substantiating and resolving incidents of sexual abuse in confinement settings requires highly competent investigations. Sexual abuse investigations in confinement settings are complicated, and an agency will not be successful in addressing abuse if it does not ensure that investigators are sufficiently trained.

Because the trauma of sexual abuse can be especially devastating to victims in custody who may already feel powerless and isolated, special care should be given to the quality and training of the investigator to ensure that victims and witnesses are treated in a manner that facilitates victims’ recovery and cooperation. It is critically important for sexual abuse investigators to be trained in how to interview sexual abuse victims and witnesses, who may be reluctant to speak to investigators or generally uncooperative. Such training may include strategies for communicating effectively and professionally with all types of inmates, but may also include simple ideas like making sure that victims and witnesses are interviewed in locations where they feel comfortable talking about the incident. Additionally, all investigators should know how and when to administer Miranda- and/or Garrity-type warnings to subjects of investigations.

Collecting evidence in a confinement setting requires that investigators understand where to look for evidence in these settings, including DNA evidence, and how security staff will secure and preserve crime scenes. Sexual abuse investigators should also know how and when to photograph injuries. In addition to knowing how to collect evidence in a confinement setting, investigators also need to know how to evaluate that evidence according to the different standards of proof required to substantiate a case for administrative action or prosecution referral. It may also be helpful for investigators to have an understanding of how cases are evaluated for prosecutorial merit.

When developing training curricula for investigators, the agency may find it helpful to consult training materials developed by other Federal, State, and local correctional agencies; NIC; and BJA. In the event investigators have previously received the comprehensive training described above, the agency does not need to re-train the investigators. In such instances, the agency will need to verify the investigators’ preexisting knowledge and understanding of the requirements listed in this standard and their responsibilities under agency policy; the PREA standards; and Federal, State, or local law.

II. Prevention 25 Specialized training: Medical and mental health care TR-5 The agency ensures that all full- and part-time medical and mental health care practitioners working in its facilities have been trained in how to detect and assess signs of sexual abuse and that all medical practitioners are trained in how to preserve physical evidence of sexual abuse. All medical and mental health care practitioners must be trained in how to respond effectively and professionally to victims of sexual abuse and how and to whom to report allegations or suspicions of sexual abuse. The agency maintains documentation that medical and mental health practitioners have received this specialized training.

Assessment Checklist YES NO (a) Does the agency ensure that all full- and part-time medical and mental health care practitioners working in its facilities have been trained in how to detect and assess signs of sexual abuse? (b) Does the agency ensure that all full- and part-time medical practitioners working in its facilities have been trained in how to preserve physical evidence? (c) Are all full- and part-time medical and mental health care practitioners trained in how to respond effectively and professionally to all victims of sexual abuse? (d) Does the agency provide training in how and to whom to report allegations or suspicions of sexual abuse? (e) Does the agency verify that all full- and part-time medical and mental health practitioners have received specialized training in detecting, assessing, and responding to sexual abuse victims and maintain this written verification?

Discussion Inmates are often more likely to report sexual abuse to medical or mental health practitioners rather than security staff. It is therefore critical that agencies provide training for medical and mental health practitioners on how to detect sexual abuse and how to elicit, receive, and forward reports of sexual abuse.

This standard requires that all full- and part-time practitioners who regularly work at a facility, whether contractors or staff, be specially trained. The Commission recognizes that there may be occasions in which a practitioner works at the facility on an extremely short, ad hoc basis. For example, a practitioner may be serving as an emergency substitute for a sick staff member. The standard does not require the agency to ensure such practitioners have received the special training, although it may want to do so to guarantee that at least one specially trained practitioner is on duty at all times.

In the event medical and mental health care practitioners have previously received the training described above, the agency does not need to re-train the medical and mental health care staff. In such instances, the agency will need to verify the staff members’ preexisting knowledge and understanding of the requirements listed in this standard and their responsibilities under agency policy; the PREA standards; and Federal, State, or local law.

26 Standards for the Prevention, Detection, Response, and Monitoring of Sexual Abuse in Adult Prisons and Jails Screening for Risk of Sexual Victimization and Abusiveness (SC)

Screening for risk of victimization and abusiveness SC-1 All inmates are screened during intake, during the initial classification process, and at all subsequent classification reviews to assess their risk of being sexually abused by other inmates or sexually abusive toward other inmates. Employees must conduct this screening using a written screening instrument tailored to the gender of the population being screened. Although additional factors may be considered, particularly to account for emerging research and the agency’s own data analysis, screening instruments must contain the criteria described below. All screening instruments must be made available to the public upon request.

• At a minimum, employees use the following criteria to screen male inmates for risk of victimization: mental or physical disability, young age, slight build, first incarceration in prison or jail, nonviolent history, prior convictions for sex offenses against an adult or child, sexual orientation of gay or bisexual, gender nonconformance (e.g., transgender or intersex identity), prior sexual victimization, and the inmate’s own perception of vulnerability. • At a minimum, employees use the following criteria to screen male inmates for risk of being sexually abusive: prior acts of sexual abuse and prior convictions for violent offenses. • At a minimum, employees use the following criteria to screen female inmates for risk of sexual victimization: prior sexual victimization and the inmate’s own perception of vulnerability. • At a minimum, employees use the following criteria to screen female inmates for risk of being sexually abusive: prior acts of sexual abuse.

II. Prevention 27 Assessment Checklist YES NO (a) Are all inmates screened during intake, the initial classification process, and at all subsequent classification reviews to assess their risk of being sexually abused by other inmates and/or their risk of being sexually abusive toward other inmates? (b) Does the facility provide employees with a written screening instrument tailored to male or female populations, depending on the makeup of the facility’s population? (c) Do screening instruments for risk of sexual victimization for male inmates include the following criteria? • Mental or physical disability • Young age • Slight build • First incarceration in prison or jail • Nonviolent history • Conviction for sex offenses against an adult or child • Sexual orientation of gay or bisexual • Gender nonconformance (e.g., transgender or intersex identity) • Prior sexual victimization • Inmate’s own perception of vulnerability (d) Do screening instruments for risk of being sexually abusive for male inmates include the following criteria? • Prior acts of sexual abuse • Prior convictions for violent offenses (e) Do screening instruments for risk of sexual victimization for female inmates include the following criteria? • Prior sexual victimization • Inmate’s own perception of vulnerability (f) Do screening instruments for risk of being sexually abusive for female inmates include the following criteria? • Prior acts of sexual abuse (g) Are screening instruments available to the public upon request?

Discussion In developing this standard, the Commission consulted social science research studies, resources developed in conjunction with NIC, and existing screening instruments from State departments of correction. However, because research in this area continues to evolve, the Commission strongly recommends that agency heads consult emerging research periodically and tailor their screening instruments to the latest research as well as to the culture, makeup, and geographical regions of the facilities they operate. Agency heads should also consult their collected data (DC-2) to identify any patterns or similar characteristics among sexual abusers and victims in their facilities. In particular, at the time of publication of this body of standards, relatively little is known about predicting heightened risk for sexual victimization or abusiveness for female inmates. Similarly, less research has been undertaken to identify risk factors for engaging in sexual abuse for male inmates. The Commission urges researchers to examine these and other relatively unexplored areas, such as screening of non-English speakers and youth in adult facilities, to provide more guidance and direction to corrections practitioners.

28 Standards for the Prevention, Detection, Response, and Monitoring of Sexual Abuse in Adult Prisons and Jails Further research is also needed to identify characteristics that may make male or female inmates more susceptible to sexual abuse by staff.

Inmates should be screened for risk of sexual victimization or abusiveness as soon as possible following their arrival at a facility. Although the timing of this initial screening may vary slightly depending on whether inmates are housed at a jail or prison, it is incumbent upon facility heads to ensure that this screening occurs before an inmate is housed in a cell or unit without direct supervision. Equally important, however, is ensuring that employees review initial screening results on a periodic basis. It is highly likely that more inmates will be identified as potentially vulnerable or abusive during the initial screening than are actually vulnerable or abusive. For example, there will be many male inmates with histories of violent felonies who are not actually prone to being sexually abusive. Therefore, the standard requires that screenings be reviewed during the initial classification process and at periodic classification reviews. For jails, the Commission recommends that employees review the screening results no later than 60 days after the initial screening and every 90 days thereafter. For prisons, employees should review screening results no later than six months after the initial screening and every year thereafter. Inmates should have a number of opportunities to be removed from high-risk lists based on their behavior and record over time.

When screening inmates for their risk of being sexually abused or abusive, the agency must use the minimum criteria listed in the standard and determine how best to weigh those criteria, depending on the culture and makeup of the facility. The agency will need to decide how to evaluate the impact of the passage of time on the predictive utility of prior convictions for sex offenses or other violent crimes and prior incidents of victimization or abusiveness. For example, an inmate with a single incident of sexual victimization that occurred more than 20 years ago may not be at a greater risk for sexual victimization today. The agency may find it helpful to use other criteria as well. As mentioned above, additional criteria should be developed based on emerging research and the facility’s culture, makeup, geographic region, and collected data. Another factor that may be useful for predicting high risk of sexual victimization for male inmates includes being in the racial minority within a given facility characterized by marked racial tension. Additionally, having effeminate features or mannerisms and not being street smart may also put male inmates at greater risk for sexual victimization. Finally, having an overtly aggressive or intimidating attitude or having a particular gang affiliation may be associated with increased risk for sexually abusing other inmates.

When asking screening questions related to sexual orientation, it is critical that employees show sensitivity and discretion. It is equally important that employees tell inmates before they begin the screening that they are not required to answer any of the questions if they would prefer not to. Not all inmates will feel comfortable answering questions about their sexual orientation, and employees should respect refusals to answer those questions and not press for answers. Inmates who openly identify as gay or bisexual should be asked if they feel that they need heightened protection while incarcerated. Inmates who are transgender or intersex should also be asked if they feel that they need heightened protection. Employees should carefully consider and endeavor to respect the views of gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex inmates who request or do not want heightened protection.

II. Prevention 29 Use of screening information SC-2 Employees use information from the risk screening (SC-1) to inform housing, bed, work, education, and program assignments with the goal of keeping separate those inmates at high risk of being sexually victimized from those at high risk of being sexually abusive. The facility makes individualized determinations about how to ensure the safety of each inmate. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or other gender-nonconforming inmates are not placed in particular facilities, units, or wings solely on the basis of their sexual orientation, genital status, or gender identity. Inmates at high risk for sexual victimization may be placed in segregated housing only as a last resort and then only until an alternative means of separation from likely abusers can be arranged. To the extent possible, risk of sexual victimization should not limit access to programs, education, and work opportunities.

Assessment Checklist YES NO (a) Do employees use information from the risk screening to inform housing, bed, work, education, and program assignments? (b) Does the facility make individualized determinations about how to ensure the safety of each inmate, including lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or other gender- nonconforming inmates? (c) Does the facility ensure that lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or other gender- nonconforming inmates are not placed in particular facilities, units, or wings solely on the basis of their sexual orientation, genital status, or gender identity? (d) Does the facility separate those at high risk of being victimized from those at high risk of being abusive? (e) Are inmates at high risk of sexual victimization placed in segregated housing only as a last resort and only until other means of separation are arranged? (f) To the extent possible, do inmates at high risk of being sexually victimized have access to the same programs, education, and work opportunities as the general population?

Discussion For the sexual abuse screening information to be meaningful, it must be used to inform housing, bed, work, education, and program assignments for each inmate. Because of the inherent risk in assigning inmates to double-occupancy cells, as is the case with many facilities, employees should consider the results of the screening with particular care and draw on appropriate professional common sense and judgment to determine appropriate pairings of individuals within double-occupancy cells. The facility should strive to keep inmates safe without relying on the use of segregated housing, except for brief periods of time until alternatives can be arranged. When a facility lacks safe housing for an inmate at high risk of victimization other than segregation, the facility should consider transfers to other facilities. Changes in housing assignments as well as transfers should also be considered for inmates who request them for safety reasons.

Under this standard, the agency will need to consider each inmate on a case-by-case basis when determining the appropriate placements for housing, work, programs, and education, rather than using blanket policies based on particular elements of an inmate’s screening assessment. Preconceived notions, stereotypes, or bias should have no place in the housing decisions made for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and other gender-nonconforming inmates. Addi- tionally, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and other gender-nonconforming inmates should never be placed permanently in particular facilities, units, or wings solely because of their sexual orientation, genital status, or gender identity. Given that many corrections officials are

30 Standards for the Prevention, Detection, Response, and Monitoring of Sexual Abuse in Adult Prisons and Jails particularly perplexed about how to house transgender inmates safely and properly, the Com- mission also strongly urges agencies to give careful thought and consideration to the placement of each transgender inmate and not to automatically place transgender individuals in male or female housing based on their birth gender or current genital status.

Although this standard mandates using information from the risk screening to inform housing, bed, work, education, and program assignments, best correctional practice requires inte- grating the screening information into a more comprehensive internal classification process that helps employees determine how to separate inmates to keep them safe according to their needs, overall behavioral and criminal history, and security levels. Therefore, in addition to ensuring that inmates are screened appropriately for risk of sexual victimization or abusiveness, the Commission recommends that agency and facility heads work together to develop or strengthen internal classification systems. Strong internal classification systems promote a positive institutional culture that values and promotes safety and security for all inmates and staff and go a long way toward eliminating random and systemic sexual abuse and aggression. The most effective internal classification systems are ones that are fully integrated with other systems used to manage and protect inmates, including security and technology systems, and are tested periodically to make sure that they are valid and reliable in protecting inmate safety and supporting a culture of safety and security.

If an agency is responsible for the confinement of individuals under the age of 18, a strong effort should be made to house these individuals separately from the general population. Although young inmates in general may be victimized more often, inmates under the age of 18 are not fully emotionally or physically developed and therefore may be particularly susceptible to abuse if housed with older inmates.

II. Prevention 31

III. DETECTION AND RESPONSE

Reporting (RE)

Inmate reporting RE-1 The facility provides multiple internal ways for inmates to report easily, privately, and securely sexual abuse, retaliation by other inmates or staff for reporting sexual abuse, and staff neglect or violation of responsibilities that may have contributed to an incident of sexual abuse. The facility also provides at least one way for inmates to report the abuse to an outside public entity or office not affiliated with the agency that has agreed to receive reports and forward them to the facility head (RP-2), except when an inmate requests confidentiality. Staff accepts reports made verbally, in writing, anonymously, and from third parties and immediately puts into writing any verbal reports.

Assessment Checklist YES NO (a) Does the facility provide multiple internal ways for inmates to report easily, privately, and securely sexual abuse, retaliation by other inmates or staff for reporting sexual abuse, and staff neglect or violation of responsibilities that may have contributed to an incident of sexual abuse (e.g., locked drop boxes in common areas for reports or requests; grievance procedures; sick-call systems; access to a central or headquarters office)? (Please attach documentation explaining the specific internal reporting mechanisms the facility has in place.) (b) Does the facility provide at least one way for inmates to report sexual abuse to an outside public entity or office not affiliated with the agency that has agreed to receive reports and forward them to the facility head, except when the inmate requests confidentiality (e.g., ombudsperson; outside law enforcement agency; inspector general’s office; attorney general’s office) (RP-2)? (Please attach documentation explaining the specific outside reporting mechanism(s) the facility has made available to inmates.) (c) Does staff accept reports made verbally, in writing, anonymously, and by third parties? (d) Does staff immediately put into writing any verbal reports?

Discussion The agency should make reporting sexual abuse as easy, private, and secure as possible. The more the agency demonstrates through policy, practice, and staff behaviors its commitment to protecting sexual abuse victims and punishing abusers, the more victims will feel safe coming forward. Although a potential increase in disclosures and investigations may initially tax correctional resources, increased reporting may also signal that inmates are becoming more trustful of the system, which, in turn, may deter potential abusers from engaging in sexually abusive behaviors. Over time, the agency’s initial investment in efforts to make reporting easier and to conduct thorough investigations will serve everyone’s interests. Victims will be better supported, abusers will be held accountable, and staff and inmates will ultimately be able to live and work in safer, more secure environments.

The facility should take seriously all reports of sexual abuse, regardless of the form or format in which they were conveyed. Although the facility may choose to provide different mechanisms for internal reporting, including locked drop boxes in common areas for inmates to drop reports, requests, or grievances or dedicated phones or programmed phones with toll-free hotline numbers to internal investigative departments, staff should be prepared to accept and respond to all types of reports and manners of reporting. For example, an inmate who scrawls a

III. Detection and Response 33 note and passes it to an officer should be treated the same way as an inmate who files a formal grievance.

The standard’s requirement that the agency enable inmates to report to at least one outside public entity or office not affiliated with the agency will signal to inmates that the agency’s chief concern is making sure that inmates feel safe and comfortable reporting sexual abuse. If the agency has established an MOU with an outside public entity or office that has agreed to accept and forward inmate reports of sexual abuse, the outside public entity should be prepared to send those reports to the facility head immediately upon receipt, unless the inmate requests confidentiality (RP-2). If the agency confines inmates under the age of 18 or other inmates who fall under State or local vulnerable persons statutes, the agency may allow such inmates to report directly to the designated State or local services agency that has the authority to conduct investigations into allegations of sexual abuse involving victims who fall under vulnerable persons statutes (RP-3). In addition to developing numerous avenues for receiving reports, staff should be trained and expected to take proactive steps to talk to inmates periodically about any unwanted sexual behaviors or threats they may be experiencing from other inmates or staff.

Exhaustion of administrative remedies Under agency policy, an inmate has exhausted his or her administrative remedies with regard to a RE-2 claim of sexual abuse either (1) when the agency makes a final decision on the merits of the report of abuse (regardless of whether the report was made by the inmate, made by a third party, or forwarded from an outside official or office) or (2) when 90 days have passed since the report was made, whichever occurs sooner. A report of sexual abuse triggers the 90-day exhaustion period regardless of the length of time that has passed between the abuse and the report. An inmate seeking immediate protection from imminent sexual abuse will be deemed to have exhausted his or her administrative remedies 48 hours after notifying any agency staff member of his or her need for protection.

Assessment Checklist YES NO (a) Does agency policy reflect that an inmate has exhausted administrative remedies with regard to a claim of sexual abuse under the following circumstances? • When the agency makes a final decision on the merits of the report of abuse (regardless of whether the report was made by the inmate, made by a third party, or forwarded from an outside official or office) or • When 90 days have passed since the report was made, whichever occurs sooner (b) Does agency policy reflect that an inmate seeking immediate protection from imminent sexual abuse has exhausted administrative remedies 48 hours after notifying any agency staff member of his or her need for protection?

Discussion Currently, under the Federal Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), correctional agencies are able to raise an inmate’s “failure to exhaust administrative remedies” as an affirmative defense against an inmate’s legal claims brought in Federal court. The purpose of this requirement in PLRA is to ensure that agencies have an opportunity to respond to an inmate’s complaint before that inmate files a lawsuit. Agencies are free to determine the procedures by which an inmate

34 Standards for the Prevention, Detection, Response, and Monitoring of Sexual Abuse in Adult Prisons and Jails “exhausts administrative remedies” by policy. In practice, many agencies have adopted policies that require an inmate to file a grievance within a relatively short timeframe after the incident of abuse and then to make multiple appeals of the agency’s response within specific timeframes to satisfactorily exhaust the agency’s administrative remedies. Policies that require inmates to navigate a complicated grievance procedure within a short time after the abuse can result in the dismissal of meritorious legal claims by victims of sexual abuse. Although the statute of limitations to file a lawsuit may be one year or two depending on the type of claim and the jurisdiction, inmates who fail to file a grievance within one or two weeks after being abused may be permanently barred from court for failing to “exhaust administrative remedies.”

Victims of sexual abuse are particularly vulnerable to having their claims dismissed for this reason because the trauma of sexual abuse and fear of retaliation often prevent them from reporting the incident shortly after it occurs. Furthermore, because grievance procedures are generally not designed as the sole or primary method for reporting incidents of sexual abuse by inmates to staff, victims who do immediately report abuse to authorities may not realize they need to file a grievance as well to satisfy agency exhaustion requirements. For example, a victim might call the agency’s sexual abuse reporting hotline immediately but fail to file a grievance within the short timeframe allowed and later be barred from bringing a valid legal claim because of that failure.

This standard recognizes agencies’ legitimate interest in having a reasonable opportunity to respond to notice of abuse before being required to defend themselves in court. It also recognizes that PREA’s goals are not furthered if inmates are deemed to have forfeited their ability to seek judicial redress for abuse because they have not reported the abuse within a set timeframe after it occurs. The standard requires agencies to adopt policies by which an inmate is deemed to have exhausted his or her administrative remedies no later than 90 days after a report of sexual abuse is made and regardless of the time that has elapsed between the abuse and the report. Any report of sexual abuse should trigger a response by the agency, including an investigation into the merits of the allegation (IN-1, IN-2), the provision of appropriate medical and mental health treatment (MM-2, MM-3), and efforts to protect the alleged victim and other inmates from retaliation and future abuse (OR-5). It is possible that the agency will not have completed its investigation into the report within 90 days, but that is ample time within which the agency can take appropriate steps to protect the inmate and to demonstrate its efforts to find the truth for the purposes of defending against a lawsuit.

Finally, the standard recognizes that there may be urgent, emergency situations when an inmate seeks an immediate injunction from the court to provide protection from imminent harm. In such cases, the standard requires an exception to the 90-day waiting period. Because it is incumbent on the agency to provide protection immediately to an inmate who reports a risk of imminent harm, the agency shall deem the inmate’s administrative remedies exhausted 48 hours after such a report is made to any agency employee. A court can determine whether the inmate’s request merits an injunction, but the inmate seeking the court’s protection should not be required to wait more than 48 hours since the nature of such a request is urgent. If the agency has in fact responded properly to the report or if the report was of such a nature that it did not warrant action on the part of the agency, a court can make that determination at the time the injunction is sought.

III. Detection and Response 35 Inmate access to outside confidential support services RE-3 In addition to providing on-site mental health care services, the facility provides inmates with access to outside victim advocates for emotional support services related to sexual abuse. The facility provides such access by giving inmates the current mailing addresses and telephone numbers, including toll-free hotline numbers, of local, State, and/or national victim advocacy or rape crisis organizations and enabling reasonable communication between inmates and these organizations. The facility ensures that communications with such advocates are private, confidential, and privileged, to the extent allowable by Federal, State, and local law. The facility informs inmates, prior to giving them access, of the extent to which such communications will be private, confidential, and/ or privileged.

Assessment Checklist YES NO (a) In addition to providing on-site mental health care services, does the facility provide inmates with the current mailing addresses and telephone numbers, including toll-free hotline numbers, of local, State, and/or national victim advocacy or rape crisis organizations and enable reasonable communication between inmates and these organizations? (Please attach documentation explaining how the facility provides inmates with access to outside confidential support services related to sexual abuse.) (b) Are inmates able to communicate with outside victim advocates privately in settings in which conversations cannot be overheard? (c) To ensure privacy of communication, is staff prohibited from reading correspondence to or from victim advocates? (d) Does the facility explain to inmates, prior to giving them access to outside support services, the rules governing privacy, confidentiality, and/or privilege that apply for disclosures of sexual abuse made to outside victim advocates, including any limits to confidentiality under relevant Federal, State, or local law?

Discussion Victims of sexual abuse, whether confined or not, often require the support of an advocate. Working with these advocates, such as rape crisis counselors, is not only an essential part of treatment for some victims, but can also help victims overcome any reluctance to report the incident to the appropriate officials. Although the agency might have qualified mental health practitioners on staff who can treat sexual abuse victims, some victims may be reluctant to con- fide in those practitioners because they see them as part of the institution that failed to protect them from abuse. By giving inmates the option to communicate with outside advocates, the agency will ensure that victims have the greatest access to necessary care.

To meet the requirements of this standard, an agency may need to enter an MOU with a community service provider and may find it useful to provide regular opportunities for inmates to meet face-to-face with advocates (RP-2). In addition to these opportunities, free hotlines that connect inmates to rape crisis service groups and/or other victim advocacy groups are encouraged. Agencies that have limited community resources to draw from should at a minimum provide inmates with contact information for regional and/or national human rights, advocacy, and/or counseling organizations. Telephone use to contact outside advocates and/or letters sent to service organizations should not be subject to any rules or restrictions governing telephone use or mail. Administrators need to make certain that inmates are able to access outside confidential support services as easily and as privately as possible. Inmates should never have to explain to staff members their reasons for wanting to speak or write to outside advocates before being allowed to communicate with those providers.

36 Standards for the Prevention, Detection, Response, and Monitoring of Sexual Abuse in Adult Prisons and Jails Third-party reporting RE-4 The facility receives and investigates all third-party reports of sexual abuse (IN-1). At the conclusion of the investigation, the facility notifies in writing the third-party individual who reported the abuse and the inmate named in the third-party report of the outcome of the investigation. The facility distributes publicly information on how to report sexual abuse on behalf of an inmate.

Assessment Checklist YES NO (a) Does the facility receive and investigate all third-party reports of sexual abuse? (b) At the conclusion of the investigation, does the facility notify in writing the third-party individual who reported the abuse and the inmate named in the third-party report of the outcome of the investigation? (c) Does the facility distribute publicly information on how to report sexual abuse on behalf of an inmate?

Discussion Information about how to report sexual abuse on behalf of an inmate should be available in multiple languages and in a convenient, easily accessible format. Information may be made available by phone, on a Web site, as part of any preliminary information provided verbally to visitors, in brochures, in flyers, or on posters in visiting areas. Regardless of how the facility chooses to distribute the information, the information itself should convey: (1) the contact information for the corrections official, department, or unit responsible for receiving and responding to third-party allegations; (2) instructions for what information to include when reporting sexual abuse; (3) notice that the allegation will be discussed with the victim named in the report; (4) a statement explaining the allegation will be disclosed only to those who need to know to ensure victim safety and to investigate the allegation; and (5) notice that the facility will inform the individual who reported the abuse of the outcome of the investigation. The facility should periodically review and update, if necessary, the information distributed regarding third-party reporting.

Official Response Following an Inmate Report (OR)

Staff and facility head reporting duties OR-1 All staff members are required to report immediately and according to agency policy any knowledge, suspicion, or information they receive regarding an incident of sexual abuse that occurred in an institutional setting; retaliation against inmates or staff who reported abuse; and any staff neglect or violation of responsibilities that may have contributed to an incident of sexual abuse or retaliation. Apart from reporting to designated supervisors or officials, staff must not reveal any information related to a sexual abuse report to anyone other than those who need to know, as specified in agency policy, to make treatment, investigation, and other security and management decisions. Unless otherwise precluded by Federal, State, or local law, medical and mental health practitioners are required to report sexual abuse and must inform inmates of their duty to report at the initiation of services. If the victim is under the age of 18 or considered a vulnerable adult under a State or local vulnerable persons statute, the facility head must report the allegation to the designated State or local services agency under applicable mandatory reporting laws.

III. Detection and Response 37 Assessment Checklist YES NO (a) Has the agency notified staff members that they are required to report immediately and according to agency policy any knowledge, suspicion, or information they receive regarding an incident of sexual abuse that occurred in an institutional setting, including any knowledge of retaliation against inmates or staff who reported abuse and any staff neglect or violation of responsibilities that may have contributed to an incident of sexual abuse or retaliation? (b) Has the agency notified staff members that they are required to limit information related to any incident of sexual abuse to those who need to know, as specified in agency policy, to make treatment, investigation, and other security and management decisions? (c) Has the agency notified medical and mental health practitioners of their reporting duties, including their duty to inform inmates of the practitioners’ duty to report at the initiation of services? (d) If the victim is under the age of 18 or considered a vulnerable adult under a State or local vulnerable persons statute, does the facility head report the allegation to the designated State or local services agency under applicable mandatory reporting laws?

Discussion Attaining compliance with this standard will require that facility leadership effectively convey to staff that they are mandatory reporters with no discretion to decide whether to report sexual abuse allegations or any other knowledge or suspicion of sexual abuse or harassment. They should make it clear through policy and practice that the agency tolerates neither a staff code of silence nor the mishandling or inappropriate sharing of information (i.e., spreading rumors or conveying information to individuals who have no need to know), and staff should be trained OR-3 on the difference between spreading rumors and proper reporting. Additionally, it is critical that all staff members understand exactly what, when, how, and to whom they are required to report, including whether their responsibilities differ based on the type of offense or the persons involved. The facility head should know exactly how and to whom he or she is required to report if the incident involves a victim under the age of 18 or a victim considered a vulnerable adult under a State or local vulnerable persons statute (e.g., statutes that address the mentally ill, mentally or physically disabled, or the elderly).

Unless otherwise precluded by Federal, State, or local law, the standard requires medical and mental health practitioners to report sexual abuse and to inform inmates of their duty to report at the initiation of services. Informing inmates of their duty to report at the initiation of services is critical so that inmates know up front what they can expect to be kept confidential and what they can expect will be reported. Although the Commission recognizes that some medical and mental health practitioners may be reluctant to report because of fears that victims will not seek treatment, it nonetheless requires medical and mental health practitioners to report to protect the overall safety and security of the facility as well as the safety of the individual being abused or threatened with abuse.

Reporting to other confinement facilities OR-2 When the facility receives an allegation that an inmate was sexually abused while confined at another facility, the head of the facility where the report was made notifies in writing the head of the facility where the alleged abuse occurred. The head of the facility where the alleged abuse occurred ensures the allegation is investigated.

38 Standards for the Prevention, Detection, Response, and Monitoring of Sexual Abuse in Adult Prisons and Jails Assessment Checklist YES NO (a) When the facility receives an allegation that an inmate was sexually abused while confined at another facility, does the head of the facility where the report was made notify in writing the head of the facility where the alleged abuse occurred? (b) If the facility head receives notice that a former inmate has alleged sexual abuse while confined at his or her facility, does he or she ensure that the allegation is investigated?

Discussion Inmates who have been sexually abused while confined at a lockup, jail, or prison may feel safer reporting the abuse once they are no longer housed at the facility where the abuse occurred. For example, an inmate who was sexually abused at a jail may wait until he or she is transferred to a prison to report. Similarly, someone abused while confined in a State prison may choose to report once he or she is in the custody of a community corrections agency. The head of the facility where the report is made needs to be prepared to notify the appropriate authorities immediately. By the same token, as required by the standard, the head of the agency or facility where the alleged abuse occurred must ensure that the allegation is investigated. This effort to communicate and share information across agencies and facilities should improve safety and security for all inmates and staff.

Staff first responder duties OR-3 Upon learning that an inmate was sexually abused within a time period that still allows for the collection of physical evidence, the first security staff member to respond to the report is required to (1) separate the alleged victim and abuser; (2) seal and preserve any crime scene(s); and (3) instruct the victim not to take any actions that could destroy physical evidence, including washing, brush- ing his or her teeth, changing his or her clothes, urinating, defecating, smoking, drinking, or eating. If the first staff responder is a non-security staff member, he or she is required to instruct the victim not to take any actions that could destroy physical evidence and then notify security staff.

Assessment Checklist YES NO (a) Has the facility notified security staff that upon learning of an incident of sexual abuse that occurred within a time period that still allows for the collection of physical evidence, they are required to separate victims from abusers; seal and preserve any crime scene(s); and instruct victims not to wash, brush their teeth, change their clothes, urinate, defecate, smoke, drink, or eat? (b) Has the facility notified non-security staff members that upon learning of an incident of sexual abuse, they are required to instruct victims not to wash, brush their teeth, change their clothes, urinate, defecate, smoke, drink, or eat and then notify security staff?

Discussion In addition to reporting the abuse according to agency policy, the first security staff member who learns of an inmate being sexually abused is responsible for ensuring that the victim is safe and any physical evidence is preserved until an investigator arrives. At the time of publication of this body of standards, the commonly accepted time period for collecting physical evidence is 96 hours. To carry out their duties effectively, security staff members will need to be able to counsel victims who may be in distress while maintaining security and control over the

III. Detection and Response 39 crime scene(s). In the event that a non-security staff member is the first staff responder, he or she needs to be prepared to instruct victims not to take any actions that could destroy physical evidence and then immediately notify security staff.

Coordinated response OR-4 All actions taken in response to an incident of sexual abuse are coordinated among staff first -re sponders, medical and mental health practitioners, investigators, and facility leadership. The facility’s coordinated response ensures that victims receive all necessary immediate and ongoing medical, mental health, and support services and that investigators are able to obtain usable evidence to substantiate allegations and hold perpetrators accountable.

Assessment Checklist YES NO (a) Are all actions taken in response to an incident of sexual abuse coordinated among staff first responders, medical and mental health practitioners, investigators, and facility leadership? (b) Does the facility’s coordinated response ensure that victims receive all necessary immediate and ongoing medical, mental health, and support services? (c) Does the facility’s coordinated response ensure that investigators are able to obtain usable evidence to substantiate allegations and hold perpetrators accountable?

Discussion In the community, coordinated sexual assault response teams (SARTs) are recognized as a best practice for responding to incidents of rape and other sexual abuse because they enable key responders from the medical, advocacy, and law enforcement fields to coordinate their actions and share information, helping the victim receive the best care and providing the investigator with the best chance to find the perpetrator. SARTs are generally composed of representatives from the medical and mental health fields, victim advocacy groups (usually from local or regional rape crisis centers), and law enforcement agencies. Although some correctional agencies already use some version of a SART or specialized first response team, or they participate in an existing specialized community response team, the Commission recognizes that not all agencies are equipped to organize a specialized team or spearhead a community SART. The Commission urges those agencies to work toward developing such a team by working with community or regional law enforcement agencies, outside medical and mental health providers, and sexual abuse advocacy groups to establish a coordinated plan to address victims’ needs and improve sexual abuse investigation outcomes. At the time of publication of these standards, the Commission recommends agencies consult the 2004 U.S. Department of Justice’s Office on Violence Against Women publication “A National Protocol for Sexual Assault Medical Forensic Examinations, Adults/Adolescents” for guidance and ideas on developing an approach to a coordinated response to sexual abuse.

Regardless of whether or not the agency uses a designated response team or participates in a community SART, the standard requires that all actions taken in response to an incident of sexual abuse be coordinated among staff first responders, medical and mental health practitioners, investigators, and facility leadership. To ensure the best treatment for victims and the greatest likelihood of holding perpetrators accountable, a number of actions should be coordinated, including: (1) assessing the victim’s acute medical needs to determine if he or she needs to be stabilized and/or treated for injuries, conditions, or potential risks; (2) informing the victim

40 Standards for the Prevention, Detection, Response, and Monitoring of Sexual Abuse in Adult Prisons and Jails of his or her rights under relevant Federal and/or State crime victims’ rights laws; (3) giving the victim the option of undergoing a forensic medical exam for the purpose of collecting and documenting physical evidence of abuse; (4) having a victim advocate available to the inmate victim during the forensic medical exam; (5) providing crisis intervention counseling for the victim before and after the forensic medical exam; (6) interviewing victims and witnesses; (7) collecting evidence; and (8) providing for any special needs a victim might have.

Agency protection against retaliation OR-5 The agency protects all inmates and staff who report sexual abuse or cooperate with sexual abuse investigations from retaliation by other inmates or staff. The agency employs multiple protection measures, including housing changes or transfers for inmate victims or abusers, removal of alleged staff or inmate abusers from contact with victims, and emotional support services for inmates or staff who fear retaliation for reporting sexual abuse or cooperating with investigations. The agency monitors the conduct and/or treatment of inmates or staff who have reported sexual abuse or cooperated with investigations, including any inmate disciplinary reports, housing, or program changes, for at least 90 days following their report or cooperation to see if there are changes that may suggest possible retaliation by inmates or staff. The agency discusses any changes with the appropriate inmate or staff member as part of its efforts to determine if retaliation is taking place and, when confirmed, immediately takes steps to protect the inmate or staff member.

Assessment Checklist YES NO (a) Does the agency employ the following measures to protect inmates and staff from retaliation for reporting sexual abuse? • Housing changes or transfers for inmate victims or abusers • Removal of alleged staff or inmate abusers from contact with victims • Employee assistance services or other resources for staff who may need psychological or emotional support • Available support services for inmates who may need psychological or emotional support (b) Does the agency monitor the conduct and/or treatment of inmates or staff who have reported sexual abuse or cooperated with investigations, including any inmate disciplinary reports, housing changes, or program changes, for at least 90 days following their report or cooperation to see if there are changes that may suggest possible retaliation by inmates or staff? (c) When changes have been identified, does the agency discuss those changes with the appropriate inmate or staff member as part of its efforts to determine if retaliation is taking place? (d) When retaliation has been confirmed, does the agency immediately take steps to protect the inmate or staff member?

Discussion Fear of retaliation, such as being subjected to harsh or hostile conditions, being attacked by other inmates, or suffering harassment from staff, prevents many inmates and staff from reporting sexual abuse and impedes the ability of the agency to protect the safety and security of its facilities. Retaliation can take many forms. For example, one or more inmates may assault another inmate for “snitching.” An accused staff member or his or her staff allies may suddenly

III. Detection and Response 41 start giving disciplinary tickets to the inmate who made the allegation. A staff member who reports may find that he or she is being snubbed or isolated by other staff. The agency should use every means possible, from information conveyed in training sessions to strict reporting policies to strong disciplinary sanctions for retaliation, to discourage retaliation in any form.

The agency should be alert to the possibility of retaliation from the outset and should initiate and maintain protective measures for as long as it deems necessary. The agency will have to weigh a number of circumstances when deciding how best to protect inmates and staff members who report sexual abuse. When collective bargaining agreements limit an agency’s ability to remove accused staff members from contact positions with inmates who have alleged staff-on-inmate sexual abuse or sexual harassment, the agency should develop and implement alternative protective measures. In general, agencies should try to secure collective bargaining agreements that do not limit their ability to protect inmates or staff from retaliation.

The agency’s protective measures can be adjusted throughout the investigation as necessary, but this does not obviate the agency’s obligation to take immediate and continuing steps to guard against retaliation. Although addressing the situation may require a housing transfer, facility officials should make every reasonable effort to minimize the disruption caused to the inmate’s daily life, including access to programs and other privileges.

Investigations (IN)

Duty to investigate IN-1 The facility investigates all allegations of sexual abuse, including third-party and anonymous reports, and notifies victims and/or other complainants in writing of investigation outcomes and any disciplinary or criminal sanctions, regardless of the source of the allegation. All investigations are carried through to completion, regardless of whether the alleged abuser or victim remains at the facility.

Assessment Checklist YES NO (a) Does the facility investigate all allegations of sexual abuse from all sources, including third-party and anonymous reports? (b) Does the facility notify victims and other complainants in writing of investigation outcomes and any disciplinary or criminal sanctions? (c) Are all investigations carried through to completion, regardless of whether the alleged abuser or victim remains at the facility?

Discussion One of the challenges agencies face when investigating allegations of sexual abuse is inmate and staff reluctance to report the abuse, whether as victims or as witnesses. This reluctance to report leads to delayed reporting, changed stories, noncooperation, and difficulties obtaining physical evidence. By investigating all allegations of sexual abuse and carrying those investigations through to completion, agencies send a strong message that sexual abuse is taken seriously and will not be tolerated, thereby encouraging all inmates to report.

42 Standards for the Prevention, Detection, Response, and Monitoring of Sexual Abuse in Adult Prisons and Jails Carrying investigations through to completion means making sure that an investigation continues even if an alleged staff perpetrator transfers, resigns, or retires or if an alleged inmate perpetrator or victim is transferred or released from custody during an investigation. Consistent application of these practices helps assure the reporting party and others who may be considering reporting sexual abuse or cooperating with the investigation that reports and cooperation will not be fruitless. This assurance is critical given the risks often inherent to reporting sexual abuse and cooperating in an investigation of sexual abuse, both for staff and inmates. Continu- ing investigations after the alleged perpetrator has left the facility helps ensure that an abuser does not escape accountability and will not remain undetected in another facility or in another jurisdiction and thus can be critical to preventing further abuse. This should be an important risk management consideration for any agency.

This standard requires that victims and complainants be notified of the final investigative outcome (e.g., unfounded/unsubstantiated/substantiated) and any disciplinary or criminal sanctions imposed pursuant to a substantiated allegation of sexual abuse. When the investigative outcome is modified pursuant to review, appeal, or arbitration after notification has taken place, the victim/complainant should be notified of the modified outcome.

The “source” of an allegation of sexual abuse that triggers the duty to investigate may come in the form of evidence obtained during the investigation of a violent incident, or even death, within the facility that does not appear to have any connection to sexual abuse. Facilities should be attuned to the fact that sexual abuse may be the motivating factor behind seemingly unrelated assaults, suicides, and homicides within their facilities. Forensic autopsies should be employed whenever possible to determine whether sexual abuse occurred prior to the act of violence or suicide being investigated.

Criminal and administrative agency investigations IN-2 Agency investigations into allegations of sexual abuse are prompt, thorough, objective, and conducted by investigators who have received special training in sexual abuse investigations (TR-4). When outside agencies investigate sexual abuse, the facility has a duty to keep abreast of the investigation and cooperate with outside investigators (RP-3). Investigations include the following elements:

• Investigations are initiated and completed within the timeframes established by the highest- ranking facility official, and the highest-ranking official approves the final investigative report. • Investigators gather direct and circumstantial evidence, including physical and DNA evidence when available; interview alleged victims, suspected perpetrators, and witnesses; and review prior complaints and reports of sexual abuse involving the suspected perpetrator. • When the quality of evidence appears to support criminal prosecution, prosecutors are con- tacted to determine whether compelled interviews may be an obstacle for subsequent criminal prosecution. • Investigative findings are based on an analysis of the evidence gathered and a determination of its probative value. • The credibility of a victim, suspect, or witness is assessed on an individual basis and is not determined by the person’s status as inmate or staff.

III. Detection and Response 43 • Investigations include an effort to determine whether staff negligence or collusion enabled the abuse to occur. • Administrative investigations are documented in written reports that include a description of the physical and testimonial evidence and the reasoning behind credibility assessments. • Criminal investigations are documented in a written report that contains a thorough description of physical, testimonial, and documentary evidence and provides a proposed list of exhibits. • Substantiated allegations of conduct that appears to be criminal are referred for prosecution.

Assessment Checklist YES NO (a) Are investigations of allegations of sexual abuse conducted only by investigators who have received special training in sexual abuse investigations (TR-4)? (b) When outside agencies investigate sexual abuse, does the facility keep abreast of the investigation and cooperate with outside investigators (RP-3)? (c) Are investigations of allegations of sexual abuse initiated and completed within prompt timeframes established by the facility? (d) Do investigations include a review of all direct and circumstantial evidence, including physical and DNA evidence when available; interviews of alleged victims, suspected perpetrators, and witnesses; and prior complaints and reports of sexual abuse or misconduct involving the suspected perpetrator? (e) Does the facility contact prosecutors when the quality of evidence appears to support criminal prosecution to determine whether compelled interviews may be an obstacle for subsequent criminal prosecution? (f) Are investigative findings based on the analysis of the evidence gathered and a determination of its probative value? (g) Do investigators assess the credibility of a victim, suspect, or witness on an individualized basis, rather than using the person’s status as inmate or staff to assess credibility? (h) Do investigations include an effort to determine whether staff negligence or collusion enabled the abuse to occur? (i) Are administrative investigations documented in written reports that include a description of the physical and testimonial evidence and the reasoning behind credibility assessments? (j) Are criminal investigations documented in a written report that contains a thorough description of physical, testimonial, and documentary evidence and provides a proposed list of exhibits? (k) Are substantiated allegations of conduct that appear to be criminal referred for prosecution?

Discussion This standard addresses both criminal and administrative investigations. There are significant differences in how each type of investigation is conducted, and it is critically important to keep criminal and administrative investigations separate. However, certain elements are important to both types of investigation, and the standard addresses these elements.

The standard requires that effective investigations be initiated and completed promptly so that physical evidence is available and usable and before memories have faded. Prompt investigations also give credence to an agency’s zero-tolerance commitment to end sexual abuse. Prompt investigations improve facility safety and morale by ensuring that wrongly accused subjects are exonerated as quickly as possible and that abusers are detected and removed and/or disciplined as quickly as possible. Agencies or facilities should ensure that established timelines provide sufficient time for investigators to complete the investigation and for the review process

44 Standards for the Prevention, Detection, Response, and Monitoring of Sexual Abuse in Adult Prisons and Jails to be completed. However, investigations and their reviews should be completed within the constraints imposed by statutes of limitation or terms and conditions of collective bargaining agreements so as to ensure that the facility has the ability to impose discipline when allegations are substantiated.

This standard also reflects the importance of investigations being conducted by investigators with the skills, objectivity, and sensitivity to resolve allegations credibly and with well- documented evidence. As the standard reflects, investigators must always be trained in conducting sexual abuse investigations (TR-4).

In cases of alleged staff-on-inmate sexual abuse or harassment, the agency will need to make extra efforts to ensure that those investigations are objective and thorough and should consider using outside investigators whenever possible to ensure the appearance as well as the reality of impartiality.

Because sexual abuse often has no witnesses and does not leave visible injury, investigators must be assiduous in searching out other kinds of direct and circumstantial evidence. To be successful, this requirement, like the other requirements of this standard, will need to be bol- stered by investigator training and strong facility policies.

The type of direct and circumstantial evidence that can be gathered and analyzed will vary depending on the nature of the allegation. When forced intercourse or similar abuse is alleged, for example, properly conducted forensic exams may yield DNA evidence. When staff-inmate relationships are alleged, investigators should search for potentially corroborating evidence, such as telephone records, gifts, letters, and similar items. Investigators should also conduct a review of prior complaints of sexual abuse as well as disciplinary findings in those cases— including from other facilities or jurisdictions, whenever possible—as such information may suggest repeated patterns of behavior that bear on the credibility of the suspected abuser. Un- less State law specifies otherwise, agencies or facilities should maintain those records for the duration of the inmate’s sentence or staff member’s employment.

Credibility assessments play an important role in the investigation of sexual abuse, as in any other investigation, and particularly so when there is no physical evidence. Properly trained investigators and agency officials must assess the truthfulness of alleged victims, suspected abusers, and witnesses (if there are any) based on a careful consideration of individual factors pertinent to each person (e.g., his or her possible motivations, opportunity, prior history of truthfulness, consistency of statements, etc.). Assumptions about truthfulness should not be based simply on the fact that a person is an inmate or member of the staff. The Commission especially cautions against automatically believing staff and disbelieving inmates when their statements contradict each other.

As this standard reflects, an important aspect of investigations of sexual abuse allegations is determining whether any staff negligence or collusion may have played a role in facilitating or causing the sexual abuse. This inquiry is critical to preventing future sexual abuse and is an important risk management tool for agencies.

As do several other standards, this standard recognizes the importance of coordinating with prosecuting authorities in cases involving sexual abuse allegations. This standard does not advocate delaying the initiation of the administration investigation until the decision of whether to prosecute has been made. However, to avoid compromising criminal investigations,

III. Detection and Response 45 investigators must contact prosecuting authorities before taking any compelled statements of subjects in potentially criminal cases. Agencies also must refer criminal cases for prosecution whenever the evidence indicates that the abuse appears to be criminal.

Evidence standard for administrative investigations IN-3 Allegations of sexual abuse are substantiated if supported by a preponderance of the evidence.

Assessment Checklist YES NO (a) Are allegations of sexual abuse substantiated if supported by a preponderance of the evidence?

Discussion The goal of this standard is to ensure that the agency uses a standard of proof that is fair to all parties and appropriate for administrative action. This standard of proof applies to both administrative hearings and inmate disciplinary hearings and requires investigators to use the preponderance of the evidence standard that is commonly used in administrative investigations as well as in civil suits involving sexual abuse. The preponderance of the evidence standard requires that an allegation be substantiated when the evidence shows that it is more likely than not that the alleged abuse occurred. Administrative cases do not require that allegations be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Some facilities may establish lower thresholds for substantiating allegations of sexual abuse. This standard does not require that such facilities raise the threshold to the preponderance of evidence standard.

When available evidence is insufficient to substantiate an allegation, it may also be insufficient to prove that the alleged abuse did not occur. Such allegations may be determined to be unsubstantiated but cannot properly be categorized as unfounded. Where there are numerous unfounded allegations in a facility, administrators may want to review the quality of the investigations and closely scrutinize policies and protocols because numerous unfounded incidents may indicate problems with the way investigations are being conducted or reveal unknown incidents that actually did occur.

Discipline (DI)

Disciplinary sanctions for staff DI-1 Staff is subject to disciplinary sanctions up to and including termination when staff has violated agency sexual abuse policies. The presumptive disciplinary sanction for staff members who have engaged in sexually abusive contact or penetration is termination. This presumption does not limit agency discretion to impose termination for other sexual abuse policy violations. All termina- tions for violations of agency sexual abuse policies are to be reported to law enforcement agencies and any relevant licensing bodies.

46 Standards for the Prevention, Detection, Response, and Monitoring of Sexual Abuse in Adult Prisons and Jails Assessment Checklist YES NO (a) When staff has violated agency sexual abuse policies, has the staff member received sanctions up to and including termination? (b) Do the disciplinary sanctions imposed indicate that the presumptive disciplinary sanction for staff who has engaged in sexually abusive contact or penetration is termination? (c) Does the agency report to law enforcement agencies and any relevant licensing bodies all individuals terminated by the agency for violating agency sexual abuse policies?

Discussion Imposing significant disciplinary sanctions for sexual abuse is a critical component of communicating an agency’s zero tolerance of sexual abuse and developing a culture of safety and accountability. The goal of this standard is to ensure fair and consistent accountability for staff members who have violated agency sexual abuse policies and procedures, regardless of whether they are found guilty in criminal proceedings. Violations that require disciplinary sanctions pursuant to this standard include engaging in actual or attempted abuse or harassment, failing to report an incident of sexual abuse, failing to limit information received about an allegation to those who need to know, failing to cooperate with a sexual abuse investigation, engaging in retaliation against inmates or staff who report abuse, and failing to follow any other agency policy regarding sexual abuse in which staff was trained.

Disciplinary hearings for adjudicating allegations of attempted or actual staff-on-inmate sexual abuse or sexual harassment should be fair, and sanctions should be proportional to the nature and circumstances of the accused staff member’s conduct, his or her disciplinary history, and the sanctions meted out for comparable offenses by other staff with similar histories. Sanctions may entail training and counseling. The sanctions should be sufficiently serious in all cases to communicate to all staff and inmates the agency’s refusal to tolerate sexual abuse or any conduct that impedes its efforts to eliminate it.

This standard requires that termination be the “presumptive” but not the mandatory sanction for certain types of sexual abuse in recognition of the fact that disciplinary sanctions must be determined on a case-by-case basis. Establishing termination as a presumption places a heavy burden on the staff person found to have committed the abuse to demonstrate why termination is not the appropriate sanction. This presumption also requires that termination should be the rule for the referenced types of sexual abuse, with exceptions made only in extraordinary circumstances. As the standard reflects, although termination is not the presumption for all types of sexual abuse, it may be the appropriate sanction for instances of sexual abuse less severe than sexually abusive contact or penetration.

This standard is not meant to increase the employment rights of staff who are at-will employees.

Disciplinary sanctions for inmates DI-2 Inmates are subject to disciplinary sanctions pursuant to a formal disciplinary process following an administrative ruling that the inmate engaged in inmate-on-inmate sexual abuse or following a criminal finding of guilt for inmate-on-inmate sexual abuse. Sanctions are commensurate with the nature and circumstances of the abuse committed, the inmate’s disciplinary history, and the sanctions meted out for comparable offenses by other inmates with similar histories. The

III. Detection and Response 47 disciplinary process must consider whether an inmate’s mental disabilities or mental illness contributed to his or her behavior when determining what type of sanction, if any, should be imposed. Possible sanctions also include interventions designed to address and correct underlying reasons or motivation for the abuse, such as requiring the offending inmate to participate in therapy, counseling, or other programs.

Assessment Checklist YES NO (a) When there has been an administrative ruling of inmate-on-inmate sexual abuse or a criminal finding of guilt for inmate-on-inmate sexual abuse, is the inmate perpetrator subject to disciplinary sanctions that are commensurate with the nature of the abuse committed, the inmate’s disciplinary history, and sanctions meted out for comparable offenses by other inmates with similar histories? (b) Does the disciplinary process include consideration of any mental disabilities or mental illness that may have contributed to the abuse in determining the appropriate disciplinary sanction? (c) Do possible sanctions include interventions designed to address and correct underlying reasons or motivation for the abuse, such as therapy, counseling, or other programs?

Discussion Holding inmates accountable for sexually abusing other inmates is essential to deter abuse and to demonstrate to inmates and staff that the agency takes seriously its zero-tolerance policy. Un- like abusive staff, abusive inmates cannot simply be “fired” and removed from a correctional setting. This standard recognizes that inmate accountability and the likely reduction in recidivism may be best achieved by using various kinds of sanctions, including not just punitive ones (e.g., loss of privileges) but positive interventions that may help an inmate learn to better control his or her own behavior (e.g., counseling, participation in group programs, or other therapeutic interventions). All sanctions and interventions should send a clear message that the agency does not tolerate sexual abuse of any sort.

When imposing disciplinary sanctions, the facility should take care to ensure that inmates are not placed for prolonged periods in disciplinary segregation if the conditions in segregation have the potential to cause or aggravate symptoms of mental illness and/or limit access to needed mental health services.

The Commission strongly urges agencies to refrain from imposing disciplinary sanctions on inmates solely because they have participated in apparently consensual sex or romantic relationships with staff. Disciplinary sanctions for such inmates will discourage them from reporting abuse. Additionally, some inmates may fail to report abuse because of larger safety concerns in the facility and therefore should not be punished for concealing sexual activity. Staff should always be held responsible for such abuse. On the other hand, the Commission recognizes that inmates may engage in relationships with staff to obtain contraband or break other facility rules without being punished. The Commission believes inmates should be held responsible for such other rules violations, but not for the sexual relationship that allowed for such violations.

48 Standards for the Prevention, Detection, Response, and Monitoring of Sexual Abuse in Adult Prisons and Jails Medical and Mental Health Care (MM)

Medical and mental health screenings—history of sexual abuse MM-1 Qualified medical or mental health practitioners ask inmates about prior sexual victimization and abusiveness during medical and mental health reception and intake screenings. If an inmate discloses prior sexual victimization or abusiveness, whether it occurred in an institutional setting or in the community, during a medical or mental health reception or intake screening, the practitioner provides the appropriate referral for treatment, based on his or her professional judgment. Any information related to sexual victimization or abusiveness that occurred in an institutional setting must be strictly limited to medical and mental health practitioners and other staff, as required by agency policy and Federal, State, or local law, to inform treatment plans and security and management decisions, including housing, bed, work, education, and program assignments. Medical and mental health practitioners must obtain informed consent from inmates before reporting information about prior sexual victimization that did not occur in an institutional setting, unless the inmate is under the age of 18.

Assessment Checklist YES NO (a) Do qualified medical or mental health practitioners ask questions about prior sexual victimization and abusiveness during medical and mental health reception and intake screenings? (b) If an inmate discloses prior sexual victimization or abusiveness, whether it occurred in an institutional setting or in the community, during a medical or mental health reception or intake screening, does the practitioner provide appropriate referral for treatment based on his or her reasonable professional judgment? (c) Is any information related to sexual victimization or abusiveness that occurred in an institutional setting strictly limited to medical and mental health practitioners and other staff, as determined by agency policy and Federal, State, or local law, to inform treatment plans and security and management decisions, including housing, bed, work, education, and program assignments? (d) Do medical and mental health practitioners obtain informed consent from inmates before reporting information about prior sexual victimization that did not occur in an institutional setting, unless the inmate is under the age of 18?

Discussion Facilities typically perform a brief health screening of each inmate upon his or her arrival, followed by a more comprehensive assessment 7 to 14 days after admission. Under this standard, these screenings must include questions about previous sexual victimization and abusiveness, whether in a confinement setting or in the community. Before asking these questions, medical and/or mental health practitioners should inform inmates that they are not required to answer any of the questions pertaining to sexual victimization or abusiveness if they would prefer not to. Not all inmates will feel comfortable answering such questions, and practitioners should respect refusals to answer those questions and not press for answers. During these screenings, an inmate may disclose information about victimization that occurred recently or historically. Incidents of abuse that happened many years ago may still require treatment, and medical and mental health practitioners should exercise their professional judgment to determine what treatment to recommend. Similarly, mental health practitioners should exercise their professional judgment to determine whether an inmate who discloses prior sexually abusive behavior could benefit from counseling, treatment, or other therapeutic interventions.

III. Detection and Response 49 If an inmate discloses an incident of sexual abuse that occurred within a time period in which physical evidence may still be collected, the medical and/or mental health practitioner is required to provide access to emergency medical treatment and crisis intervention services (MM-2) and follow the agency’s evidence protocol (RP-1). At the time of publication of this body of standards, 96 hours is the timeframe commonly accepted and used by medical and mental health practitioners, corrections professionals, and criminal investigators.

The information obtained during medical and mental health reception and intake screenings can be vital to keeping inmates safe, in the same way as information obtained during the risk assessment screening (SC-1). By asking these questions during medical and mental health screenings, the facility can ensure that all inmates receive the medical and mental health treatment they need. Additionally, as captured in standards SC-1 and SC-2, prior sexual victimization or prior sexually abusive behavior, especially in an institutional setting, is an important factor to consider when making security and management decisions, including housing, program, education, and work placements for inmates. However, if an inmate discloses to a medical or mental health practitioner prior sexual victimization that occurred in the community, rather than in an institutional setting, this standard requires that the practitioner obtain informed consent before sharing this information with staff making such housing, program, education, and work decisions. Although standard OR-1 requires medical and mental health practitioners to report allegations or incidents of sexual abuse that occurred or may occur in a facility, unless precluded by Federal, State, or local law, the situation in which an inmate discloses previous sexual victimization in the community to a medical or mental health practitioner is different. In that situation, the inmate has a right to determine how or if the medical or mental health practitioner may share that information with other staff.

Access to emergency medical and mental health services MM-2 Victims of sexual abuse have timely, unimpeded access to emergency medical treatment and crisis intervention services, the nature and scope of which are determined by medical and mental health practitioners according to their professional judgment. Treatment services must be provided free of charge to the victim and regardless of whether the victim names the abuser. If no qualified medical or mental health practitioners are on duty at the time a report of recent abuse is made, security staff first responders take preliminary steps to protect the victim (OR-3) and immediately notify the appropriate medical and mental health practitioners.

Assessment Checklist YES NO (a) Do inmates have timely, unimpeded access to emergency medical treatment and crisis intervention services, the nature and scope of which are determined by medical and mental health practitioners according to their professional judgment? (b) Are treatment services provided free of charge to the victim? (c) Are treatment services provided regardless of whether the victim names the abuser? (d) If no qualified medical or mental health practitioners are on duty at the time a report is made, do security staff first responders take preliminary steps to protect the victim (OR-3) and immediately notify the appropriate medical and mental health practitioners?

50 Standards for the Prevention, Detection, Response, and Monitoring of Sexual Abuse in Adult Prisons and Jails Discussion Under this standard, the facility is required to provide emergency medical treatment and crisis intervention services free of charge to victims of sexual abuse. Such services may include, but are not limited to: (1) assessing the victim’s acute medical and mental health needs as soon as possible, (2) obtaining consent for treatment from the victim, unless the victim is under 18, (3) treating the victim’s acute medical and mental health needs as soon as possible, (4) documenting the victim’s acute medical and mental health needs and treatment provided as soon as possible, (5) providing support and crisis intervention services, and (6) providing access to a forensic medical exam and, if the victim agrees to an exam, ensuring agency protocol is followed whenever there may be physical evidence of sexual abuse (RP-1).

The standard’s requirement that medical and mental health services be provided even when the victim refuses to name the abuser means that victims must be able to meet with medical or mental health practitioners without having to disclose details of the abuse to an officer or other security staff member. As such, agencies may need to adapt their sick-call policies to allow inmates to access medical and mental health care practitioners without having to describe their victimization.

Ongoing medical and mental health care for sexual abuse victims and abusers MM-3 The facility provides ongoing medical and/or mental health evaluation and treatment to all known victims of sexual abuse. The evaluation and treatment of sexual abuse victims must include appropriate follow-up services, treatment plans, and, when necessary, referrals for continued care following their release from custody. The level of medical and mental health care provided to inmate victims must match the community level of care generally accepted by the medical and mental health professional communities. The facility conducts a mental health evaluation of all known abusers and provides treatment, as deemed necessary by qualified mental health practitioners.

Assessment Checklist YES NO (a) Does the facility provide ongoing medical and/or mental health evaluation and treatment to all known victims of sexual abuse? (b) Does the evaluation and treatment of victims include the following? • Appropriate follow-up services • Treatment plans • When necessary, referrals for continued care for sexual abuse victims following their release from custody (c) Does the level of medical and mental health care provided to inmate victims match the level of care generally accepted by the medical and mental health professional communities? (d) Does the facility conduct a mental health evaluation of all known abusers? (e) Does the facility provide treatment for abusers, as deemed necessary by qualified mental health practitioners?

Discussion Victims of sexual abuse can experience a range of physical injuries and emotional reactions, even long after the abuse has occurred, that require medical or mental health attention. As required by this standard, the facility must be able to ensure that all victims receive the

III. Detection and Response 51 appropriate medical and/or mental health services recommended by qualified practitioners. Follow-up evaluations and assessments may include the following actions: (1) reviewing any medical and mental health treatment provided immediately following the incident, including whether a forensic medical exam was performed, (2) diagnosing any lingering acute or non- acute physical injuries, including oral trauma, and (3) assessing the psychological impact of the victimization, including the risk of suicide or self-harm and any resulting mental health treatment needs. These follow-up evaluations and assessments will enable mental health and medical practitioners to determine and provide the most appropriate treatment for the inmate, which could include mental health treatment, medical treatment, or both. Reviewing and ad- justing victim treatment plans at regular, clinically appropriate intervals will allow the agency to provide the most comprehensive and appropriate care for as long as treatment is required.

Victims and perpetrators of sexual abuse, whether recent or historical, are at risk for sexually transmitted infections (STIs), including HIV. Regardless of whether an inmate has accepted prevention or treatment for STIs, medical practitioners ought to offer and strongly encourage him or her to be tested for HIV and viral hepatitis six to eight weeks following the sexual abuse.

In accordance with this standard’s requirement to provide victims with the level of care generally accepted in the medical and mental health professional communities, if there has been vaginal penetration, female victims who have been recently abused should be offered pregnancy tests at the time of the medical evaluation and, if the test is negative, should be offered retesting approximately six weeks thereafter. Victims who have positive tests should receive counseling and have access to all pregnancy-related medical services that are lawful in the community.

Additionally, this standard requires mental health evaluations and treatment, when appropriate, of all known abusers. Mental health practitioners may find that ongoing mental health treatment, including counseling, group programs, or other therapeutic interventions, may be beneficial to abusers. Mental health treatment may help abusers develop better control over their actions and improve their conduct; in doing so, such treatment may help reduce the likelihood of recidivism and thereby improve facility safety. As noted in the standard, the agency’s mental health practitioners must use their professional judgment to determine the appropriate treatment and services for individuals with a recent or previous history of sexual abusiveness.

Inmates over the age of 18 have the right to refuse medical and/or mental health care after receiving counseling about the potential value of the services they would receive. As a risk management measure, the agency should require inmates to sign refusals of care and document such refusals in the inmate’s medical file.

52 Standards for the Prevention, Detection, Response, and Monitoring of Sexual Abuse in Adult Prisons and Jails IV. MONITORING Data Collection and Review (DC)

Sexual abuse incident reviews DC-1 The facility treats all instances of sexual abuse as critical incidents to be examined by a team of upper management officials, with input from line supervisors, investigators, and medical/mental health practitioners. The review team evaluates each incident of sexual abuse to identify any policy, training, or other issues related to the incident that indicate a need to change policy or practice to better prevent, detect, and/or respond to incidents of sexual abuse. The review team also considers whether incidents were motivated by racial or other group dynamics at the facility. When incidents are determined to be motivated by racial or other group dynamics, upper management officials immediately notify the agency head and begin taking steps to rectify those underlying problems. The sexual abuse incident review takes place at the conclusion of every sexual abuse investigation, unless the allegation was determined to be unfounded. The review team prepares a report of its findings and recommendations for improvement and submits it to the facility head.

Assessment Checklist YES NO (a) Does a team of upper management officials, with input from line supervisors, investigators, and medical/mental health practitioners, review the details of each incident of sexual abuse following every sexual abuse investigation, unless the allegation was determined to be unfounded? (b) Does the team use the review of each incident of sexual abuse to identify any policy, training, or other issues related to the incident that indicate a need to change policy or practice to better prevent, detect, and/or respond to incidents of sexual abuse? (c) Does the review team consider whether incidents were motivated by racial dynamics or any existing racial tensions at the facility? (d) When incidents are determined to be motivated by racial dynamics or tensions, do upper management officials immediately notify the agency head and begin taking steps to rectify those underlying problems? (e) Does the review team prepare a report of its findings and recommendations for improvement and submit it to the facility head?

Discussion Sexual abuse incident reviews provide the facility with the opportunity to identify policies or practices that may have contributed to or failed to prevent sexual abuse as well as any deficiencies in the facility’s response. By examining the facility’s prevention planning and response efforts following the occurrence of sexual abuse, the facility can prevent future incidents by making the necessary changes to policies or practices that endangered staff and inmates in the past.

Comprehensive sexual abuse incident reviews should include the following: (1) an analysis of any security failures that may have contributed to the incident, (2) an examination of the timeliness and quality of the response, (3) the various interventions provided to the victim and/or perpetrator, including medical and mental health care, and (4) the quality of the administrative and/or criminal investigation. Additionally, the review team should determine whether victim(s) or witness(es) faced any obstacles to prompt and safe reporting of the incident. Finally, the team should review the files of the perpetrator(s) and victim(s) to determine

IV. Monitoring 53 whether changes to the facility’s process for screening inmates for risk of sexual victimization or abusiveness may be appropriate. Having identified underlying problems, the facility can then make the necessary changes to policies or practices that endanger staff and inmates.

Data collection DC-2 The agency collects accurate, uniform data for every reported incident of sexual abuse using a standardized instrument and set of definitions. The agency aggregates the incident-based sexual abuse data at least annually. The incident-based data collected includes, at a minimum, the data necessary to answer all questions from the most recent version of the BJS Survey on Sexual Vio- lence. Data are obtained from multiple sources, including reports, investigation files, and sexual abuse incident reviews. The agency also obtains incident-based and aggregated data from every facility with which it contracts for the confinement of its inmates.

Assessment Checklist YES NO (a) Does the agency collect uniform data for every reported incident of sexual abuse using a standardized instrument and set of definitions? (b) Does the agency aggregate the incident-based sexual abuse data at least annually? (c) Does the agency collect the incident-based data necessary to answer all questions from the most recent version of the BJS Survey on Sexual Violence? (d) Does the agency obtain data from multiple sources, including reports, investigation files, and sexual abuse incident reviews? (e) Does the agency also obtain incident-based and aggregated data from every facility with which it contracts for the confinement of its inmates?

Discussion The agency is required to collect incident-based data on all incidents of sexual abuse to examine the specific circumstances of each incident and track any possible patterns.

The BJS Survey on Sexual Violence asks agencies to answer questions using their aggregated data and their incident-based data collection policies. The data collection items listed in Ap- pendix C include all the data that must be collected and aggregated to be able to answer the BJS survey questions. The most recent version of the BJS survey can be accessed electronically from the BJS Web site at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/dcprea03.htm. Appendix C also identifies additional information that the agency might want to consider incorporating into its incident-based sexual abuse data collection instrument. Such elements may be of assistance to the agency as it reviews, revises, and develops sexual abuse prevention and response policies and procedures. The agency may also decide to collect data not enumerated in Appendix C. Some incident-specific information may not be available during the initial data collection process but may become available over time. As more incident-specific information becomes known and available, it should be added to the other data collected for that incident.

Aggregating collected incident-based data on an annual basis will provide the agency with data descriptive of trends and patterns among reported incidents of sexual abuse that took place within the agency and its individual facilities during the previous year.

54 Standards for the Prevention, Detection, Response, and Monitoring of Sexual Abuse in Adult Prisons and Jails Data review for corrective action DC-3 The agency reviews, analyzes, and uses all sexual abuse data, including incident-based and aggregated data, to assess and improve the effectiveness of its sexual abuse prevention, detection, and response policies, practices, and training. Using these data, the agency identifies problem areas, including any racial dynamics underpinning patterns of sexual abuse, takes corrective action on an ongoing basis, and, at least annually, prepares a report of its findings and corrective actions for each facility as well as the agency as a whole. The annual report also includes a comparison of the current year’s data and corrective actions with those from prior years and provides an assessment of the agency’s progress in addressing sexual abuse. The agency’s report is approved by the agency head, submitted to the appropriate legislative body, and made readily available to the public through its Web site or, if it does not have one, through other means. The agency may redact specific material from the reports when publication would present a clear and specific threat to the safety and security of a facility, but it must indicate the nature of the material redacted.

Assessment Checklist YES NO (a) Does the agency review, analyze, and use all sexual abuse data, including incident- based and aggregated data, to assess the effectiveness of its sexual abuse prevention, detection, and response policies, practices, and training? (b) Does the agency use the data to assess problem areas, including any racial dynamics underpinning patterns of sexual abuse? (c) Does the agency take corrective action on an ongoing basis, based on the problem areas indicated by the analysis of the data? (d) Does the agency prepare a report at least annually of its findings and corrective actions for each facility as well as the agency as a whole? (e) Does the annual report include a comparison of the current year’s data and corrective actions with those from prior years and provide an assessment of the agency’s progress in addressing sexual abuse? (f) Is the agency’s report approved by the agency head and submitted to the appropriate legislative body? (g) Is the agency’s report made readily available to the public through its Web site or, if it does not have one, through other means?

Discussion The process of reviewing and analyzing incident-based and aggregated data allows agencies to detect patterns and trends that should be addressed as they review and revise their sexual abuse policies, practices, and training. For instance, sorting or filtering data by the victim’s gender, race, custody level, and type of incident may allow the agency to identify specific causation of these events. This analysis may also reveal racial dynamics underpinning certain patterns or trends of sexual abuse. Equipped with that knowledge, agency and facility heads can work together to begin changing those dynamics by reviewing and modifying existing policies and practices for keeping inmates safe. Using the conclusions and results from the data analysis to take this kind of corrective action will make all facilities safer.

Comparing the current year’s aggregated data to previous years’ data will also yield valuable information about progress, including validation of implemented preventive measures. For example, the agency may observe a decrease in the number of allegations in an area where additional security measures were implemented and monitoring was enhanced. The agency must include incident-based and aggregated data from all facilities with which it contracts for the

IV. Monitoring 55 confinement of its inmates in its review and analysis as part of its overall efforts to monitor the safety of inmates in contracted facilities (PP-2).

This standard also requires that the agency’s annual report on its data analysis and corrective actions be made readily available to the public. If the agency has a Web site, the report should be published on it. Otherwise, the agency should make other arrangements, for example, providing paper copies upon request, to ensure that members of the public can easily and promptly obtain the report. Members of the public should not have to identify themselves or provide a reason for wanting to see the report as a precondition to obtaining it.

Data storage, publication, and destruction DC-4 The agency ensures that the collected sexual abuse data are properly stored, securely retained, and protected. The agency makes all aggregated sexual abuse data, from facilities under its direct control and those with which it contracts, readily available to the public at least annually through its Web site or, if it does not have one, through other means. Before making aggregated sexual abuse data publicly available, the agency removes all personal identifiers from the data. The agency maintains sexual abuse data for at least 10 years after the date of its initial collection unless Federal, State, or local law allows for the disposal of official information in less than 10 years.

Assessment Checklist YES NO (a) Does the agency ensure that the collected sexual abuse data are properly stored, retained, protected, and destroyed? (b) Does the agency make all aggregated sexual abuse data, from facilities under its direct control and those with which it contracts, readily available to the public at least annually through its Web site or, if it does not have one, through other means? (c) Are all personal identifiers removed from the aggregated data before it is made publicly available? (d) Does the agency maintain sexual abuse data for at least 10 years after the date of its initial collection unless Federal, State, or local law allows for the disposal of official information in less than 10 years?

Discussion The agency’s data collection efforts will be useful to track trends and contribute to a national understanding of sexual abuse in confinement settings only if the agency stores the data in a manner that protects data integrity and retains the data for an adequate length of time. The requirement that data be securely retained and protected is meant to ensure the privacy of individuals involved in sexual abuse incidents and the integrity of the data. It is important that collected data be maintained in a way that protects the confidentiality of victims and alleged perpetrators. Thus, once data are aggregated, all unique identifiers pertaining to victims and alleged perpetrators should be removed.

The public has a legitimate interest in the data collected by agencies that serve the public. The data agencies are required to collect and publish under these standards will enable the public to understand the nature and level of safety in confinement facilities. Agency sexual abuse data may also inform research and efforts to improve safety. Aggregated data with personal identifiers removed should thus be readily available to the public. Publishing the data on the agency’s

56 Standards for the Prevention, Detection, Response, and Monitoring of Sexual Abuse in Adult Prisons and Jails Web site, if it has one, is the easiest way for the public to obtain them. Absent a Web site, an agency may choose other feasible means to make the data public, such as providing paper copies to members of the public who request them. Members of the public should not have to identify themselves or provide a reason for seeking the data as a precondition to obtaining copies.

With regard to incident-based data, the Commission recommends that agencies balance privacy interests against the legitimate public interest in safe correctional institutions by establishing a non-burdensome process to allow researchers, academics, journalists, and others access to such data.

Audits (AU)

Audits of standards AU-1 The public agency ensures that all of its facilities, including contract facilities, are audited to measure compliance with the PREA standards. Audits must be conducted at least every three years by independent and qualified auditors. The public or contracted agency allows the auditor to enter and tour facilities, review documents, and interview staff and inmates, as deemed appropriate by the auditor, to conduct comprehensive audits. The public agency ensures that the report of the auditor’s findings and the public or contracted agency’s plan for corrective action (DC-3) are published on the appropriate agency’s Web site if it has one or are otherwise made readily available to the public.

Assessment Checklist YES NO (a) Are comprehensive audits conducted at least every three years? (b) Are auditors independent and qualified? (c) Are independent auditors able to do the following, as deemed appropriate by the auditor? • Enter and tour facilities • Review documents • Interview staff and inmates (d) Are audit reports and corrective plans published on the appropriate agency’s Web site if it has one or otherwise made readily available to the public?

Discussion Publicly available audits allow agencies, legislative bodies, and the public to learn whether facilities are complying with the PREA standards. Audits can also be a resource for the Attor- ney General in determining whether States are meeting their statutory responsibilities. Public audits help focus an agency’s efforts and can serve as the basis upon which an agency can formulate a plan to correct any identified deficiencies. These corrective action plans should be made public as well so that the public is fully informed as to whether the agency is taking appropriate steps to prevent sexual abuse. If the agency has a Web site, the audit should be published on it; otherwise, the agency may choose other feasible means to ensure the public has ready and easy access to the audit, such as providing paper copies to members of the

IV. Monitoring 57 public who request them. Members of the public should not have to identify themselves or specify a reason for seeking the audit as a precondition to obtaining it.

The transparency achieved by public audits and corrective action plans can enhance community confidence in the steps agencies are taking to prevent sexual abuse in confinement facilities and can help generate public support for providing an agency with the resources it needs to prevent abuse more effectively. Publicly available audits and corrective action plans also help ensure that oversight bodies, including legislative bodies and community advocates, have the data necessary to decide whether and how to take action to improve sexual abuse prevention efforts.

For audits to serve these purposes effectively, they must be based on reliable and comprehensive information and be conducted by individuals or teams with the skills and objectivity necessary to take the following actions: (1) identify and gather the data that must be analyzed, (2) employ proper professional judgment when analyzing the data, and (3) work effectively with jurisdictions in planning audits. The requirements of this standard are designed to ensure that the audit process meets minimum audit standards while providing appropriate flexibility to the subject facility or agency regarding the identity of the auditor. Under this standard, an audit must be conducted by an individual or group of individuals who are independent of the agency, with no current direct reporting relationship to the head of the corrections agency being audited.

58 Standards for the Prevention, Detection, Response, and Monitoring of Sexual Abuse in Adult Prisons and Jails V. SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS FOR FACILITIES WITH IMMIGRATION DETAINEES

Compliance with PREA Standards

Adult immigrants detained pending determination of whether their presence in the United States is legal are in the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), but they are held in a wide variety of settings, including local jails, State and Federal prisons, privately run prisons, facilities run by ICE called detention facilities and service processing centers, and short-term detention settings run by Customs and Border Protection. At the time of publication of this body of standards, families with children detained together are held in one of two family facilities that operate under contract with ICE.

Unaccompanied immigrant and refugee minors are the only group of immigration detainees who are not in ICE custody, but rather under the care and custody of the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS’) Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) Division of Unac- companied Children’s Services. ORR places these minors in a variety of settings, including foster care, shelters, group homes, and secure juvenile detention facilities.

These supplemental standards for facilities with immigration detainees must be enforced on behalf of all people detained solely by ICE, regardless of where they are detained. In other words, they must be enforced in any facility that is run by ICE or contracts with ICE to hold immigration detainees. They must also be enforced on behalf of all unaccompanied children in ORR custody. These standards do not apply to inmates in lockups, jails, or prisons who also happen to have an immigration detainer or warrant lodged by ICE. As long as an inmate is being held on criminal charges or is serving a sentence for a criminal charge, he or she will not be considered an immigration detainee for purposes of the standards. However, these standards do apply to persons in the custody of ICE due to ICE’s commencement of removal proceedings on the basis of their past criminal conduct.

Standards developed pursuant to the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) must be enforced on behalf of immigration detainees according to the settings in which they are detained. As a starting point, the standards that apply to inmates in lockups, jails, and prisons must be applied to all immigration detainees as well. These supplemental standards create additional requirements that must be met along with the requirements laid out in the inmate standards. So, ICE-run detention facilities and service processing centers must comply with the standards for adult prisons and jails as well as these supplemental standards. Customs and Border Protection facilities must comply with the standards for lockups as long as detainees are held there for less than 72 hours, but they must comply with standards for adult prisons and jails whenever detainees are held beyond 72 hours. Customs and Border Protection facilities also must comply with these supplemental standards. Shelters under contract with ORR to house unaccompanied minors must comply with the standards for community corrections, which include some special provisions for juveniles in a community corrections setting, along with these supplemental standards. Secure juvenile detention facilities that house unaccompanied minors for ORR must comply with the juvenile detention standards, along with these supplemental standards. Finally, the two family facilities must comply with the adult prison and jail standards, along with the supplemental standards for

V. Supplemental Standards for Facilities with Immigration Detainees 59 immigration detainees and those supplements and one modification laid out specifically for family facilities in IDFF-1 through IDFF-4.

Standards Compliance Grid Detention setting PREA standards that apply Adult prison (Federal, State, or private), adult jail, Adult prison and jail standards and supplemental or other pretrial detention setting (Federal, State, or standards for immigration detainees private) Police lockup Lockup standards and supplemental standards for immigration detainees ICE detention facilities and service processing centers Adult prison and jail standards and supplemental standards for immigration detainees Customs and Border Protection facilities that house Lockup standards and supplemental standards for detainees for less than 72 hours immigration detainees Customs and Border Protection facilities that house Adult prison and jail standards and supplemental detainees for 72 hours or more standards for immigration detainees ICE family facilities Adult prison and jail standards, supplemental standards for immigration detainees, and supplemental standards for family facilities ORR contract shelters Community corrections standards and supplemental standards for immigration detainees ORR juvenile detention facilities Juvenile detention standards and supplemental standards for immigration detainees

Supplemental Standards

Although immigrants are detained in many different settings, preventing and responding to sexual abuse of immigration detainees in confinement requires special attention to the particular vulnerabilities of this population in any setting. In addition to meeting the appropriate standards for a given confinement setting, facilities that house immigration detainees must meet the following supplemental standards.

ID-1 Supplement to RP-2: Agreements with outside public entities and community service providers Any facility that houses immigration detainees maintains or attempts to enter into memoranda of understanding (MOUs) or other agreements with one or more local or, if not available, national organizations that provide legal advocacy and confidential emotional support services for immigrant victims of crime (RE-3, MM-3). The agency maintains copies of agreements or documentation showing attempts to enter into agreements.

Assessment Checklist YES NO (a) Does the facility maintain or attempt to enter into at least one MOU or other agreement with a local or national organization that provides legal advocacy and confidential emotional support services for immigration detainees or immigrant victims of crime? (b) Does the agency maintain copies of agreements or documentation showing attempts to enter into agreements?

60 Standards for the Prevention, Detection, Response, and Monitoring of Sexual Abuse in Adult Prisons and Jails Discussion Immigration detainees face a unique set of challenges when they are victims of a crime in custody. They do not have access to legal representation, they very often have been cut off from family support, and they are being prosecuted for removal from the country by ICE, which is also responsible for their care in custody. Furthermore, they may be linguistically and culturally isolated in the detention setting. Although special training requirements for employees who interact with immigration detainees, including medical and mental health practitioners, are intended to ensure that employees have some understanding of the attitudes and perceptions that people from different cultures have toward sexual abuse, it is still very likely that detainees who are victims of sexual abuse will not feel comfortable talking about the abuse to anyone inside the facility. Providing interpretive services can overcome language barriers, but mental health practitioners in the facility will not be able to communicate adequately with detainees if they must rely on an interpreter and if they do not share similar cultural understandings about sex and sexual abuse. It is also likely that prisoner advocacy groups in the community do not have the cultural competency to adequately assist and counsel immigration detainees. For these reasons, it is essential that any facility housing immigration detainees have an existing agreement with an organization that has experience providing legal advocacy and support for immigration detainees or immigrants who are victims of crime.

For correctional agencies that successfully enter into agreements with outside agencies, the Commission recommends that agreements contain the following elements: (1) the purpose of the agreement; (2) the respective roles and responsibilities of the detaining agency and outside organization; (3) the means by which detainees will be able to contact the outside agency; (4) the procedures for how and when outside advocates or service providers are able to gain entry into a facility; (5) the level of security supervision outside advocates or service providers will have while in a facility; and (6) any laws, rules, and/or regulations relevant to the service being provided, including laws granting privilege and agency rules governing confidentiality for disclosures about sexual abuse made to outside advocates or service providers.

ID-2 Supplement to TR-1, TR-4, and TR-5: Employee training and specialized training of investigators and medical and mental health care Any facility that holds immigration detainees provides special additional training to employees, including medical and mental health practitioners and investigators. This additional training includes the following topics: cultural sensitivity toward diverse understandings of acceptable and unacceptable sexual behavior, appropriate terms and concepts to use when discussing sex and sexual abuse with a culturally diverse population, sensitivity and awareness regarding past trauma that may have been experienced by immigration detainees, and knowledge of all existing resources for immigration detainees both inside and outside the facility that provide treatment and counseling for trauma and legal advocacy for victims.

V. Supplemental Standards for Facilities with Immigration Detainees 61 Assessment Checklist YES NO (a) Does employee training, as well as specialized training for medical and mental health practitioners and investigators, include a component that addresses the following topics? • Cultural sensitivity toward diverse understandings of acceptable and unacceptable sexual behavior • Appropriate terms and concepts to use when discussing sex and sexual abuse with a culturally diverse population • Sensitivity and awareness regarding past traumas that may have been experienced by immigration detainees • Knowledge of all existing resources for immigration detainees both inside and outside the facility that provide treatment and counseling for trauma and legal advocacy for victims

Discussion Although language is a significant barrier to communication with many immigration detainees, it can be easier to overcome than the cultural differences in perceptions about sexual abuse, understandings about what kinds of behavior are acceptable or unacceptable, and even the terminology and concepts that are used to describe different kinds of sexual behavior. In addition, many immigrants in detention have fled war or persecution or have suffered some kind of trauma in their travels to this country. The combination of cultural isolation with the impact of previous traumas can make it extremely unlikely that immigration detainees will feel comfortable reporting or discussing sexual abuse that happens to them in custody. Employees who interact with immigration detainees should receive training developed by someone who has experience working with people from the cultures represented among detainees. The training should provide explicit guidance about the appropriate terms and concepts to use and ways of communicating when discussing sex and sexual abuse with immigration detainees. It is particularly important that medical and mental health practitioners and investigators who interact with immigration detainees receive this special training because communication is essential to their ability to do their jobs. Employ- ees who are culturally competent and have access to appropriate interpretive or language translation services will be better equipped to protect the safety of immigration detainees.

Supplement to TR-3: Inmate education ID-3 Sexual abuse education (TR-3) for immigration detainees is provided at a time and in a manner that is separate from information provided about their immigration cases, in detainees’ own languages and in terms that are culturally appropriate, and is conducted by a qualified individual with experience communicating about these issues with a diverse population.

Assessment Checklist YES NO (a) Does the facility provide sexual abuse education for immigration detainees at a time and in a manner that is separate from information it provides about their immigration cases? (b) Are immigration detainees educated on the topics listed in the compliance checklist for TR-3 in their own language and using terms that are culturally appropriate? (c) Is the sexual abuse education component for immigration detainees developed and conducted by a qualified individual with experience communicating about these issues with a diverse immigrant population?

62 Standards for the Prevention, Detection, Response, and Monitoring of Sexual Abuse in Adult Prisons and Jails Discussion The education that is provided to immigration detainees should be tailored to this population, not only through interpretation of the languages spoken by detainees but through adaptation to appropriate terminology and concepts that address cultural differences in understanding about sex and sexual abuse. Immigration detainees should be informed of the support services that are available to them in the event they become victims of a crime in custody and given explicit instructions on how to access those services. The facility should be very clear about its zero-tolerance policy toward sexual abuse. Many immigration detainees are disoriented when they first enter custody and focused on learning about their immigration case, so it is important that notification about the zero-tolerance policy and more detailed education about sexual abuse be provided at times and in a manner that they can absorb and appreciate.

Detainee handbook ID-4 Every detainee is provided with an ICE Detainee Handbook upon admission to the facility, and a replacement is provided whenever a detainee’s handbook is lost or damaged. The Detainee Handbook contains notice of the agency’s zero-tolerance policy toward sexual abuse and contains all the agency’s policies related to sexual abuse, including information about how to report an incident of sexual abuse and the detainees’ rights and responsibilities related to sexual abuse. The Detainee Handbook will inform immigration detainees how to contact organizations in the community that provide sexual abuse counseling and legal advocacy for detainee victims of sexual abuse. The Detainee Handbook will also inform detainees how to contact the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and diplomatic or consular personnel.

Assessment Checklist YES NO (a) Does the facility provide every detainee with an ICE Detainee Handbook upon admission and provide a replacement whenever a detainee’s handbook is lost or damaged? (b) Does the ICE Detainee Handbook contain the following? • Notice of the agency’s zero-tolerance policy toward sexual abuse • All of the agency’s policies related to sexual abuse, including information about how to report an incident of sexual abuse and the detainees’ rights and responsibilities related to sexual abuse • Information about how to contact organizations in the community that provide counseling and legal advocacy for detainee victims of sexual abuse • Information about how to contact the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, the DHS OIG, and diplomatic or consular personnel from the detainee’s country of citizenship

Discussion ICE’s National Detention Standards, most recently updated in 2008, require that all immigration detainees be provided with a Detainee Handbook at the facility where they are detained. This handbook is the best means to convey important information about detainees’ rights and responsibilities and the best means to convey information detainees need to remain safe from sexual abuse during their detention. Therefore, this standard requires that all information that is relevant to protect detainees from sexual abuse and all information

V. Supplemental Standards for Facilities with Immigration Detainees 63 detainees should know in the event that sexual abuse occurs be provided in the Detainee Handbook. This requires that the facility’s zero-tolerance policy toward sexual abuse be provided, along with any other policies that pertain to the prevention of or response to sexual abuse in the facility. The Detainee Handbook must contain information about how to report sexual abuse, how to access confidential legal and counseling services outside of the facility, how to contact the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties and the DHS OIG, and how to contact diplomatic or consular personnel from detainees’ countries of origin.

Supplement to SC-1: Screening for risk of victimization and abusiveness ID-5 The facility makes every reasonable effort to obtain institutional and criminal records of immigration detainees in its custody prior to screening for risk of victimization and abusiveness. Screening of immigration detainees is conducted by employees who are culturally competent.

Assessment Checklist YES NO (a) Has the facility made every reasonable effort to obtain institutional or criminal records of all immigration detainees in its custody? (b) Is screening of immigration detainees conducted by an employee who is culturally competent?

Discussion Standard ID-6 requires that all immigration detainees be housed separately from the general inmate population. This separation should happen at intake, and standard SC-2 requires that the screening process be used to make more specific housing assignments within the area of the facility where immigration detainees are held. Often there are few or no records of an immigration detainee’s history, including criminal history, available to the facility. Immigration detainees can have extremely different backgrounds and experiences, none of which may be immediately obvious to employees who conduct the screening. For instance, asylum seekers likely have no criminal history and may have suffered terrible violence or other trauma in their countries of origin. Other immigration detainees who have been in this country for a period of time may have significant criminal histories and spent time in prison or jail. ICE separates immigration detainees based on its own security classifications. However, it is important that employees who screen immigration detainees at the facility that receives them complete their own thorough assessment of the likelihood that a particular detainee is vulnerable to sexual abuse or likely to engage in sexually abusive behavior.

Facilities that house immigration detainees should make every effort to gather information about detainees’ histories by requesting records from any institutions where they are known to have been previously detained or incarcerated. Currently, validated criteria to determine vulnerability to sexual abuse or likelihood of engaging in sexually abusive behavior that are specific to immigration detainees do not exist, so employees will have to base their determinations about potential victimization or abusiveness on generally established criteria. However, it is important that employees be educated about cultural differences in the ways that people perceive and express their experiences, and employees should learn how to communicate effectively with a culturally diverse population. Employees should know how to ask immigration detainees about experiences with past sexual abuse in a manner that is culturally appropriate and with an understanding of the types of abuse that are more commonly experienced by immigrants who may have fled war or persecution or have been trafficked for sex work.

64 Standards for the Prevention, Detection, Response, and Monitoring of Sexual Abuse in Adult Prisons and Jails Supplement to SC-2: Use of screening information ID-6 Any facility that houses both inmates and immigration detainees houses all immigration detainees separately from other inmates in the facility and provides heightened protection for immigration detainees who are identified as particularly vulnerable to sexual abuse by other detainees through the screening process (SC-1). To the extent possible, immigration detainees have full access to programs, education, and work opportunities.

Assessment Checklist YES NO (a) Does the facility house all immigration detainees separately from other inmates? (b) Does the facility provide heightened protection for immigration detainees identified as particularly vulnerable to sexual abuse by other detainees? (c) Do immigration detainees have full access to programs, education, and work opportunities?

Discussion Immigration detainees are a particularly vulnerable group in confinement settings. Many have no criminal history, some are refugees seeking asylum from war or persecution, and those with criminal histories may be vulnerable due to cultural and linguistic isolation within the confinement setting. Furthermore, fear of removal and the uncertainty surrounding their immigration cases can make many immigration detainees, with or without criminal histories, reluctant to speak out about any abuse they experience in custody. ICE currently classifies immigration detainees into three security categories and does not house the highest security detainees, those with significant criminal histories, with the lowest security detainees. Although it is appropriate to make security distinctions among immigration detainees, it is not appropriate to house any immigration detainees with general population inmates. This does not mean that immigration detainees cannot be housed in a facility with inmates, but that the facility houses immigration detainees in cells or areas of the facility that allow for no unsupervised contact between immigration detainees and inmates. As with any vulnerable population within the facility, it is important that separate housing for immigration detainees does not lead to isolation or a lack of access to the privileges that would be available to them in the general population.

Those detainees who have been classified by ICE as the lowest security risk should not be placed in settings with the least surveillance or supervision, which may put them at greater risk for abuse. When employees identify vulnerable detainees, they should take additional steps to provide heightened protection for these detainees. When feasible, they should place them in single cells or areas where security staff can provide continuous direct sight and sound supervision.

Supplement to RE-1: Inmate reporting ID-7 The agency provides immigration detainees with access to telephones with free, preprogrammed numbers to ICE’s Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties and the DHS OIG. In addition, the agency must provide immigration detainees with a list of phone numbers for diplomatic or consular personnel from their countries of citizenship and access to telephones to contact such personnel.

V. Supplemental Standards for Facilities with Immigration Detainees 65 Assessment Checklist YES NO (a) Does the facility or agency provide all immigration detainees with access to free, preprogrammed telephone lines to the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties and the OIG, which are prepared to receive and investigate reports of sexual abuse in custody? (b) Does the facility or agency provide a list of phone numbers to diplomatic or consular personnel from detainees’ countries of citizenship and access to telephones to contact such personnel?

Discussion Immigration detainees must be able to report sexual abuse directly to ICE’s Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties and to DHS OIG. Although immigration detainees are held by a wide variety of facilities all over the country, both the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Lib- erties and OIG have authority to investigate abuse in the operations of DHS. This does not preclude immigration detainees from reporting sexual abuse through any of the internal avenues provided by the adult prison and jail standards. However, the standards require that every facility give inmates the ability to report sexual abuse to an outside public entity or office not affiliated with the agency or facility, and the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, as well as DHS OIG, are the appropriate entities to receive and respond to reports by immigration detainees. Providing immigration detainees with a direct telephone line to the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties and OIG will ensure that when they do not feel safe using other reporting mechanisms within the facility, they will have the ability to report directly to a centralized governmental office with direct authority to investigate the report. For this reporting mechanism to be effective, both the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties and OIG will need to be prepared to receive such reports and initiate investigations immediately upon receiving them.

In addition, immigration detainees should have access to diplomatic or consular personnel from their country of citizenship in the event they wish to report sexual abuse during detention. Facilities are required by this standard to provide phone numbers to immigration detainees upon admission and access to telephones at all times that would allow them to call the appropriate diplomatic or consular personnel.

Supplement to RE-3: Inmate access to outside confidential support services ID-8 All immigration detainees have access to outside victim advocates who have experience working with immigration detainees or immigrant victims of crime for emotional support services related to sexual abuse. The facility provides such access by giving immigration detainees the current mailing addresses and telephone numbers, including toll-free hotline numbers, of local, State, and/or national organizations that provide these services and enabling reasonable communication between immigration detainees and these organizations. The facility ensures that communications with such advocates is private, confidential, and privileged to the extent allowable by Federal, State, and local law. The facility informs immigration detainees, prior to giving them access, of the extent to which such communications will be private, confidential, and/or privileged.

66 Standards for the Prevention, Detection, Response, and Monitoring of Sexual Abuse in Adult Prisons and Jails Assessment Checklist YES NO (a) Does the facility provide immigration detainees with the current mailing addresses and telephone numbers, including toll-free hotline numbers, of local, State, and/or national victim advocacy or rape crisis organizations that have experience working with immigration detainees or immigrant victims of crime and enable reasonable communication between inmates and these organizations? (Please attach documentation explaining how the facility provides immigration detainees with access to outside confidential support services related to sexual abuse.) (b) Are immigration detainees able to communicate with outside victim advocates privately in settings in which conversations cannot be overheard? (c) To ensure privacy of communication, is staff prohibited from reading correspondence to or from victim advocates? (d) Does the facility explain to immigration detainees, prior to giving them access to outside support services, the rules governing privacy, confidentiality, and/or privilege that apply for disclosures of sexual abuse made to outside victim advocates, including any limits to confidentiality under relevant Federal, State, or local law?

Discussion Immigration detainees should have access to the same outside advocacy and/or rape crisis organizations for confidential emotional support that are available to inmates, and for this to be meaningful, the facility must identify local, State, or national organizations that have experience working with immigration detainees or immigrant victims of crime. Once the facility has identified an appropriate advocacy organization to work with immigration detainees, it may need to enter an MOU with that organization and may find it useful to provide regular opportunities for immigration detainees to meet face-to-face with advocates (ID-2).

Telephone use to contact outside advocates and/or letters sent to service organizations should not be subject to any rules or restrictions governing telephone use or mail. Admin- istrators need to make certain that immigration detainees are able to access outside confidential support services as easily and as privately as possible. Immigration detainees should never have to explain to staff members their reasons for wanting to speak or write to outside advocates before being allowed to communicate with those providers.

Protection of detainee victims and witnesses ID-9 ICE never removes from the country or transfers to another facility immigration detainees who report sexual abuse before the investigation of that abuse is completed, except at the detainee victim’s request. ICE considers releasing detainees who are victims of or witnesses to abuse and monitoring them in the community to protect them from retaliation or further abuse during the course of the investigation.

Assessment Checklist YES NO (a) Does ICE have a plan for ensuring immigration detainees who report sexual abuse are never transferred to other facilities or deported before the investigation into the abuse has been completed, except at the detainee victim’s request? (b) Has ICE established objective criteria for determining when protecting the safety of an immigration detainee victim or witness requires release from custody and community monitoring?

V. Supplemental Standards for Facilities with Immigration Detainees 67 Discussion Immigration detainees can be in detention for short periods of time before they are removed from the country and, during that time, they are often transferred from one facility to another. Investigators need to be able to speak in person with victims and witnesses to complete a thorough investigation into the alleged sexual abuse. Furthermore, although transfer may seem necessary to protect a detainee victim, immigration detainees generally cannot defend their immigration case if they are moved at a distance from their lawyers. Removal proceedings against detainees who report sexual abuse should be halted at least until the investigation has been completed and a finding has been made. Immigrants who are victims of certain sex crimes may be eligible for a special visa that allows them to remain in the country, so it is important that an investigative finding be made while the victim still has an opportunity to apply for such a visa.

It may be very difficult for ICE officials to ensure the safety of detainee victims or witnesses of sexual abuse in custody, particularly because the majority of detainees are held in local jails and private contract facilities and are not under ICE’s direct control. ICE should make a case-by-case determination about whether to release victims and witnesses by balancing the danger the detainee may face in custody, the ability of the facility to protect that detainee without transferring or isolating him or her, the potential threat the detainee poses to the community, and the burden of monitoring the individual in the community as an alternative. In many cases, it may be safer and less burdensome to the facility to release the detainee who has been a victim of or witnessed sexual abuse in custody and for ICE to monitor him or her in the community. ICE has the capacity to make such determinations on a case-by-case basis, and the merits of the detainee’s immigration case should not be taken into consideration when doing so.

ID-10 Supplement to MM-3: Ongoing medical and mental health care for sexual abuse victims and abusers All immigration detainees are counseled about the immigration consequences of a positive HIV test at the time they are offered HIV testing.

Assessment Checklist YES NO (a) Are immigration detainees counseled about the immigration consequences of a positive HIV test at the time they are offered HIV testing?

Discussion In July 2008, Congress repealed the statutory ban against visits or migration to the United States by HIV-positive individuals. However, at the time these standards were drafted, HHS had yet to rewrite its regulations to comply with the change in the law. The result is that a de facto ban remains in place. There is every expectation that this will change. However, even when HHS changes its policies, immigrants seeking legal status in the United States who are known to be HIV-positive will have to seek a waiver from HHS to do so, as all people with communicable diseases are required to do. Standard MM-3 calls for all victims of sexual abuse to be counseled and tested for sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. Because of the potential consequences of a positive test for an immigration detainee, it is important that detainees make an informed decision about whether to be tested or not. Medical practitioners should be informed of the most current state of the law regarding HIV

68 Standards for the Prevention, Detection, Response, and Monitoring of Sexual Abuse in Adult Prisons and Jails status and its consequences for immigration detainees and inform immigration detainees of these consequences whenever an HIV test is offered.

Supplement to DC-2: Data collection ID-11 The facility collects additional data whenever an immigration detainee is the victim or perpetrator of an incident of sexual abuse in custody. The additional incident-based data collected indicate whether the victim and/or perpetrator was an immigration detainee, his or her status at the initiation of the investigation, and his or her status at the conclusion of the investigation.

Assessment Checklist YES NO (a) Do the incident-based data include the following information? • Whether the victim and/or perpetrator was an immigration detainee • If the victim and/or perpetrator was an immigration detainee, his or her status at the initiation of an investigation (e.g., in custody, released, or removed from the country) • If the victim and/or perpetrator was an immigration detainee, his or her status at the conclusion of an investigation (e.g., in custody, released, or removed from the country)

Discussion Victimization of and by immigration detainees must be tracked as part of a facility’s data collection efforts pursuant to PREA.

Supplemental Standards for Family Facilities

The following standards must be followed in ICE family facilities. IDFF-1 Screening of immigration detainees in family facilities (This standardreplaces rather than supplements SC-1 and SC-2) Family facilities develop screening criteria to identify those families and family members who may be at risk of being sexually victimized that will not lead to the separation of families. Hous- ing, program, educational, and work assignments are made in a manner that protects families and in all cases prioritizes keeping families together.

Assessment Checklist YES NO (a) Has the family facility developed screening criteria to identify those families and family members who may be at risk of being sexually victimized that will not lead to the separation of families? (b) Are housing, program, educational, and work assignments made in a manner that protects families and places the priority on keeping families together?

Discussion Much of the criteria that are used to screen adult and juvenile detainees in prison and detention settings and used to make housing and other assignments within those facilities are entirely inappropriate for making housing or other decisions within family facilities. The purpose of family facilities is to keep families together, so separation cannot be

V. Supplemental Standards for Facilities with Immigration Detainees 69 accomplished on the basis of age, gender, or sexuality. There is little or no research to suggest the appropriate criteria family facilities should use to assure that families or family members who are particularly vulnerable to sexual abuse are not housed in areas of the facility, or pods, with people who are more likely to be abusive. Children in family facilities attend school, and families participate in recreational activities together. It is not clear what criteria should be used to determine how to separate potentially vulnerable children and families from potential abusers. Those agencies that run family facilities should develop appropriate criteria to identify families and family members who are more vulnerable within the facility, but in all cases, the priority when making assignments should be to strengthen the family, keep family members together, and empower parents to protect their children.

Reporting of sexual abuse in family facilities IDFF-2 The facility provides parents with the ability to report sexual abuse in a manner that is confidential from their children. The facility also provides children with the ability to report abuse by a parent confidentially to staff.

Assessment Checklist YES NO (a) Does the facility provide parents with the ability to report sexual abuse in a manner that is confidential from their children? IDFF-4 (b) Does the facility provide children with the ability to report abuse by a parent confidentially to staff?

Discussion Because parents and children are held together in a locked setting, it may be difficult for them to have confidential conversations with staff. However, it is essential that opportunities for confidential reporting of sexual abuse be made available both to parents and to their children.

Investigations in family facilities IDFF-3 Parents are questioned confidentially by investigators about any incident of sexual abuse, away from their children. A parent or parents are present when a child is questioned by investigators about any incident of sexual abuse, unless (1) the child has alleged abuse by the parent or (2) staff suspects abuse by the parent. The decision to exclude a parent from an interview based on staff suspicion of abuse by that parent is always made by a qualified mental health practitioner.

Assessment Checklist YES NO (a) Do investigators always question a parent about sexual abuse in a confidential manner away from the parent’s children? (b) Are parents allowed to be present whenever a child is questioned about an incident of sexual abuse, except in the following circumstances? • The child has alleged abuse by the parent • Staff suspects abuse by the parent (c) In the event that staff suspects abuse by a parent, is the decision to exclude that parent from an interview by an investigator always made by a qualified mental health practitioner?

70 Standards for the Prevention, Detection, Response, and Monitoring of Sexual Abuse in Adult Prisons and Jails Discussion Family facilities should be sensitive to a family’s need to protect children from learning about sexual abuse that has occurred as well as parents’ need to be able to protect children who have been victims of sexual abuse or witnesses to sexual abuse. Investigations should be conducted in a manner that allows parents to protect their children from learning unnecessarily about sexual abuse that has occurred in the facility. When children are victims or witnesses, investigations should be conducted in a manner that respects the parents’ right to protect their children during the course of an investigation. Parents and children are held together in a locked setting. Therefore, accomplishing this requires extreme care and discretion on the part of investigators and other staff. Incidents of sexual abuse should not be discussed around children unless absolutely necessary because that child has been victimized or witnessed an incident of sexual abuse. When a child alleges that a parent has been sexually abusive, investigators should handle the matter differently, and the suspected parent cannot be present during questioning of the child. Similarly, if staff suspects that a parent has been sexually abusive, a qualified mental health practitioner should make a determination as to whether the suspicion warrants confidential communication with the child outside of the presence of a parent.

Access to medical and mental health care in family facilities IDFF-4 All family members are offered mental health counseling (as required in MM-2 and MM-3) when one family member is a victim of sexual abuse in the facility. Following an incident of sexual abuse, parents and adult family members are examined confidentially by medical and mental health practitioners and away from children. Following an incident of sexual abuse, a parent or parents are allowed to be present during all medical and mental health examinations of a minor child, unless (1) that child has alleged sexual abuse by the parent or (2) staff suspects abuse by the parent. The decision to exclude a parent from an examination based on staff suspicion of abuse by that parent is always made by a qualified mental health practitioner. In the event that a child is sexually abused, a qualified mental health practitioner interviews the child to determine whether either parent was present or aware of the abuse and whether the parent or parents were threatened in connection with the abuse.

Assessment Checklist YES NO (a) Are all family members offered mental health counseling (as required in MM-2 and MM-3) when one family member is a victim of sexual abuse in the facility? (b) Following an incident of sexual abuse, are parents allowed to be present during all medical and mental health examinations of a minor child, except in the following circumstances? • The child has alleged sexual abuse by the parent • Staff suspects abuse by the parent (c) In the event that staff suspects abuse by a parent, is the decision to exclude that parent from a medical or mental health examination always made by a qualified mental health practitioner? (d) In the event that a child is sexually abused, has a qualified mental health practitioner interviewed the child to determine whether either parent was present or aware of the abuse and whether the parent or parents were threatened in connection with the abuse?

V. Supplemental Standards for Facilities with Immigration Detainees 71 Discussion Family members may be traumatized by sexual abuse of another family member and therefore should be offered mental health counseling along with the victim. As explained in the discussion of IDFF-3, above, family facilities should be sensitive to a family’s need to protect children from learning about sexual abuse that has occurred as well as parents’ need to be able to protect children who have been victims of or witnesses to sexual abuse. Therefore, as with investigations, medical and mental health examinations should be conducted in a manner that protects adult family members’ confidentiality and protects children from learning unnecessarily about sexual abuse that has occurred in the facility. When children are victims of or witnesses to sexual abuse, parents must be able to observe all medical and mental health examinations. The only circumstance under which it would be inappropriate for a parent to be present during a medical or mental health examination is if the child has alleged sexual abuse by the parent or a qualified mental health practitioner has determined that there is reason to believe that the parent has been sexually abusive. Finally, in the event that a child is sexually abused in a family facility, it is the job of a qualified mental health practitioner to try to determine whether either parent was aware of the abuse and whether either parent was threatened by the abuser or others in connection with the abuse.

72 Standards for the Prevention, Detection, Response, and Monitoring of Sexual Abuse in Adult Prisons and Jails APPENDIX A: RESPONSIBILITIES OF FORENSIC MEDICAL EXAMINERS

The Commission directs all agency and facility heads to the U.S. Department of Justice’s national protocol for extensive information on the appropriate qualifications and responsibilities of forensic medical examiners.1 However an agency decides to adapt the national protocol, the Commission strongly recommends that the agency use the following description of responsibilities of the forensic medical examiner as a blueprint for the qualifications an agency should be considering when developing memoranda of understanding or entering into contracts with forensic medical examiners.

Forensic medical examiner responsibilities

1. Obtain forensic histories from victims. 2. Use sexual assault evidence collection kits that are standardized and meet or exceed minimum guidelines for contents. 3. Use the proper equipment and supplies to perform the exam (e.g., anoscope, colposcope with photographic capability, microscope, toluidine blue dye, in addition to standard exam room equipment and supplies). 4. Take initial and follow-up photographs of injuries, as appropriate, according to jurisdictional policy. 5. Maintain evidence integrity according to jurisdictional policies for drying, packaging, labeling, and sealing the evidence. 6. Maintain the chain of custody for all evidence collected. 7. Follow jurisdictional protocol for transferring the evidence in the custody of an authorized agent from the exam site to a crime laboratory or a secure storage area with the proper climate control. 8. Document all services provided, including recommendations for continued care regarding sexually transmitted infection examinations, testing, immunizations, post-exposure prophylaxis, and treatment. 9. Transfer copies of the inmate’s medical file back to the facility/agency, if the exam is conducted off-site.

1 U.S. Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women, A National Protocol for Sexual Assault Medical Forensic Examinations, Adults/Adolescents (NCJ 206554), Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, September 2004. This protocol is available electronically at http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ovw/206554.pdf.

Appendix A 73

APPENDIX B: TRAINING TOPICS AND PROCEDURES

The National Institute of Corrections (NIC) has developed a number of Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) training resources. The Commission directs all agency and facility heads to NIC’s Web site (http://www.nicic.org) to learn more about existing resources and opportunities for training. However an agency or facility decides to deliver training, the Commission strongly recommends that the following topics be included for employee training. Some may also be appropriate for volunteer and inmate training.

Following the list of topics, the Commission has made some procedural recommendations for ensuring that agency and facility heads deliver the most effective sexual abuse and PREA training to employees, volunteers, contractors, and inmates.

I. Recommended training topics

A. General education and awareness topics

1. An overview of PREA. 2. A description of the inalienable right of all inmates to be free from sexual abuse. 3. The role of corrections officials to protect and enforce the human right to be free from sexual abuse. 4. Definitions and examples of prohibited and/or illegal behaviors and language that are considered sexual abuse. 5. Examples of conduct, circumstances, and “red flags” that may be precursors to sexual abuse or that suggest sexual abuse is occurring. 6. The agency’s anti-retaliation policy. 7. Common reactions by victims of sexual abuse. 8. The agency’s liability for sexual abuse of persons in custody (criminal, civil, and administrative). 9. A discussion of how sexual abuse is used to gain power and control in confinement settings. 10. The agency’s policy regarding inmates who knowingly make false allegations of staff-on-inmate sexual abuse or staff-on-inmate sexual harassment. 11. Common myths and perceptions of sexual intimidation and abuse in confinement settings. 12. Professional boundary setting, including issues related to personal associations with inmates, consent, and imbalances of power. 13. Strategies for promoting effective prevention and intervention of staff-on-inmate sexual abuse and staff-on-inmate sexual harassment. 14. Strategies for removing a victim or witness of sexual abuse from any public or semipublic area without arousing the suspicion of other inmates or staff members. 15. Strategies for protecting the safety of vulnerable populations, including but not limited to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and gender-nonconforming inmates (including transgender and intersex); deaf, speech impaired, or visually impaired inmates; developmentally disabled inmates; inmates with limited English proficiency; mentally ill inmates; inmates with past histories of sexual abuse; inmates with personality disorders; and young inmates.

Appendix B 75 B. Sexual abuse reporting duties

1. Staff members’ duty to report sexual abuse and their liability if they fail to report. 2. The process staff members should use to report sexual abuse. 3. The process that inmates should use to report sexual abuse. 4. Medical and mental health practitioners’ reporting duties and the process they should use to report sexual abuse. 5. Facility head’s duty to report to a designated State or local services agency any allegations involving a victim under the age of 18 under mandatory child abuse reporting laws.

C. Medical and mental health care

1. The range of victims’ services available to inmates, including free medical and mental health care for injuries and/or trauma resulting from sexual abuse, and how inmates gain access to those services. 2. Rules governing forensic medical exams. 3. How to detect sexual abuse during medical and mental health exams.

D. Investigations and discipline

1. The investigative process for allegations of sexual abuse, including the importance of preserving evidence. 2. The legal and disciplinary sanctions for inmates who engage in inmate-on-inmate sexual abuse or inmate-on-inmate sexual harassment. 3. The legal and disciplinary sanctions for staff who engage in actual or attempted staff-on-inmate sexual abuse or staff-on-inmate sexual harassment. 4. Victims’ rights based on relevant State or Federal law. 5. The rights of a staff member who is the subject of an investigation based on relevant Federal or State law or, if applicable, under collective bargaining agreements.

II. Recommended procedures for delivering training

A. General guidance

1. Train existing staff prior to training inmates. 2. Train new staff members before they have contact with inmates. 3. Prohibit staff members from working with inmates until they can demonstrate knowledge of the agency’s sexual abuse policies and procedures. 4. Ensure that staff members, contractors, and inmates have access to copies of the agency’s sexual abuse policies. 5. Use multiple mechanisms for presenting the information, including lectures, dialogues, role- play/scenario-based training, and other interactive techniques.

76 Standards for the Prevention, Detection, Response, and Monitoring of Sexual Abuse in Adult Prisons and Jails 6. Ensure training materials are up to date by reviewing them at least annually and making revi- sions, if necessary, to address changes in laws, policies, or protocols. 7. Provide refresher training to staff, contractors, and inmates following any changes to law or policy. 8. Provide annual continuing education on sexual abuse that includes a review of the agency’s sexual abuse data from the previous year.

B. Testing and evaluation

1. Test staff members following training. 2. Ask staff, contractors, and inmates to provide feedback on training, including suggestions for improving training tools and materials. 3. Evaluate staff members who conduct training at least annually to ensure that they are qualified and able to provide training effectively.

Appendix B 77

APPENDIX C: INCIDENT-BASED DATA COLLECTION

Standard DC-2 requires agencies to collect incident-based data for every incident of sexual abuse. Under this standard, the agency is required to collect data sufficient to answer all of the questions from the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ (BJS’) Survey on Sexual Violence. Collecting data on the following items would allow the agency to answer the questions posed on the BJS survey and should help it to reach the broader goal of eliminating sexual abuse and keeping inmates safe.

I. Victim information

1. Sex and gender identity. 2. Race/ethnicity. 3. Age. 4. Custody level. 5. Height and weight. 6. Classification assignment. 7. Previous sexual victimization in confinement. 8. Previous sexually abusive behavior in confinement. 9. Prior relationship with the alleged perpetrator. 10. Gang affiliation outside and/or inside the facility. 11. HIV/AIDS status.

II. Perpetrator information

A. Inmate perpetrator

1. Sex and gender identity. 2. Race/ethnicity. 3. Age. 4. Custody level. 5. Height and weight. 6. Classification assignment. 7. Previous sexual victimization in confinement. 8. Previous sexually abusive behavior in confinement. 9. Prior relationship with the victim. 10. Gang affiliation outside and/or inside the facility. 11. HIV/AIDS status.

B. Staff perpetrator

1. Sex and gender identity. 2. Race/ethnicity. 3. Age. 4. Position held within the agency.

Appendix C 79 5. Relationship with the victim. 6. Prior history of allegations and/or substantiated incidents of sexual abuse or harassment in current and prior employment. 7. Prior history of failure to comply with the agency’s sexual abuse policies.

III. Other incident information

A. Reporting

1. The date and time of the report. 2. The date, time, and location of the incident. 3. The reporting mechanism used. 4. Who made the report. 5. To whom the report was made. 6. Details of the incident alleged to have occurred, including type of sexual abuse. 7. The time lapse between when the incident took place and when the report was made. 8. The time lapse between when the report was made and when an investigation was initiated. 9. The time lapse between when the report was made and when the inmate received medical/ mental health care, if applicable.

B. Medical and/or mental health care

1. Whether the victim received medical and/or mental health care. 2. Any injuries sustained by the victim.

C. Investigations

1. Type of investigation pursued: criminal and/or administrative. 2. Name of investigator(s). 3. Dates of the initiation and conclusion of the investigation(s). 4. Outcome of the investigation(s)/if the investigation(s) is ongoing. 5. Violations of administrative and/or criminal codes. 6. If the case is referred for prosecution, whether the prosecutor accepted or declined the investigation and, if accepted, the case disposition. 7. If administrative actions against staff member(s) or inmate(s) are pursued, details about the sanctions.

80 Standards for the Prevention, Detection, Response, and Monitoring of Sexual Abuse in Adult Prisons and Jails APPENDIX D: NPREC STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT EXPERT COMMITTEE MEMBERS

During the standards development process, the Commission convened expert committees comprised of diverse stakeholders with broad correctional expertise to provide information and guidance. The Commission thanks the members of the expert committees for their participation and contribution.

Organizational affiliations are provided for identification purposes only; committee members were not necessarily acting as representatives of their organizations. This list reflects each committee member’s organizational affiliation at the time of participation and may not represent the person’s current position. The Commission’s standards do not reflect the official views of any of the organizations referenced here.

Carrie Abner, Research Associate, American Probation and Parole Association Aaron Aldrich, Chief Inspector, Rhode Island Department of Corrections James Austin, President, JFA Institute Roy F. Austin, Jr., Partner, McDermott Will & Emery Chris Baker, Lieutenant, Corrections Supervisor/Jail Administrator, Van Buren County Sheriff’s Office, Michigan David Balagia, Major, Travis County Sheriff’s Office, Texas Joe Baumann, Corrections Officer, California Rehabilitation Center Chapter President, California Correctional Peace Officers Association Jeffrey Beard, Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections Theodis Beck, Secretary, North Carolina Department of Correction Art Beeler, Warden, Federal Correctional Complex, Federal Bureau of Prisons, U.S. Department of Justice Andrea Black, Coordinator, Detention Watch Network Charma Blount, Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner, Texas Department of Criminal Justice Tim Brennan, Principal, Northpointe Institute for Public Management, Inc. Lorie Brisbin, Program Coordinator, Prisons Division, Idaho Department of Correction Barbara Broderick, Director, Maricopa County Adult Probation Department, Arizona Roger Canaff, Deputy Chief, Sex Offender Management Unit, Office of the Attorney General, New York Susan Paige Chasson, President, International Association of Forensic Nurses Gwendolyn Chunn, Immediate Past President, American Correctional Association Suanne Cunningham, National Director, Corrections/Criminal Justice Program, Heery International

Appendix D 81 Karen Dalton, Director, Correctional Services Division, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Kim Day, SAFE Technical Assistance Coordinator, International Association of Forensic Nurses Gina DeBottis, Executive Director, Special Prosecution Unit, Texas Youth Commission Kathleen Dennehy, Superintendent, Security Operations, Bristol County Sheriff’s Office, Massachusetts Gary Dennis, Senior Associate, The Moss Group, Inc. Ruth Divelbiss, Captain, Ford County Sheriff’s Office, Kansas Mark Donatelli, Partner, Rothstein, Donatelli, Hughes, Dahlstrom, Schoenburg, and Bienvenu LLP Sarah Draper, Director of Investigations, Office of Investigation and Compliance, Internal Investigation Unit, Georgia Department of Corrections Dr. Richard Dudley, Private Practice of Clinical and Forensic Psychiatry Robert Dumond, President and Licensed Clinical Mental Health Counselor, Consultants for Improved Human Services, PLLC Earl Dunlap, Chief Executive Officer, National Partnership for Juvenile Services Maureen Dunn, Director, Unaccompanied Children’s Services, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Teena Farmon, Retired Warden, Central California Women’s Facility Lisa Freeman, Staff Attorney, Prisoners’ Rights Project, Legal Aid Society, New York City Vanessa Garza, Associate Director for Trafficking Policy, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Michael Gennaco, Chief Attorney, Office of Independent Review, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Karen Giannakoulias, Forensic Interviewer/Victim Advocate, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Washington, D.C. Steve Gibson, Administrator, Youth Services Division, Montana Department of Corrections Simon Gonsoulin, Former Director, Louisiana Office of Youth Development Kathleen Graves, Director, Community Corrections Services, Kansas Department of Corrections Robert L. Green, Warden, Montgomery County Correctional Facility, Montgomery County Department of Correction and Rehabilitation, Maryland Dr. Robert Greifinger, Correctional Health Care and Quality Management Consultant David Guntharp, Director, Arkansas Department of Community Correction Karyn Hadfield, Training Specialist, Day One: The Sexual Assault and Trauma Resource Center Dee Halley, PREA Program Manager, National Institute of Corrections, Federal Bureau of Prisons, U.S. Department of Justice Greg Hamilton, Sheriff, Travis County, Texas Patrick M. Hanlon, Partner, Goodwin Proctor LLP Patricia Hardyman, Senior Associate, Association of State Correctional Administrators

82 Standards for the Prevention, Detection, Response, and Monitoring of Sexual Abuse in Adult Prisons and Jails Rachel Harmon, Associate Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law Michael Hennessey, Sheriff, City and County of San Francisco, California Andrew Jordan, Consultant, Migima, LLC; Retired Chief of Police, Bend Police Department, Oregon Thomas Kane,Assistant Director, Information, Policy and Public Affairs Division, Federal Bureau of Prisons, U.S. Department of Justice Cliff Keenan, Assistant Director, District of Columbia Pretrial Services Agency Jacqueline Kotkin, Field Services Executive, Probation and Parole, Vermont Department of Corrections Deborah LaBelle, Attorney Madie LaMarre, Consultant Neal Langan, Senior Research Analyst, Office of Research and Evaluation, Federal Bureau of Prisons, U.S. Department of Justice Dori Lewis, Senior Supervising Attorney, Prisoners’ Rights Project, Legal Aid Society, New York City Cheryl Little, Executive Director, Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center, Inc. Jennifer Long, Director, National Center for the Prosecution of Violence Against Women Christy Lopez, Partner, Independent Assessment and Monitoring, LLP Margaret Love, Attorney; Consulting Director, American Bar Association Commission on Effective Criminal Sanctions Bobbi Luna, Captain, Multnomah County Sheriff’s Office, Oregon Martha Lyman, Director of Research, Hampden County Correctional Center, Massachusetts Bob Maccarone, Director, New York State Division of Probation and Correctional Alternatives Cindy Malm, Consultant, Retired Jail Administrator, Rocky Mountain Corrections Michael Marette, Assistant Director of Corrections, American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees Jenifer Markowitz, Forensic Nurse Consultant, DOVE Program, Summa Health System Steve Martin, Attorney/Corrections Consultant Susan McCampbell, President, Center for Innovative Public Policies, Inc., McCampbell & Associates, Inc. Ron McCuan, Captain, U.S. Public Health Service; Public Health Analyst, National Institute of Corrections, Federal Bureau of Prisons, U.S. Department of Justice Linda McFarlane, Mental Health Program Director, Just Detention International Jeff McInnis, PREA Coordinator, District of Columbia Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services John Milian, Detention and Deportation Officer, Criminal Alien Program, Office of Detention and Removal, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Department of Homeland Security Phyllis Modley, Correctional Program Specialist, Community Corrections Division, National Institute of Corrections, Federal Bureau of Prisons, U.S. Department of Justice Jean Moltz, Correctional Health Care Consultant

Appendix D 83 James Montross, Director of Mental Health Monitoring, Texas Department of Criminal Justice Marcia Morgan, Consultant, Migima, LLC John Moriarty, Inspector General, Texas Department of Criminal Justice Anadora Moss, President, The Moss Group, Inc. Gail D. Mumford, Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative, Annie E. Casey Foundation Melissa Nolan, Executive Assistant, Policy and Public Affairs Division, Federal Bureau of Prisons, U.S. Department of Justice Christopher Nugent, Senior Counsel, Community Services Team, Holland & Knight LLP Barbara Owen, Professor of Criminology, California State University, Fresno David Parrish, Colonel, Commander, Department of Detention Services, Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office, Florida T.J. Parsell, Human Rights Activist, Author of Fish: A Memoir of a Boy in a Man’s Prison Dr. Farah M. Parvez, Director, Office of Correctional Public Health, New York City Depart- ment of Health and Mental Hygiene; National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Susan Poole, Criminal Justice Consultant; Retired Warden, California Institution for Women Roberto Hugh Potter, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Eugenie Powers, Director, Probation and Parole, Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections Judy Preston, Deputy Chief, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice J. Michael Quinlan, Senior Vice President, Corrections Corporation of America Jeffrey Renzi,Associate Director, Planning and Research, Rhode Island Department of Corrections Denise Robinson, President and CEO, Alvis House; Past-President, International Community Corrections Association Melissa Rothstein, East Coast Program Director, Just Detention International David Roush, Director, National Partnership for Juvenile Services, Center for Research and Professional Development, National Juvenile Detention Association Elissa Rumsey, Compliance Monitoring Coordinator, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin- quency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice Timothy Ryan, Director, Miami-Dade County Corrections and Rehabilitation Department Teresa Scalzo, Senior Policy Advisor, Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office, U.S. Department of Defense Vincent Schiraldi, Director, District of Columbia Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services Margo Schlanger, Professor of Law, Washington University in St. Louis School of Law Karen Schneider, Legal Consultant Dana Shoenberg, Senior Staff Attorney, Center for Children’s Law and Policy Linda Smith, Research Consultant

84 Standards for the Prevention, Detection, Response, and Monitoring of Sexual Abuse in Adult Prisons and Jails Donald Specter, Director, Prison Law Office Mai-Linh Spencer, Deputy State Public Defender, Office of the State Public Defender, California Richard Stalder, Former Secretary, Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections Lovisa Stannow, Executive Director, Just Detention International Lara Stemple, Former Director, Just Detention International; Director, Graduate Studies, University of California, Los Angeles, School of Law Tom Stickrath, Director, Ohio Department of Youth Services Victor Stone, Special Counsel, Office of Enforcement Operations, Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice Robert Sudlow, Chief Probation Officer, Ulster County Probation Department, New York Anjali Swienton, Director of Outreach, National Clearinghouse for Science, Technology, and the Law, Stetson University College of Law; President and CEO, SciLaw Forensics Ltd. Robin Toone, Attorney, Foley Hoag LLP Cynthia Totten, Program Director, Just Detention International Ashbel T. Wall, II, Director, Rhode Island Department of Corrections Kelly Ward, Former Warden, David Wade Correctional Center, Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections Richard White, Deputy Commissioner of Operations, City of New York Department of Correction Anne Wideman, Clinical Psychologist Reginald Wilkinson, Executive Director, Ohio Business Alliance for Higher Education and the Economy; Former Director, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction Margaret Winter, Associate Director, National Prison Project, American Civil Liberties Union Jason Ziedenberg, Consultant; Former Director, Justice Policy Institute

Appendix D 85

APPENDIX E: STANDARDS IMPLEMENTATION NEEDS ASSESSMENT

During the public comment period, the Commission conducted a Standards Implementation Needs Assessment (SINA). The Commission created the SINA process to provide feedback on the draft standards through a series of “case studies” at particular facilities. More than 40 facilities from around the country applied to participate in the SINA process. The Commission selected 11 sites that reflected ranges in capacity, populations, and geographic settings and that included jails and prisons; facilities for men, women, and juveniles; and community corrections facilities. Each site visit took place over one and a half days and included a facility tour and five structured interviews: one with the Warden or Superintendent, and the others with small groups of staff to discuss general issues, training, medical/mental health, and investigations. These group interviews involved a variety of staff with experience relevant to the particular topic. When possible, we also spoke with inmates detained in the facilities.

Pilot Site Montgomery County Correctional Facility, Montgomery County Department of Correction and Rehabilitation, Boyds, MD April 22–23, 2008

Jails Suffolk County House of Correction, Suffolk County Sheriff’s Department, Boston, MA May 22–23, 2008

Washington County Jail, Washington County Sheriff’s Office, Hillsboro, OR June 5–6, 2008

Juvenile Facilities Cuyahoga Hills Juvenile Correctional Facility, Ohio Department of Youth Services, Highland Hills, OH July 9–10, 2008

Lynn W. Ross Juvenile Center, Tarrant County Juvenile Probation Department, Tarrant County Juvenile Services, Fort Worth, TX June 24–25, 2008

Prisons for Men James Allred Unit, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Iowa Park, TX June 22–23, 2008

Northern Correctional Facility, West Virginia Division of Corrections, Moundsville, WV July 7–8, 2008

Appendix E 87 Prisons for Women New Mexico Women’s Correctional Facility, New Mexico Corrections Department, Grants, NM June 26–27, 2008

Valley State Prison for Women, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Chowchilla, CA June 3–4, 2008

Community Corrections Facilities Southwestern Ohio Serenity (SOS) Hall, Hamilton, OH August 1, 2008

Talbert House, Cincinnati, OH July 30–31, 2008

88 Standards for the Prevention, Detection, Response, and Monitoring of Sexual Abuse in Adult Prisons and Jails

U.S. Department of Justice Embargoed for release to the public until Office of Justice Programs Thursday, August 16, 2007 at 4:00 p.m. EDT.

Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report

August 2007, NCJ 218914 Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 Sexual Violence Reported by Correctional Authorities, 2006 By Allen J. Beck, Ph.D. The 2006 administrative records survey provides the basis Paige M. Harrison, BJS Statisticians for the annual statistical review required under the Act. The and Devon B. Adams, Policy Analyst survey included all Federal and State prison systems and facilities operated by the U.S. military and Immigration and The Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-79) Customs Enforcement. The survey also included represen- requires the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) to develop tative samples of jail jurisdictions, privately operated adult new national data collections on the incidence and preva- prisons and jails, and jails in Indian country. Altogether, the lence of sexual violence within correctional facilities. This administrative survey included facilities housing more than report fulfills the requirement under Sec. 4 (c)(1) of the Act 1.8 million inmates, or 81% of all inmates held in adult facil- for submission of an annual report on the activities of BJS ities in 2006. (See Methodology for detailed sampling with respect to prison rape. description.) Between January 1 and June 30, 2007, BJS completed the As with previous administrative records surveys, the 2006 third annual national survey of administrative records in survey results should not be used to rank systems or facili- adult correctional facilities, covering calendar year 2006. ties. Given the absence of uniform reporting, caution is Although the results were limited to incidents reported to necessary for accurate interpretation of the survey results. correctional officials, the survey provides an understanding Higher or lower counts among facilities may reflect varia- of what officials know, based on the number of reported tions in definitions, reporting capacities, and procedures for allegations, and the outcomes of follow-up investigations.1 recording allegations as opposed to differences in the By comparing results of the 2006 survey with those from underlying incidence of sexual violence. 2004 and 2005, BJS is able to assess trends in sexual violence for the first time since the Act was passed. In 2004 BJS developed uniform definitions of sexual violence. Incidents of inmate-on-inmate sexual violence were Administrative records surveys are one part of BJS’s multi- classified as either nonconsensual sexual acts (the most measure, multi-mode implementation strategy. During serious violent forms of sexual assault) or abusive sexual 2006, BJS completed development and testing of survey contacts (less serious, but unwanted). Incidents involving methodologies that rely on reports of victimization provided staff were separated into staff sexual misconduct (any act directly by prison and jail inmates, former inmates, and of a sexual nature directed toward an inmate) or staff sex- youth held in juvenile facilities. These methodologies rely ual harassment (repeated verbal statements of a sexual on self-administered surveys that offer anonymity to victims nature to an inmate). For this report, all such incidents are of sexual violence to report their experiences. Using Audio considered sexual violence. (See Methodology for detailed Computer-Assisted Self-Interview procedures, respondents definitions.) interact with a computer-administered questionnaire using a touch-screen and follow audio instructions delivered via Detailed tabulations of the survey results by system and headphones. (See box on page 2 for a status report and sampled facility are presented in Appendix tables 1a – 4b, national implementation schedule.) available on the BJS web site at . 1A survey of State-operated juvenile systems and privately or locally operated juvenile facilities was also conducted for 2006. Results from the 2005 and 2006 juvenile surveys will be published in a separate report. Allegations of sexual violence rose during 2006 The 2006 survey recorded 5,605 allegations of sexual violence. Taking into account weights for sampled facilities, Reports of sexual violence varied across systems and sam- the estimated total number of allegations for the Nation was pled facilities, with every State prison system except Alaska 6,528. Since the Prison Rape Elimination Act was passed and New Mexico reporting at least one allegation of sexual in 2003, the estimated number of allegations nationwide violence. Among the 344 sampled local jail jurisdictions has risen by 21% (5,386 in 2004; 6,241 in 2005). Some of participating in the survey, 161 (47%) reported an allega- the increase may have resulted from adoption of BJS defi- tion. About 52% of the 46 sampled privately operated pris- nitions and improved reporting by correctional authorities. ons and jails reported at least one allegation.

Collection of victim self-report of sexual violence in prisons and jails underway BJS is working toward full implementation of the Prison • Rankings of prison facilities, as required under the Act, Rape Elimination Act. As of June 30, 2007, BJS and its are expected in November 2007; jail rankings are expected data collection agents had completed all phases of shortly after the completion of the data collection. development and testing. BJS has entered into cooperative agreements to collect reports of sexual Youth in custody violence directly from inmates in prisons and jails, • Testing of the National Survey of Youth in Custody former State prison inmates, and youth in State juvenile (NSYC) was completed in June 2007. The test involved 12 facilities. BJS has worked extensively with - juvenile facilities in 6 States with more than 750 completed 1. Research Triangle International (RTI) (Raleigh, NC) interviews. to collect data from inmates in prisons and jails; • Results of the testing and plans for implementation will be 2. Westat, Inc. (Rockville, MD) to collect data from presented to juvenile administrators, researchers, and adjuducated youth in State and local juvenile facilities; other stakeholders at a national workshop on August 28, 2007. 3. National Opinion Research Center (NORC) (Chicago, IL) to collect data from State inmates under • National implementation is expected in early 2008, pend- active parole supervision. ing approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). When fully implemented, the NSYC will include Though underlying survey methodology and logistical about 15,000 adjudicated youth in a sample of 208 State- procedures differ with each of these data collections, operated facilities and 48 large non-State facilities (that had the measurement strategies are consistent. The an average daily population of 90 or more youth during surveys consist of an Audio Computer-Assisted Self- 2005). Interview (ACASI) in which respondents interact with a computer-administered questionnaire using a touch- Former State prisoners screen and follow audio instructions delivered via headphones. The use of ACASI is expected to • The Former Prisoner Survey (FPS) was tested in 16 overcome many limitations of previous research. parole offices with 788 former inmates on active parole supervision. In May 2007, the collection was submitted to The following work has been completed or is OMB for review. underway: • The survey will provide a national estimate of the inci- Prison and jail inmates dence and prevalence of sexual vicitimization based on reports of former State prison inmates. Data will be col- • Implementation of the National Inmate Survey (NIS) lected on the totality of the prior term of incarceration, began in April 2007 in 148 prisons and 302 jails. Data including any time in a police lockup, local jail, State prison, collection will continue through December 2007, with or community correctional facility prior to final discharge. about 90,000 completed interviews anticipated. • National implementation will begin in late 2007, pending • On August 30, 2007, BJS will consult with corrections OMB approval. When fully implemented the survey will administrators and experts in statistical scaling to discuss include about 16,500 former inmates in a sample of 285 various measures of sexual violence by which to rank parole offices. facilities.

2 Sexual Violence Reported by Correctional Authorities, 2006 Expressed as rates, there were 2.91 allegations of sexual 3,489 allegations of staff sexual misconduct and harass- violence per 1,000 inmates held in prison, jail, and other ment during 2006, compared to 3,470 during 2005.2 adult correctional facilities in 2006, up from 2.46 per 1,000 Allegations of sexual violence, by type of incident, 2005 and 2006 inmates in 2004. Overall, the rate in State prisons (3.75 per National estimate Percent 1,000) was higher than the rate in local jails (2.05 per Incident type 2006 2005 2006 2005 1,000) (table 1). Total 6,528 6,241 100% 100% About 36% of the reported allegations of sexual violence in Inmate-on-inmate noncon- 2006 involved staff sexual misconduct; 34%, inmate-on- sensual sexual acts 2,205 2,160 34 35 inmate nonconsensual sexual acts; 17%, staff sexual Inmate-on-inmate abusive harassment; and 13%, inmate-on-inmate abusive sexual sexual contacts 834 611 13 10 contacts. These percentages were nearly unchanged from Staff sexual misconduct 2,371 2,386 36 38 those reported in 2005. Correctional authorities reported Staff sexual harassment 1,118 1,084 17 17

Table 1. Allegations of sexual violence and rates per 1,000 Upon investigation, most allegations were inmates, by type of facility, 2005 and 2006 unsubstantiated or unfounded National estimate Rate per 1,000 inmates The most common outcome of investigations was a deter- Facility type 2006 2005 2006 2005 mination that the evidence was insufficient to show whether Total 6,528 6,241 2.91 2.83 the alleged incident occurred. In 2006 more than half of all Prisons allegations (55%) were unsubstantiated; more than a quar- a Public-Federal 242 268 1.50 1.71 ter (29%) were unfounded (determined not to have Public-State 4,516 4,341 3.75 3.68 occurred). About a sixth of all allegations (17%) were sub- Private 200 182 1.91 1.80 Local jails stantiated. Previous surveys recorded similar outcomes. Public 1,521 1,384 2.05 1.86 Based on completed investigations, allegations of staff sex- Private 12 22 0.72 1.33 Other adult facilities ual harassment and inmate-on-inmate nonconsensual sex- Indian country jailsb 29 32 ^ ^ ual acts were less likely to have been substantiated than Military-operated 3 8 ^ ^ other types of allegations (table 2). During 2006, 7% of alle- ICE-operated 5 4 ^ ^ gations of staff sexual harassment and 14% of inmate-on- ^Too few cases to provide a reliable rate. inmate nonconsensual sexual acts were substantiated, aFederal numbers for 2006 are not comparable to those in 2005 due to compared to 19% of the allegations of inmate-on-inmate a change in reporting. abusive sexual contacts and 25% of the allegations of staff b Excludes facilities housing juveniles only. sexual misconduct. 2See Sexual Violence Reported by Correctional Authorities, 2005 at .

Table 2. Outcomes of investigations into allegations of sexual violence, by type of facility, 2006 All facilitiesa State and Federal prisons Local jails Private prisons and jails Number Percentb Number Percentb Number Percentb Number Percentb Inmate-on-inmate nonconsensual sexual acts 2,205 100% 1,390 100% 725 100% 87 100% Substantiated 262 14 147 13 111 17 3 4 Unsubstantiated 1,030 54 707 61 295 44 28 34 Unfounded 616 32 304 26 259 39 52 63 Investigation ongoing 297 232 60 4 Inmate-on-inmate abusive sexual contacts 834 100% 707 100% 116 100% 11 100% Substantiated 158 19 125 18 31 27 0 0 Unsubstantiated 491 60 426 62 54 48 9 100 Unfounded 165 21 139 20 28 25 0 0 Investigation ongoing 20 17 2 1 Staff sexual misconduct 2,371 100% 1,677 100% 575 100% 95 100% Substantiated 471 25 235 18 229 47 15 17 Unsubstantiated 877 47 745 58 91 19 36 41 Unfounded 535 28 309 24 166 34 37 42 Investigation ongoing 489 388 90 9 Staff sexual harassment 1,118 100% 984 100% 105 100% 19 100% Substantiated 70 7 47 6 15 15 0 0 Unsubstantiated 595 62 537 64 50 51 7 100 Unfounded 292 31 258 31 34 34 0 0 Investigation ongoing 161 142 6 12 Note: Detail may not sum to total due to rounding. aIncludes jails in Indian country and facilities operated by the U.S. military and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). bPercents based on allegations for which investigations have been completed.

Sexual Violence Reported by Correctional Authorities, 2006 3 Overall, 967 incidents of sexual violence were substanti- • In 2006 whites made up 72% of the victims; blacks, 16%; ated in 2006, compared to 885 in 2005 (table 3). Relative to and Hispanics, 9%. Among perpetrators, 39% were white; the number of inmates, the rate of substantiated incidents 49% black; and 10% Hispanics. Similar distributions were of sexual violence in 2006 was 4.3 per 10,000 inmates, observed in 2005. nearly unchanged from the 4.0 per 10,000 inmates • In both years at least half of inmate-on-inmate sexual vio- recorded in 2005. Rates were lowest in Federal prisons lence was interracial: 6% of incidents in 2006 involved a and privately operated prisons (fewer than 1 in 10,000). white perpetrator and a non-white victim; 35%, a black per- Rates of substantiated incidents in State prisons, local jail petrator and a non-black victim; and 8%, a Hispanic perpe- jurisdictions, and privately operated jails were 4 to 5 times trator and a non-Hispanic victim (not shown in table). higher. Substantiated incidents were too few to provide reliable estimates for other types of facilities. Number of victims and perpetrators by race/ Hispanic origin Surveys reveal consistent patterns of sexual violence Perpetrator Victim White* Black* Hispanic Other* in correctional facilities Total 200 227 52 8 In 2005 and 2006, correctional authorities were asked to White* 171 146 32 7 provide detailed information on all substantiated incidents Black* 9 58 7 0 of sexual violence on a separate incident form. Authorities Hispanic 14 19 11 0 reported information on the circumstances of each incident, Other* 6 4 2 1 characteristics of victims and perpetrators, type of pressure *Excludes persons of Hispanic origin. or physical force, sanctions imposed, and victim assistance. The two surveys provide a profile of victims and perpetrators and reveal consistent patterns among the sub- Table 4. Characteristics of victims and perpetrators in stantiated incidents. substantiated incidents of inmate-on-inmate sexual violence, 2005 and 2006 Data provided on incidents of inmate-on-inmate sexual vio- 2006 2005 lence revealed that — Victim characteristics • More than one inmate was reported to have been victim- Number of victims ized in 8% of the incidents in 2006 and 4% of those in 2005 1 92% 96% (table 4). 2 or more 8 4 • More than one perpetrator was involved in 10% of the Gender Male 82% 88% incidents in 2006 and 7% of those in 2005. Female 18 12 • Males constituted 82% of the victims and 85% of the per- Age petrators in 2006, compared to 88% of the victims and 91% Under 25 44% 53% of the perpetrators in 2005. 25-39 40 39 • In both years, victims were on average younger than per- 40 or older 15 8 Race/Hispanic origin petrators. In 2006, 44% of victims were age 24 or younger, Whitea 72% 73% while 81% of perpetrators were age 25 or older. Blacka 16 12 Hispanic 9 9 Othera,b 36 Table 3. Substantiated incidents of sexual violence and Perpetrator characteristics rates per 1,000 inmates, by type of facility, 2005 and 2006 Number of perpetrators National estimate Rate per 1,000 inmates 1 90% 93% Facility type 2006 2005 2006 2005 2 or more 10 7 Gender Total 967 885 0.43 0.40 Male 85% 91% Prisons Female 15 9 Public-Federal 5 41 0.03 0.26 Age Public-State 549 458 0.46 0.39 Under 25 20% 26% Private 9 24 0.09 0.24 25-39 53 44 Local jails 40 or older 28 30 Public 385 336 0.52 0.45 Race/Hispanic origin Private 8 13 0.48 0.78 Whitea 39% 43% Other adult facilities Blacka 49 39 Indian country jails* 7 10 ^ ^ Hispanic 10 15 Military-operated 2 2 ^ ^ Othera,b 23 ICE-operated 2 1 ^ ^

^Too few cases to provide a reliable rate. aExcludes victims and perpetrators of Hispanic origin. *Excludes facilities housing juveniles only. bIncludes American Indians, Alaska Natives, Asians, Native Hawaiians, and Other Pacific Islanders.

4 Sexual Violence Reported by Correctional Authorities, 2006 Most incidents of sexual violence among inmates injured rose, from 15% in 2005 to 20% in 2006. Anal or rec- involve force or threat of force and occur in the tal tearing was reported at nearly the same levels (5% in victim’s cell, in the evening 2006 and 6% in 2005). Correctional authorities reported that physical force or Incidents of sexual violence among inmates occurred most threat of force was used in more than half of all substanti- often in a victim’s cell or dormitory (totaling more than 70% ated incidents of inmate-on-inmate sexual violence (table in both years). By contrast, 17% of the incidents in 2006 5). In 21% of the incidents in 2006, no force was used or and 21% of the incidents in 2005 occurred in a common threatened. In 30% of incidents, victims were talked into it. area, such as a shower or dayroom. In 6% of the incidents In 7% of incidents, victims were offered protection, bribed, in 2006 and 9% in 2005, the location was a program ser- or blackmailed. vice area, such as a storage room, hallway, laundry, cafete- ria, kitchen, or workshop. Force or the threat of force was more common among incidents of nonconsensual sexual acts (67%) than among Sexual violence among inmates was more common in the incidents of abusive sexual contact (44%). The victim was evening (between 6 p.m. and midnight) than at any other held down or restrained in 38% of the incidents of noncon- time of the day, exceeding 40% of all incidents in both sur- sensual sexual acts during 2006. In 18% of these incidents, veys. In 2005 it was least common between midnight and 6 the victim was physically harmed or injured. Although abu- a.m. (18%); in 2006 it was least common between 6 a.m. sive sexual contacts are typically less serious forms of and noon (20%). assault, the victim was held down or restrained in 28% of Incidents of sexual violence among inmates, when the incidents, and the victim was physically harmed or reported, are typically reported by a victim or another injured in 10% of the incidents (not shown in table). inmate and not by a correctional officer or other staff. In Overall, the use or threat of force was more prevalent 2006, 83% of the substantiated incidents of inmate sexual among incidents reported in 2006 (58%) than in 2005 violence were reported by the victim or another inmate; in (51%). In addition, the proportion of victims who were 2005, 91%.

Table 5. Circumstances surrounding substantiated incidents of inmate-on-inmate sexual violence, by type, 2005 and 2006 All types Nonconsensual sexual acts Abusive sexual contacts Number of incidents 2006 2005 2006 2005 2006 2005

Type of pressure or force None 21% 30% 14% 18% 31% 57% Force/threat of force 58 51 67 59 44 33 Persuasion or talked into it 30 18 32 22 28 10 Other 7 17 8 22 4 8 Victim injured No 80% 85% 74% 78% 87% 97% Yes 20 15 26 22 13 3 Where occurred In victim's cell/room 64% 59% 76% 59% 46% 59% In a dormitory 9 12 6 11 14 15 In a common area 17 21 11 23 26 16 Other areas 13 14 10 10 17 24

Time of dayb 6 a.m. to noon 20% 28% 17% 22% 24% 41% Noon to 6 p.m. 26 20 18 18 37 25 6 p.m. to midnight 45 44 47 50 41 31 Midnight to 6 a.m. 26 18 32 18 17 18

Who reported the incident Victim 70% 83% 72% 84% 65% 79% Another inmate 13 8 16 8 9 10 Correctional officer 17 11 12 11 24 10 Other 4 6 2 6 7 4

Note: Detail may sum to more than 100% because multiple responses were allowed for each item.

Sexual Violence Reported by Correctional Authorities, 2006 5 Most victims experienced a change in their housing; The sexual relationship “appeared to be willing” in most inmate perpetrators received solitary 57% of incidents of staff sexual misconduct and confinement harassment The most common response to a reported incident of sex- Correctional authorities also reported detailed data on 544 ual violence among inmates was to place the victim in substantiated incidents of staff sexual misconduct and administrative segregation or protective custody and to harassment (up from 344 in 2005). To address concerns move the perpetrator to solitary confinement or other higher about the reporting and interpretation of data in the 2005 level of custody. Among victims of inmate sexual violence survey, BJS changed the item related to the nature of the reported in the 2006 survey, 40% were placed in adminis- incidents in 2006. The option “Romantic” was replaced by trative segregation or protective custody; 13% were placed “Sexual relationship between inmate and staff appeared to in a medical unit; and 16% were transferred to another be willing.” The options “Other” and “Level of coercion facility (not shown in table). Nearly a quarter (24%) experi- unknown” were added. In addition, the options were re- enced no change in their housing or custody level. Among ordered from most to least coercive. (See Methodology for victims in the 2005 survey, nearly the same actions had further details.) been taken; a slightly higher percent (32%) had experi- Though these changes were introduced in 2006, the find- enced no change in housing. ings remained similar to those reported in 2005. Inmate perpetrators were moved to solitary confinement in • The sexual relationship “appeared to be willing” in 57% of 78% of the incidents of sexual violence in 2006, compared incidents in 2006 (table 7). In comparison, the relationship to 71% in 2005 (table 6). Perpetrators of the most serious was classified as “romantic” in 68% of the incidents in incidents, nonconsensual sexual acts, were the most likely 2005. to receive solitary confinement (81% in 2006, 72% in • Physical force, abuse of power, or pressure was involved 2005). in 7% of the incidents in 2006, compared to 15% of the inci- Legal sanctions, including arrest, referral for prosecution, dents in 2005. or a new sentence, were imposed on perpetrators in 41% • A third of the incidents in 2006 involved other forms of of the incidents in 2006 and 51% of the incidents in 2005. assault, including sexual harassment (15%), indecent This drop was attributed to a decline in legal sanctions exposure/invasion of privacy (9%), and unwanted touching imposed on perpetrators of abusive sexual contacts (39% for sexual gratification (5%). in 2005; 18% in 2006). • In 12% of the incidents in 2006, correctional authorities reported the “level of coercion unknown.” In addition, perpetrators in 2006 received a combination of other sanctions, including confinement to their cell or room (16%), loss of privileges (20%), placement in a higher cus- Table 7. Characteristics of substantiated incidents of tody level (22%), and transfer to another facility (22%). staff sexual misconduct and harassment, by type of These types of sanctions were imposed in 2005 at similar facility, 2006 rates, except for confinement to their cell or room (28%). Characteristic All facilitiesa Prison Jail

Table 6. Sanctions imposed on perpetrators in Number of incidents 544 282 239 b substantiated incidents of inmate-on-inmate sexual Nature of the incident violence, by type of incident, 2005 and 2006 Relationship appeared to be willing 57% 62% 51% Nonconsensual Abusive sexual Sexual harassment 15 16 15 All incidents sexual acts contacts Unwanted touching 5 9 2 2006 2005 2006 2005 2006 2005 Indecent exposure 9 2 18 Solitary/disciplinary 78% 71% 81% 72% 75% 70% Pressure/abuse of power 5 7 2 Legal action 41 51 56 58 18 39 Physical force 2 2 0 Arrested 16 12 21 16 6 4 Other/unknown 12 9 16 c Referred for prose- Number of staff involved cution 33 46 46 51 13 35 1 98% 98% 98% Confined to own cell/ 2222 room 16 28 18 25 12 33 Number of victimsc Placed in higher cus- 1 83% 89% 74% tody 22 20 24 27 20 5 214525 Loss of privileges 20 21 23 22 16 19 3220 Transferred to 4 or more 2 3 0 another facility 22 19 24 18 17 21 aIncludes substantiated incidents reported by private prisons and Note: Detail may sum to more than 100% because multiple sanctions jails, Indian country jails, and facilities operated by the U.S. mili- may have been imposed. tary and ICE. bDetail may sum to more than 100% because multiple responses were allowed for each item. cDetail may not sum to 100% due to rounding.

6 Sexual Violence Reported by Correctional Authorities, 2006 Other data reported on substantiated incidents of staff Female staff more frequently implicated in sexual sexual misconduct and harassment during 2006 revealed misconduct in prisons; male staff in local jails that — In the 2006 survey, characteristics of victims and perpetra- • In more than half of the incidents, the victim (29%) or tors of staff sexual misconduct and harassment differed by another inmate (27%) reported the misconduct (table 8). type of facility: • Most incidents occurred outside the inmate’s living area: • In State and Federal prisons, 65% of inmate victims of 46% in a program area, 8% in a common area, and 8% staff sexual misconduct and harassment were male, outside of the facility. while 58% of staff perpetrators were female (tables 9 • Incidents occurred most often between noon and 6 p.m. and 10). in prisons (53%) and between 6 p.m. and midnight in • In local jails, 80% of victims were female, while 79% of local jails (74%). perpetrators were male. • More than one staff member was involved in the sexual • 49% of staff perpetrators in prisons were age 40 or older, misconduct in 2% of the incidents. while 65% of victims were under age 35. • Staff had victimized more than one inmate in 18% of the • 56% of staff perpetrators in jails were age 40 or older, incidents. while 86% of victims were under age 35. • Among staff perpetrators in prisons and jails, 71% were white; 20%, black; and 7%, Hispanic. Among inmate vic- Table 8. Circumstances of substantiated incidents of staff sexual misconduct and harassment, by type of facility, 2006 tims, 66% were white; 23%, black; and 8%, Hispanic. Circumstance All facilitiesa Prison Jail • A correctional officer was identified as the perpetrator in 54% of incidents in prisons, and in 98% of incidents in b Who reported the incident jails (table 11). Victim 29% 29% 29% Another inmate 27 23 29 • A contract employee was involved in 17% of the inci- Family of victim 8 2 16 dents in prisons and in 2% of those in jails. Correctional officer 25 27 21 Administrative staff 8 11 4 Table 9. Characteristics of inmates involved in staff sexual Medical/healthcare staff 1 2 0 misconduct and harassment, by type of facility, 2006 Instructor/teacher/counselor 1 1 1 Characteristic All facilitiesa Prison Jail Other (anonymous/letter) 3 5 1 Genderb Where occurred Male 44% 65% 20% In victim's cell/room 10% 9% 13% Female 56 35 80 In a dormitory 14 10 20 Ageb In a common area 8 10 4 Under 18 0% 0% 0% In temporary holding area 8 0 18 18-24 18 16 21 In a program service area 46 49 41 25-29 33 29 38 Outside the facility 8 12 3 30-34 25 20 27 In transit <1 <1 <1 35-39 13 21 6 Staff office/infirmary 5 9 1 40-44 8 9 7 Other/unknown 7 9 6 45 or older 3 5 1 Time of day Race/Hispanic 6 a.m. to noon 35% 38% 36% origin c Noon to 6 p.m. 32 53 11 White 66% 54% 80% c 6 p.m. to midnight 56 38 74 Black 23 32 14 Midnight to 6 a.m. 14 16 12 Hispanic 8 12 5 Otherc,d 321 Note: Detail may sum to more than 100% because multiple responses were allowed for each item. aIncludes substantiated incidents reported by private pris- aIncludes substantiated incidents reported by private prisons and ons and jails, Indian country jails, and facilities operated by jails, Indian country jails, and facilities operated by the U.S. mili- the U.S. military and ICE. tary and ICE. bThe number of victims of staff misconduct totaled 671: bThe category "Chaplain/other religious official" was not marked gender was reported for 636; age for 631; and race/His- in any incident. panic origin for 628. cExcludes inmates of Hispanic origin. dIncludes American Indians, Alaska Natives, Asians, Native Hawaiians, and Other Pacific Islanders.

Sexual Violence Reported by Correctional Authorities, 2006 7 Table 10. Characteristics of staff involved Table 11. Type and position of staff involved in staff sexual in staff sexual misconduct and harassment, misconduct and harassment, by type of facility, 2006 by type of facility, 2006 All facilities* Prison Jail All facilitiesa Prison Jail Type of staff involved b Gender Full/part-time employee 89% 80% 99% Male 60% 42% 79% Contract employee/ven- Female 40 58 21 dor 10 17 2 Volunteer/intern 1 1 0 Ageb 24 or younger 8% 9% 4% Position of staff involved 25-29 10 14 6 Administrator 0% 0% 0% 30-34 13 12 14 Correctional officer 75 54 98 35-39 17 17 19 Clerical 1 2 0 40-44 24 16 34 Maintenance 10 17 1 45-54 19 24 15 Medical/health care 8 14 1 55 or older 9 9 7 Educational 3 6 0 Other program staff 2 5 0 Race/Hispanic originb Other 1 2 0 Whitec 71% 70% 74% c Black 20 24 16 Note: Detail may sum to more than 100% because more than one Hispanic 7 5 9 type of staff have been involved. c,d Other 2<11 *Includes substantiated incidents reported by private prisons and jails, Indian country jails, and facilities operated by the U.S. military aIncludes substantiated incidents reported by private prisons and ICE. and jails, Indian country jails, and facilities operated by the U.S. military and ICE. bGender was reported for 558 staff; age for 532; and race/His- panic origin for 530. Half of inmates involved in staff sexual misconduct cExcludes staff of Hispanic origin. were transferred or placed in segregation dIncludes American Indians, Alaska Natives, Asians, Native Hawaiians, and Other Pacific Islanders. Correctional authorities indicated that the victims of staff sexual misconduct or harassment during 2006 were often transferred to another facility (31%) or placed in administrative segregation or protective custody (25%). Inmate vic- Three-quarters of staff perpetrators in 2006 lost their tims had been transferred to another facility in 48% of the jobs; 56% were arrested or referred for prosecution incidents in local jails and in 19% of the incidents in State Correctional authorities indicated that staff had been dis- and Federal prisons. Victims were less likely to have been charged or resigned in 77% of substantiated incidents in moved to administrative segregation or protective custody 2006, compared to 82% in 2005 (table 12). Staff had also when the incident occurred in a jail (19%) than in a prison been arrested or referred for prosecution in 56% of inci- (28%). dents (compared to 45% of incidents in 2005). Approxi- In most incidents of staff sexual misconduct or harassment mately 10% of staff perpetrators in 2006 were disciplined, (76%), victims received no medical followup, counseling or transferred or demoted, compared to 17% in 2005. mental health treatment. Victims were given a medical Among the multiple types of sanctions imposed on staff examination in 6% of the incidents in prisons and jails. perpetrators during 2006, discharge or resignation was the They were provided counseling or mental health treatment most common, constituting 79% of incidents in prisons and in 12% of the incidents. 74% of those in jails. Jail staff were more likely than prison staff to be arrested or prosecuted (73% versus 43%).

Sanctions imposed on staff in substantiated incidents of staff sexual misconduct and harassment, 2005 and 2006 2006 2005

Legal sanction 56% 45% Arrest 24 28 Referred for prosecution 45 34 Loss of job 77 82 Other sanction 10 17 Note: Detail may sum to more than 100% because multiple response were allowed.

8 Sexual Violence Reported by Correctional Authorities, 2006 Table 12. Impact on inmate and staff in substantiated Methodology incidents of staff sexual misconduct and harassment, 2006 All facilitiesa Prison Jail Measures of sexual violence

Medical followup for inmate In 2004 BJS developed uniform definitions of sexual vio- Given medical examination 6% 8% 5% lence. All incidents of inmate-on-inmate sexual violence Administered rape kit 10 1 18 involve sexual contacts with any person without his or her Tested for HIV/AIDS 2 3 2 consent, or with a person who is unable to consent or Tested for other STDs 2 3 2 Provided counseling or mental refuse. The most serious incidents, nonconsensual sexual health treatment 12 17 8 acts, include: None of the above 76 79 74 Any change in housing/cus- • Contact between the penis and the vagina or the penis tody for inmate and the anus including penetration, however slight; or Placed in administratve segre- • Contact between the mouth and the penis, vagina, or gation or protective custody 25% 28% 19% anus; or Placed in medical unit 1 1 0 Confined to own cell/room 3 4 2 • Penetration of the anal or genital opening of another Given a higher custody level person by a hand, finger, or other object. within facility 5 5 6 Transferred to another facility 31 19 48 The less serious incidents, abusive sexual contacts, Otherb 351 None of the above 46 50 42 include: Sanctions on staff • Intentional touching, either directly or through the cloth- Legal sanction 56% 43% 73% Arrested 24 14 34 ing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or Referred for prosecution 45 39 57 buttocks of any person. Loss of job 77 79 74 • Incidents in which the intention is to sexually exploit Discharged 44 33 57 (rather than to only harm or debilitate). Staff resigned (prior to investigation) 26 37 13 Staff resigned (after investi- Incidents of staff-with-inmate sexual violence are separated gation) 7 10 5 into two categories. Other sanction 10 12 9 Reprimanded/disciplined 10 11 8 Staff sexual misconduct includes any behavior or act of a Demoted/diminished respon- sexual nature, either consensual or nonconsensual, sibilities 1 <1 2 directed toward an inmate by an employee, volunteer, Transferred to another facility 1 1 <1 official visitor, or agency representative. Such acts include: • Intentional touching of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, Note: Detail may sum to more than 100% because multiple responses were allowed for each item. inner thigh, or buttocks with the intent to abuse, arouse, aIncludes substantiated incidents reported by private prisons and or gratify sexual desire; or jails, Indian country jails, and facilities operated by the U.S. military • Completed, attempted, threatened, or requested sexual and ICE. acts; or bIncludes "stayed in same unit," "transferred elsewhere in facility," and "incident reported after release." • Occurrences of indecent exposure, invasion of privacy, or staff voyeurism for sexual gratification.

Staff sexual harassment involves repeated verbal statements or comments of a sexual nature to an inmate by an employee, volunteer, official visitor, or agency representative. Such statements include demeaning references to gender or derogatory comments about body or clothing; or profane or obscene language or gestures. Since BJS first developed these definitions, correctional authorities have significantly enhanced their abilities to report uniform data on sexual violence. Authorities in 42 State and Federal prison systems were able to report incidents of abusive sexual contacts separately, as defined in the 2006 survey. Only two States limited reports to substantiated incidents.

Sexual Violence Reported by Correctional Authorities, 2006 9 Most prison systems (44) were able to report data on staff Of the 350 selected jail jurisdictions, 5 did not respond to sexual misconduct using survey definitions. Five systems the survey: were unable to separate sexual harassment from miscon- Rockdale County, GA duct. One system did not record staff sexual harassment in Beaver County, PA a central database. Lycoming County, PA Jail authorities were less likely than prison authorities to Greenville County, SC meet survey definitions. More than a third of the jail jurisdic- Ellis County, TX tions were unable to separate abusive sexual contacts from One of the facilities closed in 2006: the more serious nonconsensual sexual acts; a quarter were unable to report staff sexual harassment separately Crossville City, AL from staff sexual misconduct. 4. A sample of 5 privately operated jails was also selected based on data reported in the 2005 Census of Jail Inmates. Sampling procedures The 42 private facilities were sorted by region, State, and The 2006 Survey of Sexual Violence was based on seven ADP. Facilities were systematically sampled with probabili- separate samples, corresponding to the different facilities ties proportionate to size. covered under the Act. The following samples were drawn: 5. Three additional samples of other correctional facilities 1. The survey included all 50 State adult prison systems were drawn to represent: and the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Prison administrators a) jails in Indian Country (10 facilities holding adult and were directed to report only on incidents of sexual violence juvenile inmates were selected from a total of 68 based on that occurred within publicly operated adult facilities. the ADP during 2004); 2. A sample of 41 privately operated prison facilities was b) military-operated facilities (all 59 facilities operated by drawn to produce a 10% sample of the 408 private prisons the Armed Services in the continental U.S.); identified in the 2005 Census of State and Federal Adult Correctional Facilities. Facilities were ranked by average c) 14 facilities operated by Immigration and Customs daily population (ADP) in the 12-month period ending June Enforcement. 30, 2005. Four facilities with an ADP of more than 2,005 Of the facilities selected, one had closed (Navajo Depart- inmates were selected with certainty due to their size. The ment of Corrections – Chinle, AZ). remaining facilities were sorted by region and ADP within region and then sampled systematically with a probability Data for each correctional system and sampled facility are proportional to their size. displayed in Appendix tables 1a – 4b. In each table a measure of population size has been provided as a basis for 3. A sample of 350 publicly operated jail facilities was comparison. selected based on data reported in the 2005 Census of Jail Inmates. National estimates and accuracy Jail jurisdictions were sorted into five strata based on ADP Survey responses were weighted to produce national esti- during the 12-month period ending June 30, 2005, and mates by type of correctional facility. Data from the Federal sampled systematically to produce a representative Bureau of Prisons, all State systems, military facilities, and national sample. In 2006 the second-largest jail jurisdiction ICE facilities received a weight of 1.00, since these sys- in each State was selected from stratum 1 to avoid select- tems and facilities were all selected (sampled with cer- ing with certainty the same jurisdiction as in 2005. (In previ- tainty). ous surveys the 46 largest jails in each State were selected.) Among publicly operated jails, private prisons, private jails and jails in Indian country, facilities were assigned a weight An additional 61 jail jurisdictions (forming stratum 2) were equal to the inverse of their probability of selection. Esti- selected with certainty due to size (an ADP of 1,500 mates for public jail jurisdictions were adjusted for non- inmates or more). response by multiplying each estimate by the ratio of the The remaining 2,813 jail jurisdictions in the 2005 census total ADP in all jurisdictions to the ADP among participating were then grouped into 3 strata: stratum 3 contained 1,599 jurisdictions. jails with an ADP of 85 inmates or fewer; stratum 4 included Survey estimates for public jail jurisdictions, private prisons 785 jails with an ADP of 86 to 283 inmates; and stratum 5 and jails, and jails in Indian country are subject to sampling included 429 jails with an ADP of 284 to 1,499 inmates. Jail error. The error, as measured by an estimated sampling jurisdictions in these 3 strata were selected systematically error, varies by the size of the estimate and the size of the with probabilities proportionate to their size, resulting in 46 base population. Estimates of the standard errors for selections from stratum 3, 52 from stratum 4, and 145 from selected survey items are presented in tables 13 and 14. stratum 5.

10 Sexual Violence Reported by Correctional Authorities, 2006 These standard errors may be used to construct confi- Detail on substantiated incidents dence intervals around survey estimates (e.g., numbers, The 2006 Survey of Sexual Violence recorded 704 sub- rates, and percentages), as well as differences in these stantiated incidents of sexual violence; that is, incidents estimates. For example, the 95% confidence interval that were investigated and determined to have occurred. around the number of allegations of sexual violence is Taking into account sampling of local jail jurisdictions, pri- approximately 6,528 plus or minus 1.96 times 143 (or 6,248 vate prisons and jails, and jails in Indian country, the esti- to 6,808). mated total for the Nation was 967.

Table 13. Estimated standard errors for number of Correctional authorities provided detail on 99% of all sub- allegations and substantiated incidents, by type, 2006 stantiated incidents. Through use of a separate incident Substantiated inci- form, the survey collected details on circumstances sur- Allegations dents rounding each incident, characteristics of victims and per- National Standard National Standard petrators, type of pressure or physical force, sanctions estimate error estimate error imposed, and victim assistance. These data are displayed Total 6,528 143 967 72 in Appendix tables 5 – 8. Inmate-on-inmate nonconsensual sexual acts 2,205 68 263 23 In response to concerns raised about the 2005 survey, BJS Inmate-on-inmate abusive changed the survey item related to staff sexual misconduct sexual contacts 834 16 157 6 and harassment. Item 27 of the 2006 survey read as fol- Staff sexual misconduct 2,371 106 469 68 lows: Staff sexual harassment 1,118 41 78 8 What was the nature of the incident? Table 14. Estimated standard errors for selected charac- (Mark all that apply.) teristics of substantiated incidents, by type, 2006 1. Pressure or abuse of power resulting in a nonconsen- National Standard sual sexual act Characteristic estimate error 2. Indecent exposure, invasion of privacy, or voyeurism Inmate-on-inmate sexual violence for sexual gratification Occurred between 6 p.m. and midnight 45% 3% Occurred in victim's cell 64 2 3. Unwanted touching for sexual gratification Force/threat of force used 58 3 4. Sexual harassment or repeated verbal statements of a Victim injured 20 2 Victim given medical examination 60 2 sexual nature by staff Victim placed in administrative segregation 40 2 5. Sexual relationship between inmate and staff that Perpetrator placed in solitary 78 1 appeared to be willing Legal action imposed on perpetrator 41 3 6. Other – Specify Staff-on-inmate sexual violence Relationship appeared to be willing 57% 6% 7. Level of coercion unknown Occurred between 6 p.m. and midnight 56 7 Occurred in victim's cell 10 3 Victim placed in administrative segregation 25 5 Victim transferred to another facility 31 8 Legal sanction imposed on staff 56 6 Staff discharged or resigned 77 6

Sexual Violence Reported by Correctional Authorities, 2006 11 U.S. Department of Justice *NCJ~218914* PRESORTED STANDARD POSTAGE & FEES PAID Office of Justice Programs DOJ/BJS Bureau of Justice Statistics Permit No. G-91

Washington, DC 20531

Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300

The Bureau of Justice Statistics is the statistical agency of the U.S. Department of Justice. Jeffrey L. Sedgwick is the director. Allen J. Beck, Paige M. Harrison and Devon B. Adams, wrote this report. Carolyn Williams produced and edited the report, and Jayne Robinson prepared the report for publication, under the supervision of Doris J. James. Pamela H. Butler, Greta B. Clark, and Shannon Clerkin carried out data collection and processing, under the supervision of Charlene M. Sebold, Governments Division, Census Bureau, U.S. Department of This report in portable document format Commerce. Pearl E. Chase, Patricia D. Torryson, (includes 8 appendix tables) and in ASCII and its Kathryn DiMeglio, and Lisa A. McNelis assisted in the related statistical data are available at the BJS data collection. Suzanne M. Dorinski drew the facility World Wide Web Internet site: August 2007, NCJ 218914.

Office of Justice Programs Innovation • Partnerships • Safer Neighborhoods http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov

12 Sexual Violence Reported by Correctional Authorities, 2006 Appendix table 1a. Allegations of inmate-on-inmate sexual violence reported by State or Federal prison authorities, by type, 2006

Prisoners Reported inmate-on-inmate nonconsensual sexual acts Reported inmate-on-inmate abusive sexual contacts in custody, Substan- Unsub- Investiga- Substan- Unsub- Investiga- Jurisdiction 6/30/2006a Allegations tiated stantiated Unfounded tion ongoing Allegations tiated stantiated Unfounded tion ongoing

Total 1,367,204 1,390 147 707 304 232 707 125 426 139 17 Federal 161,871 7 0 0 7 0 11 1 0 9 1 State 1,205,333 1,383 147 707 297 232 696 124 426 130 16 Alabamab 23,995 2 0 2 0 0 / / / / / Alaskab 3,540 0 0 0 0 0 / / / / / Arizona 30,391 35 0 20 12 3 4 0 2 2 0 Arkansas 12,643 10 4 0 6 0 5 0 0 5 0 California 169,561 76 5 41 17 13 8 3 5 0 0 Colorado 17,204 28 5 17 5 1 15 2 11 2 0 Connecticut 19,606 19 0 14 0 5 3 0 0 3 0 Delaware 7,090 6 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 Florida 82,223 145 1 140 1 3 22 0 22 0 0 Georgiab 46,359 53 2 14 1 36 / / / / / Hawaii 3,898 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Idaho 4,735 17 9 5 3 0 17 10 6 1 0 Illinois 45,440 38 4 30 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 Indiana 22,539 29 0 23 6 0 15 3 8 4 0 Iowa 8,659 20 2 10 8 0 34 13 14 7 0 Kansas 8,952 47 4 21 21 1 13 0 3 10 0 Kentucky 12,967 10 1 7 2 0 6 1 5 0 0 Louisiana 17,387 24 3 5 16 0 2 2 0 0 0 Maine 2,028 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Maryland 22,860 15 2 6 1 6 1 0 0 1 0 Massachusetts 10,683 22 7 7 8 0 32 8 16 8 0 Michigan 50,701 33 10 23 0 0 18 18 0 0 0 Minnesota 8,017 22 0 4 17 1 5 1 2 2 0 Mississippib 11,528 1 0 0 1 0 / / / / / Missouri 30,149 49 2 28 18 1 15 2 7 6 0 Montanac 1,968 12 3 7 2 0 4 2 1 1 0 Nebraska 4,546 7 2 4 1 0 7 2 4 1 0 Nevadab 12,412 21 0 7 8 6 / / / / / New Hampshire 2,522 8 7 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 New Jersey 23,987 2 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 New Mexico 3,876 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 New York 63,479 34 1 22 0 11 16 4 5 0 7 North Carolinab 37,277 22 4 16 2 0 / / / / / North Dakota 1,370 2 1 1 0 0 5 3 2 0 0 Ohio 44,759 67 16 5 45 1 34 9 5 20 0 Oklahoma 17,149 17 2 7 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 Oregon 13,091 23 0 4 2 17 2 0 2 0 0 Pennsylvania 41,957 24 5 5 14 0 1 1 0 0 0 Rhode Island 3,645 9 3 4 2 0 3 1 1 1 0 South Carolinad 22,898 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 South Dakota 3,573 1 0 0 0 1 3 1 0 2 0 Tennessee 14,235 17 0 14 2 1 7 1 4 2 0 Texas 140,166 297 4 136 45 112 349 19 279 43 8 Utah 4,978 15 4 11 0 0 15 1 12 2 0 Vermont 1,678 12 6 3 1 2 18 9 5 3 1 Virginiab 29,539 16 1 2 8 5 / / / / / Washington 15,289 26 4 19 3 0 7 3 3 1 0 West Virginiad 4,276 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wisconsinb 22,279 40 17 17 6 0 / / / / / Wyoming 1,229 6 1 2 2 1 8 4 1 3 0

/Not reported aExcludes inmates in private facilities. Counts were based on National Prisoners Statistics (NPS-1A), 2006. bAllegations of abusive sexual contacts could not be counted separately from allegations of nonconsensual sexual acts. cIncludes consensual sexual acts between inmates. dAllegations limited to substantiated occurrences only.

Sexual Violence Reported by Correctional Authorities, 2006 13 Appendix table 1b. Allegations of staff-on-inmate sexual violence reported by State or Federal prison authorities, by type, 2006 Reported allegations of staff sexual misconduct with inmates Reported allegations of staff sexual harassment of inmates Substanti- Unsubstan- Investigation Substanti- Unsubstan- Investigation Jurisdiction Allegations ated tiated Unfounded ongoing Allegations ated tiated Unfounded ongoing

Total 1,677 235 745 309 388 984 47 537 258 142

Federal 133 4 50 0 79 91 0 46 0 45 State 1,544 231 695 309 309 893 47 491 258 97 Alabama 4 1 3 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 Alaska 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Arizona 26 8 10 6 2 8 0 4 3 1 Arkansas 7 4 0 3 0 19 0 4 15 0 California 52 11 15 14 12 30 2 11 6 11 Colorado 44 8 6 23 7 8 1 1 5 1 Connecticut 12 1 9 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 Delaware 2 0 2 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 Florida 152 0 131 10 11 144 0 133 4 7 Georgia 133 6 26 0 101 73 6 21 0 46 Hawaii 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Idaho 14 7 5 2 0 3 1 2 0 0 Illinois 23 11 9 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 Indiana 32 7 16 9 0 8 2 4 2 0 Iowa 48 11 15 21 1 39 7 13 19 0 Kansas 41 4 30 7 0 4 1 3 0 0 Kentucky 7 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Louisiana 71 9 42 18 2 66 0 31 29 6 Maine 201 1 0 21 0 1 0 Maryland 17 0 6 5 6 1 0 1 0 0 Massachusetts 61 7 6 17 31 11 1 5 4 1 Michigan 27 2 8 16 1 337 4 179 143 11 Minnesota 15 2 6 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 Mississippi 5 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 Missouri 73 7 24 40 2 21 2 15 4 0 Montana 2 1 0 1 0 2 2 0 0 0 Nebraska 13 2 2 9 0 2 1 1 0 0 Nevadaa 11 1 6 1 3 / / / / / New Hampshire 3 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 New Jerseya 20 0 0 2 / / / / / New Mexicoa 00 0 0 0 / / / / / New York 209 19 119 0 71 34 2 25 0 7 North Carolinaa 98 1 0 0 / / / / / North Dakota 3 0 1 2 0 2 0 0 2 0 Ohio 89 4 78 6 1 21 0 19 0 2 Oklahoma 25 7 15 2 1 2 0 2 0 0 Oregon 14 3 4 2 5 8 1 1 6 0 Pennsylvania 24 7 5 12 0 6 0 0 6 0 Rhode Islanda 20 0 2 0 / / / / / South Carolina 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 South Dakota 3 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 0 Tennessee 14 8 4 0 2 7 2 4 1 0 Texas b 79 10 28 10 31 / / / / / Utah 6 0 5 1 0 2 1 1 0 0 Vermont 20 10 5 5 0 8 4 0 2 2 Virginia 39 13 2 17 7 3 1 0 1 1 Washington 34 5 24 5 0 2 1 0 1 0 West Virginia 7 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wisconsin 53 6 20 27 0 9 2 5 2 0 Wyoming 15 5 3 5 2 2 2 0 0 0

/Not reported aReports of staff sexual misconduct may include reports of staff sexual harassment. bReports of staff sexual harassment are not recorded in a central database.

14 Sexual Violence Reported by Correctional Authorities, 2006 Appendix table 2a. Allegations of inmate-on-inmate sexual violence reported by local jail authorities, by type, 2006 Average daily Reported inmate-on-inmate nonconsensual sexual acts Reported inmate-on-inmate abusive sexual contacts population, Allega- Substan- Unsub- Investiga- Allega- Substan- Unsub- Investiga- Jurisdiction and facility 2006 tions tiated stantiated Unfounded tion ongoing tions tiated stantiated Unfounded tion ongoing

Total 380,894 403 52 192 123 36 73 19 38 14 2

Alabama Butler County 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Calhoun Countya 370 0 0 0 0 0 / / / / / Cullman Countya 194 0 0 0 0 0 / / / / / Etowah County 800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Jefferson Countya 964 5 3 1 1 0 / / / / / Shelby County 503 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Talledega Countya 226 0 0 0 0 0 / / / / / Tarrant City 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Alaska Seward County 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Kodiak City 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Arizona Coconino County 509 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Maricopa Countya 9,247 16 4 6 4 2 / / / / / Navajo County 354 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pima County 1,858 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Arkansas Arkansas Countya 109 0 0 0 0 0 / / / / / Johnson Countya 29 0 0 0 0 0 / / / / / Sebastian County 322 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Siloam Springs Citya,b 50 0 0 0 0 / / / / / Washington Countya,b,c 501 0 0 0 0 0 / / / / / California Alameda County 4,020 8 4 3 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 Contra Costa County 1,663 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 El Dorado County 363 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fresno Countya 3,024 0 0 0 0 0 / / / / / Kern County 2,324 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 Los Angeles Countya 19,011 44 1 43 0 0 / / / / / Orange County 6,157 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Riverside County 3,287 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 Sacramento Countya 2,121 2 2 0 0 0 / / / / / San Bernardino County West Val- leya,b,c,d 5,567 0 0 0 0 0 / / / / / San Diego County 5,168 6 0 2 1 3 6 1 3 1 1 San Francisco Citya 1,915 7 0 5 2 0 / / / / / San Joaquin Countya 1,431 1 0 1 0 0 / / / / / San Luis Obispo Countya 531 0 0 0 0 0 / / / / / San Mateo County 1,124 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Santa Barbara County 980 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Santa Clara County 4,471 2 0 2 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 Santa Clara County Mountain View 184 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Santa Cruz Countya 537 0 0 0 0 0 / / / / / Ventura County 1,651 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yuba County 419 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Colorado Arapahoe County 1,335 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Boulder County 470 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Denver County 2,475 9 0 4 5 0 1 0 1 0 0 El Paso County 1,433 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Logan County 120 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pueblo Countya 526 4 0 1 0 3 / / / / / Rio Grande Countya 32 0 0 0 0 0 / / / / / District of Columbia District of Columbia 3,473 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

Sexual Violence Reported by Correctional Authorities, 2006 15 Appendix table 2a. Allegations of inmate-on-inmate sexual violence reported by local jail authorities, by type, 2006 (cont). Average Reported inmate-on-inmate nonconsensual sexual acts Reported inmate-on-inmate abusive sexual contacts daily popu- Allega- Substan- Unsubstan- Investiga- Allega- Substan- Unsubstan- Investiga- Jurisdiction and facility lation, 2006 tions tiated tiated Unfounded tion ongoing tions tiated tiated Unfounded tion ongoing Florida Alachua Countya 1,065 8 0 2 6 0 / / / / / Broward Countya 5,662 12 0 9 3 0 / / / / / Escambia County 1,908 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Highlands County 386 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hillsborough Countya 4,637 4 0 4 0 0 / / / / / Indian River Countya 559 6 0 0 6 0 / / / / / Jackson County 233 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Jacksonville City 3,629 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 5 3 0 Lee Countyc 1,899 3 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Manatee County 1,466 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 Marion Countya 1,881 3 0 2 0 1 / / / / / Martin County 595 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 Miami-Dade Countya 6,686 1 1 0 0 0 / / / / / Orange Countya 4,104 0 0 0 0 0 / / / / / Palm Beach Countya 1,902 3 1 0 2 0 / / / / / Pinellas Countya 3,630 0 0 0 0 0 / / / / / Polk County 2,523 6 0 4 0 2 2 0 2 0 0 St Lucie County 1,349 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 Seminole County 1,017 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Taylor County 84 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volusia County 1,536 1 1 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 Georgia Atlanta City 1,079 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bibb County 637 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Carroll County Corr. Inst. 525 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Carroll County 513 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chatham Countya 1,622 1 0 1 0 0 / / / / / Clayton Countye 1,585 0 0 0 0 0 / / / / / Clinch County 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cobb County 2,042 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 DeKalb Countya 2,849 4 2 2 0 0 / / / / / Dougherty County 876 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fulton County 143 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Glynn Countya 428 0 0 0 0 0 / / / / / Gwinnett Countya 2,280 0 0 0 0 0 / / / / / Houston County 420 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Jackson Countya 172 0 0 0 0 0 / / / / / Lamar Countya 135 0 0 0 0 0 / / / / / Lee County 69 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Murray Countya 106 0 0 0 0 0 / / / / / Muscogee Countya 588 0 0 0 0 0 / / / / / Newton Countyc 553 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rockdale County * * * * * * * * * * * Spalding County 461 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Idaho Benewah County 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Canyon County 683 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Kootenai Countya 370 0 0 0 0 0 / / / / / Illinois Champaign Countya 213 0 0 0 0 0 / / / / / Cook Countya 9,359 12 2 3 3 4 / / / / / Du Page County 824 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 Lake Countya 603 0 0 0 0 0 / / / / / McLean County 230 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 St Clair Countya,b 427 0 0 0 0 0 / / / / / Schuyler Countya,b,c 27 0 0 0 0 0 / / / / / Whiteside County 98 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

16 Sexual Violence Reported by Correctional Authorities, 2006 Appendix table 2a. Allegations of inmate-on-inmate sexual violence reported by local jail authorities, by type, 2006 (cont.) Average Reported inmate-on-inmate nonconsensual sexual acts Reported inmate-on-inmate abusive sexual contacts daily popu- Allega- Substanti- Unsub- Investiga- Allega- Substan- Unsub- Investiga- Jurisdiction and facility lation, 2006 tions ated stantiated Unfounded tion ongoing tions tiated stantiated Unfounded tion ongoing Indiana Allen County 736 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Howard County 378 0 0 0 0 0 / / / / / Kosciusko Countya 186 0 0 0 0 0 / / / / / Lake County 902 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 La Porte County 275 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Marion County 334 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Montgomery County 144 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Porter County 468 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pulaski Countya,c 20 0 0 0 0 / / / / / Union County 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Iowa Adams County 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dubuque Countya 116 0 0 0 0 0 / / / / / Jasper County 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Linn Countya 389 0 0 0 0 0 / / / / / Kansas Crawford County 97 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Graham Countye,f 7/ / / / / / / / / / Johnson County 880 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Meade County 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Shawnee County 435 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 Kentucky Calloway Countyb 172 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Estill County 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Franklin County 308 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Kenton County 428 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Laurel County 327 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 Lexington-Fayette County 1,220 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Louisville Metropolitan Dept. of Corr.a 2,000 3 0 0 3 0 / / / / / Pulaski Countya,d 256 0 0 0 0 0 / / / / / Rockcastle County 82 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Warren County 565 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Louisiana Bayou Dorcheat Corr. Ctr.a,c 481 0 0 0 0 0 / / / / / East Baton Rouge Prison 1,778 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 Grant Parish 103 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Jefferson Parisha 738 0 0 0 0 0 / / / / / Madison Corr. Ctr.a,b 600 1 0 1 0 0 / / / / / Ouachita Parish 25 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 New Orleans Parisha 1,896 7 3 4 0 0 / / / / / St. Charles Parisha 552 0 0 0 0 0 / / / / / St. Tammany Par- isha,b 687 0 0 0 0 0 / / / / / Tangipahoa Parish 520 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Union Parisha 313 0 0 0 0 0 / / / / / Vermilion Parish 146 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Terrebonne Parisha 636 1 0 0 1 0 / / / / / Maine Cumberland County 474 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 York Countya 187 0 0 0 0 0 / / / / / Maryland Allegany County 167 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Baltimore City 3,708 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 Baltimore Countya 1,290 1 0 1 0 0 / / / / / Frederick Countya 496 2 0 2 0 0 / / / / / Prince Georges County 1,439 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Washington County 391 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Worcester Countya 223 0 0 0 0 0 / / / / /

Sexual Violence Reported by Correctional Authorities, 2006 17 Appendix table 2a. Allegations of inmate-on-inmate sexual violence reported by local jail authorities, by type, 2006 (cont.)

Massachusetts Berkshire County 257 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Essex Countya 1,167 1 0 0 1 0 / / / / / Hampden Countya 2,017 5 0 5 0 0 / / / / / Plymouth County 1,598 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Suffolk County 1,760 2 0 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 Worcester County 1,397 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Michigan Allegan County 163 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Genesee Countya 638 1 0 1 0 0 / / / / / Gogebic County 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Jackson County 409 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Macomb County 1,348 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 1 0 Monroe County 367 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Oakland County 1,973 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ottawa County 369 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 Wayne Countya 3,005 0 0 0 0 0 / / / / / Minnesota Hennepin County 586 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mille Lacs County 71 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pipestone County 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sherburne Countyb,c 510 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Washington County 203 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mississippi Adams County 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Desoto County 368 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Harrison Countya 815 4 2 2 0 0 / / / / / Hinds Countya 925 0 0 0 0 0 / / / / / Humphreys County 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Issaquena Countya,c 400 0 0 0 / / / / / Kemper-Neshoda County Reg. Corr. Fac.e 283 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Leake County 345 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Winston/Chocktaw Reg. Corr. Fac. 76 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Missouri Cass Countya 108 1 0 0 1 0 / / / / / Howard Countya 11 0 0 0 0 0 / / / / / Lincoln County 152 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 St Charles County 282 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 St. Louis City 1,727 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 St. Louis County 993 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Taney Countya 69 0 0 0 0 0 / / / / / Vernon County 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Montana Anaconda-Deer Lodge Countya 26 0 0 0 0 0 / / / / / Cascade County 427 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellowstone Countya,b 409 0 0 0 0 0 / / / / / Nebraska Clay County 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Douglas County 976 4 0 2 1 1 3 0 3 0 0 Lancaster County 429 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 Nevada Clark County 3,540 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 Las Vegas Citya,d 1,119 1 0 0 1 0 / / / / / Washoe County 1,137 6 2 0 4 0 4 0 2 2 0 New Hampshire Rockingham County 338 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

18 Sexual Violence Reported by Correctional Authorities, 2006 Appendix table 2a. Allegations of inmate-on-inmate sexual violence reported by local jail authorities, by type, 2006 (cont.)

Average Reported inmate-on-inmate nonconsensual sexual acts Reported inmate-on-inmate abusive sexual contacts daily popu- Allega- Substanti- Unsub- Investiga- Allega- Substanti- Unsub- Investiga- Jurisdiction and facility lation, 2006 tions ated stantiated Unfounded tion ongoing tions ated stantiated Unfounded tion ongoing

New Jersey Atlantic County 1,358 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Camden County 1,646 3 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cape May County 279 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cumberland Countyd 575 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Essex County 2,081 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Gloucester County 358 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hudson Countya 2,008 11 1 5 3 2 / / / / / Passaic Countya 1,946 1 0 0 1 0 / / / / / Union County 1,122 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 New Mexico Bernalillo Countya 2,377 4 1 2 0 1 / / / / / Dona Ana Countya 890 0 0 0 0 0 / / / / / Luna Countya 394 0 0 0 0 0 / / / / / Otero County 242 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Quay Countya 80 0 0 0 0 0 / / / / / New York Albany County 832 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Allegany Countya,b 53 0 0 0 0 0 / / / / / Broome County 527 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dutchess County 309 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Erie Countya 925 0 0 0 0 0 / / / / / Montgomery County 119 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nassau Countyc 1,633 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 New York Citya 13,788 13 0 5 6 2 / / / / / Suffolk Countya 1,632 0 0 0 0 0 / / / / / North Carolina Buncombe County 458 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cabarrus County 230 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Carteret Countyd 122 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cumberland County 532 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Gaston County 526 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mecklenburg County 2,484 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Rockingham County 165 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Swain County 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wake County 1,240 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 North Dakota Burleigh County 115 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rolette County 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ohio Cuyahoga County 2,066 3 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 Franklin Countya 2,377 1 0 1 0 0 / / / / / Greene County 380 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hamilton County 2,157 1 1 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 Logan Countya 108 0 0 0 0 0 / / / / / Lorain County 476 3 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 Montgomery Countya 904 1 1 0 0 0 / / / / / Noble County 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Northwest Ohio Reg. Corr. Ctr.a 581 4 0 4 0 0 / / / / / Richland County 131 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Warren Countya 193 1 0 0 1 0 / / / / / Oklahoma Garfield Countya 182 0 0 0 0 0 / / / / / Grady Countyf 324 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Harmon Countye,f 7/ / / / / / / / / / Oklahoma County 2,859 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 0 0 Pawnee Countya 90 0 0 0 0 / / / / / Oregon Marion County 540 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Multnomah County 1,673 5 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Northern Oregon Reg. Fac. 169 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Washington County 554 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Sexual Violence Reported by Correctional Authorities, 2006 19 Appendix table 2a. Allegations of inmate-on-inmate sexual violence reported by local jail authorities, by type, 2006 (cont.)

Average Reported inmate-on-inmate nonconsensual sexual acts Reported inmate-on-inmate abusive sexual contacts daily popu- Allega- Substan- Unsub- Investiga- Allega- Substan- Unsub- Investiga- Jurisdiction and facility lation, 2006 tions tiated stantiated Unfounded tion ongoing tions tiated stantiated Unfounded tion ongoing Pennsylvania Allegheny Countya 2,584 2 0 2 0 0 / / / / / Beaver County * * * * * * * * * * * Berks County 1,324 2 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 Bucks County 987 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 Clinton Countya 332 0 0 0 0 0 / / / / / Erie County 740 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lycoming County * * * * * * * * * * * Philadelphia Prison Sys- tem 8,603 11 0 7 0 4 1 0 0 0 1 Schuykill Countya 270 0 0 0 0 0 / / / / / Warren County 120 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Westmoreland County 598 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 York Countya,c 2,031 0 0 0 0 0 / / / / / South Carolina Anderson County 433 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Charleston Countya 1,722 4 0 0 3 1 / / / / / Cherokee County 160 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Greenville County * * * * * * * * * * * Marlboro County 71 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spartanburg Countya 808 0 0 0 0 0 / / / / / Sumter-Lee Reg. Det. Ctr. 430 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 South Dakota Charles Mix County 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pennington County 421 1 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 Tennessee Blount Countya 347 0 0 0 0 0 / / / / / Cheatham Countyd 95 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Clay Countya 12 0 0 0 0 0 / / / / / Davidson County 2,297 9 0 4 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 Madison County 331 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Marion County 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 McMinn Countyb,c,d 188 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Shelby County Corr. Ctr. 2,288 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Shelby County Justice Ctr.a 2,741 2 0 0 2 0 / / / / / Sullivan County 588 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Washington County 500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Texas Bell County 689 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bexar Countya 4,027 0 0 0 0 0 / / / / / Culberson County 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dallas Countya 6,324 2 0 0 2 0 / / / / / Denton Countya 1,020 0 0 0 0 0 / / / / / Ector County 529 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ellis County * * * * * * * * * * * El Paso Countya 2,090 0 0 0 0 0 / / / / / Harris County 9,249 17 0 5 8 4 6 1 5 0 0 Hays Countya,b 315 0 0 0 0 0 / / / / / Hidalgo Countyb 1,128 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Live Oak County 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 McLennan County 860 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 Milam Countya 95 0 0 0 0 0 / / / / / Montgomery County 1,067 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Orange Countya 214 0 0 0 0 0 / / / / / Rusk Countya 86 0 0 0 0 0 / / / / / Tarrant County 3,356 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tom Green Countya 514 0 0 0 0 0 / / / / / Travis County 2,584 4 0 0 3 1 2 0 2 0 0 Walker County 150 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Webb Countya 681 0 0 0 0 0 / / / / / Wharton Countya 130 0 0 0 0 0 / / / / / Wichita Countya 495 0 0 0 0 0 / / / / /

20 Sexual Violence Reported by Correctional Authorities, 2006 Appendix table 2a. Allegations of inmate-on-inmate sexual violence reported by local jail authorities, by type, 2006 (cont.) Average Reported inmate-on-inmate nonconsensual sexual acts Reported inmate-on-inmate abusive sexual contacts daily popu- Allega- Substan- Unsub- Investiga- Allega- Substan- Unsub- Investiga- Jurisdiction and facility lation, 2006 tions tiated stantiated Unfounded tion ongoing tions tiated stantiated Unfounded tion ongoing

Utah Daggett County 92 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Davis County 500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Salt Lake Countya 1,963 2 0 1 1 0 / / / / / Weber Countya 1,024 0 0 0 0 0 / / / / / Virginia Abingdon Reg. Jail Fac. 383 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Augusta County 230 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Blue Ridge Reg. Jail Auth. 1,170 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Gloucester County 75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Middle River Reg. Jail 517 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 New River Valley Reg. Jaila 630 4 0 3 1 0 / / / / / Norfolk City 1,733 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 Northern Neck Reg. Jail 423 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peumansend Creek Reg. Jaila 295 0 0 0 0 0 / / / / / Portsmouth City 557 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Prince William-Manassas Reg. Adult Corr. Ctr.a 721 0 0 0 0 0 / / / / / Richmond City 1,564 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Riverside Reg. Jail 1,096 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Virginia Beach Municipala 1,501 2 0 2 0 0 / / / / / Washington Clark County 790 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cowlitz County 277 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Issaquah County 54 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 King Countya 2,666 3 0 2 1 0 / / / / / Pierce Countya 1,359 0 0 0 0 0 / / / / / Spokane County 569 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Whatcom County 358 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 West Virginia Eastern Reg. Jail 386 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Marshall County North- ern Reg. Jail & Corr. Complex 323 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 North Central Reg. Jaila 524 11 0 0 11 0 / / / / / Raleigh County Southern Reg. Jaila 521 0 0 0 0 0 / / / / / Wisconsin Dane Countyg 931 / / / / / / / / / / Jefferson Countyc 183 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Milwaukee County 886 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Milwaukee County House of Corr.a 2,331 2 2 0 0 0 / / / / / Outagamie Countye 460 0 0 0 0 0 / / / / / Racine County 683 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vernon County 49 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Walworth Countya 343 0 0 0 0 0 / / / / / Wyoming Laramie County 268 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Uinta County 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

/Not reported. *No response. aAllegations of abusive sexual contacts could not be counted separately from allegations of nonconsensual sexual acts. bAllegations limited to substantiated occurrences only. cAllegations limited to completed acts only. dBased on jail population on December 31, 2006. eReports of abusive sexual contacts are not recorded in a central database. fJurisdiction does not record allegations of nonconsensual sexual acts. gJurisdiction cannot access allegations of nonconsensual sexual acts or abusive sexual contacts electronically.

Sexual Violence Reported by Correctional Authorities, 2006 21 Appendix table 2b. Allegations of staff-on-inmate sexual violence reported by local jail authorities, by type, 2006 Reported allegations of staff sexual misconduct with Reported allegations of staff sexual harassment of inmates inmates Allega- Substan- Unsubstan- Investiga- Allega- Substan- Unsub- Investiga- Jurisdiction and facility tions tiated tiated Unfounded tion ongoing tions tiated stantiated Unfounded tion ongoing

Total 217 58 58 66 35 35 9 11 10 5

Alabama Butler Countya 00 0 0 0 / / / / / Calhoun Countya 11 0 0 0 / / / / / Cullman County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Etowah County 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Jefferson Countya 11 0 0 0 / / / / / Shelby County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Talledega Countya 00 0 0 0 / / / / / Tarrant City 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Alaska Seward County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Kodiak City 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Arizona Coconino County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Maricopa Countya 30 1 2 0 / / / / / Navajo Countya 00 0 0 0 / / / / / Pima County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Arkansas Arkansas Countya 22 0 0 0 / / / / / Johnson Countya 00 0 0 0 / / / / / Sebastian County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Siloam Springs Cityb 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Washington Countya,b 00 0 0 0 / / / / / California Alameda County 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Contra Costa County 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 El Dorado County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fresno Countya 10 0 1 0 / / / / / Kern County 2 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 Los Angeles County 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 Orange County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Riverside County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sacramento County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 San Bernardino County West Valleya 00 0 0 0 / / / / / San Diego County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 San Francisco City 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 San Joaquin Countya 00 0 0 0 / / / / / San Luis Obispo Countya 00 0 0 0 / / / / / San Mateo County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Santa Barbara County 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 Santa Clara Countya 10 0 0 1 / / / / / Santa Clara County Mountain View 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Santa Cruz Countya 00 0 0 0 / / / / / Ventura County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yuba County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Colorado Arapahoe County 5 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 Boulder County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Denver Countyb 00 0 0 0 3 0 0 2 1 El Paso County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Logan County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pueblo County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rio Grande Countya,b 00 0 0 0 / / / / / District of Columbia District of Columbia 10 0 2 0 8 0 0 0 0 0

22 Sexual Violence Reported by Correctional Authorities, 2006 Appendix table 2b. Allegations of staff-on-inmate sexual violence reported by local jail authorities, by type, 2006 Reported allegations of staff sexual misconduct with Reported allegations of staff sexual harassment of inmates inmates Allega- Substan- Unsub- Investiga- Allega- Substan- Unsub- Investiga- Jurisdiction and facility tions tiated stantiated Unfounded tion ongoing tions tiated stantiated Unfounded tion ongoing

Florida Alachua County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Broward County 5 1 2 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 Escambia County 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Highlands County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hillsborough County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Indian River Countya 00 0 0 0 / / / / / Jackson County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Jacksonville City 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lee County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Manatee County 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Marion County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Martin County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Miami-Dade Countya 12 2 1 5 4 / / / / / Orange County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Palm Beach Countya 00 0 0 0 / / / / / Pinellas County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Polk County 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 St Lucie County 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Seminole County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Taylor County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volusia County 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Georgia Atlanta City 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bibb County 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 Carroll County Corr. Inst.a 00 0 0 0 / / / / / Carroll County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chatham County 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Clayton Countya 00 0 0 0 / / / / / Clinch County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cobb County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DeKalb Countya 10 0 1 0 / / / / / Dougherty County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fulton County 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Glynn County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Gwinnett County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Houston County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Jackson County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lamar Countya 00 0 0 0 / / / / / Lee County 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Murray County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Muscogee Countya,b 00 0 0 0 / / / / / Newton County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rockdale County * * * * * * * * * * Spalding County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Idaho Benewah County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Canyon County 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Kootenai County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Illinois Champaign County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cook Countya 10 1 0 0 / / / / / Du Page County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lake County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 McLean County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 St Clair Countya,b 00 0 0 0 / / / / / Schuyler County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Whiteside Countya 00 0 0 0 / / / / /

Sexual Violence Reported by Correctional Authorities, 2006 23 Appendix table 2b. Allegations of staff-on-inmate sexual violence reported by local jail authorities, by type, 2006 Reported allegations of staff sexual misconduct with Reported allegations of staff sexual harassment of inmates inmates Allega- Substan- Unsubstan- Investiga- Allega- Substan- Unsubstan- Investiga- Jurisdiction and facility tions tiated tiated Unfounded tion ongoing tions tiated tiated Unfounded tion ongoing

Indiana Allen County 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Howard County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Kosciusko Countya 00 0 0 0 / / / / / Lake Countya 00 0 0 0 / / / / / La Porte County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Marion Countya 00 0 0 0 / / / / / Montgomery County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Porter County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pulaski County 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Union County 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 Iowa Adams County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dubuque Countya 00 0 0 0 / / / / / Jasper County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Linn Countyc 00 0 0 0 / / / / / Kansas Crawford County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Graham Countyc,d // / / / / / / / / Johnson County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Meade County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Shawnee County 6 3 0 3 0 1 1 0 0 0 Kentucky Calloway Countyb 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Estill County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Franklin County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Kenton County 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Laurel Countya 00 0 0 0 / / / / / Lexington-Fayette County 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Louisville Metropolitan Dept. of Corr. 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 Pulaski Countyc,d // / / / / / / / / Rockcastle County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Warren County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Louisiana Bayou Dorcheat Corr. Ctr. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 East Baton Rouge Prison 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grant Parish 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Jefferson Parish 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Madison Corr. Ctr.b 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ouachita Parish 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 New Orleans Parisha 10 1 0 0 / / / / / St. Charles Parish 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 St. Tammany Parishb 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tangipahoa Parish 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Union Parish 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vermilion Parish 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Terrebonne Parish 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Maine Cumberland County 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 York County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Maryland Allegany County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Baltimore City 3 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Baltimore County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Frederick Countya 20 1 1 0 / / / / / Prince Georges County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Washington County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Worcester Countya 00 0 0 0 / / / / /

24 Sexual Violence Reported by Correctional Authorities, 2006 Appendix table 2b. Allegations of staff-on-inmate sexual violence reported by local jail authorities, by type, 2006 Reported allegations of staff sexual misconduct with Reported allegations of staff sexual harassment inmates of inmates Allega- Substanti- Unsub- Investiga- Allega- Substanti- Unsub- Investiga- Jurisdiction and facility tions ated stantiated Unfounded tion ongoing tions ated stantiated Unfounded tion ongoing

Massachusetts Berkshire County 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Essex Countya 000 0 0 // / / / Hampden County 6 5 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 Plymouth County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Suffolk County 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 Worcester County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Michigan Allegan County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Genesee County 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 Gogebic County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Jackson County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Macomb County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Monroe County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Oakland Countya 101 0 0 // / / / Ottawa County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wayne County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Minnesota Hennepin County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mille Lacs County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pipestone County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sherburne Countyb 000 0 0 000 0 0 Washington County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mississippi Adams County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Desoto County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Harrison Countya 100 1 0 // / / / Hinds Countya 000 0 0 // / / / Humphreys County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Issaquena County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Kemper-Neshoda County Reg. Corr. Fac. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Leake County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Winston/Chocktaw Reg. Corr. Fac. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Missouri Cass County 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Howard County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lincoln County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 St Charles County 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 St. Louis City 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 St. Louis County 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Taney County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vernon County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Montana Anaconda-Deer Lodge Countya 000 0 0 // / / / Cascade County 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yellowstone Countya 000 0 0 // / / / Nebraska Clay County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Douglas County 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Lancaster County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nevada Clark County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Las Vegas Citya,d /// / / /// / / Washoe County 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 New Hampshire Rockingham County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Sexual Violence Reported by Correctional Authorities, 2006 25 Appendix table 2b. Allegations of staff-on-inmate sexual violence reported by local jail authorities, by type, 2006 Reported allegations of staff sexual misconduct with Reported allegations of staff sexual harassment of inmates inmates Allega- Substan- Unsub- Investiga- Allega- Substan- Unsub- Investiga- Jurisdiction and facility tions tiated stantiated Unfounded tion ongoing tions tiated stantiated Unfounded tion ongoing New Jersey Atlantic Countya 00 0 0 0 / / / / / Camden County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cape May Countya 00 0 0 0 / / / / / Cumberland County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Essex County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Gloucester County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hudson Countya 10 1 0 0 / / / / / Passaic County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Union County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 New Mexico Bernalillo Countya 53 1 1 0 / / / / / Dona Ana County 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Luna Countya 00 0 0 0 / / / / / Otero County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Quay Countya 00 0 0 0 / / / / / New York Albany County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Allegany Countyb 00 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 Broome County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dutchess County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Erie County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Montgomery County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nassau County 1 0 1 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 New York Citya 20 0 7 10 3 / / / / / Suffolk County 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 North Carolina Buncombe County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cabarrus County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Carteret Countya 00 0 0 0 / / / / / Cumberland Countya 00 0 0 0 / / / / / Gaston Countya 00 0 0 0 / / / / / Mecklenburg County 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rockingham County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Swain County 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Wake County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 North Dakota Burleigh County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rolette County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ohio Cuyahoga County 4 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Franklin County 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Greene County 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hamilton County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Logan County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lorain County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Montgomery Countya 00 0 0 0 / / / / / Noble County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Northwest Ohio Reg. Corr. Ctr.a 10 0 1 0 / / / / / Richland County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Warren County 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Oklahoma Garfield County 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Grady County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Harmon Countyc,d // / / / // / / / Oklahoma County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pawnee County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Oregon Marion County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Multnomah County 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Northern Oregon Reg. Fac.b 00 0 0 0 10 0 1 0 Washington County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

26 Sexual Violence Reported by Correctional Authorities, 2006 Appendix table 2b. Allegations of staff-on-inmate sexual violence reported by local jail authorities, by type, 2006 Reported allegations of staff sexual misconduct with Reported allegations of staff sexual harassment of inmates inmates Allega- Substan- Unsub- Investiga- Allega- Substan- Unsub- Investiga- Jurisdiction and facility tions tiated stantiated Unfounded tion ongoing tions tiated stantiated Unfounded tion ongoing

Pennsylvania Allegheny County 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Beaver County * * * * * * * * * * Berks County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bucks County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Clinton County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Erie County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lycoming County * * * * * * * * * * Philadelphia Prison Systema 16 8 0 0 8 / / / / / Schuykill County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Warren County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Westmoreland County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 York Countya,b 00 0 0 0 / / / / / South Carolina Anderson Countya 00 0 0 0 / / / / / Charleston County 7 0 2 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 Cherokee County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Greenville County * * * * * * * * * * Marlboro County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spartanburg County 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Sumter-Lee Reg. Det. Ctr. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 South Dakota Charles Mix County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pennington County 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Tennessee Blount Countya 00 0 0 0 / / / / / Cheatham Countya 00 0 0 0 / / / / / Clay County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Davidson County 7 1 4 2 0 3 2 1 0 0 Madison County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Marion Countya 00 0 0 0 / / / / / McMinn Countyb 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Shelby County Corr. Ctr. 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Shelby County Justice Ctr. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sullivan County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Washington County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Texas Bell County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bexar Countya 11 0 0 0 / / / / / Culberson County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dallas County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Denton County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ector County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ellis County * * * * * * * * * * El Paso Countya 10 0 0 1 / / / / / Harris County 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 Hays Countya 00 0 0 0 / / / / / Hidalgo County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Live Oak County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 McLennan County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Milam Countya 00 0 0 0 / / / / / Montgomery County 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Orange Countya 00 0 0 0 / / / / / Rusk Countya 00 0 0 0 / / / / / Tarrant Countyc 11 0 0 0 / / / / / Tom Green Countya 00 0 0 0 / / / / / Travis County 2 1 0 1 0 2 2 0 0 0 Walker Countya 00 0 0 0 / / / / / Webb Countya 00 0 0 0 / / / / / Wharton Countya 00 0 0 0 / / / / / Wichita Countya 00 0 0 0 / / / / /

Sexual Violence Reported by Correctional Authorities, 2006 27 Appendix table 2b. Allegations of staff-on-inmate sexual violence reported by local jail authorities, by type, 2006 Reported allegations of staff sexual misconduct with Reported allegations of staff sexual harassment of inmates inmates Allega- Substan- Unsub- Investiga- Allega- Substan-Unsubstan- Investiga- Jurisdiction and facility tions tiated stantiated Unfounded tion ongoing tions tiated tiated Unfounded tion ongoing Utah Daggett County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Davis County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Salt Lake County 4 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 Weber County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Virginia Abingdon Reg. Jail Fac. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Augusta County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Blue Ridge Reg. Jail Auth. 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 Gloucester County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Middle River Reg. Jail 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 New River Valley Reg. Jail 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 Norfolk City 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Northern Neck Reg. Jail 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peumansend Creek Reg. Jaila,b 00 0 0 0 / / / / / Portsmouth Cityb 00 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 Prince William-Manassas Reg. Adult Corr. Ctr.b 10 0 1 0 00 0 0 0 Richmond City 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Riverside Reg. Jail 6 0 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 Virginia Beach Municipala 00 0 0 0 / / / / / Washington Clark County 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cowlitz County 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Issaquah County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 King County 11 2 4 3 2 1 0 0 0 1 Pierce Countyc 00 0 0 0 / / / / / Spokane County 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Whatcom County 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 West Virgina Eastern Reg. Jail 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Marshall County Northern Reg. Jail & Corr. Complex 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 North Central Reg. Jail 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 Raleigh County Southern Reg. 52 3 0 0 11 0 0 0 Jail Wisconsin Dane County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Jefferson County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Milwaukee County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Milwaukee County House of Corr.a 00 0 0 0 / / / / / Outagamie County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Racine County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vernon County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Walworth Countya 10 1 0 0 / / / / / Wyoming Laramie County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Uinta County 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

/Not reported. *No response. aAllegations of staff sexual harrassment could not be counted separately from allegations of staff sexual misconduct. bReports of staff sexual misconduct are based on substantiated allegations only. cReports of staff sexual harrassment are not recorded in a central database. dReports of staff sexual misconduct are not recorded in a central database.

28 Sexual Violence Reported by Correctional Authorities, 2006 Appendix table 3a. Allegations of inmate-on-inmate sexual violence reported in private prisons and jails, 2006 Average Reported inmate-on-inmate nonconsensual sexual acts Reported inmate-on-inmate abusive sexual contacts daily popula- Allega- Substan- Unsubstan- Investiga- Allega- Substan- Unsubstan- Investiga- Jurisdiction and facility tion, 2006 tions tiated tiated Unfounded tion ongoing tions tiated tiated Unfounded tion ongoing

Total 48,594 51 1 19 28 3 6 0 5 0 1

Arizona Eloy Det. Ctr. (CCA)a 1,241 0 0 0 0 0 / / / / / Phoenix CCC (BSS)a 94 0 0 0 0 0 / / / / / California California City Corr. Ctr. (CCA) 2,603 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Central Valley Commu- nity Corr. (GEO) 600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 San Diego County Pro- bation Dept. (CAI) 148 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Taft Corr. Inst. (GEO) 2,330 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Colorado Cheyenne Martain Re- Entry Ctr. (CEC) 467 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Crowley County Corr. Fac. (CCA) 1,277 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Longmont Community Treatment Ctr. (CMI) 62 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Florida Bay Corr. Inst. (CCA) 747 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bay County Jail & Annex (CCA) 850 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 South Bay Corr. Fac. (GEO) 1,856 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Suncoast Work Release Ctr. (Good- will) 105 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Georgia Coffee Corr. Fac. (CCA) 1,680 13 0 0 13 0 2 0 2 0 0 D. Ray James Prison (Cornell) 1,640 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 McRae Corr. Fac. (CCA) 1,665 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Kentucky Owensboro (Dismas) 132 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Louisiana Allen Corr. Ctr. (GEO)a,b 1,540 0 0 0 0 0 / / / / / Minnesota Prairie Corr. Fac. (CCA) 1,480 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mississippi East Mississippi Corr. Fac. (GEO)c 857 0 0 0 0 0 / / / / / Tallahatchie County Corr. Fac. (CCA) 1,002 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wilkinson County Corr. Fac. (CCA) 946 4 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 Montana Crossroads Corr. Ctr. (CCA)a 504 1 0 0 1 0 / / / / / Nevada Cornell Corr. (Cornell)a 75 0 0 0 0 0 / / / / / New Jersey Kintock I, II, III (Kin- tock)a 595 0 0 0 0 0 / / / / / New Mexico New Mexico Women's Corr. Fac. (CCA)b 616 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Sexual Violence Reported by Correctional Authorities, 2006 29 Appendix table 3a. Allegations of inmate-on-inmate sexual violence reported in private prisons and jails, 2006 (cont.)

Average Reported inmate-on-inmate nonconsensual sexual acts Reported inmate-on-inmate abusive sexual contacts daily popula- Allega- Substanti- Unsub- Investiga- Allega- Substan- Unsub- Investiga- Jurisdiction and facility tion, 2006 tions ated stantiated Unfounded tion ongoing tions tiated stantiated Unfounded tion ongoing Ohio Fresh Start, Inc. 85 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lake Erie Corr. Inst. (MTC) 1,464 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Oklahoma Center Point, Inc.a 150 0 0 0 0 0 / / / / / Cimarron Corr. Fac. (CCA) 963 3 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diamondback Corr. Fac. (CCA) 1,980 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lawton Corr. Fac. (GEO)a 2,016 10 0 5 3 2 / / / / / Pennsylvania George W. Hill Corr. Fac. (GEO) 1,801 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Kintock Pre-Release (Kintock) 283 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tennessee Hardeman County Corr. Ctr. (CCA)b 1,966 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Davidson County Det. Fac. (CCA) 992 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 South Central Corr. Ctr. (CCA) 1,634 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 Texas Bartlett (CCA) 996 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 B.M. Moore (CCA) 498 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bridgeport Pre- Parole Fac. (CCA) 519 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dawson State Jail (CCA)a 2,182 0 0 0 0 0 / / / / / Dickens County Corr. Ctr. (GEO)a 474 0 0 0 0 0 / / / / / Mineral Wells Pre- Parole Fac. (CCA)a 2,075 1 0 0 1 0 / / / / / Reeves County Det. Ctr. (GEO) 780 6 0 6 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 Willacy County State Jail (CCA)a 1,057 3 0 0 3 0 / / / / /

Virginia Lawrenceville Corr. Ctr. (GEO) 1,567 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Note: Initials identify the following: BSS - Behavioral Systems Southwest. CAI - Correctional Alternatives Incorporated. CCA - Corrections Corporation of America. CEC - Community Education Center. CMI - Correctional Management, Inc. Cornell - Cornell Companies, Incorporated. GEO - Global Exper- tise in Outsourcing. MTC - Management and Training Corporation. /Not reported. aAllegations of abusive sexual contacts could not be counted separately from allegations of nonconsensual sexual acts. bAllegations limited to substantiated occurrences only. cDoes not record allegations of abusive sexual contact in a central database.

30 Sexual Violence Reported by Correctional Authorities, 2006 Appendix table 3b. Allegations of staff-on-inmate sexual violence reported in private prisons and jails, by type, 2006 Reported allegations of staff sexual misconduct with inmates Reported allegations of staff sexual harassment of inmates Allega- Substan- Unsubstan- Investiga- Allega- Substan- Unsubstan- Investiga- Jurisdiction and facility tions tiated tiated Unfounded tion ongoing tions tiated tiated Unfounded tion ongoing Total 39 6 21 7 5 11 0 3 0 8

Arizona Eloy Det. Ctr. (CCA)a 00 0 0 0 / / / / / Phoenix CCC (BSS)a,b 00 0 0 0 / / / / / California California City Corr. Ctr. (CCA) 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Central Valley Community Corr. (GEO) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 San Diego County Proba- tion Dept. (CAI) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Taft Corr. Inst. (GEO) 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Colorado Cheyenne Martain Re-Entry Ctr. (CEC) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Crowley County Corr. Fac. (CCA) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Longmont Community Treat- ment Ctr. (CMI) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Florida Bay Corr. Inst. (CCA) 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bay County Jail & Annex (CCA) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 South Bay Corr. Fac. (GEO) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Suncoast Work Release Ctr. (Goodwill) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Georgia Coffee Corr. Fac. (CCA) 11 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D. Ray James Prison (Cor- nell) 4 0 0 0 4 8 0 0 0 8 McRae Corr. Fac. (CCA) 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Kentucky Owensboro (Dismas) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Louisiana Allen Corr. Ctr. (GEO)b 00 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 Minnesota Prairie Corr. Fac. (CCA) 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Mississippi East Mississippi Corr. Fac. (GEO) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tallahatchie County Corr. Fac. (CCA) 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wilkinson County Corr. Fac. (CCA) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Montana Crossroads Corr. Ctr. (CCA)a 00 0 0 0 / / / / / Nevada Cornell Corr. (Cornell)a 00 0 0 0 / / / / / New Jersey Kintock I, II, III (Kintock) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 New Mexico New Mexico Women's Corr. Fac. (CCA) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ohio Fresh Start, Inc. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lake Erie Corr. Inst. (MTC) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Sexual Violence Reported by Correctional Authorities, 2006 31 Appendix table 3b. Allegations of staff-on-inmate sexual violence reported in private prisons and jails, by type, 2006 (cont.) Reported allegations of staff sexual misconduct with inmates Reported allegations of staff sexual harassment of inmates Allega- Substan- Unsubstan- Investiga- Allega- Substan- Unsubstan- Investiga- Jurisdiction and facility tions tiated tiated Unfounded tion ongoing tions tiated tiated Unfounded tion ongoing Oklahoma Center Point, Inc. 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cimarron Corr. Fac. (CCA) 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diamondback Corr. Fac. (CCA) 4 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lawton Corr. Fac. (GEO)a 32 0 1 0 // / / / Pennsylvania George W. Hill Corr. Fac. (GEO) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Kintock Pre-Release (Kin- tock) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tennessee Hardeman County Corr. Ctr. (CCA) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Davidson County Det. Fac. (CCA) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 South Central Corr. Ctr. (CCA) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Texas Bartlett (CCA) 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 B.M. Moore (CCA) 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bridgeport Pre-Parole Fac. (CCA)a 10 0 1 0 // / / / Dawson State Jail (CCA)a 00 0 0 0 // / / / Dickens County Corr. Ctr. (GEO)a 11 0 0 0 // / / / Mineral Wells Pre-Parole Fac. (CCA)a 00 0 0 0 // / / / Reeves County Det. Ctr. (GEO) 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Willacy County State Jail (CCA)a 00 0 0 0 // / / / Virginia Lawrenceville Corr. Ctr. (GEO) 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Note: Initials identify the following: BSS - Behavioral Systems Southwest. CAI - Correctional Alternatives Incorporated. CCA - Corrections Corporation of America. CEC - Community Education Center. CMI - Correctional Management, Inc. Cornell - Cornell Companies, Incorporated. GEO - Global Expertise in Outsourcing. MTC - Management and Training Corporation. /Not reported. aReports of staff sexual misconduct may include reports of staff sexual harassment. bReports of staff sexual misconduct are based on substantiated allegations only.

32 Sexual Violence Reported by Correctional Authorities, 2006 Appendix table 4a. Allegations of inmate-on-inmate sexual violence reported in other correctional facilties, by type, 2006 Reported inmate-on-inmate nonconsensual sexual acts Reported inmate-on-inmate abusive sexual contacts Average daily popula- Allega- Substan- Unsub- Investiga- Allega- Substanti- Unsub- Investiga- Jurisdiction and facility tion, 2006 tions tiated stantiated Unfounded tion ongoing tions ated stantiated Unfounded tion ongoing

U.S. Military

Total 1,937 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 Air Force 91 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Army 1,019 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Marines 194 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Navy 633 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Total 8,033 3 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Aguadilla, PR 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Aurora, CO 381 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Batavia, NY 454 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 El Centro, CA 456 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Elizabeth, NJ 297 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 El Paso, TXa,b,c 785 0 0 0 0 0 / / / / / Florence, AZa 617 0 0 0 0 0 / / / / / Houston, TXa 830 0 0 0 0 0 / / / / / Laredo, TX 335 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Los Fresnos, TX 810 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Miami, FL 677 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 San Diego, CA 1,196 3 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 San Pedro, CA 388 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tacoma, WA a 775 0 0 0 0 0 / / / / / Jails in Indian Country Total 279 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Gila River Dept. of Corr. & Rehab., AZa 51 0 0 0 0 0 / / / / / Hopi Rehab. Ctr., AZ 51 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Klyuska O'Tipi Rein- tegration Ctr., SDa 50 0 0 0 0 / / / / / Ponca Tribal Police Dept., OK 63 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Red Lake Law Enforcement Ser- vices, MN 43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rocky Boy Police Dept., MT 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rosebud Sioux Tribe Law Enforcement, SD 43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Taos Tribal Det. Ctr., NM 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yakama Police Dept., WA 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

/Not reported. aAllegations of abusive sexual contacts could not be counted separately from allegations of nonconsensual sexual acts. bAllegations limited to substantiated incidents only. cAllegations limited to completed acts only.

Sexual Violence Reported by Correctional Authorities, 2006 33 Appendix table 4b. Allegations of staff-on-inmate sexual violence reported in other correctional facilities, by type, 2006 Reported allegations of staff sexual misconduct with inmates Reported allegations of staff sexual harassment of inmates Allega- Substan- Unsub- Investiga- Allega- Substan- Unsub- Investigation Jurisdiction and facility tions tiated stantiated Unfounded tion ongoing tions tiated stantiated Unfounded ongoing

U.S. Military Total 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Air Force 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Army 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Marines 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Navy 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Total 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 Aguadilla, PR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Aurora, CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Batavia, NY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 El Centro, CA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Elizabeth, NJ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 El Paso, TX 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Florence, AZ 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Houston, TX* 0 0 0 0 0 / / / / / Laredo, TX 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Los Fresnos, TX 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Miami, FL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 San Diego, CA 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 San Pedro, CA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tacoma, WA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Jails in Indian Country Total 3 0 0 3 0 1 1 0 0 0 Gila River Dept. of Corr. & Rehab. AZ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hopi Rehab. Ctr., AZ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Klyuska O'Tipi Reintegra- tion Ctr., SD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ponca Tribal Police Dept., OK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Red Lake Law Enforce- ment Services, MN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rocky Boy Police Dept., MT 2 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 Rosebud Sioux Tribe Law Enforcement, SD 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Taos Tribal Det. Ctr., NM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yakama Police Dept., WA 000 0 0 00 0 0 0 /Not reported. *Reports of staff sexual misconduct may include reports of staff sexual harassment.

34 Sexual Violence Reported by Correctional Authorities, 2006 Appendix table 5. Characteristics of victims in Appendix table 6. Characteristics of perpetrators in substantiated incidents of inmate-on-inmate sexual substantiated incidents of inmate-on-inmate sexual violence, by type, 2006 violence, by type, 2006 a Characteristic All facilitiesa Prison Jail Characteristic All facilities Prison Jail

Number of incidents 410 272 132 Number of incidents 410 272 132 Number of victims Number of perpetrators 1 92% 92% 93% 1 90% 90% 90% 27862675 31<113225 4 or more <1 <1 0 4 or more 1 1 0 b Genderb Gender Male 82% 80% 84% Male 85% 82% 92% Female 18 20 16 Female 15 18 8 b Ageb Age Under 18 4% 1% 13% Under 18 1% 1% 0% 18-24 40 37 44 18-24 19 20 14 25-29 18 21 14 25-29 21 16 31 30-34 12 15 6 30-34 19 19 19 35-39 10 7 15 35-39 13 15 9 40-44 6 8 3 40-44 12 9 18 45 or older 9 11 5 45 or older 16 19 9 b Race/Hispanic originb Race/Hispanic origin c Whitec 72% 76% 65% White 39% 48% 22% c Blackc 16 13 21 Black 49 43 60 Hispanic 9 8 12 Hispanic 10 7 15 c,d Otherc,d 331 Other 224 Note: Detail may not sum to 100% due to rounding. aIncludes substantiated incidents reported by private prisons a and jails, Indian country jails, and facilities operated by the Includes substantiated incidents reported by private prisons and U.S. military and ICE. jails, Indian country jails, and facilities operated by the U.S. military and ICE. bBased on characteristics of victims for whom gender (443), b age (442), or race/Hispanic origin (445) were reported. Based on characteristics of perpetrators for whom gender (448), age (443), or race/Hispanic origin (444) were reported. cExcludes perpetrators of Hispanic origin. cExcludes perpetrators of Hispanic origin. dIncludes American Indians, Alaska Natives, Asians, Native d Hawaiians, and Other Pacific Islanders. Includes American Indians, Alaska Natives, Asians, Native Hawai- ians, and Other Pacific Islanders.

Sexual Violence Reported by Correctional Authorities, 2006 35 Appendix table 7. Circumstances surrounding substantiated incidents of inmate-on-inmate sexual violence, by type, 2006 Nonconsensual Abusive sexual All facilities* Prison Jail sexual acts contacts Number of incidents 409 272 131 250 159

Type of pressure or force None 21% 21% 18% 14% 31% Force/threat of force 58 53 70 67 44 Threatened with physical harm 32 24 47 43 14 Physically held down or restrained 34 27 51 38 28 Physically harmed or injured 15 15 16 18 10 Threatened with a weapon 2 2 4 4 0 Persuasion or talked into it 30 32 29 32 28 Bribery/blackmail 3 3 4 3 4 Gave victim drugs/alcohol 1 <1 2 1 0 Offered protection from other inmates 3 3 3 4 1 Where occurred In victim's cell/room 64% 57% 79% 76% 46% In perpetrator's cell/room 5 6 5 5 6 In a dormitory 9 10 7 6 14 In a common area 17 22 7 11 26 In temporary holding area <1 0 1 0 1 In a program service area 6 8 2 5 6 Outside the facility 2 1 2 <1 3 While in transit <1 <1 0 0 1 Time of dayb 6 a.m. to noon 20% 22% 15% 17% 24% Noon to 6 p.m. 26 28 21 18 37 6 p.m. to midnight 45 46 41 47 41 Midnight to 6 a.m. 26 20 37 32 17 Who reported the incident Victim 70% 66% 75% 72% 65% Another inmate 13 10 21 16 9 Family of victim 1 2 0 <1 2 Correctional officer 17 23 5 12 24 Administrative staff 2 1 2 0 4 Medical/healthcare staff 1 2 0 1 1 Counselor/teacher <1 <1 0 <1 0 Chaplain/other religious official 1 1 0 1 0

Note: Detail may sum to more than 100% because multiple responses were allowed for each item. *Includes substantiated incidents reported by private prisons and jails, Indian country jails, and facilities operated by the U.S. military and ICE.

36 Sexual Violence Reported by Correctional Authorities, 2006 Appendix table 8. Impact on victim and perpetrator in substantiated incidents of inmate-on- inmate sexual violence, by type, 2006 Nonconsensual Abusive sexual Incident impact All facilitiesa Prison Jail sexual acts contacts Victim injured No 80% 81% 76% 74% 87% Yesb 20 19 24 26 13 Anal/vaginal tearing 5 6 5 8 1 Teeth chipped/knocked out 1 0 2 1 0 Bruises, black eye, sprains, cuts, scratches, swelling 13 12 15 14 12 Medical followup for victim Given medical examination 60% 54% 74% 70% 45% Administered rape kit 22 20 28 34 3 Tested for HIV/AIDS 11 11 13 19 0 Tested for other STD 12 11 14 19 0 Provided counseling or mental health treatment 50 56 40 53 45 None of the above 22 25 16 17 30 Change in housing/custody for victim Placed in administrative segregation or protective custody 40% 46% 30% 45% 31% Placed in medical unit 13 7 24 19 3 Confined to own cell/room 9 10 5 7 11 Given higher custody level 2 2 2 2 1 Transferred to another facility/elsewhere in facility 16 21 7 16 17 Other (reported after release/transfer) 6 2 15 7 4 None of the above 24 26 20 16 39 Sanction imposed on perpetrator Solitary/disciplinary 78% 77% 81% 81% 75% Confined to own cell/room 16 17 13 18 12 Placed in higher custody 22 21 26 24 20 Transferred to another facility 22 25 16 24 17 Loss of good time 24 26 20 20 31 Given extra work 2 2 0 2 1 Loss of privileges 20 25 12 23 16 Legal action 41 30 67 56 18 Arrested 16 3 42 21 6 Referred for prosecution 33 26 49 46 13 Given new sentence 5 4 9 6 4 Disciplinary report issued 5 7 0 4 6 Note: Detail may sum to more than 100% because multiple responses were allowed for each item. aIncludes substantiated incidents reported by private prisons and jails, Indian country jails, and facilities operated by the U.S. military and ICE. bThe categories "knife or stab wounds," “broken bones,” "internal injuries," and "knocked unconscious" were not marked in any incident.

Sexual Violence Reported by Correctional Authorities, 2006 37 U.S. Department of Justice Embargoed for release to the public until Sunday, Office of Justice Programs December 16, 2007, at 4:00 p.m. EST.

Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report

December 2007, NCJ 219414 Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007 State and Federal prisoners reporting sexual By Allen J. Beck, Ph.D. victimization, 2007 and Paige M. Harrison, National estimate BJS Statisticians Type* Number Percent

The Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-79) Total 60,500 4.5% requires the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) to carry out, Inmate-on-inmate 27,500 2.1% for each calendar year, a comprehensive statistical review Nonconsensual sexual acts 16,800 1.3 and analysis of the incidence and effects of prison rape. Abusive sexual contacts only 10,600 0.8 This report fulfills the requirement under Sec. 4(c)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act to provide a listing of State and Federal prisons Staff sexual misconduct 38,600 2.9% Unwilling activity 22,600 1.7% ranked according to the incidence of prison rape. Excluding touching 16,900 1.3 Between April and August 2007, BJS completed the first Touching only 5,700 0.4 National Inmate Survey (NIS) of 146 State and Federal Willing activity 22,700 1.7% prisons. The survey, conducted by RTI International Excluding touching 20,600 1.5 (Research Triangle Park, NC), was restricted to adult con- Touching only 2,100 0.2 finement facilities, including prisons, penitentiaries, prison Note: Detail may not sum to total because inmates may report more than one type of victimization. They may also report victimization by hospitals, prison farms, boot camps, and centers for recep- both other inmates and staff. tion, classification, or alcohol and drug treatment. The NIS *See Methodology for definition of terms. excluded community-based facilities, such as halfway houses, group homes, and work release centers. The sam- Inmate self-reports provide a basis for comparing and ple was designed in accordance with the requirement that ranking facilities BJS draw a random sample, or other scientifically appropri- Past surveys of administrative records could not provide ate sample, of not less than 10% of prison facilities. (See reliable facility-level estimates of sexual violence because Methodology for sample description.) they were limited to incidents reported to correctional Unlike previous BJS surveys of sexual violence that were authorities. Some victims may be reluctant to report inci- based on administrative records, the NIS collected reports dents to correctional authorities due to lack of trust in staff, of sexual violence directly from inmates. The NIS survey fear of reprisal from perpetrators, a code of silence among consisted of an Audio Computer-Assisted Self Interview inmates, or personal embarrassment. Moreover, adminis- (ACASI) in which inmates, using a touch-screen, interacted trative records may vary in the way incidents and allega- with a computer-assisted questionnaire and followed audio tions are defined, reported, and recorded, which further instructions delivered via headphones. A small number of complicate facility-level comparisons. inmates (2% of all participants in the survey) completed a The NIS is a self-administered survey which provides ano- short paper form. These were inmates housed primarily in nymity to respondents and encourages fuller reporting of administrative or disciplinary segregation or considered too victimization. The survey employs computer-assisted tech- violent to be interviewed. nology to provide more uniform conditions under which inmates complete the survey. Facility-level comparisons in the NIS are further enhanced through the application of sta- specific body parts in a sexual way. (See Methodology for tistical methods that ensure that the estimates reflect the specific survey questions and definitions.) entire population of each facility, rather than only the Among inmates reporting experiences of sexual miscon- inmates who participated in the survey. (See Methodology duct by staff, the number that reported they had sex or sex- for sample description and non-response adjustments.) ual contact willingly (22,700) was nearly identical to those For purposes of calculating comparative rates, the NIS lim- who reported contact as a result of physical force, pres- ited the reports of sexual victimization to incidents that sure, or offers of special favors or privileges (22,600). A occurred at the sampled facilities during the 12 months majority of victims of staff misconduct reported activity prior to the date of the interview. Inmates who had served beyond simple touching in a sexual way. less than 12 months were asked about their experiences since they had arrived at the facility. 10 facilities had prevalence rates of 9.3% or greater; Despite efforts of survey staff to reassure inmates that their 6 facilities had no reported incidents survey responses about sexual violence would be kept Among the 146 prison facilities in the 2007 NIS, 6 had no confidential, some inmates may not have felt confident to reports of sexual victimization from the sampled inmates; report experiences of sexual victimization since admission 10 had an overall victimization rate of at least 9.3% (table or in the past 12 months. At the same time, some inmates 1). Though other measures may be considered when com- may have made false allegations. In 2006, about a quarter paring facilities, the overall victimization rate is a measure of the allegations brought to the attention of State and Fed- of prevalence that includes all experiences, regardless of eral correctional authorities, upon completion of an official the level of coercion and type of sexual activity. investigation, were determined to have been unfounded (not to have occurred).1 Although the effects may be offsetting, the relative extent of underreporting Table 1. Prison facilities with highest and lowest prevalence and false reporting in the NIS is unknown. of sexual victimization, National Inmate Survey, 2007 Percent of inmates reporting sexual vic- An estimated 60,500 inmates experienced one timizationa or more incidents of sexual victimization Number of Response Weighted Standard Facility name respondentsb rate percentc errord Among the 23,398 inmates who participated in the 2007 survey, 1,109 reported one or more incidents U.S. total 23,398 72% 4.5% 0.3% of sexual victimization. Because the NIS is a sam- 10 highest ple survey, weights were applied for sampled facil- Estelle Unit, TX 197 84 15.7 2.6 ities and inmates within facilities to produce Clements Unit, TX 142 59 13.9 2.9 national-level and facility-level estimates of sexual Tecumseh State Corr. Inst., NE 85 39 13.4 4.0 Charlotte Corr. Inst., FL 163 73 12.1 2.7 violence. The estimated number of State and Fed- Great Meadow Corr. Fac., NY 144 62 11.3 2.7 eral inmates experiencing sexual violence totaled Rockville Corr. Fac., INe 169 79 10.8 2.4 60,500 (or 4.5% of the Nation’s prisoners). Valley State Prison for Women, CAe 181 78 10.3 2.3 Allred Unit, TX 186 71 9.9 2.2 Nationwide, about 2.1% of inmates (27,500) Mountain View Unit, TXe 154 80 9.5 1.9 reported an incident involving another inmate, and Coffield Unit, TX 194 76 9.3 2.1 2.9% (38,600) reported an incident involving staff. 6 lowestf Some inmates (0.5%) said they had been sexually Ironwood State Prison, CA 141 60% 0.0% ~ victimized by both other inmates and staff. Penitentiary of New Mexico, NM 83 38 0.0 ~ Gates Corr. Ctr., NC 52 74 0.0 ~ The NIS screened for specific sexual activities. Bennettsville-Camp, BOP 77 69 0.0 ~ Using uniform definitions of sexual violence devel- Big Spring Corr. Inst., BOPe 155 66 0.0 ~ oped by BJS in 2004, reports of inmate-on-inmate Schuylkill Fed. Corr. Inst., BOP 174 70 0.0 ~ sexual violence were classified as either noncon- Note: BOP refers to the Bureau of Prisons. sensual sexual acts or abusive sexual contacts ~Not applicable. a only. Approximately 1.3% of all inmates (16,800, Percent of inmates reporting one or more incidents of sexual victimization involving another inmate or facility staff in past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if nationwide) said they had nonconsensual sex with shorter. another inmate, including giving or receiving sex- bNumber of respondents selected for the NIS on sexual victimization. ual gratification and oral, anal or vaginal sex. An cWeights were applied so that inmates who responded accurately reflected the entire additional 0.8% of all inmates (10,600) said they population of each facility on selected characteristics, including age, gender, race, had only experienced an abusive sexual contact, time served, and sentence length. (See Methodology for details.) d that is, unwanted touching by another inmate of Standard errors may be used to construct confidence intervals around the weighted survey estimates. For example, the 95% confidence intervals around the total percent is 4.5% plus or minus 1.96 times 0.3% (or 3.9% to 5.1%). ______eFemale facility. 1See Sexual Violence Reported by Correctional Authorities, f 2006, at . Facilities in which no incidents of sexual victimization were reported by inmates.

2 Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007 Statistically, the NIS is unable to identify the facility with Table 2. Prison facilities with the highest prevalence the highest prevalence rate. Since the estimates are of sexual victimization, by another inmate or staff, National based on a sample of inmates, rather than a complete Inmate Survey, 2007 enumeration, they are subject to sampling error. The pre- Percent of inmates reporting sexual cision of each facility-level estimate can be calculated victimizationa based on the estimated standard error. For example, the Inmate-on- Staff-on- victimization rate of 15.7% recorded for the Estelle Unit Facility name Totalb inmate inmate (Texas) has a precision of plus or minus 5.1% with a 95% U.S. total 4.5% 2.1% 2.9% level of confidence. This precision, based on the standard Estelle Unit, TX 15.7 8.5 7.6 error of 2.6% multiplied by 1.96, implies that we are 95% Clements Unit, TX 13.9 3.3 11.6 confident that the true prevalence rate in the Estelle Unit is Tecumseh State Corr. Inst., NE 13.4 1.2 12.2 between 10.6% and 20.8%. Charlotte Corr. Inst., FL 12.1 1.1 11.4 Great Meadow Corr. Fac., NY 11.3 3.0 9.6 As a consequence of sampling error, the NIS cannot pro- Rockville Corr. Fac., INc 10.8 10.2 2.0 vide an exact ranking for all facilities as required under the Valley State Prison for Women, CAc 10.3 7.9 5.3 Prison Rape Elimination Act. However, detailed tabula- Allred Unit, TX 9.9 4.8 6.7 c tions of the survey results by facility and State are pre- Mountain View Unit, TX 9.5 8.7 3.4 sented in Appendix tables 1 through 9. Facility prevalence Coffield Unit, TX 9.3 4.4 5.7 rates vary by level and type of victimization, and observed Note: Detail may add to more than total because respondents may report victimization by both another inmate and staff. differences between facilities will not always be statisti- aIncludes all types of sexual victimization, including oral, anal, or vaginal cally significant. Consequently, these measures cannot be penetration, handjobs, touching of the inmate's butt, thighs, penis, breasts, used to reliably rank facilities from 1 (the highest) to 146 or vagina in a sexual way, and other sexual acts. (See Methodology for sur- (the lowest). vey items.) bPercent of inmates reporting one or more incidents of sexual victimization Despite limitations of sampling errors, the NIS does pro- involving another inmate or facility staff in past 12 months or since admission vide the ability to statistically identify a small group of facil- to the facility, if shorter. ities with the highest rates of sexual victimization. Based cFemale facility. on the confidence interval around the Estelle Unit (15.7% plus or minus 5.1%), 6 facilities would be included in the Table 3. Prison facilities with the highest prevalence interval, but these facilities also have estimated rates with of sexual victimization, by type, National Inmate Survey, 2007 surrounding confidence intervals. By placing a 95%-confi- Percent of inmates reporting sexual dence interval around the difference between the Estelle assaulta Unit and the Coffield Unit (Texas), we can identify a group Nonconsen- Abusive of 10 facilities with the highest prevalence of sexual victim- Total sual sexual sexual Facility name prevalencea actsb contactsc ization. Since the confidence interval around the observed difference (6.4% plus or minus 6.5%) includes zero, the U.S. total 4.5% 3.3% 1.3% Coffield Unit is considered statistically similar to the Estelle Estelle Unit, TX 15.7 11.3 4.4 Clements Unit, TX 13.9 8.1 5.8 Unit. However, facilities with rates lower than the Coffield Tecumseh State Corr. Inst., NE 13.4 11.2 2.2 Unit (9.3%) would be considered statistically different Charlotte Corr. Inst., FL 12.1 12.1 0.0 (assuming a standard error of 2.1%). (See Methodology Great Meadow Corr. Fac., NY 11.3 6.1 5.3 for calculation of confidence intervals comparing facilities.) Rockville Corr. Fac., INd 10.8 6.6 4.2 Valley State Prison for Women, CAd 10.3 2.4 7.9 Allred Unit, TX 9.9 8.0 1.9 Identification of the 3 facilities with the highest rates Mountain View Unit, TXd 9.5 3.4 6.2 of sexual victimization depends on non-statistical Coffield Unit, TX 9.3 7.7 1.5 judgments aPercent of inmates reporting one or more incidents of sexual victimization involving another inmate or facility staff in past 12 months or since admission Among the 10 facilities with the highest overall prevalence to the facility, if shorter. (See Methodology for definitions.) Weights were rates, 3 had prevalence rates of staff sexual misconduct applied so that inmates who responded accurately reflected the entire popu- that exceeded 10% (table 2). The rate was highest in lation of each facility on selected characteristics, including age, gender, race, time served, and sentence length. (See Methodology for nonresponse and Tecumseh State Correctional Institution (Nebraska), in post-stratification weighting procedures.) which 12.2% of inmates reported one or more incidents of bIncludes allegations of oral, anal, and vaginal penetration, handjobs, and staff sexual misconduct. This rate was followed by a rate reports of other sexual acts. of 11.6% in the Clements Unit (Texas) and 11.4% in the cIncludes allegations of unwanted touching only. Charlotte Correctional Institution (Florida). Among these 3 dFemale facility. facilities, the Charlotte facility had the smallest standard error (2.6%); its 95%-confidence interval ranged from 6.3% to 16.5%.

Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007 3 Rockville Correctional Facility (Indiana) had the highest An estimated 0.8% of inmates nationwide reported being reported rate of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization; injured as a result of the sexual victimization. Approxi- 10.2% of inmates reported one or more incidents. Its 95%- mately 0.5% of the inmates had been injured by another confidence interval ranged from 5.7% to 14.7%. Three inmate, and 0.3% had been injured by staff. Injuries other facilities had rates that exceeded 5%: Mountain View included anal or vaginal tearing, knife or stab wounds, bro- Unit (Texas), 8.7%; Estelle Unit (Texas), 8.5%; and Valley ken bones, chipped or knocked out teeth, internal injuries, State Prison for Women (California), 7.9%. bruises, black eyes, sprains, cuts, scratches, swelling, or welts. For more serious types of sexual victimization (e.g., nonconsensual acts among inmates and unwilling sexual con- Although injury rates from sexual victimization were gener- tact with staff involving more than touching), 3 facilities had ally low, 2 facilities among the 10 with the highest preva- rates of 10% or higher (table 3). Charlotte Correctional lence of overall victimization had rates of injury by other Institution had the highest rate of nonconsensual sexual inmates that exceeded 3% (table 4). Rockville Correctional acts (12.1%), followed by Estelle Unit (11.3%) and Tecum- Facility (3.7%) and Allred Unit (3.3%) had the highest rates seh State Correctional Institution(11.2%). The confidence of inmate-on-inmate injury. Tecumseh State Correctional interval for the Charlotte Correctional Institution was 6.8% Institution (3.9%) and Clements Unit (3.1%) had the highest to 17.4%. rates of injury resulting from staff sexual misconduct. Similar to types of sexual victimization, levels of coercion Using these different measures of sexual victimization, also varied among facilities. Among the 10 facilities with the comparisons among the 10 facilities with the highest overall highest overall prevalence of sexual victimization, 3 facili- rates may be made. The 3 highest facilities may be ties had high levels of physical force in inmate-on-inmate selected based on one or more of these measures. victimization. The Mountain View Unit (Texas) had the highest percent of inmates reporting physical force by another inmate (7.5%), followed by the Rockville Correctional Facil- ity (6.5%) and the Estelle Unit (5.1%). Inmates in 2 facilities reported high rates of physical force used by staff: Tecum- seh State Correctional Institution (7.5%) and Great Meadow Correctional Facility (6.0%).

Table 4. Prison facilities with the highest prevalence of sexual assault, by another inmate or staff and by level of force and injury, National Inmate Survey, 2007 Inmate-on-inmate sexual assault Staff-on-inmate sexual assault Total Physically Physically Reported Facility name prevalencea forced Pressured Injuredb forced Pressured as willing Injuredb U.S. total 4.5% 1.3% 1.7% 0.5% 0.9% 1.5% 1.7% 0.3% Estelle Unit, TX 15.7 5.1 7.9 2.0 0.9 4.4 5.2 0.4 Clements Unit, TX 13.9 1.7 3.3 1.0 4.1 6.8 5.6 3.1 Tecumseh State Corr. Inst., NE 13.4 0.0 1.2 0.0 7.5 11.8 5.9 3.9 Charlotte Corr. Inst., FL 12.1 0.6 1.1 0.0 2.6 6.1 5.7 0.0 Great Meadow Corr. Fac., NY 11.3 1.0 2.8 0.0 6.0 6.3 2.8 2.0 Rockville Corr. Fac., INc 10.8 6.5 7.5 3.7 0.5 1.1 0.9 0.6 Valley State Prison for Women, CAc 10.3 4.7 5.9 1.5 1.5 3.3 3.3 0.9 Allred Unit, TX 9.9 3.6 3.2 3.3 2.8 3.2 2.3 0.9 Mountain View Unit, TXc 9.5 7.5 6.8 2.7 0.7 3.0 1.4 2.1 Coffield Unit, TX 9.3 2.1 3.9 0.0 0.4 1.4 4.3 0.0 Note: Detail may add to more than totals because victims may report more than one type of victimization, injury, and type of force. aPercent of inmates reporting one or more incidents of sexual victimization involving another inmate or facility staff in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if shorter. (See Methodology for definitions.) Weights were applied so that inmates who responded accurately reflected the entire population of each facility on selected characteristics, including age, gender, race, time served, and sentence length. (See Methodology for nonresponse and post-stratification weighting procedures.) bInjuries included knife or stab wounds, broken bones, anal or rectal tearing, teeth chipped or knocked out, internal injuries, knocked unconscious, bruises, black eyes, sprains, cuts, scratches, swelling, or welts. cFemale facility.

4 Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007 Inmates reported an estimated 189,400 incidents of 56 incidents of inmate-on-inmate nonconsensual sexual nonconsensual sexual acts with other inmates or staff acts per 1,000 inmates and 85 incidents of unwilling sexual contacts with staff per 1,000 inmates were reported. In the 2007 NIS inmates were also asked the number of times they had experienced each type of sexual victimization. For each type, inmates were asked to select one of 14 facilities had nonconsensual sex rates of 300 or four pre-coded categories: 1 time, 2 times, 3 to 10 times, or more incidents per 1,000 inmates 11 times or more. Categories containing ranges were pro- Among the 146 prison facilities in the 2007 NIS, 14 had vided, rather than more detailed categories, because of incident rates of nonconsensual sex that exceeded 300 concerns that (1) some inmates would be unable to accu- incidents per 1,000 inmates (table 5). The 5 facilities rately report exact counts and (2) some inmates would be recording the highest prevalence rates also recorded the re-traumatized by a request to recount each incident. The highest incident rates. Tecumseh State Correctional Institu- total number of incidents by type in each facility was esti- tion (with 931 incidents of nonconsensual sex per 1,000 mated by assigning the value 5 to the category of 3 to 10 inmates) had the highest rate, followed by the Charlotte times and 12 to the category of 11 times or more. (See Correctional Institution (515 per 1,000) and the Clements Methodology for additional details.) Unit (477 per 1,000). In each of these facilities, unwilling sexual contact with staff was the most frequently reported Based on these measures, the 1,109 inmates participating type of sexual victimization. in the NIS who reported one or more allegations of sexual victimization said they had experienced a total of 1,428 More than 109,300 incidents nationwide involved “willing” incidents of nonconsensual sexual activity with another sexual contacts with staff. These incidents of staff sexual inmate and 2,028 incidents of unwilling sexual contact with misconduct, though reported as willing by inmates, are staff. Taking into account weights for sampling facilities and considered nonconsensual by law. A total of 82 such inci- inmates within facilities, the estimated number of incidents dents of staff sexual misconduct per 1,000 inmates were nationwide totaled 189,400 (75,300 nonconsensual sexual reported as willing. Among facilities, inmates in the Tecum- acts with other inmates and 114,100 incidents of unwilling seh State Correctional Institution (Nebraska) reported the sexual contact with staff). highest incident rates of willing sexual contact with staff (447 per 1,000), followed by inmates in the St. Brides Cor- Expressed as a rate, nationwide an estimated 141 inci- rectional Center in Virginia (408 per 1,000) (See Appendix dents of sexual victimization per 1,000 inmates held in table 9). State and Federal prisons were reported by inmates. This excludes unwanted touching by other inmates and willing sexual contacts with staff. By type of incident, an estimated Further analyses of sexual victimization and facility variations underway In response to other provisions of the Prison Rape Elimina- Table 5. Prison facilities with the highest number tion Act, BJS will conduct further analyses of sexual victim- of incidents of nonconsensual sexual acts per 1,000 ization and facility variations. Expected to be completed by inmates, National Inmate Survey, 2007 June 30, 2008, these analyses will examine victim charac- Number of incidents per 1,000 teristics and provide detailed descriptions of the circum- inmates Inmate-on- Staff-on- stances surrounding reported incidents. They will include Facility name Total inmatea inmateb items on characteristics of perpetrators, reporting of incidents to staff or others, reasons for not reporting, and sub- U.S. total 141 56 85 Tecumseh State Corr. Inst., NE 931 62 869 sequent actions taken by administrators. In addition, BJS Charlotte Corr. Inst., FL 515 18 498 will examine characteristics of facilities that may correlate Clements Unit, TX 477 135 342 with sexual victimization, such as size, crowding, types of Estelle Unit, TX 438 278 160 inmates held, security level, staff-to-inmate ratios, staff Great Meadow Corr. Fac., NY 393 45 348 Utah State Prison, UTc 376 284 92 characteristics, and rates of assault on inmates and staff. Mule Creek State Prison, CA 373 267 106 Facility characteristics are based on data from the 2005 R.J. Donovan Corr. Fac. at Rock Mtn., CA 336 203 133 Census of State and Federal Adult Correctional Facilities Rockville Corr. Fac., INd 320 274 46 and other items included in the 2007 NIS. Mountain View Unit, TXd 321 154 166 Dixon Corr. Inst., LA 319 211 108 BJS is conducting a survey of sexual victimization in local Allred Unit, TX 317 123 194 jails, using the same sampling procedures and ACASI col- d Julia Tutwiler, AL 314 199 115 lection methodologies. Data collection in local jails is Waupun Corr. Inst., WI 303 5 298 expected to be completed in January 2008. A report listing a Includes all incidents of unwanted contacts with another inmate that the 302 sampled local jail facilities ranked according to the involved oral sex, anal sex, vaginal sex, handjobs, and other sexual acts. incidence of sexual victimization is expected to be issued in bIncludes all incidents of unwilling sexual contacts with staff. April 2008. cFacility houses both males and females. dFemale facility.

Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007 5 Methodology State confinement facilities were systematically sampled with probabilities of selection proportionate to size (as mea- The National Inmate Survey (NIS) was conducted in 146 sured by the number of inmates held on December 31, State and Federal prisons between April and August 2007, 2005). Facilities on the sampling frame were first sorted by by RTI International under a cooperative agreement with public or private operation, gender housed, region, and the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). The NIS comprised State. Prior to selection, the size measures for facilities two questionnaires — a survey of sexual victimization and housing female inmates were doubled to ensure a sufficient a survey of past drug and alcohol use and abuse. Inmates number of women to allow for meaningful analyses of sex- were randomly assigned one of the questionnaires so that ual victimization by gender. Facilities were sampled ensur- at the time of the interview the content of the survey ing that at least one facility in every State was selected. remained unknown to facility staff and the survey interview- The remaining facilities were selected from each region ers. A total of 23,398 inmates participated in the survey. with probabilities proportionate to size. The interviews, which averaged 27 minutes in length, used Overall, these procedures resulted in the selection of 114 computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI) and audio male facilities and 16 female facilities. Based on 2005 cen- computer-assisted self interviewing (ACASI) collection sus data, these 130 facilities held 250,873 inmates (or 20% methods. For approximately the first 5 minutes, survey of inmates held in State confinement facilities nationwide interviewers conducted a personal interview using CAPI to on December 31, 2005). obtain background data, date of admission to the facility, conviction status, and current offense. For the remainder of Somewhat different sampling procedures were used to the interview, respondents interacted with a computer- select Federal prisons. Facilities were selected based on administered questionnaire using a touch-screen and syn- data reported in the Bureau of Prisons’ (BOP) Weekly Pop- chronized audio instructions delivered via headphones. ulation Report on September 28, 2006. At that time the Respondents completed the ACASI portion of the interview Federal system had 176 BOP-operated facilities and 13 pri- in private, with the interviewer either leaving the room or vately-managed facilities. Combined, these facilities held moving away from the computer. 180,152 inmates. Contract juveniles, long-term boarders, and offenders held in halfway houses, home confinement, A shorter paper questionnaire was made available for and jail/short term detention were excluded. inmates who were unable to come to the private interviewing room. The paper form was completed by 530 inmates Facilities on the sampling frame were sorted by population (2.3% of all interviews), housed primarily in administrative size, region, and public or private operation. They were or disciplinary segregation or considered too violent to be selected based on probabilities proportionate to the inmate interviewed. count, regardless of gender of inmate housed. The sample resulted in the selection of 17 BOP-operated facilities and 3 Before the interview, inmates were informed verbally and in private facilities. writing that participation was voluntary and that all information provided would be held in confidence. Interviews were Of the 150 selected State and Federal facilities, 4 were conducted in either English (95%) or Spanish (5%). excluded from the survey for the following reasons: • Federal Transfer Facility (Oklahoma City, OK) – Inmates Selection of State and Federal prisons moved through this facility too quickly (within 24 hours) A sample of 130 State prisons was drawn to produce a to permit data collection. 10% sample of the 1,267 adult State confinement facilities identified in the 2005 Census of State and Federal Adult • Huron Valley Complex — Women (Ypsilanti, MI) – Correctional Facilities. The 2005 census was a complete Interviewing was terminated early due to concerns enumeration of State prisons, including all publicly oper- regarding data quality as many of the inmates were ated and privately operated facilities under contract to State involved in a class action lawsuit against the facility. correctional authorities. The 2007 NIS was restricted to confinement facilities — institutions in which fewer than • Taft Correctional Institute (Taft, CA) — The facility was 50% of the inmates were regularly permitted to leave, selected twice, once as a State prison and once as a unaccompanied by staff, for work, study, or treatment. Such Federal facility. (It was excluded from the State sample, facilities included prisons, penitentiaries, prison hospitals, but left in the sample as a Federal facility.) prison farms, boot camps, and centers for reception, classification, or alcohol and drug treatment. The 2007 NIS • Southern Michigan Correctional Facility (Jackson, MI) — excluded community-based facilities, such as halfway The facility was scheduled to be closed prior to data col- houses, group homes, and work release centers. lection.

6 Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007 All other selected prison facilities participated fully in the tions by inmate age, gender, race, date of admission, survey. and sentence length. This adjustment ensures that the estimates accurately reflect the entire population of the Selection of inmates facility and not just the inmates who were randomly sampled. The number of inmates sampled in each facility varied based on 5 criteria: • calibration of the weights so that the weight from a non- • an expected prevalence rate of sexual victimization of responding inmate is assigned to a responding inmate 4%. with similar characteristics. This adjustment ensures that the estimates accurately reflect the full sample, rather • a desired level of precision based on a standard error of than only the inmates who responded. 1.75%. For each inmate these adjustments were based on a gen- • a projected 70% response rate among selected inmates. eralized exponential model, developed by Folsom and Singh, and applied to the sexual assault survey respon- • a 10% chance among participating inmates of not dents.2 receiving the sexual victimization questionnaire. Survey estimates and accuracy • size of the facility. Survey estimates are subject to sampling error arising from the fact that the estimates are based on a sample rather A roster of inmates was obtained just prior to the start of than a complete enumeration. Within each facility, the esti- interviewing at each facility. Inmates under age 18 and mated sampling error varies by the size of the estimate, the inmates expected to be released prior to the date of data number of completed interviews, and the size of the facility. collection were deleted from the roster. Each eligible Estimates of the standard errors for selected measures of inmate was assigned a random number and sorted in sexual victimization are presented in Appendix tables 2 ascending order. Inmates were selected from the list up to through 5 and 8. the expected number of inmates determined by the sampling criteria. A total of 37,362 inmates were selected. (See These standard errors may be used to construct confi- Appendix table 1 for the number of inmates sampled in dence intervals around survey estimates (e.g., numbers, each facility.) percents, and rates), as well as differences in these estimates. Overall, 26,157 inmates participated in the survey, yielding a response rate of 72% (after an additional 1,017 ineligible For example, the 95% confidence interval around the per- inmates were excluded). Approximately 90% of the partici- cent of inmates reporting sexual victimization in the Julia pating inmates (23,398) received the sexual assault survey. Tutwiler Prison (Alabama) is approximately 6.3% plus or minus 1.96 times 1.5% (or 3.4% to 9.2%). Based on simi- Weighting and non-response adjustments larly constructed samples, 95% of the intervals would be expected to contain the true (but unknown) percentage. Responses from sampled interviewed inmates were weighted to provide national-level and facility-level esti- The standard errors may also be used to construct confi- mates. Each interviewed inmate was assigned an initial dence intervals around differences between facility esti- weight corresponding to the inverse of the probability of mates. For example, the 95% confidence interval compar- selection within each sampled facility. A series of adjust- ing the percent of inmates reporting sexual victimization in ment factors were applied to the initial weight to minimize the Julia Tutwiler Prison (Alabama), 6.3%, with the Estelle potential bias due to non-response and to provide national Unit (Texas), 15.7%, may be calculated. The confidence estimates. interval around the difference of 9.4% is approximately 1.96 times 3.0% (the square root of the pooled variance esti- Bias occurs when the estimated prevalence is different mate, 9.01%). The pooled variance estimate is calculated from the actual prevalence for a given facility. First, in each by taking the square root of the sum of each standard error facility, bias could result if the random sample did not accu- squared, e.g., the square root of (1.5)2 plus (2.6)2. Since rately represent the facility population. Second, bias could the interval (3.5% to 15.3%) does not contain zero, the dif- result if the non-respondents were different from the ference between the Tutwiler prison and the Estelle Unit is respondents. Post-stratification and non-response adjust- statistically significant. ments were made to the data to compensate for these two possibilities. These adjustments included: ______• calibration of the weights of the responding inmates 2R.E. Folsom, Jr. and A.C. Singh, The Generalized Exponential Model within each facility so that the estimates accurately for Sampling Weight Calibration for Extreme Values, Nonresponse, and reflected the facility’s entire population in terms of known Poststratification, Proceedings of the American Statistical Association, characteristics. These characteristics included distribu- Section on Survey Research Methods, 598-603, 2002.

Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007 7 Exposure period Inmates were also asked to report on the number of times they had experienced each form of staff sexual misconduct, For purposes of calculating comparative rates of sexual vic- willing or unwilling. The same pre-coded categories were timization, respondents were asked to provide the most provided: 1 time, 2 times, 3 to 10 times, and 11 times or recent date of admission to the current facility. If the date of more. admission was at least 12 months prior to the date of the interview, inmates were asked questions related to their The ACASI survey included additional questions related to experiences during the past 12 months. If the admission both inmate-on-inmate and staff-on-inmate sexual victim- date was less than 12 months prior to the interview, ization. These questions, known as latent class measures, inmates were asked about their experiences since they had were included to assess the reliability of the survey ques- arrived at the facility. Overall, the average exposure period tionnaire. After being asked detailed questions, all inmates of inmates participating in the sexual victimization survey were asked a series of general questions to determine if was 8.5 months. they had experienced any type of unwanted sex or sexual contact with another inmate or had any sex or sexual con- Measuring sexual victimization tact with staff. (See page 11 for specific survey items.) The survey of sexual victimization relied on the reporting of The entire ACASI questionnaire and the shorter paper and the direct experience of each inmate, rather than inmates pencil survey form (PAPI) are available on the BJS web site reporting on the experience of other inmates. Questions at

8 Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007 Survey items related to inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization Males Females E16. During the last 12 months, did another inmate E18. During the last 12 months, did another inmate use physical force to touch your butt, thighs, or penis use physical force to touch your butt, thighs, breasts, in a sexual way? or vagina in a sexual way? E17. During the last 12 months, did another inmate, E19. During the last 12 months, did another inmate, without using physical force, pressure you or make without using physical force, pressure you or make you feel that you had to let them touch your butt, you feel that you had to let them touch your butt, thighs, or penis in a sexual way? thighs, breasts, or vagina in a sexual way? E22. During the last 12 months, did another inmate E24. During the last 12 months, did another inmate use physical force to make you give or receive a use physical force to make you give or receive oral handjob? sex? E23. During the last 12 months, did another inmate, E25. During the last 12 months, did another inmate, without using physical force, pressure you or make without using physical force, pressure you or make you feel that you had to give or receive a handjob? you feel that you had to give or receive oral sex? E26. During the last 12 months, did another inmate E28. During the last 12 months, did another inmate use physical force to make you give or receive oral use physical force to make you have vaginal sex? sex or a blow job? E29. During the last 12 months, did another inmate, E27. During the last 12 months, did another inmate, without using physical force, pressure you or make without using physical force, pressure you or make you feel that you had to have vaginal sex? you feel that you had to give or receive oral sex or a E32. During the last 12 months, did another inmate blow job? use physical force to make you have anal sex? E32. During the last 12 months, did another inmate E33. During the last 12 months, did another inmate, use physical force to make you have anal sex? without using physical force, pressure you or make E33. During the last 12 months, did another inmate, you feel that you had to have anal sex? without using physical force, pressure you or make E34. During the last 12 months, did another inmate you feel that you had to have anal sex? use physical force to make you have any type of sex E34. During the last 12 months, did another inmate or sexual contact other than sexual touching, oral sex, use physical force to make you have any type of sex vaginal sex, or anal sex? or sexual contact other than sexual touching, E35. During the last 12 months, did another inmate, handjobs, oral sex or blow jobs, or anal sex? without using physical force, pressure you or make E35. During the last 12 months, did another inmate, you feel that you had to have any type of sex or without using physical force, pressure you or make sexual contact other than sexual touching, oral sex, you feel that you had to have any type of sex or vaginal sex, or anal sex? sexual contact other than sexual touching, handjobs, oral sex or blowjobs, or anal sex?

Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007 9 Survey items related to staff sexual misconduct These next questions are about the behavior of staff at this facility during the last 12 months. By staff we mean the G11 [IF G2 OR G4 OR G5 = Yes] During the last 12 employees of this facility and anybody who works as a vol- months, which of the following types of sex or sexual con- unteer in this facility. tact did you have with a facility staff person? G4 During the last 12 months, have any facility staff G11a. You touched a facility staff person's body or had pressured you or made you feel that you had to let them your body touched in a sexual way. have sex or sexual contact with you? G11b. You gave or received a handjob. G5 During the last 12 months, have you been physically forced by any facility staff to have sex or sexual contact? G11c. You gave or received oral sex or a blowjob. G7 During the last 12 months, have any facility staff G11d. You had vaginal sex. offered you favors or special privileges in exchange for sex or sexual contact? G11e. You had anal sex. G2 During the last 12 months, have you willingly had sex or sexual contact with any facility staff?

10 Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007 Follow-up questions for inmates reporting no sexual Follow-up questions for inmates reporting no sexual activity in the screener questions for sexual activity activity in the screener questions for sexual activity with inmates: with staff: LCM1 During the last 12 months, did another inmate use LCM5 During the last 12 months, have you had any sex physical force, pressure you, or make you feel that you or sexual contact with staff in this facility whether you had to have any type of sex or sexual contact? wanted to have it or not? How long has it been since you had any sex or How long has it been since another inmate in this LCM6 LCM2 sexual contact with staff in this facility whether you wanted facility used physical force, pressured you, or made you to or not? feel that you had to have any type of sex or sexual contact? 1 Within the past 7 days 1. Within the past 7 days 2 More than 7 days ago but within the past 30 days 2. More than 7 days ago but within the past 30 days 3 More than 30 days ago but within the past 12 months 3. More than 30 days ago but within the past 12 4 More than 12 months ago months 5 This has not happened to me at this facility 4. More than 12 months ago LCM7 In the last 12 months, did you have oral, vaginal, 5. This has not happened to me at this facility or anal sex with any staff at this facility whether you LCM3 [If Male] During the last 12 months, did another wanted to or not? inmate use physical force, pressure you, or make you feel LCM8 How long has it been since you had oral, vaginal, that you had to have oral or anal sex? or anal sex with any staff at this facility whether you [If Female] During the last 12 months, did another wanted to or not? inmate use physical force, pressure you, or make you feel that you had to have oral, vaginal, or anal sex? LCM8b How long has it been since you had oral or anal sex with any staff at this facility whether you wanted to or LCM4 [If Male] How long has it been since another not? inmate in this facility used physical force, pressured you, or made you feel that you had to have oral or anal sex? [If Female] How long has it been since another inmate in this facility used physical force, pressured you, or made you feel that you had to have oral, vaginal, or anal sex? LCM4a [If Male] How long has it been since another inmate in this facility used physical force, pressured you, or made you feel that you had to have oral or anal sex? [If Female] How long has it been since another inmate in this facility used physical force, pressured you, or made you feel that you had to have oral, vaginal, or anal sex?

Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007 11 U.S. Department of Justice *NCJ~219414* PRESORTED STANDARD POSTAGE & FEES PAID Office of Justice Programs DOJ/BJS Bureau of Justice Statistics Permit No. G-91

Washington, DC 20531

Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300

The Bureau of Justice Statistics is the statistical Survey. RTI staff, under a cooperative agreement and agency of the U.S. Department of Justice. Jeffrey in collaboration with BJS, designed the survey, Sedgwick is Director. developed the questionnaires, and monitored data collection and data processing: Rachel Caspar, Allen J. Beck and Paige M. Harrison wrote this report. Principal Investigator/Instrumentation Task Leader; RTI International statisticians, under the direction of Christopher Krebs, Co-Principal Investigator; Ellen Marcus Berzofsky, produced tables in the appendix. Stutts, Co-Principal Investigator and Data Collection Allen J. Beck, Paige M. Harrison, and RTI staff Task Leader; Susan Brumbaugh, Logistics Task provided statistical review and verification. Doris J. Leader; Jamia Bachrach, Protection of Human James and Tina Dorsey produced and edited the Subjects Task Leader; David Forvendel, Research report. Jayne Robinson prepared the report for Computing Task Leader; Ralph Folsom, Senior publication. Statistician; and Marcus Berzofsky, Sampling and Paige M. Harrison, under the supervision of Allen J. Statistical Analysis Task Leader. Beck, was project manager for the National Inmate December 2007 NCJ 219414

This report in portable document format and in Office of Justice Programs ASCII and its related statistical data and tables are Innovation • Partnerships • Safer Neighborhoods available at the BJS World Wide Web Internet site: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov .

12 Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007 Appendix table 1. Characteristics of State and Federal facilities selected in the National Inmate Survey, 2007 Number of respondents Number of Number of Number of Sexual inmates in inmates ineligible victimization Response Facility name custodya sampled inmatesb Total survey ratec

Total 264,251 37,362 1,017 26,157 23,398 72% Alabama Julia Tutwiler Prisond 959 251 6 228 212 93 Limestone Corr. Fac. 2,044 274 2 210 191 77 Alaska Wildwood Corr. Complex 361 199 4 130 121 67 Arizona Arizona State Prison Complex - Eyman 4,702 288 3 206 188 72 Arizona State Prison Complex - Florence 3,938 286 6 228 205 81 Arizona State Prison Complex - Tucson 3,528 284 10 213 193 78 Arkansas Diagnostic Unit 383 205 13 154 132 80 Jefferson County Corr. Fac. 358 205 8 157 138 80 California Avenal State Prison 7,510 292 9 240 210 85 California Inst. for Men 5,515 290 41 139 129 56 California Sub. Abuse Treatment Fac. - Corcoran 5,484 289 6 188 173 66 California Men’s Colony 6,496 291 7 211 180 74 California Rehabilitation Ctr. 3,842 285 8 209 192 75 Calipatria State Prison 4,169 286 0 162 146 57 Central California Women's Fac.d 3,211 283 8 194 170 71 Corr. Training Fac. 7,025 291 5 175 153 61 Ironwood State Prison 4,612 288 11 165 141 60 Mule Creek State Prison 3,762 285 6 219 190 78 North Kern State Prison 5,044 289 13 206 193 75 R. J. Donovan Corr. Fac. at Rock Mountain 4,166 287 16 163 147 60 San Quentin State Prison 4,729 367 22 188 171 54 Sierra Conservation Ctr. 3,937 286 5 202 173 72 Valley State Prison for Womend 2,867 282 26 200 181 78 Colorado Fremont Corr. Fac. 1,466 265 2 183 166 70 High Plains Corr. Fac.d,f 220 161 0 90 81 56 Connecticut Osborn Corr. Inst. 1,919 273 5 220 193 82 Delaware Howard R. Young Corr. Inst.e 1,627 310 6 256 231 84 Florida Central Florida Reception Ctr. East, South & Main 2,184 279 49 143 125 62 Charlotte Corr. Inst. 1,052 254 1 184 163 73 Cross City Corr. Inst. & Work Camp 1,215 260 6 216 195 85 Hamilton Corr. Inst., Annex & Work Camp 2,660 280 23 201 180 78 Lowell Corr. Inst., Annex & Work Campd 2,350 278 9 180 155 67 Sumter Corr. Inst., Boot Camp & Work Camp 1,839 272 6 231 210 87 Taylor Corr. Inst. & Annex 2,064 274 0 184 169 67 Georgia Hays State Prison 868 247 7 201 190 84 Men's Corr. State Prison 650 233 15 198 189 91 Metro State Prisond 888 248 7 180 163 75 Walker Corr. Inst. 617 230 0 191 173 83 Wilcox State Prison 1,487 266 6 236 206 91 Hawaii Waiawa Corr. Fac. 298 184 2 143 126 79 Idaho South Idaho Corr. Inst. 723 237 0 172 153 73 Illinois Danville Corr. Ctr. 1,802 271 1 213 193 79 Dixon Corr. Ctr. 2,164 275 7 211 189 79 Logan Corr. Ctr. 1,854 272 3 228 211 85 Vienna Corr. Ctr. 1,362 267 28 157 133 66 Indiana Plainfield Corr. Fac. 1,484 266 9 184 162 72 Rockville Corr. Fac.d 1,145 258 7 198 169 79 Iowa Anamosa State Penitentiary 1,291 261 0 163 147 62

Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007 13 Appendix table 1. Characteristics of State and Federal facilities selected in the National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.) Number of respondents Number of Number of Number of Sexual inmates in inmates ineligible victimization Response Facility name custodya sampled inmatesb Total survey ratec

Kansas Hutchinson Corr. Fac. 1,681 269 1 217 195 81% Kentucky Western Kentucky Corr. Complex 624 234 12 112 100 50 Louisiana Dixon Corr. Inst. 1,549 267 3 208 184 79 Forcht-Wade Corr. Ctr. 629 231 7 162 146 72 Maine Maine Corr. Ctr.e 690 237 8 189 173 83 Maryland Baltimore Pre-Release Unit - Womend 120 123 3 66 64 55 Maryland Corr. Training Ctr. 2,773 280 4 177 160 64 Roxbury Corr. Inst. 1,733 270 4 207 189 78 Massachusetts Old Colony Corr. Ctr. 932 250 3 137 119 55 Michigan Bellamy Creek Corr. Fac. 1,746 271 6 190 170 72 Marquette Branch Prison 1,155 258 9 196 174 79 Ojibway Corr. Fac. 1,060 255 2 188 168 74 Minnesota Minnesota Corr. Fac. - Stillwater 1,388 264 5 189 163 73 Mississippi Harrison Community Work Ctr. 98 99 1 87 80 89 Missouri Jefferson City Corr. Ctr. 1,947 273 6 236 215 88 Northeast Corr. Ctr. 1,872 272 5 246 225 92 Southeast Corr. Ctr. 1,445 265 1 191 171 72 Montana Montana State Prison 1,447 265 3 203 189 77 Nebraska Tecumseh State Corr. Inst. 885 245 2 94 85 39 Nevada Florence McClure Women's Corr. Ctr.d 618 230 3 181 160 80 Southern Desert Corr. Ctr. 1,579 268 7 218 203 84 New Hampshire New Hampshire State Prison for Men 1,498 266 2 190 173 72 New Jersey Northern State Prison 2,775 280 4 163 148 59 South Woods State Prison 3,331 283 3 203 179 73 New Mexico Lea County Corr. Fac.f 1,215 259 2 166 148 65 Penitentiary of New Mexico 858 246 4 92 83 38 New York Arthur Kill Corr. Fac. 923 249 8 186 168 77 Elmira Corr. Fac. 1,610 270 22 141 126 57 Great Meadow Corr. Fac. 1,604 268 5 164 144 62 Greene Corr. Fac. 1,672 270 7 209 189 79 Wende Corr. Fac. 870 247 11 156 140 66 North Carolina Avery Mitchell Corr. Inst. 803 243 5 186 164 78 Fountain Corr. Ctr.d 458 214 6 144 129 69 Gates Corr. Ctr. 91 92 1 67 52 74 Harnett Corr. Inst. 866 247 3 178 163 73 Odom Corr. Inst. 381 204 9 119 103 61 North Dakota North Dakota State Penitentiary 388 205 15 137 124 72 Ohio Belmont Corr. Inst. 2,720 280 5 195 177 71 Grafton Corr. Inst. 1,435 265 2 145 133 55 North Central Corr. Inst. 2,321 277 4 174 147 64 Oklahoma Joseph Harp Corr. Ctr. 1,328 263 19 209 195 86 Oregon Oregon State Corr. Inst. 867 247 9 200 177 84

14 Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007 Appendix table 1. Characteristics of State and Federal facilities selected in the National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.) Number of respondents Number of Number of Number of Sexual inmates in inmates ineligible victimization Response Facility name custodya sampled inmatesb Total survey ratec

Pennsylvania Cambridge Springs State Corr. Inst.d 995 252 2 225 208 90% Dallas State Corr. Inst. 2,031 274 2 235 215 86 Fayette State Corr. Inst. 1,977 273 5 223 196 83 Graterford State Corr. Inst. 2,848 281 11 128 117 47 Rockview State Corr. Inst. 2,037 274 3 235 204 87 Rhode Island John Moran Medium Security Fac. 881 247 1 150 132 61 Women's Divisiond 248 214 15 141 128 71 South Carolina Allendale Corr. Inst. 1,282 261 9 153 138 61 Lee Corr. Inst. 1,690 270 11 180 154 70 South Dakota South Dakota State Penitentiary 1,406 265 15 186 158 74 Tennessee Northwest Corr. Complex 2,233 276 8 184 161 69 Tennessee Prison for Womend 722 238 3 169 152 72 Whiteville Corr. Fac.f 1,477 265 2 200 179 76 Texas Allred Unit 3,623 284 1 200 186 71 Clements Unit 3,636 285 10 161 142 59 Coffield Unit 4,085 286 1 217 194 76 Dawson State Jaile,f 2,111 275 5 188 165 70 Estelle Unit 2,760 280 14 223 197 84 Fort Stockton Transfer Fac. 577 227 6 184 163 83 Hilltop Unitd 624 230 1 219 197 96 Holliday Transfer Fac. 1,873 275 27 220 195 89 Lockhart Unite,f 995 252 2 160 132 64 Lopez State Jail 1,049 254 1 170 148 67 McConnell Unit 2,819 281 8 187 162 69 Mountain View Unitd 566 227 11 172 154 80 Polunsky Unit 2,848 281 1 256 236 91 Ramsey Unit #2 1,148 257 3 217 197 85 Wynne Unit 2,590 279 3 217 200 79 Utah Utah State Prisone 3,786 285 5 228 196 81 Vermont Chittenden Regional Corr. Fac. 167 175 25 94 82 63 Virginia Red Onion State Prisong 257 173 1 97 87 56 St. Brides Corr. Ctr. 380 200 0 75 67 38 Washington Stafford Creek Corr. Ctr. 1,953 273 1 147 134 54 West Virginia Northern Regional Corr. Fac. 249 171 1 121 106 71 Wisconsin Stanley Corr. Inst. 1,499 266 13 171 157 68 Waupun Corr. Inst. 1,233 260 1 189 172 73 Wyoming Wyoming State Penitentiary 620 231 7 153 138 68

Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007 15 Appendix table 1. Characteristics of State and Federal facilities selected in the National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.) Number of respondents Number of Number of Number of Sexual inmates in inmates ineligible victimization Facility name custodya sampled inmatesb Total survey Response ratec

Federal Facilities (Bureau of Prisons) Allenwood Low Fed. Corr. Inst. 1,390 264 1 223 199 85% Beaumont Low Fed. Corr. Inst. 1,767 271 1 219 194 81 Bennettsville-Camp 134 125 1 85 77 69 Big Sandy U.S. Penitentiary 1,410 308 9 141 125 47 Big Spring Corr. Inst.f 2,757 280 4 182 155 66 Cibola County Corr. Inst.f 1,091 256 3 154 139 61 Fort Dix Fed. Corr. Inst. 2,416 278 5 213 192 78 La Tuna - Fed. Satellite Fac. (El Paso) 375 200 1 155 133 78 Lexington Fed. Medical Fac. 1,454 266 8 185 166 72 McCreary U.S. Penitentiary 1,104 256 5 128 112 51 Memphis Fed. Corr. Inst. 1,142 257 3 152 134 60 Milan Fed. Corr. Inst. 1,169 258 5 198 175 78 Oakdale Fed. Detention Fac. 817 248 27 67 55 30 Pekin Fed. Corr. Inst. 1,055 254 4 143 130 57 Schuylkill Fed. Corr. Inst. 1,328 283 2 196 174 70 Taft Corr. Inst.f 1,729 270 7 251 227 95 Terminal Island Fed. Corr. Inst. 1,006 253 8 172 153 70 Victorville Med. I Fed. Corr. Inst. 1,442 265 4 133 123 51 Yazoo City Med. Fed. Corr. Inst. 1,604 268 9 217 190 84 aNumber of inmates in custody on day when the facility provided the sample roster. bInmates were considered ineligible if (1) under age 18, (2) mentally or physically incapacitated, or (3) transferred or released after sample selection but before data collection period. (See Methodology for sample selection criteria.) cResponse rate is equal to the total number of respondents divided by the number of inmates sampled minus the number of ineligible inmates times 100 percent. dFemale facility. eFacility houses both males and females. fPrivately operated facility. gExcludes inmates designated as supermax inmates.

16 Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007 Appendix table 2. Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimization and estimated standard error, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007 Percent of inmates reporting sexual victimization since admission to facility or in past 12 months, if shortera Facility name Reported Weightedb Standard errorc

Total 4.8% 4.5% 0.3%

Alabama Julia Tutwiler Prisond 6.6 6.3 1.5 Limestone Corr. Fac. 3.1 3.3 1.3 Alaska Wildwood Corr. Complex 5.0 4.9 1.6 Arizona Arizona State Prison Complex - Eyman 5.3 7.5 2.5 Arizona State Prison Complex - Florence 1.0 0.8 0.5 Arizona State Prison Complex - Tucson 1.0 0.9 0.6 Arkansas Diagnostic Unit 0.8 0.9 0.7 Jefferson County Corr. Fac. 2.2 3.5 1.8 California Avenal State Prison 1.4 1.4 0.8 California Inst. for Men 3.1 2.6 1.3 California Sub. Abuse Treatment Fac. - Corcoran 6.9 7.2 2.0 California Men’s Colony 2.2 2.3 1.2 California Rehabilitation Ctr. 3.1 3.1 1.2 Calipatria State Prison 1.4 1.3 0.9 Central California Women's Fac.d 7.1 7.0 2.1 Corr. Training Fac. 1.3 1.1 0.9 Ironwood State Prison 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mule Creek State Prison 6.3 6.8 1.9 North Kern State Prison 0.5 0.7 0.7 R. J. Donovan Corr. Fac. at Rock Mountain 6.1 5.9 1.9 San Quentin State Prison 5.3 4.1 1.4 Sierra Conservation Ctr. 5.2 4.7 1.5 Valley State Prison for Womend 9.9 10.3 2.3 Colorado Fremont Corr. Fac. 6.0 5.2 1.6 High Plains Corr. Fac.d,f 4.9 5.9 2.7 Connecticut Osborn Corr. Inst. 2.1 1.7 0.8 Delaware Howard R. Young Corr. Inst.e 3.0 4.1 1.6 Florida Central Florida Reception Ctr. East, South & Main 0.8 0.4 0.4 Charlotte Corr. Inst. 10.4 12.1 2.7 Cross City Corr. Inst. & Work Camp 5.1 5.5 1.6 Hamilton Corr. Inst., Annex & Work Camp 5.0 5.1 1.6 Lowell Corr. Inst., Annex & Work Campd 7.7 7.0 2.1 Sumter Corr. Inst., Boot Camp & Work Camp 5.2 5.9 1.8 Taylor Corr. Inst. & Annex 3.0 2.7 1.2 Georgia Hays State Prison 9.0 9.1 1.9 Men's Corr. State Prison 7.9 7.0 1.7 Metro State Prisond 7.4 8.0 2.2 Walker Corr. Inst. 1.7 2.3 1.2 Wilcox State Prison 2.9 2.8 1.1 Hawaii Waiawa Corr. Fac. 1.6 1.6 0.9 Idaho South Idaho Corr. Inst. 2.0 1.8 1.0 Illinois Danville Corr. Ctr. 1.6 1.6 0.9 Dixon Corr. Ctr. 6.9 6.7 1.9 Logan Corr. Ctr. 2.8 3.3 1.3 Vienna Corr. Ctr. 3.0 2.9 1.4 Indiana Plainfield Corr. Fac. 8.0 7.8 2.1 Rockville Corr. Fac.d 11.2 10.8 2.4

Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007 17 Appendix table 2. Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimization and estimated standard error, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.) Percent of inmates reporting sexual victimization since admission to facility or in past 12 months, if shortera Facility name Reported Weightedb Standard errorc

Iowa Anamosa State Penitentiary 4.8% 4.1% 1.5% Kansas Hutchinson Corr. Fac. 5.1 5.4 1.6 Kentucky Western Kentucky Corr. Complex 2.0 2.0 1.3 Louisiana Dixon Corr. Inst. 4.9 5.4 1.7 Forcht-Wade Corr. Ctr. 1.4 1.5 0.9 Maine Maine Corr. Ctr.e 5.8 5.6 1.6 Maryland Baltimore Pre-Release Unit - Womend 4.7 6.0 2.5 Maryland Corr. Training Ctr. 7.5 8.5 2.4 Roxbury Corr. Inst. 7.4 8.2 2.0 Massachusetts Old Colony Corr. Ctr. 6.7 6.6 2.2 Michigan Bellamy Creek Corr. Fac. 8.2 7.9 2.1 Marquette Branch Prison 7.5 6.8 1.7 Ojibway Corr. Fac. 4.8 4.6 1.5 Minnesota Minnesota Corr. Fac. - Stillwater 3.1 2.2 1.0 Mississippi Harrison Community Work Ctr. 1.2 0.9 0.4 Missouri Jefferson City Corr. Ctr. 7.9 7.9 1.7 Northeast Corr. Ctr. 4.0 3.7 1.2 Southeast Corr. Ctr. 7.0 7.1 1.9 Montana Montana State Prison 7.4 7.9 1.9 Nebraska Tecumseh State Corr. Inst. 11.8 13.4 4.0 Nevada Florence McClure Women's Corr. Ctr.d 9.4 7.7 1.8 Southern Desert Corr. Ctr. 4.9 5.8 1.7 New Hampshire New Hampshire State Prison for Men 6.4 6.2 1.7 New Jersey Northern State Prison 4.0 3.7 1.6 South Woods State Prison 3.4 4.4 2.1 New Mexico Lea County Corr. Fac.f 4.0 5.0 1.9 Penitentiary of New Mexico 0.0 0.0 0.0 New York Arthur Kill Corr. Fac. 4.2 3.4 1.1 Elmira Corr. Fac. 4.8 5.1 2.2 Great Meadow Corr. Fac. 11.8 11.3 2.7 Greene Corr. Fac. 2.1 1.9 0.9 Wende Corr. Fac. 6.4 6.2 1.9 North Carolina Avery Mitchell Corr. Inst. 3.7 3.6 1.4 Fountain Corr. Ctr.d 5.4 4.3 1.4 Gates Corr. Ctr. 0.0 0.0 0.0 Harnett Corr. Inst. 6.1 5.5 1.6 Odom Corr. Inst. 4.8 4.7 1.8 North Dakota North Dakota State Penitentiary 5.6 5.6 1.8 Ohio Belmont Corr. Inst. 3.4 3.6 1.4 Grafton Corr. Inst. 3.8 4.8 2.0 North Central Corr. Inst. 4.8 3.8 1.4

18 Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007 Appendix table 2. Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimization and estimated standard error, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.) Percent of inmates reporting sexual victimization since admission to facility or in past 12 months, if shortera Facility name Reported Weightedb Standard errorc

Oklahoma Joseph Harp Corr. Ctr. 6.2% 6.3% 1.7% Oregon Oregon State Corr. Inst. 5.1 4.2 1.3 Pennsylvania Cambridge Springs State Corr. Inst.d 4.3 4.4 1.3 Dallas State Corr. Inst. 2.3 2.5 1.1 Fayette State Corr. Inst. 7.1 8.1 2.0 Graterford State Corr. Inst. 4.3 3.8 1.9 Rockview State Corr. Inst. 2.0 1.9 1.0 Rhode Island John Moran Medium Security Fac. 3.8 3.5 1.4 Women's Divisiond 8.6 7.5 1.6 South Carolina Allendale Corr. Inst. 5.1 4.7 1.7 Lee Corr. Inst. 9.1 8.7 2.2 South Dakota South Dakota State Penitentiary 7.0 7.2 2.2 Tennessee Northwest Corr. Complex 4.4 3.5 1.4 Tennessee Prison for Womend 5.3 4.8 1.5 Whiteville Corr. Fac.f 7.3 7.1 1.9 Texas Allred Unit 10.2 9.9 2.2 Clements Unit 14.1 13.9 2.9 Coffield Unit 9.3 9.3 2.1 Dawson State Jaile,f 3.0 2.9 1.3 Estelle Unit 15.2 15.7 2.6 Fort Stockton Transfer Fac. 1.2 1.3 0.8 Hilltop Unitd 3.6 3.4 1.1 Holliday Transfer Fac. 1.0 1.1 0.7 Lockhart Unite,f 5.3 7.3 2.7 Lopez State Jail 1.4 1.3 0.8 McConnell Unit 8.6 8.0 2.1 Mountain View Unitd 12.3 9.5 1.9 Polunsky Unit 5.5 5.3 1.4 Ramsey Unit #2 4.1 4.5 1.4 Wynne Unit 5.0 5.5 1.7 Utah Utah State Prisone 8.7 7.7 1.9 Vermont Chittenden Regional Corr. Fac. 4.9 5.3 1.8 Virginia Red Onion State Prisong 3.4 3.6 1.7 St. Brides Corr. Ctr. 4.5 4.2 2.2 Washington Stafford Creek Corr. Ctr. 5.2 6.5 2.6 West Virginia Northern Regional Corr. Fac. 4.7 4.3 1.5 Wisconsin Stanley Corr. Inst. 4.5 3.8 1.4 Waupun Corr. Inst. 7.0 6.8 1.8 Wyoming Wyoming State Penitentiary 8.0 7.0 1.9

Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007 19 Appendix table 2. Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimization and estimated standard error, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.) Percent of inmates reporting sexual victimization since admission to facility or in past 12 months, if shortera Facility name Reported Weightedb Standard errorc

Federal Facilities (Bureau of Prisons) Allenwood Low Fed. Corr. Inst. 1.5% 1.3% 0.7% Beaumont Low Fed. Corr. Inst. 1.6 1.6 0.9 Bennettsville-Camp 0.0 0.0 0.0 Big Sandy U.S. Penitentiary 2.4 2.4 1.4 Big Spring Corr. Inst.f 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cibola County Corr. Inst.f 1.4 0.7 0.5 Fort Dix Fed. Corr. Inst. 1.6 0.8 0.5 La Tuna - Fed. Satellite Fac. (El Paso) 1.5 1.0 0.6 Lexington Fed. Medical Fac. 2.4 2.3 1.1 McCreary U.S. Penitentiary 0.9 0.8 0.7 Memphis Fed. Corr. Inst. 2.2 1.8 1.0 Milan Fed. Corr. Inst. 0.6 0.8 0.7 Oakdale Fed. Detention Fac. 1.8 2.7 2.6 Pekin Fed. Corr. Inst. 6.2 4.8 1.8 Schuylkill Fed. Corr. Inst. 0.0 0.0 0.0 Taft Corr. Inst.f 0.4 0.3 0.3 Terminal Island Fed. Corr. Inst. 1.3 1.0 0.7 Victorville Med. I Fed. Corr. Inst. 3.2 3.5 1.7 Yazoo City Med. Fed. Corr. Inst. 3.2 3.1 1.3 aPercent of inmates reporting one or more incidents of sexual victimization involving another inmate or facility staff since admission to the facility or in last 12 months, if shorter. bWeights were applied so that inmates who responded accurately reflected the entire population of each facility on selected characteristics, including age, gender, race, time served, and sentence length. (See Methodology for weighting and nonresponse adjustments.) cStandard errors may be used to construct confidence intervals around the weighted survey estimates. For example, the 95% confidence intervals around the total percent is 4.5% plus or minus 1.96 times 0.3% (or 3.9% to 5.1%). dFemale facility. eFacility houses both males and females. fPrivately operated facility. gExcludes inmates designated as supermax inmates.

20 Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007 Appendix table 3. Percent of prison inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual contacts, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007 Nonconsensual sexual actsa Abusive sexual contacts onlyb Facility name Percent victimized Standard errorc Percent victimized Standard errorc

Total 3.3% 0.2% 1.3% 0.1% Alabama Julia Tutwiler Prisond 5.3 1.4 1.0 0.5 Limestone Corr. Fac. 2.6 1.2 0.7 0.7 Alaska Wildwood Corr. Complex 4.0 1.4 0.9 0.7 Arizona Arizona State Prison Complex - Eyman 4.7 2.3 2.8 1.2 Arizona State Prison Complex - Florence 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.5 Arizona State Prison Complex - Tucson 0.9 0.6 0.0 0.0 Arkansas Diagnostic Unit 0.9 0.7 0.0 0.0 Jefferson County Corr. Fac. 2.9 1.8 0.6 0.4 California Avenal State Prison 1.0 0.7 0.4 0.4 California Inst. for Men 1.8 1.0 0.8 0.8 California Sub. Abuse Treatment Fac. - Corcoran 5.7 1.9 1.5 0.9 California Men’s Colony 2.3 1.2 0.0 0.0 California Rehabilitation Ctr. 2.7 1.2 0.4 0.4 Calipatria State Prison 1.3 0.9 0.0 0.0 Central California Women's Fac.d 4.2 1.5 2.8 1.5 Corr. Training Fac. 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.9 Ironwood State Prison 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mule Creek State Prison 4.7 1.6 2.2 1.1 North Kern State Prison 0.7 0.7 0.0 0.0 R. J. Donovan Corr. Fac. at Rock Mountain 4.8 1.8 1.1 0.8 San Quentin State Prison 2.8 1.1 1.3 0.8 Sierra Conservation Ctr. 4.1 1.4 0.6 0.6 Valley State Prison for Womend 2.4 1.1 7.9 2.1 Colorado Fremont Corr. Fac. 3.2 1.3 2.0 1.0 High Plains Corr. Fac.d,f 4.5 2.6 1.5 0.8 Connecticut Osborn Corr. Inst. 0.8 0.5 0.9 0.6 Delaware Howard R. Young Corr. Inst.e 2.8 1.0 1.4 1.2 Florida Central Florida Reception Ctr. East, South & Main 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 Charlotte Corr. Inst. 12.1 2.7 0.0 0.0 Cross City Corr. Inst. & Work Camp 4.0 1.4 1.5 0.9 Hamilton Corr. Inst., Annex & Work Camp 4.3 1.5 0.8 0.8 Lowell Corr. Inst., Annex & Work Campd 3.7 1.6 3.3 1.3 Sumter Corr. Inst., Boot Camp & Work Camp 4.5 1.6 1.4 0.8 Taylor Corr. Inst. & Annex 1.7 0.9 1.0 0.7 Georgia Hays State Prison 5.4 1.5 3.7 1.3 Men's Corr. State Prison 4.3 1.2 2.7 1.2 Metro State Prisond 4.3 1.5 3.7 1.7 Walker Corr. Inst. 1.1 0.7 1.2 1.0 Wilcox State Prison 2.8 1.1 0.0 0.0 Hawaii Waiawa Corr. Fac. 1.6 0.9 0.0 0.0 Idaho South Idaho Corr. Inst. 1.1 0.7 0.8 0.7 Illinois Danville Corr. Ctr. 0.5 0.5 1.1 0.8 Dixon Corr. Ctr. 6.0 1.7 0.7 0.7 Logan Corr. Ctr. 2.2 0.9 1.0 1.0 Vienna Corr. Ctr. 2.9 1.4 0.0 0.0 Indiana Plainfield Corr. Fac. 6.4 1.9 1.4 1.0 Rockville Corr. Fac.d 6.6 2.0 4.2 1.4

Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007 21 Appendix table 3. Percent of prison inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual contacts, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.) Nonconsensual sexual actsa Abusive sexual contacts onlyb Facility name Percent victimized Standard errorc Percent victimized Standard errorc

Iowa Anamosa State Penitentiary 1.7% 0.9% 2.4% 1.2% Kansas Hutchinson Corr. Fac. 4.8 1.5 0.5 0.5 Kentucky Western Kentucky Corr. Complex 2.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 Louisiana Dixon Corr. Inst. 4.7 1.6 0.6 0.6 Forcht-Wade Corr. Ctr. 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 Maine Maine Corr. Ctr.e 2.1 0.9 3.5 1.4 Maryland Baltimore Pre-Release Unit - Womend 2.8 1.9 3.2 1.7 Maryland Corr. Training Ctr. 6.6 2.2 1.9 1.0 Roxbury Corr. Inst. 5.7 1.7 2.5 1.2 Massachusetts Old Colony Corr. Ctr. 2.7 1.5 3.9 1.6 Michigan Bellamy Creek Corr. Fac. 6.6 1.9 1.4 1.0 Marquette Branch Prison 5.7 1.6 1.1 0.7 Ojibway Corr. Fac. 3.9 1.4 0.7 0.6 Minnesota Minnesota Corr. Fac. - Stillwater 1.3 0.7 1.0 0.6 Mississippi Harrison Community Work Ctr. 0.9 0.4 0.0 0.0 Missouri Jefferson City Corr. Ctr. 3.8 1.3 4.1 1.3 Northeast Corr. Ctr. 3.1 1.1 0.6 0.4 Southeast Corr. Ctr. 5.8 1.7 1.4 0.9 Montana Montana State Prison 5.3 1.7 2.6 1.1 Nebraska Tecumseh State Corr. Inst. 11.2 3.6 2.2 2.1 Nevada Florence McClure Women's Corr. Ctr.d 4.4 1.3 3.2 1.3 Southern Desert Corr. Ctr. 2.3 1.1 3.5 1.3 New Hampshire New Hampshire State Prison for Men 5.3 1.6 0.9 0.8 New Jersey Northern State Prison 2.5 1.3 1.2 0.8 South Woods State Prison 3.9 2.1 0.5 0.5 New Mexico Lea County Corr. Fac.f 4.1 1.7 0.9 0.9 Penitentiary of New Mexico 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 New York Arthur Kill Corr. Fac. 2.9 1.1 0.4 0.4 Elmira Corr. Fac. 5.1 2.2 0.0 0.0 Great Meadow Corr. Fac. 6.1 2.1 5.3 1.7 Greene Corr. Fac. 1.6 0.9 0.3 0.3 Wende Corr. Fac. 3.5 1.5 2.7 1.3 North Carolina Avery Mitchell Corr. Inst. 3.0 1.2 0.6 0.5 Fountain Corr. Ctr.d 2.4 1.0 1.9 0.9 Gates Corr. Ctr. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Harnett Corr. Inst. 3.7 1.3 1.7 0.9 Odom Corr. Inst. 4.7 1.8 0.0 0.0 North Dakota North Dakota State Penitentiary 3.2 1.2 2.5 1.4

22 Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007 Appendix table 3. Percent of prison inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual contacts, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.) Nonconsensual sexual actsa Abusive sexual contacts onlyb Facility name Percent victimized Standard errorc Percent victimized Standard errorc

Ohio Belmont Corr. Inst. 3.6% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% Grafton Corr. Inst. 4.8 2.0 0.0 0.0 North Central Corr. Inst. 2.1 1.0 1.6 0.9 Oklahoma Joseph Harp Corr. Ctr. 3.6 1.3 2.6 1.2 Oregan Oregon State Corr. Inst. 2.7 1.0 1.5 0.8 Pennsylvania Cambridge Springs State Corr. Inst.d 2.3 1.0 2.2 0.9 Dallas State Corr. Inst. 1.6 0.9 0.9 0.6 Fayette State Corr. Inst. 6.1 1.7 2.0 1.1 Graterford State Corr. Inst. 3.2 1.8 0.6 0.5 Rockview State Corr. Inst. 1.9 1.0 0.0 0.0 Rhode Island John Moran Medium Security Fac. 2.7 1.2 0.8 0.7 Women's Divisiond 5.3 1.3 2.2 0.9 South Carolina Allendale Corr. Inst. 4.7 1.7 0.0 0.0 Lee Corr. Inst. 7.6 2.1 1.1 0.8 South Dakota South Dakota State Penitentiary 5.2 1.8 2.1 1.3 Tennessee Northwest Corr. Complex 2.6 1.1 0.9 0.9 Tennessee Prison for Womend 3.7 1.3 1.1 0.7 Whiteville Corr. Fac.f 6.3 1.7 0.8 0.8 Texas Allred Unit 8.0 2.0 1.9 1.0 Clements Unit 8.1 2.3 5.8 2.0 Coffield Unit 7.7 1.9 1.5 0.9 Dawson State Jaile,f 0.7 0.6 2.2 1.2 Estelle Unit 11.3 2.3 4.4 1.5 Fort Stockton Transfer Fac. 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 Hilltop Unitd 1.9 0.8 1.5 0.7 Holliday Transfer Fac. 1.1 0.7 0.0 0.0 Lockhart Unite,f 3.6 2.0 3.7 1.8 Lopez State Jail 1.3 0.8 0.0 0.0 McConnell Unit 5.6 1.7 2.4 1.3 Mountain View Unitd 3.4 1.1 6.2 1.6 Polunsky Unit 3.2 1.1 2.1 0.9 Ramsey Unit #2 3.4 1.3 1.1 0.7 Wynne Unit 3.2 1.3 2.4 1.2 Utah Utah State Prisone 5.0 1.6 2.8 1.1 Vermont Chittenden Regional Corr. Fac. 4.0 1.6 1.3 0.9 Virginia Red Onion State Prisong 3.6 1.7 0.0 0.0 St. Brides Corr. Ctr. 4.2 2.2 0.0 0.0 Washington Stafford Creek Corr. Ctr. 4.6 2.3 1.9 1.3 West Virginia Northern Regional Corr. Fac. 1.8 1.0 2.6 1.1 Wisconsin Stanley Corr. Inst. 3.1 1.2 0.7 0.6 Waupun Corr. Inst. 5.2 1.6 1.6 0.9 Wyoming Wyoming State Penitentiary 4.2 1.4 2.8 1.3

Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007 23 Appendix table 3. Percent of prison inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual contacts only, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.) Nonconsensual sexual actsa Abusive sexual contacts onlyb Facility name Percent victimized Standard errorc Percent victimized Standard errorc

Federal Facilities (Bureau of Prisons) Allenwood Low Fed. Corr. Inst. 1.3% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% Beaumont Low Fed. Corr. Inst. 1.6 0.9 0.0 0.0 Bennettsville-Camp 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Big Sandy U.S. Penitentiary 2.4 1.4 0.0 0.0 Big Spring Corr. Inst.f 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cibola County Corr. Inst.f 0.7 0.5 0.0 0.0 Fort Dix Fed. Corr. Inst. 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.2 La Tuna - Fed. Satellite Fac. (El Paso) 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 Lexington Fed. Medical Fac. 1.7 0.9 0.6 0.6 McCreary U.S. Penitentiary 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.7 Memphis Fed. Corr. Inst. 0.6 0.5 1.2 0.8 Milan Fed. Corr. Inst. 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.7 Oakdale Fed. Detention Fac. 2.7 2.6 0.0 0.0 Pekin Fed. Corr. Inst. 1.3 0.8 3.5 1.6 Schuylkill Fed. Corr. Inst. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Taft Corr. Inst.f 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 Terminal Island Fed. Corr. Inst. 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.7 Victorville Med. I Fed. Corr. Inst. 3.5 1.7 0.0 0.0 Yazoo City Med. Fed. Corr. Inst. 2.2 1.0 0.9 0.9 Note: Detail may not sum to total percent victimized within facility due to rounding. aIncludes all inmates who reported unwanted contacts with another inmate or unwilling contacts with staff that involved oral sex, anal sex, vaginal sex, handjobs, and other sexual acts. (See Methodology for specific questions.) bIncludes all inmates who reported unwanted contacts with another inmates or unwilling contacts with staff that involved touching of the inmate's butt, thighs, penis, breasts, or vagina in a sexual way. cStandard errors may be used to construct confidence intervals around the weighted survey estimates. (See Methodology.) dFemale facility. eFacility houses both males and females. fPrivately operated facility. gExcludes inmates designated as supermax inmates.

24 Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007 Appendix table 4. Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimization, by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007 Inmate-on-inmatea Staff-on-inmatea Facility name Percent victimized Standard errorb Percent victimized Standard errorb

Total 2.1% 0.1% 2.9% 0.2%

Alabama Julia Tutwiler Prisonc 5.0 1.4 1.7 0.8 Limestone Corr. Fac. 2.6 1.1 0.8 0.7 Alaska Wildwood Corr. Complex 2.5 1.2 3.1 1.3 Arizona Arizona State Prison Complex - Eyman 1.9 1.1 5.6 2.3 Arizona State Prison Complex - Florence 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 Arizona State Prison Complex - Tucson 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.3 Arkansas Diagnostic Unit 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.7 Jefferson County Corr. Fac. 1.3 0.7 2.2 1.7 California Avenal State Prison 0.9 0.6 1.0 0.7 California Inst. for Men 0.8 0.8 1.8 1.0 California Sub. Abuse Treatment Fac. - Corcoran 2.9 1.3 4.2 1.6 California Men’s Colony 0.9 0.6 1.8 1.1 California Rehabilitation Ctr. 1.0 0.7 2.1 1.0 Calipatria State Prison 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.9 Central California Women's Fac.c 5.7 2.0 1.7 0.8 Corr. Training Fac. 0.2 0.2 0.9 0.9 Ironwood State Prison 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mule Creek State Prison 5.3 1.7 2.2 1.1 North Kern State Prison 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.7 R. J. Donovan Corr. Fac. at Rock Mountain 3.9 1.6 3.3 1.5 San Quentin State Prison 2.0 0.9 2.2 1.1 Sierra Conservation Ctr. 1.9 1.0 3.7 1.4 Valley State Prison for Womenc 7.9 2.0 5.3 1.8 Colorado Fremont Corr. Fac. 3.6 1.3 2.2 1.1 High Plains Corr. Fac.c,e 2.2 1.2 3.8 2.5 Connecticut Osborn Corr. Inst. 0.4 0.4 1.3 0.7 Delaware Howard R. Young Corr. Inst.d 1.4 0.7 3.8 1.6 Florida Central Florida Reception Ctr. East, South & Main 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 Charlotte Corr. Inst. 1.1 0.7 11.4 2.6 Cross City Corr. Inst. & Work Camp 2.0 1.1 3.5 1.2 Hamilton Corr. Inst., Annex & Work Camp 3.3 1.3 2.8 1.2 Lowell Corr. Inst., Annex & Work Campc 5.7 1.9 1.8 0.9 Sumter Corr. Inst., Boot Camp & Work Camp 2.4 1.2 3.5 1.4 Taylor Corr. Inst. & Annex 0.4 0.4 2.3 1.1 Georgia Hays State Prison 4.1 1.4 6.6 1.7 Men's Corr. State Prison 5.1 1.5 2.9 1.0 Metro State Prisonc 7.6 2.2 1.6 0.9 Walker Corr. Inst. 1.6 1.1 0.6 0.5 Wilcox State Prison 1.4 0.7 2.0 0.9 Hawaii Waiawa Corr. Fac. 0.7 0.5 1.6 0.9 Idaho South Idaho Corr. Inst. 0.0 0.0 1.8 1.0 Illinois Danville Corr. Ctr. 1.6 0.9 0.0 0.0 Dixon Corr. Ctr. 4.2 1.5 3.9 1.4 Logan Corr. Ctr. 1.4 1.0 1.8 0.9 Vienna Corr. Ctr. 0.6 0.5 2.3 1.3 Indiana Plainfield Corr. Fac. 4.1 1.5 4.0 1.5 Rockville Corr. Fac.c 10.2 2.3 2.0 1.1

Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007 25 Appendix table 4. Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimization, by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.) Inmate-on-inmatea Staff-on-inmatea Facility name Percent victimized Standard errorb Percent victimized Standard errorb

Iowa Anamosa State Penitentiary 3.4% 1.4% 0.7% 0.5% Kansas Hutchinson Corr. Fac. 1.2 0.8 5.4 1.6 Kentucky Western Kentucky Corr. Complex 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.3 Louisiana Dixon Corr. Inst. 3.9 1.4 3.7 1.4 Forcht-Wade Corr. Ctr. 1.5 0.9 0.0 0.0 Maine Maine Corr. Ctr.d 4.4 1.5 1.5 0.7 Maryland Baltimore Pre-Release Unit - Womenc 6.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 Maryland Corr. Training Ctr. 4.2 1.8 4.2 1.6 Roxbury Corr. Inst. 3.9 1.4 5.4 1.7 Massachusetts Old Colony Corr. Ctr. 3.5 1.6 3.2 1.5 Michigan Bellamy Creek Corr. Fac. 3.1 1.3 5.2 1.8 Marquette Branch Prison 3.3 1.1 5.8 1.6 Ojibway Corr. Fac. 1.3 0.9 3.3 1.2 Minnesota Minnesota Corr. Fac. - Stillwater 1.4 0.8 0.8 0.6 Mississippi Harrison Community Work Ctr. 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.4 Missouri Jefferson City Corr. Ctr. 2.9 1.1 5.8 1.5 Northeast Corr. Ctr. 2.1 1.0 1.6 0.7 Southeast Corr. Ctr. 3.2 1.3 4.0 1.4 Montana Montana State Prison 4.0 1.4 4.7 1.6 Nebraska Tecumseh State Corr. Inst. 1.2 1.2 12.2 3.9 Nevada Florence McClure Women's Corr. Ctr.c 6.6 1.7 1.7 0.9 Southern Desert Corr. Ctr. 3.2 1.3 3.9 1.4 New Hampshire New Hampshire State Prison for Men 4.6 1.5 2.2 1.0 New Jersey Northern State Prison 1.2 0.9 3.7 1.6 South Woods State Prison 0.9 0.6 3.5 2.0 New Mexico Lea County Corr. Fac.e 0.9 0.9 4.1 1.7 Penitentiary of New Mexico 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 New York Arthur Kill Corr. Fac. 1.0 0.6 2.9 1.1 Elmira Corr. Fac. 1.9 1.4 3.3 1.7 Great Meadow Corr. Fac. 3.0 1.4 9.6 2.5 Greene Corr. Fac. 0.7 0.5 1.6 0.9 Wende Corr. Fac. 3.3 1.5 4.6 1.6 North Carolina Avery Mitchell Corr. Inst. 2.5 1.2 2.0 0.9 Fountain Corr. Ctr.c 3.8 1.3 0.4 0.4 Gates Corr. Ctr. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Harnett Corr. Inst. 3.6 1.3 3.0 1.1 Odom Corr. Inst. 0.9 0.8 3.7 1.6 North Dakota North Dakota State Penitentiary 1.5 1.0 4.1 1.6

26 Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007 Appendix table 4. Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimization, by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.) Inmate-on-inmatea Staff-on-inmatea Facility name Percent victimized Standard errorb Percent victimized Standard errorb

Ohio Belmont Corr. Inst. 2.6% 1.3% 3.6% 1.4% Grafton Corr. Inst. 2.7 1.5 2.1 1.4 North Central Corr. Inst. 2.2 1.1 2.2 1.1 Oklahoma Joseph Harp Corr. Ctr. 6.3 1.7 0.0 0.0 Oregan Oregon State Corr. Inst. 1.7 0.7 2.9 1.1 Pennsylvania Cambridge Springs State Corr. Inst.c 4.4 1.3 0.0 0.0 Dallas State Corr. Inst. 2.0 0.9 0.5 0.5 Fayette State Corr. Inst. 2.3 1.1 7.0 1.9 Graterford State Corr. Inst. 0.6 0.5 3.2 1.8 Rockview State Corr. Inst. 1.2 0.8 1.1 0.6 Rhode Island John Moran Medium Security Fac. 1.4 0.9 2.1 1.1 Women's Divisionc 4.4 1.2 3.1 1.1 South Carolina Allendale Corr. Inst. 1.5 0.8 3.1 1.5 Lee Corr. Inst. 1.0 0.7 7.7 2.1 South Dakota South Dakota State Penitentiary 2.2 1.1 5.6 2.0 Tennessee Northwest Corr. Complex 1.3 0.9 2.2 1.0 Tennessee Prison for Womenc 1.1 0.7 4.3 1.4 Whiteville Corr. Fac.e 1.4 1.0 7.1 1.9 Texas Allred Unit 4.8 1.5 6.7 1.9 Clements Unit 3.3 1.6 11.6 2.7 Coffield Unit 4.4 1.5 5.7 1.6 Dawson State Jaild,e 1.3 0.8 2.2 1.3 Estelle Unit 8.5 2.1 7.6 1.9 Fort Stockton Transfer Fac. 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.8 Hilltop Unitc 3.0 1.0 1.5 0.7 Holliday Transfer Fac. 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Lockhart Unitd,e 5.5 2.2 1.8 1.6 Lopez State Jail 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.8 McConnell Unit 3.5 1.5 5.4 1.8 Mountain View Unitc 8.7 1.8 3.4 1.1 Polunsky Unit 1.2 0.7 4.2 1.2 Ramsey Unit #2 1.9 1.0 2.7 1.1 Wynne Unit 1.5 0.9 4.0 1.5 Utah Utah State Prisond 6.6 1.8 2.4 1.0 Vermont Chittenden Regional Corr. Fac. 2.7 1.4 2.6 1.3 Virginia Red Onion State Prison 1.3 1.1 3.6 1.7 St. Brides Corr. Ctr. 0.0 0.0 4.2 2.2 Washington Stafford Creek Corr. Ctr. 2.3 1.3 4.2 2.3 West Virginia Northern Regional Corr. Fac. 3.3 1.2 1.8 1.0 Wisconsin Stanley Corr. Inst. 0.5 0.5 3.2 1.3 Waupun Corr. Inst. 0.5 0.5 6.3 1.8 Wyoming Wyoming State Penitentiary 1.2 0.7 6.6 1.9

Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007 27 Appendix table 4. Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimization, by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.) Inmate-on-inmatea Staff-on-inmatea Facility name Percent victimized Standard errorb Percent victimized Standard errorb

Federal Facilities (Bureau of Prisons) Allenwood Low Fed. Corr. Inst. 0.0% 0.0% 1.3% 0.7% Beaumont Low Fed. Corr. Inst. 1.0 0.7 1.0 0.7 Bennettsville-Camp 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Big Sandy U.S. Penitentiary 1.8 1.3 1.3 0.9 Big Spring Corr. Inst.e 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cibola County Corr. Inst.e 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.5 Fort Dix Fed. Corr. Inst. 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.5 La Tuna - Fed. Satellite Fac. (El Paso) 0.5 0.4 1.0 0.6 Lexington Fed. Medical Fac. 1.5 0.8 0.7 0.7 McCreary U.S. Penitentiary 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.7 Memphis Fed. Corr. Inst. 0.6 0.5 1.8 1.0 Milan Fed. Corr. Inst. 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.7 Oakdale Fed. Detention Fac. 0.0 0.0 2.7 2.6 Pekin Fed. Corr. Inst. 0.8 0.7 4.0 1.7 Schuylkill Fed. Corr. Inst. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Taft Corr. Inst.e 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 Terminal Island Fed. Corr. Inst. 1.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 Victorville Med. I Fed. Corr. Inst. 1.6 1.1 2.7 1.5 Yazoo City Med. Fed. Corr. Inst. 1.7 1.1 2.2 1.0 Note: Detail may sum to more than total because victims may have reported both inmate-on-inmate and staff-on-inmate sexual victimization. aIncludes all types of sexual victimization, including oral, anal, or vaginal penetration, handjobs, touching of the inmate's butt, thighs, penis, breasts, or vagina in a sexual way and other sexual acts. bStandard errors may be used to construct confidence intervals around the weighted survey estimates. (See Methodology.) cFemale facility. dFacility houses both males and females. ePrivately operated facility.

28 Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007 Appendix table 5. Percent of prison inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts, by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007 Inmate-on-inmate Staff-on-inmate Facility name Percent victimizeda Standard errorb Percent victimizedc Standard errorb

Total 1.3% 0.1% 2.3% 0.2%

Alabama Julia Tutwiler Prisond 4.0 1.3 1.7 0.8 Limestone Corr. Fac. 1.9 0.9 0.8 0.7 Alaska Wildwood Corr. Complex 0.9 0.7 3.1 1.3 Arizona Arizona State Prison Complex - Eyman 0.7 0.6 4.0 2.2 Arizona State Prison Complex - Florence 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Arizona State Prison Complex - Tucson 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.3 Arkansas Diagnostic Unit 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.7 Jefferson County Corr. Fac. 0.7 0.6 2.2 1.7 California Avenal State Prison 0.4 0.4 1.0 0.7 California Inst. for Men 0.0 0.0 1.8 1.0 California Sub. Abuse Treatment Fac. - Corcoran 1.9 1.1 3.8 1.6 California Men’s Colony 0.9 0.6 1.8 1.1 California Rehabilitation Ctr. 0.6 0.6 2.1 1.0 Calipatria State Prison 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.9 Central California Women's Fac.d 3.5 1.5 1.1 0.6 Corr. Training Fac. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ironwood State Prison 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mule Creek State Prison 3.8 1.5 1.6 0.9 North Kern State Prison 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.7 R. J. Donovan Corr. Fac. at Rock Mountain 2.8 1.4 2.8 1.4 San Quentin State Prison 0.7 0.5 2.1 1.0 Sierra Conservation Ctr. 0.8 0.6 3.7 1.4 Valley State Prison for Womend 1.4 0.8 1.5 0.8 Colorado Fremont Corr. Fac. 1.3 0.8 1.8 1.0 High Plains Corr. Fac.d,f 1.3 1.1 3.1 2.4 Connecticut Osborn Corr. Inst. 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 Delaware Howard R. Young Corr. Inst.e 0.9 0.6 2.4 1.0 Florida Central Florida Reception Ctr. East, South & Main 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 Charlotte Corr. Inst. 1.1 0.7 11.4 2.6 Cross City Corr. Inst. & Work Camp 0.8 0.7 3.2 1.2 Hamilton Corr. Inst., Annex & Work Camp 2.5 1.1 2.8 1.2 Lowell Corr. Inst., Annex & Work Campd 2.4 1.5 1.8 0.9 Sumter Corr. Inst., Boot Camp & Work Camp 1.7 1.0 2.8 1.3 Taylor Corr. Inst. & Annex 0.4 0.4 1.3 0.9 Georgia Hays State Prison 2.5 1.1 4.4 1.4 Men's Corr. State Prison 3.0 1.0 1.8 0.8 Metro State Prisond 3.6 1.3 1.2 0.8 Walker Corr. Inst. 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.5 Wilcox State Prison 1.4 0.7 2.0 0.9 Hawaii Waiawa Corr. Fac. 0.7 0.5 1.6 0.9 Idaho South Idaho Corr. Inst. 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.7 Illinois Danville Corr. Ctr. 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 Dixon Corr. Ctr. 3.1 1.3 3.9 1.4 Logan Corr. Ctr. 0.4 0.4 1.8 0.9 Vienna Corr. Ctr. 0.6 0.5 2.3 1.3

Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007 29 Appendix table 5. Percent of prison inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts, by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.) Inmate-on-inmate Staff-on-inmate Facility name Percent victimizeda Standard error Percent victimizedb Standard error

Indiana Plainfield Corr. Fac. 2.7% 1.2% 3.6% 1.5% Rockville Corr. Fac.d 4.6 1.8 2.0 1.1 Iowa Anamosa State Penitentiary 1.3 0.9 0.4 0.4 Kansas Hutchinson Corr. Fac. 1.2 0.8 4.8 1.5 Kentucky Western Kentucky Corr. Complex 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.3 Louisiana Dixon Corr. Inst. 3.9 1.4 2.4 1.2 Forcht-Wade Corr. Ctr. 0.8 0.7 0.0 0.0 Maine Maine Corr. Ctr.e 0.9 0.6 1.3 0.6 Maryland Baltimore Pre-Release Unit - Womend 2.8 1.9 0.0 0.0 Maryland Corr. Training Ctr. 3.6 1.7 3.0 1.3 Roxbury Corr. Inst. 2.1 1.0 4.3 1.5 Massachusetts Old Colony Corr. Ctr. 2.1 1.4 0.6 0.6 Michigan Bellamy Creek Corr. Fac. 2.6 1.2 4.3 1.6 Marquette Branch Prison 2.2 0.9 5.3 1.5 Ojibway Corr. Fac. 0.6 0.6 3.3 1.2 Minnesota Minnesota Corr. Fac. - Stillwater 0.5 0.4 0.8 0.6 Mississippi Harrison Community Work Ctr. 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.4 Missouri Jefferson City Corr. Ctr. 2.4 1.0 2.2 0.9 Northeast Corr. Ctr. 2.1 1.0 1.0 0.5 Southeast Corr. Ctr. 1.8 1.0 4.0 1.4 Montana Montana State Prison 1.5 1.0 3.8 1.4 Nebraska Tecumseh State Corr. Inst. 1.2 1.2 10.0 3.4 Nevada Florence McClure Women's Corr. Ctr.d 2.8 0.9 1.7 0.9 Southern Desert Corr. Ctr. 0.6 0.6 2.3 1.1 New Hampshire New Hampshire State Prison for Men 3.1 1.2 2.2 1.0 New Jersey Northern State Prison 1.2 0.9 2.5 1.3 South Woods State Prison 0.5 0.5 3.5 2.0 New Mexico Lea County Corr. Fac.f 0.0 0.0 4.1 1.7 Penitentiary of New Mexico 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 New York Arthur Kill Corr. Fac. 0.5 0.5 2.4 1.0 Elmira Corr. Fac. 1.9 1.4 3.3 1.7 Great Meadow Corr. Fac. 1.5 1.1 4.5 1.8 Greene Corr. Fac. 0.5 0.4 1.6 0.9 Wende Corr. Fac. 2.4 1.3 2.8 1.3 North Carolina Avery Mitchell Corr. Inst. 2.5 1.2 1.4 0.7 Fountain Corr. Ctr.d 1.9 1.0 0.4 0.4 Gates Corr. Ctr. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Harnett Corr. Inst. 2.0 1.0 2.5 1.0 Odom Corr. Inst. 0.9 0.8 3.7 1.6 North Dakota North Dakota State Penitentiary 0.5 0.4 2.7 1.1

30 Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007 Appendix table 5. Percent of prison inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts, by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.) Inmate-on-inmate Staff-on-inmate Facility name Percent victimizeda Standard error Percent victimizedb Standard error

Ohio Belmont Corr. Inst. 2.1% 1.2% 3.6% 1.4% Grafton Corr. Inst. 2.7 1.5 2.1 1.4 North Central Corr. Inst. 1.6 0.9 0.5 0.5 Oklahoma Joseph Harp Corr. Ctr. 3.6 1.3 0.0 0.0 Oregan Oregon State Corr. Inst. 0.8 0.5 2.3 0.9 Pennsylvania Cambridge Springs State Corr. Inst.d 2.3 1.0 0.0 0.0 Dallas State Corr. Inst. 1.6 0.9 0.0 0.0 Fayette State Corr. Inst. 1.6 0.9 5.6 1.7 Graterford State Corr. Inst. 0.0 0.0 3.2 1.8 Rockview State Corr. Inst. 0.8 0.7 1.1 0.6 Rhode Island John Moran Medium Security Fac. 0.6 0.5 2.1 1.1 Women's Divisiond 2.2 0.8 3.1 1.1 South Carolina Allendale Corr. Inst. 1.5 0.8 3.1 1.5 Lee Corr. Inst. 1.0 0.7 6.6 2.0 South Dakota South Dakota State Penitentiary 1.8 1.0 3.9 1.6 Tennessee Northwest Corr. Complex 0.4 0.4 2.2 1.0 Tennessee Prison for Womend 0.0 0.0 3.7 1.3 Whiteville Corr. Fac.f 1.4 1.0 6.3 1.7 Texas Allred Unit 4.0 1.4 4.9 1.6 Clements Unit 1.6 1.1 6.5 2.0 Coffield Unit 3.3 1.3 5.3 1.5 Dawson State Jaile,f 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.6 Estelle Unit 5.1 1.6 6.6 1.7 Fort Stockton Transfer Fac. 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.6 Hilltop Unitd 1.0 0.6 1.0 0.6 Holliday Transfer Fac. 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Lockhart Unite,f 1.9 1.3 1.8 1.6 Lopez State Jail 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.8 McConnell Unit 2.1 1.2 4.5 1.6 Mountain View Unitd 2.7 1.0 2.3 0.9 Polunsky Unit 0.7 0.5 2.5 1.0 Ramsey Unit #2 1.4 0.9 2.1 0.9 Wynne Unit 0.6 0.5 2.6 1.2 Utah Utah State Prisone 4.1 1.5 1.8 0.9 Vermont Chittenden Regional Corr. Fac. 2.7 1.4 1.3 0.9 Virginia Red Onion State Prison 1.3 1.1 3.6 1.7 St. Brides Corr. Ctr. 0.0 0.0 4.2 2.2 Washington Stafford Creek Corr. Ctr. 1.4 1.0 3.1 2.1 West Virginia Northern Regional Corr. Fac. 0.7 0.5 1.8 1.0 Wisconsin Stanley Corr. Inst. 0.5 0.5 2.5 1.1 Waupun Corr. Inst. 0.5 0.5 4.7 1.5 Wyoming Wyoming State Penitentiary 0.0 0.0 4.2 1.4

Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007 31 Appendix table 5. Percent of prison inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts, by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.) Inmate-on-inmate Staff-on-inmate Facility name Percent victimizeda Standard error Percent victimizedb Standard error

Federal Facilities (Bureau of Prisons) Allenwood Low Fed. Corr. Inst. 0.0% 0.0% 1.3% 0.7% Beaumont Low Fed. Corr. Inst. 1.0 0.7 1.0 0.7 Bennettsville-Camp 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Big Sandy U.S. Penitentiary 1.2 1.1 1.3 0.9 Big Spring Corr. Inst.f 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cibola County Corr. Inst.f 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.5 Fort Dix Fed. Corr. Inst. 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.4 La Tuna - Fed. Satellite Fac. (El Paso) 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 Lexington Fed. Medical Fac. 0.9 0.6 0.7 0.7 McCreary U.S. Penitentiary 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Memphis Fed. Corr. Inst. 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.5 Milan Fed. Corr. Inst. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Oakdale Fed. Detention Fac. 0.0 0.0 2.7 2.6 Pekin Fed. Corr. Inst. 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.3 Schuylkill Fed. Corr. Inst. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Taft Corr. Inst.f 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Terminal Island Fed. Corr. Inst. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Victorville Med. I Fed. Corr. Inst. 1.6 1.1 2.7 1.5 Yazoo City Med. Fed. Corr. Inst. 0.7 0.7 2.2 1.0 aIncludes only reports involving unwanted oral, anal, or vaginal penetration, handjobs, and other sexual acts by other inmates. bStandard errors may be used to construct confidence intervals around the weighted survey estimates. (See Methodology.) cIncludes all reports of staff sexual misconduct involving oral, anal ,or vaginal penetration, handjobs, and other sexual acts. dFemale facility. eFacility houses both males and females. fPrivately operated facility.

32 Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007 Appendix table 6. Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimization by type of incident and level of coercion, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007 Inmate-on-inmate Staff-on-inmate Without force or Facility name Physically forced Pressureda Physically forced Pressureda pressureb

Total 1.3% 1.7% 0.9% 1.5% 1.7% Alabama Julia Tutwiler Prisonc 2.7 4.3 0.9 1.3 0.0 Limestone Corr. Fac. 1.0 2.6 0.8 0.8 0.8 Alaska Wildwood Corr. Complex 2.5 0.9 1.5 2.2 1.5 Arizona Arizona State Prison Complex - Eyman 1.2 1.2 0.9 1.5 4.5 Arizona State Prison Complex - Florence 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.4 Arizona State Prison Complex - Tucson 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.3 Arkansas Diagnostic Unit 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 Jefferson County Corr. Fac. 1.3 0.7 0.0 0.0 2.2 California Avenal State Prison 0.4 0.9 0.4 0.4 0.5 California Inst. for Men 0.8 0.0 1.3 1.1 1.2 California Sub. Abuse Treatment Fac. - Corcoran 2.4 2.3 1.6 2.0 2.8 California Men’s Colony 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.7 1.0 California Rehabilitation Ctr. 1.0 0.6 1.1 1.5 1.7 Calipatria State Prison 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.3 0.0 Central California Women's Fac.c 4.1 3.9 0.8 1.3 0.4 Corr. Training Fac. 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 Ironwood State Prison 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mule Creek State Prison 2.3 5.3 1.3 1.8 0.4 North Kern State Prison 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 R. J. Donovan Corr. Fac. at Rock Mountain 1.9 3.9 0.8 3.3 0.0 San Quentin State Prison 2.0 1.5 1.1 1.1 1.0 Sierra Conservation Ctr. 1.4 1.4 1.7 2.8 1.4 Valley State Prison for Womenc 4.7 5.9 1.5 3.3 3.3 Colorado Fremont Corr. Fac. 1.2 3.6 0.6 0.5 1.2 High Plains Corr. Fac.c,e 0.8 2.2 0.0 0.0 3.8 Connecticut Osborn Corr. Inst. 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 Delaware Howard R. Young Corr. Inst.d 1.4 1.0 1.8 1.0 3.3 Florida Central Florida Reception Ctr. East, South & Main 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 Charlotte Corr. Inst. 0.6 1.1 2.6 6.1 5.7 Cross City Corr. Inst. & Work Camp 1.3 2.0 1.4 1.4 1.9 Hamilton Corr. Inst., Annex & Work Camp 2.0 2.9 0.0 0.5 2.3 Lowell Corr. Inst., Annex & Work Campc 1.5 5.7 0.3 1.0 0.5 Sumter Corr. Inst., Boot Camp & Work Camp 1.8 1.7 0.3 1.3 2.2 Taylor Corr. Inst. & Annex 0.4 0.4 0.7 1.2 1.7 Georgia Hays State Prison 2.4 3.4 1.0 2.7 5.4 Men's Corr. State Prison 2.7 4.2 1.7 1.8 2.2 Metro State Prisonc 5.6 5.0 1.2 1.6 0.4 Walker Corr. Inst. 1.6 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.6 Wilcox State Prison 0.9 1.4 0.0 0.0 2.0 Hawaii Waiawa Corr. Fac. 0.7 0.7 1.6 1.6 0.0 Idaho South Idaho Corr. Inst. 0.0 0.0 1.3 1.3 1.1 Illinois Danville Corr. Ctr. 0.4 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 Dixon Corr. Ctr. 3.0 3.8 1.4 2.2 1.9 Logan Corr. Ctr. 0.4 1.4 0.5 1.4 1.0 Vienna Corr. Ctr. 0.6 0.6 0.8 1.6 2.3 Indiana Plainfield Corr. Fac. 2.8 4.1 0.0 2.0 3.0 Rockville Corr. Fac.c 6.5 7.5 0.5 1.1 0.9

Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007 33 Appendix table 6. Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimization by type of incident and level of coercion, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.) Inmate-on-inmate Staff-on-inmate Without force or Facility name Physically forced Pressureda Physically forced Pressureda pressureb

Iowa Anamosa State Penitentiary 0.7% 2.6% 0.4% 0.4% 0.3% Kansas Hutchinson Corr. Fac. 0.7 1.2 2.1 2.6 4.1 Kentucky Western Kentucky Corr. Complex 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 Louisiana Dixon Corr. Inst. 2.7 3.9 0.9 2.9 1.9 Forcht-Wade Corr. Ctr. 0.7 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 Maine Maine Corr. Ctr.d 1.8 3.7 1.3 1.5 0.5 Maryland Baltimore Pre-Release Unit - Womenc 3.2 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 Maryland Corr. Training Ctr. 0.7 4.2 1.2 1.9 3.0 Roxbury Corr. Inst. 3.5 2.8 0.5 1.6 4.5 Massachusetts Old Colony Corr. Ctr. 2.7 3.5 2.3 2.5 0.0 Michigan Bellamy Creek Corr. Fac. 2.5 2.2 0.9 0.9 5.2 Marquette Branch Prison 3.3 2.8 1.4 2.0 2.9 Ojibway Corr. Fac. 0.6 1.3 1.1 1.9 1.4 Minnesota Minnesota Corr. Fac. - Stillwater 1.4 1.4 0.0 0.2 0.8 Mississippi Harrison Community Work Ctr. 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 Missouri Jefferson City Corr. Ctr. 2.4 2.9 1.2 3.9 2.2 Northeast Corr. Ctr. 2.1 2.1 0.7 0.6 0.9 Southeast Corr. Ctr. 2.5 2.5 1.6 1.7 4.0 Montana Montana State Prison 2.4 3.5 0.4 1.3 4.3 Nebraska Tecumseh State Corr. Inst. 0.0 1.2 7.5 11.8 5.9 Nevada Florence McClure Women's Corr. Ctr.c 5.6 4.7 0.4 1.7 0.0 Southern Desert Corr. Ctr. 3.2 0.6 1.6 2.6 2.4 New Hampshire New Hampshire State Prison for Men 2.1 4.2 0.5 1.1 1.1 New Jersey Northern State Prison 1.2 1.2 1.2 2.1 2.6 South Woods State Prison 0.9 0.9 1.1 1.1 3.5 New Mexico Lea County Corr. Fac.e 0.9 0.9 1.6 1.6 3.3 Penitentiary of New Mexico 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 New York Arthur Kill Corr. Fac. 0.5 1.0 1.5 1.5 1.0 Elmira Corr. Fac. 1.9 1.4 1.6 2.5 0.8 Great Meadow Corr. Fac. 1.0 2.8 6.0 6.3 2.8 Greene Corr. Fac. 0.5 0.7 0.8 1.1 0.8 Wende Corr. Fac. 2.6 2.4 2.5 2.8 1.4 North Carolina Avery Mitchell Corr. Inst. 2.0 2.5 0.6 0.6 0.8 Fountain Corr. Ctr.c 2.6 2.6 0.0 0.4 0.0 Gates Corr. Ctr. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Harnett Corr. Inst. 2.3 3.0 1.6 1.3 0.9 Odom Corr. Inst. 0.9 0.9 1.9 1.8 2.7 North Dakota North Dakota State Penitentiary 1.5 1.5 2.1 3.5 2.0 Ohio Belmont Corr. Inst. 1.2 2.1 1.9 3.6 3.1 Grafton Corr. Inst. 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.8 1.3 North Central Corr. Inst. 1.0 2.2 0.6 1.7 1.1

34 Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007 Appendix table 6. Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimization by type of incident and level of coercion, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.) Inmate-on-inmate Staff-on-inmate Without force or Facility name Physically forced Pressureda Physically forced Pressureda pressureb

Oklahoma Joseph Harp Corr. Ctr. 3.8% 5.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Oregon Oregon State Corr. Inst. 1.7 0.8 2.3 2.3 1.5 Pennsylvania Cambridge Springs State Corr. Inst.c 2.6 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Dallas State Corr. Inst. 1.4 2.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 Fayette State Corr. Inst. 1.0 2.3 2.7 3.5 4.1 Graterford State Corr. Inst. 0.6 0.6 0.7 2.0 1.2 Rockview State Corr. Inst. 0.8 1.2 0.3 0.7 0.8 Rhode Island John Moran Medium Security Fac. 0.6 0.8 0.0 1.4 0.7 Women's Divisionc 3.6 4.4 1.5 1.5 1.6 South Carolina Allendale Corr. Inst. 1.5 1.1 0.6 1.6 1.5 Lee Corr. Inst. 1.0 0.5 1.0 3.7 7.7 South Dakota South Dakota State Penitentiary 2.2 1.8 2.3 5.1 2.2 Tennessee Northwest Corr. Complex 0.0 1.3 0.2 0.2 2.0 Tennessee Prison for Womenc 0.5 1.1 1.2 2.5 3.2 Whiteville Corr. Fac.e 1.4 1.4 2.9 3.3 5.4 Texas Allred Unit 3.6 3.2 2.8 3.2 2.3 Clements Unit 1.7 3.3 4.1 6.8 5.6 Coffield Unit 2.1 3.9 0.4 1.4 4.3 Dawson State Jaild,e 1.3 1.0 0.5 0.7 1.0 Estelle Unit 5.1 7.9 0.9 4.4 5.2 Fort Stockton Transfer Fac. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.7 Hilltop Unitc 1.4 2.0 0.0 1.1 0.5 Holliday Transfer Fac. 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 Lockhart Unitd,e 3.1 4.3 0.0 1.8 0.0 Lopez State Jail 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 1.3 McConnell Unit 2.4 2.1 1.6 2.5 4.5 Mountain View Unitc 7.5 6.8 0.7 3.0 1.4 Polunsky Unit 0.3 1.2 1.2 2.1 2.4 Ramsey Unit #2 1.1 1.9 1.6 1.1 1.1 Wynne Unit 1.1 1.0 0.8 1.3 2.0 Utah Utah State Prisond 5.4 5.1 1.2 1.8 0.8 Vermont Chittenden Regional Corr. Fac. 1.5 2.7 0.0 0.0 2.6 Virginia Red Onion State Prison 1.3 1.3 1.3 2.6 2.3 St. Brides Corr. Ctr. 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.8 4.2 Washington Stafford Creek Corr. Ctr. 1.7 2.3 1.6 1.6 2.6 West Virginia Northern Regional Corr. Fac. 3.3 2.5 0.0 0.0 1.8 Wisconsin Stanley Corr. Inst. 0.0 0.5 0.9 2.1 1.3 Waupun Corr. Inst. 0.0 0.5 1.8 3.0 3.4 Wyoming Wyoming State Penitentiary 0.7 1.2 0.8 1.9 4.6

Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007 35 Appendix table 6. Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimization by type of incident and level of coercion, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.) Inmate-on-inmate Staff-on-inmate Without force or Facility name Physically forced Pressureda Physically forced Pressureda pressureb

Federal Facilities (Bureau of Prisons) Allenwood Low Fed. Corr. Inst. 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.9% 0.5% Beaumont Low Fed. Corr. Inst. 1.0 0.4 1.0 1.0 0.4 Bennettsville-Camp 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Big Sandy U.S. Penitentiary 1.8 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.6 Big Spring Corr. Inst.e 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cibola County Corr. Inst.e 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.2 Fort Dix Fed. Corr. Inst. 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.2 0.3 La Tuna - Fed. Satellite Fac. (El Paso) 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.0 Lexington Fed. Medical Fac. 0.9 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.7 McCreary U.S. Penitentiary 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 Memphis Fed. Corr. Inst. 0.6 0.6 0.5 1.1 1.2 Milan Fed. Corr. Inst. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.8 Oakdale Fed. Detention Fac. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 Pekin Fed. Corr. Inst. 0.0 0.8 1.7 3.7 0.3 Schuylkill Fed. Corr. Inst. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Taft Corr. Inst.e 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Terminal Island Fed. Corr. Inst. 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Victorville Med. I Fed. Corr. Inst. 0.8 0.8 0.0 0.0 2.7 Yazoo City Med. Fed. Corr. Inst. 0.0 1.7 0.9 1.7 1.2 Note: Detail may sum to more than totals on table 4 because victims may report on more than one incident involving different levels of coercion. aIncludes incidents in which the perpetrator, without using force, pressured the inmate or made the inmate feel that they had to participate. (See Methodology for definitions.) bIncludes incidents in which the staff offered favors or privileges in exchange for sex or sexual contact and incidents in which the inmate reported that they willingly had sex or sexual contact with staff. cFemale facility. dFacility houses both males and females. ePrivately operated facility.

36 Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007 Appendix table 7. Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimization and percent injured, by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007 All incidents Inmate-on-inmate Staff-on-inmate Facility name Victimized Injureda Victimized Injureda Victimized Injureda

Total 4.5% 0.8% 2.1% 0.5% 2.9% 0.3%

Alabama Julia Tutwiler Prisonb 6.3 1.1 5.0 1.1 1.7 0.0 Limestone Corr. Fac. 3.3 0.4 2.6 0.4 0.8 0.0 Alaska Wildwood Corr. Complex 4.9 0.6 2.5 0.0 3.1 0.6 Arizona Arizona State Prison Complex - Eyman 7.5 0.6 1.9 0.6 5.6 0.0 Arizona State Prison Complex - Florence 0.8 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.0 Arizona State Prison Complex - Tucson 0.9 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.3 0.0 Arkansas Diagnostic Unit 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 Jefferson County Corr. Fac. 3.5 0.0 1.3 0.0 2.2 0.0 California Avenal State Prison 1.4 0.4 0.9 0.4 1.0 0.4 California Inst. for Men 2.6 0.7 0.8 0.0 1.8 0.7 California Sub. Abuse Treatment Fac. - Corcoran 7.2 2.8 2.9 1.3 4.2 1.5 California Men’s Colony 2.3 0.5 0.9 0.5 1.8 0.0 California Rehabilitation Ctr. 3.1 0.0 1.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 Calipatria State Prison 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 Central California Women's Fac.b 7.0 0.7 5.7 0.7 1.7 0.0 Corr. Training Fac. 1.1 0.9 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.9 Ironwood State Prison 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mule Creek State Prison 6.8 1.3 5.3 1.3 2.2 0.0 North Kern State Prison 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 R. J. Donovan Corr. Fac. at Rock Mountain 5.9 0.5 3.9 0.5 3.3 0.5 San Quentin State Prison 4.1 1.1 2.0 0.0 2.1 1.1 Sierra Conservation Ctr. 4.7 0.4 1.9 0.4 3.7 0.0 Valley State Prison for Womenb 10.3 2.3 7.9 1.5 5.3 0.9 Colorado Fremont Corr. Fac. 5.2 0.0 3.6 0.0 2.2 0.0 High Plains Corr. Fac.b,d 5.9 0.0 2.2 0.0 3.8 0.0 Connecticut Osborn Corr. Inst. 1.7 0.4 0.4 0.0 1.3 0.4 Delaware Howard R. Young Corr. Inst.c 4.1 0.9 1.4 0.5 3.8 0.4 Florida Central Florida Reception Ctr. East, South & Main 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 Charlotte Corr. Inst. 12.1 0.0 1.1 0.0 11.4 0.0 Cross City Corr. Inst. & Work Camp 5.5 0.0 2.0 0.0 3.5 0.0 Hamilton Corr. Inst., Annex & Work Camp 5.1 2.0 3.3 1.5 2.8 0.5 Lowell Corr. Inst., Annex & Work Campb 7.0 0.0 5.7 0.0 1.8 0.0 Sumter Corr. Inst., Boot Camp & Work Camp 5.9 0.0 2.4 0.0 3.5 0.0 Taylor Corr. Inst. & Annex 2.7 0.0 0.4 0.0 2.3 0.0 Georgia Hays State Prison 9.1 2.9 4.1 2.1 6.6 0.8 Men's Corr. State Prison 7.0 0.3 5.1 0.3 2.9 0.0 Metro State Prisonb 8.0 1.2 7.6 1.2 1.6 0.4 Walker Corr. Inst. 2.3 0.4 1.6 0.4 0.6 0.0 Wilcox State Prison 2.8 0.0 1.4 0.0 2.0 0.0 Hawaii Waiawa Corr. Fac. 1.6 0.0 0.7 0.0 1.6 0.0 Idaho South Idaho Corr. Inst. 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 Illinois Danville Corr. Ctr. 1.6 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 Dixon Corr. Ctr. 6.7 1.7 4.2 0.8 3.9 0.9 Logan Corr. Ctr. 3.3 0.0 1.4 0.0 1.8 0.0 Vienna Corr. Ctr. 2.9 0.8 0.6 0.0 2.3 0.8 Indiana Plainfield Corr. Fac. 7.8 0.9 4.1 0.9 4.0 0.0 Rockville Corr. Fac.b 10.8 3.7 10.2 3.7 2.0 0.6

Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007 37 Appendix table 7. Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimization and percent injured, by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont,) All incidents Inmate-on-inmate Staff-on-inmate Facility name Victimized Injured* Victimized Injured* Victimized Injured*

Iowa Anamosa State Penitentiary 4.1% 0.0% 3.4% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% Kansas Hutchinson Corr. Fac. 5.4 0.7 1.2 0.7 5.4 0.7 Kentucky Western Kentucky Corr. Complex 2.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 Louisiana Dixon Corr. Inst. 5.4 2.4 3.9 2.4 3.7 0.6 Forcht-Wade Corr. Ctr. 1.5 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Maine Maine Corr. Ctr.c 5.6 1.1 4.4 0.7 1.5 0.4 Maryland Baltimore Pre-Release Unit - Womenb 6.0 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Maryland Corr. Training Ctr. 8.5 0.5 4.2 0.0 4.2 0.5 Roxbury Corr. Inst. 8.2 1.6 3.9 1.6 5.4 0.7 Massachusetts Old Colony Corr. Ctr. 6.6 1.1 3.5 1.1 3.2 0.0 Michigan Bellamy Creek Corr. Fac. 7.9 1.2 3.1 1.2 5.2 0.0 Marquette Branch Prison 6.8 3.5 3.3 1.8 5.8 2.0 Ojibway Corr. Fac. 4.6 0.0 1.3 0.0 3.3 0.0 Minnesota Minnesota Corr. Fac. - Stillwater 2.2 0.9 1.4 0.9 0.8 0.0 Mississippi Harrison Community Work Ctr. 0.9 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.9 Missouri Jefferson City Corr. Ctr. 7.9 1.4 2.9 1.4 5.8 0.0 Northeast Corr. Ctr. 3.7 1.8 2.1 1.5 1.6 0.3 Southeast Corr. Ctr. 7.1 1.3 3.2 1.3 4.0 0.0 Montana Montana State Prison 7.9 1.3 4.0 0.9 4.7 0.4 Nebraska Tecumseh State Corr. Inst. 13.4 3.9 1.2 0.0 12.2 3.9 Nevada Florence McClure Women's Corr. Ctr.b 7.7 1.6 6.6 1.6 1.7 0.0 Southern Desert Corr. Ctr. 5.8 1.7 3.2 0.6 3.9 1.1 New Hampshire New Hampshire State Prison for Men 6.2 1.4 4.6 1.4 2.2 0.0 New Jersey Northern State Prison 3.7 1.2 1.2 1.2 3.7 0.0 South Woods State Prison 4.4 0.0 0.9 0.0 3.5 0.0 New Mexico Lea County Corr. Fac.d 5.0 1.7 0.9 0.9 4.1 0.8 Penitentiary of New Mexico 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 New York Arthur Kill Corr. Fac. 3.4 0.6 1.0 0.0 2.9 0.6 Elmira Corr. Fac. 5.1 1.7 1.9 1.4 3.3 0.3 Great Meadow Corr. Fac. 11.3 2.0 3.0 0.0 9.6 2.0 Greene Corr. Fac. 1.9 0.0 0.7 0.0 1.6 0.0 Wende Corr. Fac. 6.2 3.1 3.3 1.7 4.6 1.4 North Carolina Avery Mitchell Corr. Inst. 3.6 1.9 2.5 1.3 2.0 0.6 Fountain Corr. Ctr.b 4.3 0.8 3.8 0.8 0.4 0.0 Gates Corr. Ctr. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Harnett Corr. Inst. 5.5 1.1 3.6 1.1 3.0 0.0 Odom Corr. Inst. 4.7 0.9 0.9 0.9 3.7 0.0 North Dakota North Dakota State Penitentiary 5.6 0.7 1.5 0.0 4.1 0.7 Ohio Belmont Corr. Inst. 3.6 1.2 2.6 0.7 3.6 0.5 Grafton Corr. Inst. 4.8 0.0 2.7 0.0 2.1 0.0 North Central Corr. Inst. 3.8 0.6 2.2 0.6 2.2 0.0

38 Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007 Appendix table 7. Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimization and percent injured, by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont,) All incidents Inmate-on-inmate Staff-on-inmate Facility name Victimized Injured* Victimized Injured* Victimized Injured*

Oklahoma Joseph Harp Corr. Ctr. 6.3% 2.9% 6.3% 2.9% 0.0% 0.0% Oregon Oregon State Corr. Inst. 4.2 2.4 1.7 0.8 2.9 2.0 Pennsylvania Cambridge Springs State Corr. Inst.b 4.4 1.0 4.4 1.0 0.0 0.0 Dallas State Corr. Inst. 2.5 0.5 2.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 Fayette State Corr. Inst. 8.1 1.6 2.3 1.1 7.0 0.5 Graterford State Corr. Inst. 3.8 0.7 0.6 0.0 3.2 0.7 Rockview State Corr. Inst. 1.9 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.1 0.4 Rhode Island John Moran Medium Security Fac. 3.5 1.4 1.4 0.0 2.1 1.4 Women's Divisionb 7.5 2.0 4.4 1.4 3.1 0.7 South Carolina Allendale Corr. Inst. 4.7 1.1 1.5 1.1 3.1 0.0 Lee Corr. Inst. 8.7 0.5 1.0 0.5 7.7 0.0 South Dakota South Dakota State Penitentiary 7.2 1.6 2.2 1.2 5.6 0.4 Tennessee Northwest Corr. Complex 3.5 0.9 1.3 0.9 2.2 0.0 Tennessee Prison for Womenb 4.8 0.0 1.1 0.0 4.3 0.0 Whiteville Corr. Fac.d 7.1 1.9 1.4 0.0 7.1 1.9 Texas Allred Unit 9.9 3.3 4.8 3.3 6.7 0.9 Clements Unit 13.9 4.0 3.3 1.0 11.6 3.1 Coffield Unit 9.3 0.0 4.4 0.0 5.7 0.0 Dawson State Jailc,d 2.9 0.0 1.3 0.0 2.2 0.0 Estelle Unit 15.7 2.5 8.5 2.0 7.6 0.4 Fort Stockton Transfer Fac. 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 Hilltop Unitb 3.4 0.0 3.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 Holliday Transfer Fac. 1.1 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.0 Lockhart Unitc,d 7.3 0.0 5.5 0.0 1.8 0.0 Lopez State Jail 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 McConnell Unit 8.0 1.4 3.5 1.0 5.4 0.4 Mountain View Unitb 9.5 3.2 8.7 2.7 3.4 2.1 Polunsky Unit 5.3 0.8 1.2 0.5 4.2 0.3 Ramsey Unit #2 4.5 0.0 1.9 0.0 2.7 0.0 Wynne Unit 5.5 1.9 1.5 1.1 4.0 0.8 Utah Utah State Prisonc 7.7 2.6 6.6 2.6 2.4 0.4 Vermont Chittenden Regional Corr. Fac. 5.3 0.0 2.7 0.0 2.6 0.0 Virginia Red Onion State Prison 3.6 0.0 1.3 0.0 3.6 0.0 St. Brides Corr. Ctr. 4.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.2 0.0 Washington Stafford Creek Corr. Ctr. 6.4 0.0 2.3 0.0 4.2 0.0 West Virginia Northern Regional Corr. Fac. 4.3 0.7 3.3 0.7 1.8 0.0 Wisconsin Stanley Corr. Inst. 3.8 0.4 0.5 0.0 3.2 0.4 Waupun Corr. Inst. 6.8 1.3 0.5 0.0 6.3 1.3 Wyoming Wyoming State Penitentiary 7.0 0.8 1.2 0.0 6.6 0.8

Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007 39 Appendix table 7. Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimization and percent injured, by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont,) All incidents Inmate-on-inmate Staff-on-inmate Facility name Victimized Injured* Victimized Injured* Victimized Injured*

Federal Facilities (Bureau of Prisons) Allenwood Low Fed. Corr. Inst. 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.3% 0.0% Beaumont Low Fed. Corr. Inst. 1.6 1.6 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Bennettsville-Camp 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Big Sandy U.S. Penitentiary 2.4 0.7 1.8 0.7 1.3 0.0 Big Spring Corr. Inst.d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cibola County Corr. Inst.d 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 Fort Dix Fed. Corr. Inst. 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 La Tuna - Fed. Satellite Fac. (El Paso) 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.0 Lexington Fed. Medical Fac. 2.3 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.7 0.0 McCreary U.S. Penitentiary 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 Memphis Fed. Corr. Inst. 1.8 0.6 0.6 0.6 1.8 0.0 Milan Fed. Corr. Inst. 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 Oakdale Fed. Detention Fac. 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 Pekin Fed. Corr. Inst. 4.8 0.3 0.8 0.0 4.0 0.3 Schuylkill Fed. Corr. Inst. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Taft Corr. Inst.d 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Terminal Island Fed. Corr. Inst. 1.0 0.4 1.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 Victorville Med. I Fed. Corr. Inst. 3.5 0.0 1.6 0.0 2.7 0.0 Yazoo City Med. Fed. Corr. Inst. 3.1 0.6 1.7 0.0 2.2 0.6 Note: Detail may sum to more than total because victims may have reported both inmate-on-inmate and staff-on-inmate sexual victimization. aInjuries included knife or stab wounds, broken bones, anal or rectal tearing, teeth chipped or knocked out, internal injuries, knocked unconscious, bruises, black eyes, sprains, cuts, scratches, swelling, or welts. bFemale facility. cFacility houses both males and females. dPrivately operated facility.

40 Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007 Appendix table 8. Number of incidents of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization per 1,000 inmates, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007 Nonconsensual sexual actsa Abusive sexual contacts onlyb Facility name Incident ratec Standard errord Incident ratec Standard errord

Total 56 5 81 7

Alabama Julia Tutwiler Prisone 199 91 181 63 Limestone Corr. Fac. 173 100 115 64 Alaska Wildwood Corr. Complex 25 12 60 37 Arizona Arizona State Prison Complex - Eyman 25 15 114 75 Arizona State Prison Complex - Florence 4 4 20 19 Arizona State Prison Complex - Tucson 62 60 62 60 Arkansas Diagnostic Unit 0 0 0 0 Jefferson County Corr. Fac. 41 28 25 14 California Avenal State Prison 25 21 57 52 California Inst. for Men 8 8 8 8 California Sub. Abuse Treatment Fac. - Corcoran 105 54 112 56 California Men’s Colony 22 17 22 17 California Rehabilitation Ctr. 16 12 27 21 Calipatria State Prison 0 0 0 0 Central California Women's Fac.e 104 50 105 45 Corr. Training Fac. 2 2 8 8 Ironwood State Prison 0 0 0 0 Mule Creek State Prison 267 115 196 86 North Kern State Prison 0 0 0 0 R. J. Donovan Corr. Fac. at Rock Mountain 203 123 261 138 San Quentin State Prison 61 45 144 79 Sierra Conservation Ctr. 83 56 60 45 Valley State Prison for Womene 109 36 219 74 Colorado Fremont Corr. Fac. 52 20 155 72 High Plains Corr. Fac.e,g 22 12 54 34 Connecticut Osborn Corr. Inst. 8 7 8 7 Delaware Howard R. Young Corr. Inst.f 33 23 80 49 Florida Central Florida Reception Ctr. East, South & Main 4 4 4 4 Charlotte Corr. Inst. 18 13 37 30 Cross City Corr. Inst. & Work Camp 28 16 72 43 Hamilton Corr. Inst., Annex & Work Camp 76 35 200 96 Lowell Corr. Inst., Annex & Work Campe 84 33 182 86 Sumter Corr. Inst., Boot Camp & Work Camp 65 37 63 41 Taylor Corr. Inst. & Annex 21 20 21 20 Georgia Hays State Prison 90 42 97 37 Men's Corr. State Prison 81 27 141 60 Metro State Prisone 109 34 153 51 Walker Corr. Inst. 16 11 146 120 Wilcox State Prison 80 48 36 26 Hawaii Waiawa Corr. Fac. 80 61 80 61 Idaho South Idaho Corr. Inst. 0 0 0 0 Illinois Danville Corr. Ctr. 16 9 23 15 Dixon Corr. Ctr. 91 45 113 48 Logan Corr. Ctr. 31 22 31 22 Vienna Corr. Ctr. 6 5 6 5 Indiana Plainfield Corr. Fac. 119 61 156 74 Rockville Corr. Fac.e 274 101 394 120

Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007 41 Appendix table 8. Number of incidents of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization per 1,000 inmates, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007 Nonconsensual sexual actsa Abusive sexual contacts onlyb Facility name Incident ratec Standard errord Incident ratec Standard errord

Iowa Anamosa State Penitentiary 86 45 139 62 Kansas Hutchinson Corr. Fac. 88 79 88 79 Kentucky Western Kentucky Corr. Complex 0 0 0 0 Louisiana Dixon Corr. Inst. 211 85 259 107 Forcht-Wade Corr. Ctr. 45 34 15 9 Maine Maine Corr. Ctr.f 46 15 145 60 Maryland Baltimore Pre-Release Unit - Womene 87 41 68 27 Maryland Corr. Training Ctr. 171 113 243 135 Roxbury Corr. Inst. 167 95 122 62 Massachusetts Old Colony Corr. Ctr. 45 24 184 123 Michigan Bellamy Creek Corr. Fac. 78 36 105 64 Marquette Branch Prison 32 14 63 35 Ojibway Corr. Fac. 13 9 111 77 Minnesota Minnesota Corr. Fac. - Stillwater 33 23 107 65 Mississippi Harrison Community Work Ctr. 0 0 0 0 Missouri Jefferson City Corr. Ctr. 57 27 119 64 Northeast Corr. Ctr. 71 36 118 75 Southeast Corr. Ctr. 115 75 122 75 Montana Montana State Prison 82 44 133 66 Nebraska Tecumseh State Corr. Inst. 62 59 62 59 Nevada Florence McClure Women's Corr. Ctr.e 99 28 163 45 Southern Desert Corr. Ctr. 56 30 56 30 New Hampshire New Hampshire State Prison for Men 157 75 198 86 New Jersey Northern State Prison 106 97 106 97 South Woods State Prison 14 10 9 6 New Mexico Lea County Corr. Fac.g 9 9 46 43 Penitentiary of New Mexico 0 0 0 0 New York Arthur Kill Corr. Fac. 10 6 14 9 Elmira Corr. Fac. 73 66 73 66 Great Meadow Corr. Fac. 45 24 31 15 Greene Corr. Fac. 26 22 26 22 Wende Corr. Fac. 78 39 72 39 North Carolina Avery Mitchell Corr. Inst. 45 22 156 85 Fountain Corr. Ctr.e 45 17 109 47 Gates Corr. Ctr. 0 0 0 0 Harnett Corr. Inst. 132 76 244 115 Odom Corr. Inst. 46 39 46 39 North Dakota North Dakota State Penitentiary 36 22 36 22 Ohio Belmont Corr. Inst. 96 74 153 96 Grafton Corr. Inst. 112 66 60 42 North Central Corr. Inst. 64 38 126 74

42 Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007 Appendix table 8. Number of incidents of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization per 1,000 inmates, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007 Nonconsensual sexual actsa Abusive sexual contacts onlyb Facility name Incident ratec Standard errord Incident ratec Standard errord

Oklahoma Joseph Harp Corr. Ctr. 188 68 340 132 Oregon Oregon State Corr. Inst. 34 20 42 22 Pennsylvania Cambridge Springs State Corr. Inst.e 90 38 190 89 Dallas State Corr. Inst. 39 24 117 72 Fayette State Corr. Inst. 42 24 145 90 Graterford State Corr. Inst. 6 5 31 23 Rockview State Corr. Inst. 96 87 96 87 Rhode Island John Moran Medium Security Fac. 14 9 46 38 Women's Divisione 40 11 101 31 South Carolina Allendale Corr. Inst. 91 60 91 60 Lee Corr. Inst. 88 65 32 26 South Dakota South Dakota State Penitentiary 96 50 97 67 Tennessee Northwest Corr. Complex 13 9 49 43 Tennessee Prison for Womene 11 7 22 13 Whiteville Corr. Fac.g 28 20 44 29 Texas Allred Unit 123 57 106 56 Clements Unit 135 110 135 110 Coffield Unit 115 46 149 60 Dawson State Jailf,g 13 8 31 20 Estelle Unit 278 132 321 139 Fort Stockton Transfer Fac. 0 0 0 0 Hilltop Unite 35 13 108 54 Holliday Transfer Fac. 11 10 5 5 Lockhart Unitf,g 55 22 75 31 Lopez State Jail 0 0 0 0 McConnell Unit 80 49 108 56 Mountain View Unite 154 50 263 85 Polunsky Unit 40 31 88 58 Ramsey Unit #2 43 28 43 28 Wynne Unit 15 9 34 24 Utah Utah State Prisonf 284 127 309 130 Vermont Chittenden Regional Corr. Fac. 27 14 88 55 Virginia Red Onion State Prison 66 54 159 129 St. Brides Corr. Ctr. 0 0 0 0 Washington Stafford Creek Corr. Ctr. 23 13 65 44 West Virginia Northern Regional Corr. Fac. 61 29 161 73 Wisconson Stanley Corr. Inst. 27 26 27 26 Waupun Corr. Inst. 5 5 5 5 Wyoming Wyoming State Penitentiary 12 7 37 23

Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007 43 Appendix table 8. Number of incidents of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization per 1,000 inmates, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007 Nonconsensual sexual actsa Abusive sexual contacts onlyb Facility name Incident ratec Standard errord Incident ratec Standard errord

Federal Facilities (Bureau of Prisons) Allenwood Low Fed. Corr. Inst. 0 0 0 0 Beaumont Low Fed. Corr. Inst. 27 21 27 21 Bennettsville-Camp 0 0 0 0 Big Sandy U.S. Penitentiary 18 13 91 76 Big Spring Corr. Inst.g 00 00 Cibola County Corr. Inst.g 00 00 Fort Dix Fed. Corr. Inst. 0 0 0 0 La Tuna - Fed. Satellite Fac. (El Paso) 5 4 11 9 Lexington Fed. Medical Fac. 40 26 40 26 McCreary U.S. Penitentiary 0 0 0 0 Memphis Fed. Corr. Inst. 68 64 68 64 Milan Fed. Corr. Inst. 0 0 0 0 Oakdale Fed. Detention Fac. 0 0 0 0 Pekin Fed. Corr. Inst. 8 7 8 7 Schuylkill Fed. Corr. Inst. 0 0 0 0 Taft Corr. Inst.g 33 76 Terminal Island Fed. Corr. Inst. 10 7 126 83 Victorville Med. I Fed. Corr. Inst. 25 18 50 41 Yazoo City Med. Fed. Corr. Inst. 17 11 121 107 Note: Detail may sum to more than total because victims may have reported both inmate-on-inmate and staff-on-inmate sexual victimization. aIncludes all incidents of unwanted contacts with another inmate that involved oral sex, anal sex, vaginal sex, handjobs, or other sexual acts. bIncludes all incidents of unwanted contacts with another inmate that involved only touching of the inmate's butt, thighs, penis, breasts, or vagina in a sexual way. cIncident rate represents that the number of incidents reported by inmates per 1,000 inmates. dStandard errors may be used to construct confidence intervals around the weighted survey estimates. (See Methodology.) eFemale facility. fFacility houses both males and females. gPrivately operated facility.

44 Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007 Appendix table 9. Number of incidents of staff-on-inmate sexual victimization per 1,000 inmates, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007 Unwilling sexual contacta Willing sexual contactb Facility name Incident ratec Standard errord Incident ratec Standard errord

Total 85 8 82 8

Alabama Julia Tutwiler Prisone 115 64 17 8 Limestone Corr. Fac. 38 36 38 36 Alaska Wildwood Corr. Complex 151 79 196 105 Arizona Arizona State Prison Complex - Eyman 100 42 121 60 Arizona State Prison Complex - Florence 4 4 4 4 Arizona State Prison Complex - Tucson 3 3 3 3 Arkansas Diagnostic Unit 9 7 9 7 Jefferson County Corr. Fac. 22 18 45 35 California Avenal State Prison 26 21 15 11 California Inst. for Men 102 86 102 86 California Sub. Abuse Treatment Fac. - Corcoran 169 94 113 56 California Men’s Colony 25 17 31 19 California Rehabilitation Ctr. 51 33 70 39 Calipatria State Prison 68 60 13 9 Central California Women's Fac.e 33 20 60 47 Corr. Training Fac. 109 108 9 9 Ironwood State Prison 0 0 0 0 Mule Creek State Prison 106 79 36 20 North Kern State Prison 7 7 7 7 R. J. Donovan Corr. Fac. at Rock Mountain 133 98 33 15 San Quentin State Prison 142 91 42 26 Sierra Conservation Ctr. 189 96 143 80 Valley State Prison for Womene 125 53 142 62 Colorado Fremont Corr. Fac. 27 14 44 23 High Plains Corr. Fac.e,g 38 25 162 123 Connecticut Osborn Corr. Inst. 59 44 19 12 Delaware Howard R. Young Corr. Inst.f 56 28 126 63 Florida Central Florida Reception Ctr. East, South & Main 0 0 0 0 Charlotte Corr. Inst. 498 171 349 109 Cross City Corr. Inst. & Work Camp 51 19 41 16 Hamilton Corr. Inst., Annex & Work Camp 49 27 146 79 Lowell Corr. Inst., Annex & Work Campe 54 29 23 12 Sumter Corr. Inst., Boot Camp & Work Camp 35 14 57 23 Taylor Corr. Inst. & Annex 50 32 30 15 Georgia Hays State Prison 156 63 237 75 Men's Corr. State Prison 78 39 51 20 Metro State Prisone 45 25 16 9 Walker Corr. Inst. 6 5 32 27 Wilcox State Prison 20 9 139 75 Hawaii Waiawa Corr. Fac. 144 88 16 9 Idaho South Idaho Corr. Inst. 125 85 46 27 Illinois Danville Corr. Ctr. 0 0 0 0 Dixon Corr. Ctr. 97 48 101 57 Logan Corr. Ctr. 60 35 36 22 Vienna Corr. Ctr. 55 39 62 40

Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007 45 Appendix table 9. Number of incidents of staff-on-inmate sexual victimization per 1,000 inmates, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.) Unwilling sexual contacta Willing sexual contactb Facility name Incident ratec Standard errord Incident ratec Standard errord

Indiana Plainfield Corr. Fac. 92 41 114 50 Rockville Corr. Fac.e 46 28 56 42 Iowa Anamosa State Penitentiary 49 43 20 15 Kansas Hutchinson Corr. Fac. 135 80 295 107 Kentucky Western Kentucky Corr. Complex 167 116 20 13 Louisiana Dixon Corr. Inst. 108 46 76 41 Forcht-Wade Corr. Ctr. 0 0 0 0 Maine Maine Corr. Ctr.f 107 58 19 10 Maryland Baltimore Pre-Release Unit - Womene 00 0 0 Maryland Corr. Training Ctr. 124 81 144 68 Roxbury Corr. Inst. 97 61 151 85 Massachusetts Old Colony Corr. Ctr. 229 127 32 15 Michigan Bellamy Creek Corr. Fac. 41 15 194 71 Marquette Branch Prison 147 74 74 32 Ojibway Corr. Fac. 126 71 71 30 Minnesota Minnesota Corr. Fac. - Stillwater 8 6 14 12 Mississippi Harrison Community Work Ctr. 9 4 9 4 Missouri Jefferson City Corr. Ctr. 122 58 110 59 Northeast Corr. Ctr. 18 8 26 13 Southeast Corr. Ctr. 74 33 190 89 Montana Montana State Prison 130 64 169 65 Nebraska Tecumseh State Corr. Inst. 869 371 447 236 Nevada Florence McClure Women's Corr. Ctr.e 65 33 17 9 Southern Desert Corr. Ctr. 178 89 194 98 New Hampshire New Hampshire State Prison for Men 42 26 66 37 New Jersey Northern State Prison 58 24 181 109 South Woods State Prison 154 91 204 105 New Mexico Lea County Corr. Fac.g 41 17 91 46 Penitentiary of New Mexico 0 0 0 0 New York Arthur Kill Corr. Fac. 129 69 50 25 Elmira Corr. Fac. 126 73 41 22 Great Meadow Corr. Fac. 348 125 300 132 Greene Corr. Fac. 104 87 24 13 Wende Corr. Fac. 147 64 82 37 North Carolina Avery Mitchell Corr. Inst. 87 65 14 8 Fountain Corr. Ctr.e 98 4 4 Gates Corr. Ctr. 0 0 0 0 Harnett Corr. Inst. 41 17 52 23 Odom Corr. Inst. 174 90 165 91 North Dakota North Dakota State Penitentiary 152 76 169 79

46 Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007 Appendix table 9. Number of incidents of staff-on-inmate sexual victimization per 1,000 inmates, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.) Unwilling sexual contacta Willing sexual contactb Facility name Incident ratec Standard errord Incident ratec Standard errord

Ohio Belmont Corr. Inst. 191 101 237 110 Grafton Corr. Inst. 29 19 71 60 North Central Corr. Inst. 51 32 68 40 Oklahoma Joseph Harp Corr. Ctr. 0 0 0 0 Oregon Oregon State Corr. Inst. 206 82 117 56 Pennsylvania Cambridge Springs State Corr. Inst.e 00 00 Dallas State Corr. Inst. 11 10 5 5 Fayette State Corr. Inst. 138 64 211 75 Graterford State Corr. Inst. 39 22 79 59 Rockview State Corr. Inst. 14 8 62 48 Rhode Island John Moran Medium Security Fac. 35 19 29 16 Women's Divisione 38 14 65 26 South Carolina Allendale Corr. Inst. 97 56 137 84 Lee Corr. Inst. 106 31 216 73 South Dakota South Dakota State Penitentiary 184 92 168 75 Tennessee Northwest Corr. Complex 24 11 48 24 Tennessee Prison for Womene 78 36 129 53 Whiteville Corr. Fac.g 235 116 220 90 Texas Allred Unit 194 87 78 28 Clements Unit 342 105 273 98 Coffield Unit 108 53 214 83 Dawson State Jailf,g 22 13 63 50 Estelle Unit 160 59 274 90 Fort Stockton Transfer Fac. 13 8 20 13 Hilltop Unite 15 7 20 10 Holliday Transfer Fac. 65 62 5 5 Lockhart Unitf,g 18 16 18 16 Lopez State Jail 13 8 13 8 McConnell Unit 75 27 131 52 Mountain View Unite 166 74 82 45 Polunsky Unit 66 25 66 23 Ramsey Unit #2 38 17 38 16 Wynne Unit 115 92 79 46 Utah Utah State Prisonf 92 68 24 10 Vermont Chittenden Regional Corr. Fac. 13 9 26 13 Virginia Red Onion State Prison 63 31 129 68 St. Brides Corr. Ctr. 197 154 408 223 Washington Stafford Creek Corr. Ctr. 58 30 62 41 West Virginia Northern Regional Corr. Fac. 18 10 56 31 Wisconsin Stanley Corr. Inst. 90 57 79 56 Waupun Corr. Inst. 298 122 180 62 Wyoming Wyoming State Penitentiary 94 36 207 84

Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007 47 Appendix table 9. Number of incidents of staff-on-inmate sexual victimization per 1,000 inmates, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.) Unwilling sexual contacta Willing sexual contactb Facility name Incident ratec Standard errord Incident ratec Standard errord

Federal Facilities (Bureau of Prisons) Allenwood Low Fed. Corr. Inst. 32 22 18 11 Beaumont Low Fed. Corr. Inst. 50 34 14 10 Bennettsville-Camp 0 0 0 0 Big Sandy U.S. Penitentiary 13 9 19 13 Big Spring Corr. Inst.g 00 00 Cibola County Corr. Inst.g 11 9 15 11 Fort Dix Fed. Corr. Inst. 8 5 21 16 La Tuna - Fed. Satellite Fac. (El Paso) 28 18 10 6 Lexington Fed. Medical Fac. 0 0 7 7 McCreary U.S. Penitentiary 39 37 8 7 Memphis Fed. Corr. Inst. 40 28 86 65 Milan Fed. Corr. Inst. 39 36 8 7 Oakdale Fed. Detention Fac. 27 26 27 26 Pekin Fed. Corr. Inst. 254 131 51 21 Schuylkill Fed. Corr. Inst. 0 0 0 0 Taft Corr. Inst.g 00 00 Terminal Island Fed. Corr. Inst. 0 0 0 0 Victorville Med. I Fed. Corr. Inst. 27 15 164 113 Yazoo City Med. Fed. Corr. Inst. 178 103 120 85 aIncludes all incidents of reported unwilling sexual contacts with staff. bIncludes all incidents of willing sexual contacts with staff inmate. cIncident rate represents that the number of incidents reported by inmates per 1,000 inmates. dStandard errors may be used to construct confidence intervals around the weighted survey estimates. (See Methodology.) eFemale facility. fFacility houses both males and females. gPrivately operated facility.

48 Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007 U.S. Department of Justice Embargoed for release to the public until Office of Justice Programs Wednesday, June 25, 2008, at 9:00 a.m. EDT.

Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report

June 2008, NCJ 221946 Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007 By Allen J. Beck, Ph.D. headphones. A small number of jail inmates (223) com- and Paige M. Harrison, pleted a short paper form. These were primarily inmates BJS Statisticians housed in administrative or disciplinary segregation or considered too violent to be interviewed. The Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-79) requires the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) to carry out The NIS is a self-administered survey designed to encour- a comprehensive statistical review and analysis of the inci- age reporting by providing anonymity to respondents. Com- dence and effects of prison rape for each calendar year. puter-assisted technologies provide uniform conditions This report fulfills the requirement under Sec. 4(c)(2)(B)(ii) under which inmates complete the survey. In each facility, of the Act to provide a list of local jails according to the respondents are randomly selected. Before the interview, prevalence of sexual victimization. inmates are informed verbally and in writing that participation is voluntary and that all information will be held in confi- In December 2007, BJS published Sexual Victimization in dence. Overall, two-thirds (67%) of eligible sampled jail State and Federal Prison Reported by Inmates, 2007 (NCJ inmates participated in the survey. 219414), which details the findings from 23,398 inmates held in 146 sampled prisons in the National Inmate Survey To provide reliable facility-level estimates of sexual vio- (NIS). This report presents the findings for the 282 local lence, the NIS limited reporting of sexual victimization to jails in the NIS sample. The survey on sexual victimization, incidents that occurred at the sampled jail facilities during conducted by RTI International (Research Triangle Park, the 6 months prior to the date of the interview. Inmates who NC), was administered to 40,419 jail inmates between April had served less than 6 months were asked about their and December 2007. (See Methodology for sample experiences since admission to the facility. description.) The NIS collects only allegations of sexual victimization. The NIS is part of the National Prison Rape Statistical Pro- Because participation in the survey is anonymous and gram, which collects administrative records of reported reports are confidential, the NIS does not permit any follow- sexual violence as well as collecting allegations of sexual up investigation or substantiation through review of official violence directly from victims through surveys of current records. Some allegations in the NIS may be untrue. At the and former inmates. Administrative records have been col- same time, some inmates may remain silent about sexual lected annually since 2004. Data collections from former victimization experienced in the facility, despite efforts of inmates under active supervision and youth held in state survey staff to assure inmates that their survey responses and locally operated juvenile facilities are underway. would be kept confidential. Although the effects may be offsetting, the relative extent of underreporting and false The 2007 NIS survey consisted of an audio computer- reporting in the NIS is unknown. assisted self interview (ACASI) in which inmates, using a touch-screen, interacted with a computer-assisted questionnaire and followed audio instructions delivered via Detailed information is available in appendix tables in the online version of this report on the BJS Website at . 3.2% of jail inmates reported experiencing one or more Table 1. Local jail inmates reporting sexual incidents of sexual victimization victimization, National Inmate Survey, 2007 Among the 40,419 jail inmates participating in the 2007 sur- National estimate vey, 1,330 reported experiencing one or more incidents of Type Number Percent sexual victimization. Because the NIS is a sample survey, Total 24,700 3.2% weights were applied for sampled facilities and inmates Inmate-on-inmate 12,100 1.6% within facilities to produce national-level and facility-level Nonconsensual sexual acts 5,200 0.7 estimates. The estimated number of local jail inmates Abusive sexual contacts only 6,900 0.9 experiencing sexual violence totaled 24,700 (or 3.2% of all Staff sexual misconduct 15,200 2.0% jail inmates, nationwide). Unwilling activity 10,400 1.3 Excluding touching 8,300 1.1 About 1.6% of inmates (12,100, nationwide) reported an Touching only 2,100 0.3 incident involving another inmate, and 2.0% (15,200) Willing activity 8,400 1.1 reported an incident involving staff. Some inmates (0.4%) Excluding touching 7,100 0.9 said they had been sexually victimized by both other Touching only 1,200 0.2 inmates and staff (table 1). Note: Detail may not sum to total because inmates may report more than one type of victimization. They may also The NIS screened for specific sexual report victimization by other inmates and by staff. activities, then asked respondents if they were forced or pressured to Table 2. Local jails with high rates of inmate sexual victimization, National Inmate engage in these activities by another Survey, 2007 inmate or staff. (See appendices 7 Percent of inmates report- through 9 for specific survey ques- ing sexual victimizationa tions.) Reports of inmate-on-inmate Number of Response Weighted Standard Number of b c d e sexual violence were classified as Facility name respondents rate percent error similar facilities either nonconsensual sexual acts or U.S. total 40,419 67% 3.2% 0.1% abusive sexual contacts. Approxi- Torrance Co. Det. Fac. (NM)f 67 40 13.4 4.1 53 mately 0.7% of jail inmates (5,200) Clark Co. Jail (WA) 163 71 9.1 2.2 80 said they had nonconsensual sex Bernalillo Co. Metro. Det. Ctr. with another inmate, including giving (NM) 117 42 8.9 2.9 151 or receiving sexual gratification, and Brevard Co. Det. Ctr. (FL) 228 83 8.5 1.9 86 Southeastern Ohio Reg. Jail (OH) 85 57 8.1 2.1 116 oral, anal, or vaginal penetration. An Wayne Co. Jail (IN) 131 75 7.5 1.9 133 additional 0.9% of jail inmates Franklin Co. Jail (NY) 81 86 7.3 1.4 110 (6,900) said they had experienced New York City Rose M. Singer g one or more abusive sexual contacts Ctr. (NY) 178 68 7.2 1.7 129 Atlanta City Jail (GA) 145 41 7.1 3.0 239 only, that is, unwanted touching of Fulton Co. Jail (GA) 187 67 7.1 1.8 137 specific body parts in a sexual way Caldwell Parish Jails (LA) 210 93 6.9 1.6 149 by another inmate. Philadelphia City Industrial Corr. Ctr. (PA) 180 71 6.9 1.8 150 An estimated 1.3% of all inmates Will Co. Adult Det. Fac. (IL) 172 73 6.8 2.0 168 (10,400) reported that they had sex Androscoggin Co. Jail (ME) 55 67 6.7 2.2 192 or sexual contact unwillingly with La Fourche Parish Jail (LA) 151 76 6.6 1.2 122 staff as a result of physical force, Dixie Co Jail (FL) 56 67 6.5 2.5 231 Los Angeles Co. - Twin Towers pressure, or offers of special favors Corr. Fac. (CA) 95 43 6.4 2.6 239 or privileges. An estimated 1.1% of Riverside Co. Robert Presley Det. all inmates (8,400) reported they Ctr. (CA) 141 66 6.4 2.2 210 willingly had sex or sexual contact Note: Includes all facilities with a prevalence rate of at least twice the national average (3.2%). Excludes Chowan Co. Det. Fac. (NC), 8.6%, and Pulaski Co. Tri-Co. Justice & Det. Ctr. (IL), 6.7%, with with staff. Regardless of whether an rates that were not statistically different from zero at the 95% confidence level. inmate reported being willing or aPercent of inmates reporting one or more incidents of sexual victimization involving another inmate or unwilling, any sexual contact facility staff in the past 6 months or since admission to the facility, if less than 6 months. between jail inmates and staff is ille- bNumber of respondents selected for the NIS on sexual victimization. gal; however, the difference may be cWeights were applied so that inmates who responded accurately reflected the entire population of informative when addressing issues each facility on selected characteristics, including age, gender, race, and time served since admission. of staff training, prevention, and dStandard errors may be used to construct confidence intervals around the weighted survey estimates. follow-up. For example, the 95% confidence interval around the total percent is 3.2% plus or minus 1.96 times 0.1% (or 3.0% to 3.4%). eEstimates for each facility are determined to be statistically similar if the 95% confidence interval around the difference contains zero. (See Methodology for details.) fPrivate facility. gFemale only facility. 2 Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007 18 jails had prevalence rates of at least twice the other facilities would be included in the interval, but these national average of 3.2% facilities also have estimated rates and confidence intervals. Of the 282 jail facilities in the 2007 NIS, 18 had an overall victimization rate of at least twice the national average of By constructing 95% confidence intervals around the differ- 3.2% (table 2). The overall victimization rate is a measure ences between facility estimates, we can determine the of prevalence that includes all experiences, regardless of number of facilities with statistically similar rates of victim- the level of coercion and type of sexual activity. ization. For example, the confidence interval around the observed difference between the Torrance County Deten- Statistically, the NIS is unable to identify the facility with the tion Facility and the Polk County Jail (Iowa) is 8.6% plus or highest prevalence rate. Because the estimates are based minus 9.5%. Since the interval includes zero, these facili- on a sample of inmates rather than a complete enumera- ties are considered to be statistically similar. Overall, 53 jail tion, the estimates are subject to sampling error. The preci- facilities are statistically similar to the Torrance County sion of each facility estimate can be calculated based on Detention Facility. the estimated standard error. For example, the victimization rate of 13.4% recorded for the Torrance County Detention Facilities with rates lower than the 4.8% in the Polk County Facility (New Mexico) has a precision of plus or minus Jail are statistically different from Torrance County. Terreb- 8.0% with a 95% confidence level. This precision, based on onne Parish Jail (Louisiana) had the next highest rate, the standard error of 4.1% multiplied by 1.96, indicates a 4.7%. Since the 95% confidence interval around the 95% confidence that the true prevalence rate in the Tor- observed difference with Torrance County (8.7% plus or rance County Detention Facility is between 5.4% and minus 8.4%) does not include zero, the Terrebonne Parish 21.4%. Jail is considered statistically different. (See Methodology for calculation of confidence intervals comparing facilities.) Within each facility, the estimated standard error varies by the size of the estimate, the number of completed inter- Nearly a third of all facilities had rates views, and the size of the facility. Although the sampling indistinguishable from zero procedures are designed to produce the same level of precision within all facilities (a standard error of 1.75%), the Eighteen jail facilities had no reported incidents of sexual actual standard errors varied depending on the response victimization (table 3). Cameron County Jail (Texas) was rate and characteristics of the responding inmates. (See the largest jail (1,368 inmates) with no reported incidents, Methodology for further discussion of standard errors.) followed by Northwest Ohio Regional Correctional Center As a consequence of sampling error, the NIS cannot provide an exact ranking for all Table 3. Local jails with no reported incidents of inmate sexual victimization, facilities as required under the Prison National Inmate Survey, 2007 Rape Elimination Act. However, detailed Number of inmates in Number of Response tabulations of the survey results are pre- Facility name custodya respondents rateb sented by facility and state in appendix tables 1 through 6.1 Facility prevalence Cameron Co. Jail (TX) 1,368 100 40% Northwest Ohio Reg. Corr. Ctr. (OH) 662 154 70 rates vary by level and type of victimiza- Orange Co. Work Rel. Ctr. (FL) 300 104 59 tion, and observed differences between Hampden Co. Western Mass. Corr. Alcohol Ctr. (MA) 184 117 84 facilities will not always be statistically sig- Jackson Co. Municipal Corr. Inst. (MO) 219 55 43 nificant. Consequently, these measures Coles Co. Jail (IL) 97 70 83 cannot be used to reliably rank facilities Culpeper Co. Jail (VA) 113 58 69 Atchison Co. Jail (KS) 77 39 57 from 1 (the highest) to 282 (the lowest). Story Co. Jail (IA) 81 38 63 Unlike the results of the 2007 NIS in state Knox Co. Work Rel. Center (TN) 64 35 72 Dinwiddie Co. Jail (VA) 59 39 76 and federal prisons, the NIS in local jails Cecil Co. Com. Adult Rehab. Ctr. (MD) 49 32 75 does not provide a statistical basis for Tippah Co. Jail (MS) 38 26 83 identifying a small group of facilities with Bullock Co. Jail (AL) 33 9 41 the highest rates of sexual victimization. Prowers Co. Jail (CO) 31 19 91 Based on the large confidence interval Koochiching Co. Law Enfor. Ctr. (MN) 20 9 100 Searcy Co. Jail (AR) 11 8 73 around the Torrance County Detention Wayne Co. Jail (MO) 16 6 86 Facility (13.4% plus or minus 8.0%), 38 Note: An additional 69 facilities had rates of sexual victimization that were not statistically different from zero at the 95% confidence level. 1Facility level information and estimates are pro- aNumber of inmates held in the facility on the day of the facility roster plus any new inmates vided for all sampled jails in appendix tables 1 and admitted prior to the first day of data collection. (See Methodology for details.) 2. Appendix tables 3 through 6 exclude those jails bResponse rate equals the total number of respondents divided by the number of inmates with no reported incidents of sexual victimization sampled minus the number of ineligible inmates times 100 percent. (See Methodology for and rates not statistically different from zero. sampling description.)

Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007 3 (Ohio), with 662 inmates, and Orange County Table 4. Local jails with the highest rates of inmate sexual Work Release Center (Florida), with 300 inmates. victimization, by type, National Inmate Survey, 2007 An additional 69 facilities had rates that were not Percent of inmates reporting sexual victimizationa statistically different from zero at the 95% confi- Measure/facility Percent Standard error dence level. Thirty-seven of these facilities had rates below 1.5% (not shown), and 21 were large Facilities with the highest percent reporting any form of sexual victimization facilities with more than 1,000 inmates in custody. Torrance Co. Det. Fac. (NM)b 13.4% 4.1% The Bexar County Adult Detention Center (Texas), Clark Co. Jail (WA) 9.1 2.2 with 4,179 inmates in custody, was the largest Bernalillo Co. Metro. Det. Ctr. (NM) 8.9 2.9 facility surveyed that had a rate of sexual victimiza- Brevard Co. Det. Ctr. (FL) 8.5 1.9 tion indistinguishable from zero (1.6% plus or Southeastern Ohio Reg. Jail (OH) 8.1 2.1 minus 1.8%). Facilities with the highest percent reporting a nonconsensual sexual act or abusive sexual contactc Torrance Co. Det. Fac. (NM)b 10.1% 3.8% Identification of the facilities with the highest Clark Co. Jail (WA) 8.5 2.1 rates of sexual victimization depends on non- Southeastern Ohio Reg. Jail (OH) 8.1 2.1 statistical judgments Bernalillo Co. Metro. Det. Ctr. (NM) 7.8 2.7 Wayne Co. Jail (IN) 7.5 1.9 Of the 18 facilities that had the highest overall prevalence rates of sexual victimization, 3 facilities Facilities with the highest percent reporting a nonconsensual sexual actd were consistently high on measures restricted to Torrance Co. Det. Fac. (NM)b 8.9% 3.3% the most serious forms of sexual victimization Brevard Co. Det. Ctr. (FL) 7.8 1.8 (table 4). The Torrance County Detention Facility Bernalillo Co. Metro. Det. Ctr. (NM) 6.7 2.5 (New Mexico) had the highest rate — 10.1% when Southeastern Ohio Reg. Jail (OH) 5.8 1.8 sexual victimization excluded willing activity with Lexington-Fayette Urban Co. D.C.C. (KY) 5.5 1.8 staff and 8.9% when victimization excluded abu- Note: All measures are based on facilities with estimates statistically different from sive sexual contacts (allegations of touching only). zero at the 95% confidence level. The Southeastern Ohio Regional Jail and the Ber- aInmates reporting one or more incidents of sexual victimization involving another nalillo County Metropolitan Detention Center (New inmate or facility staff in the past 6 months or since admission to the facility, if less than 6 months. Mexico) were also among the top five facilities on bPrivate facility. each of these more serious measures of sexual cExcludes allegations of willing sexual contacts with staff. victimization. dIncludes allegations of unwanted contacts with another inmate and any contacts Of the 282 sampled facilities, 19 jails had statisti- with staff that involved oral, anal, and vaginal penetration, handjobs and other sexual acts. cally significant rates of injury related to sexual victimization (table 5). Overall, 0.6% of all jail inmates Table 5. Local jails with the highest rates of injury, National reported an injury related to sexual victimization. The Riv- Inmate Survey, 2007 erside County Robert Presley Detention Center (California) Facility name Percent injured Standard error had the highest observed rate with 4.6% of inmates reporting an injury, followed by Garfield County Jail (Colorado) Total 0.6% < 0.0% with 4.0%, and San Diego County George F. Bailey Deten- Riverside Co. Robert Presley Det. tion Facility (California) with 3.6%. Ctr. (CA) 4.6 2.0 Garfield Co. Jail (CO) 4.0 1.7 The Brevard County Detention Center (Florida), with an San Diego Co. George F. Bailey injury rate of 3.1%, and the Southeastern Ohio Regional Det. Fac.(CA) 3.6 1.4 Androscoggin Co. Jail (ME) 3.5 1.7 Jail (Ohio), with an injury rate of 2.5%, were also among Kentucky River Reg. Jail (KY) 3.2 1.3 the 5 facilities recording the highest overall rates of sexual Erie Co. Holding Ctr. (NY) 3.2 1.3 victimization and the highest rates of nonconsensual sex- Brevard Co. Det. Ctr. (FL) 3.1 1.4 ual activity. Will Co. Adult Det. Fac. (IL) 2.7 1.2 Southeastern Ohio Reg. Jail (OH) 2.5 1.2 Most victims of sexual violence in jails did not report an St. Tammany Parish Jail (LA) 2.4 1.1 injury. Nationwide, approximately 20% of the estimated Santa Barbara Co. Jail (CA) 2.3 1.1 24,700 victims said they had been injured as a result of the Franklin Co. Jail (NY) 2.2 0.7 Harris Co. Jail - Baker Street (TX) 2.1 1.0 sexual victimization. The majority of injured victims Richmond City Jail (VA) 2.1 1.0 reported minor injuries, such as bruises, cuts, or scratches St. Bernard Parish Prison (LA) 1.9 0.8 (16%). Most injured victims (85%) also reported at least Western Reg. Jail (WV) 1.8 0.9 one more serious injury. Among all victims, 8% reported Jackson Co. Jail (AL) 1.3 0.5 La Fourche Parish Jail (LA) 1.3 0.5 Hamilton Co. Talbert House Drug and Alcohol Trt. Ctr. (OH) 1.0 0.5 Note: All other facilities had injury rates not statistically different from zero. 4 Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007 being knocked unconscious, 6% reported anal Table 6. Prevalence of inmate sexual victimization, by selected or rectal tearing, 6% internal injuries, 3% bro- characteristics of jail facilities, National Inmate Survey, 2007 ken bones, and 2% knife or stab wounds. Percent of inmates reporting sexual victimizationa Type of injury All inmates All victims Nonconsen- Any injury 0.6% 19.5% Number of Inmate- Staff- sual sexual Knife or stab wounds 0.1 2.1 Facility characteristic inmatesb Total on-inmate on-inmate acts onlyc Broken bones 0.1 3.3 Type of facilityd Anal/rectal tearing 0.2 6.3 Detention only 36,358 3.0% 1.3% 2.2% 2.2% Teeth chipped/knocked out 0.3 8.9 Detention/short-term 159,634 3.5 1.9 1.9 2.2 Internal injuries 0.2 6.3 Long-term 77,407 3.4 1.7 2.0 2.1 Knocked unconscious 0.2 7.8 Bruises, cuts, scratches 0.5 15.8 Gender housed Males only 62,093 3.3% 1.5% 2.1% 2.2% Number of inmates 772,800 24,700 Females only 2,487 5.0 3.9 1.9 2.0 Both males and females 208,762 3.4 1.9 1.9 2.2 Rates of sexual victimization were unrelated e to basic facility characteristics Size of facility Less than 100 1,351 2.1% 1.4% 0.9% 1.1% Data collected in the 2005 Census of Jail 100-249 6,495 3.6 1.7 2.4 2.4 Inmates and the 2006 Census of Jail Facilities 250-499 14,348 2.8 1.5 1.6 1.7 500-999 50,943 3.3 1.7 2.1 2.2 were analyzed in conjunction with the NIS data 1,000-1,999 99,197 3.1 1.6 1.8 2.0 to determine whether any facility characteristics 2,000 or more 101,065 3.9 2.1 2.1 2.4 were associated with higher rates of sexual vic- Percent of capacity occupiedf timization (table 6). An initial examination of Less than 90% 70,517 3.7% 2.0% 2.0% 2.2% selected facility characteristics revealed few 90-100 87,678 3.2 1.6 1.9 2.1 measurable differences at the 95% level of sta- 101-110 53,660 3.3 1.8 1.8 2.2 tistical confidence. 111% or greater 61,544 3.4 1.7 2.1 2.2 g • Inmates in long-term facilities (those with Time since last renovation 5 years or less 85,585 3.2% 1.6% 2.0% 2.2% the authority to house inmates convicted of 6-10 53,004 3.5 1.7 2.1 2.3 felonies with sentences of more than a year) 11-20 89,831 3.6 1.9 1.9 2.2 had an overall sexual victimization rate 21 years or more 44,979 3.3 1.9 1.9 2.0 (3.4%) that was similar to the rates reported Note: Characteristics of jail facilities were drawn from the 2005 Census of Jail Inmates by inmates in short-term facilities (3.5%) and and the 2006 Census of Jail Facilities, conducted by BJS. Missing data from the BJS cen- suses were obtained from the 2005 - 2007 National Jail and Adult Detention Directory, in detention-only facilities (3.0%). published by the American Correctional Association. aPercent of inmates reporting one or more incidents of sexual victimization involving • Victimization rates in female-only facilities another inmate or facility staff in the past 6 months or since admission to the facility, if were the highest (5.0%), largely due to inci- less than 6 months. b dents of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimiza- Number of inmates held in each type of facility on the day of the roster plus any new inmates admitted prior to the first day of data collection. tion (3.9%). Women in coed facilities had cIncludes allegations of unwanted oral, anal, and vaginal penetration, handjobs, and similar rates (5.0%). Therefore, the rate other sexual acts with other inmates and staff. appears to reflect higher overall rates dDetention facilities have authority to hold persons facing charges beyond 72 hours; reported by women, regardless of the type of short-term facilities hold persons convicted of offenses with sentences usually of a year facility (not shown in a table). or less; long-term facilities hold persons convicted of felonies with sentences of more than 1 year. eFacility size is based on the rated capacity (i.e., the maximum number of beds or • Sexual victimization was reported at slightly inmates assigned by a rating official). lower levels (2.1%) in small facilities (those fBased on the number of persons held on March 31, 2006, divided by the rated capacity holding fewer than 100 inmates). Because of times 100%. the small number of inmates in these facili- gBased on the year of most recent major renovation or the year of original construction, if ties, comparisons with other facilities were never renovated. not statistically significant.

• Though crowding is often assumed to be linked to • Inmates in facilities that had opened or been renovated prison violence, the highest rates of sexual victimization in the last 5 years reported lower rates of sexual victim- (3.7%) were reported in facilities that were the least ization (3.2%) than inmates in other facilities. Again, dif- crowded (operating at less than 90% of capacity). As with ferences in these rates were not statistically significant. other comparisons, these differences were not statistically significant.

Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007 5 Rates of sexual victimization were Table 7. Prevalence of inmate sexual victimization, by selected characteristics more strongly related to inmate of jail inmates, National Inmate Survey, 2007 characteristics than to facility Percent of inmates reporting sexual victimizationa characteristics Nonconsen- Number of Inmate-on- Staff-on- sual sexual Rates of sexual assault among inmates Inmate characteristic inmatesb Total inmate inmate acts only varied across demographic categories: Gender • Female inmates were more likely than Male 678,500 2.9% 1.3% 2.0% 2.0% male inmates to report a sexual victim- Female 94,300 5.1 3.7 2.0 2.4 Race/Hispanic origin ization (table 7). An estimated 5.1% of Whitec 273,900 2.9% 1.8% 1.5% 1.7% female inmates, compared to 2.9% of Blackc 282,400 3.2 1.3 2.1 2.1 male inmates, said they had experi- Hispanic 141,400 3.2 1.5 2.0 2.2 Otherc,d 18,200 4.1 1.6 2.9 2.4 enced one or more incidents of sexual c victimization. Two or more races 51,500 4.2 2.1 2.6 2.8 Age 18-19 52,600 4.7% 1.8% 3.4% 3.6% • Persons of two or more races reported 20-24 156,500 4.5 2.3 2.8 2.9 higher rates of sexual assault in jails 25-34 245,600 3.1 1.6 1.9 2.0 (4.2%), compared to white (2.9%), black 35-44 186,100 2.7 1.3 1.7 1.7 (3.2%), and Hispanic inmates (3.2%). 45-54 107,100 1.8 0.9 1.1 1.2 55 or older 24,900 2.2 1.6 0.7 1.6 • About 4.6% of inmates ages 18 to 24 Education reported being sexually assaulted, com- Less than high school 287,800 2.8% 1.5% 1.6% 1.8% High school graduate 282,500 3.1 1.3 2.2 2.2 pared to 2.4% of inmates age 25 and Some collegee 175,100 3.7 2.0 2.0 2.1 older. College degree or more 22,500 4.6 2.4 2.9 2.9 Sexual orientation • Inmates with a college education Heterosexual 702,800 2.7% 1.1% 1.7% 1.7% reported higher rates of sexual assault Bi-sexual 28,700 9.8 6.4 5.3 6.6 (4.6%) than inmates with less than a Homosexual 9,900 18.5 13.7 7.1 13.2 Other 10,300 9.8 5.8 6.5 7.6 high school degree (2.8%). Number of prior sexual partners 0-1 127,100 2.4% 1.2% 1.3% 1.6% The largest differences in sexual victimiza- 2-4 121,600 2.7 1.4 1.7 1.7 tion rates were found among inmates 5-10 145,000 3.0 1.7 1.7 1.8 based on their sexual preference and past 11-20 118,200 3.2 1.6 1.8 1.9 sexual experiences: 21 or more 230,600 4.1 1.8 2.8 2.9 Prior sexual assault • Inmates with a sexual orientation other Yes 102,600 11.8% 8.0% 5.5% 6.9% than heterosexual reported significantly No 666,100 1.9 0.6 1.4 1.3 Sexually assaulted at another higher rates of sexual victimization. An facility estimated 2.7% of heterosexual inmates Yes 11,800 33.0% 25.9% 13.9% 21.1% alleged an incident, compared to 18.5% No 756,900 2.7 1.2 1.8 1.8 of homosexual inmates, and 9.8% of aInmates reporting one or more incidents of sexual victimization involving another inmate or facil- bisexual inmates or inmates indicating ity staff in the past 6 months or since admission to the facility, if less than 6 months. “other” as an orientation. bEstimated number of jail inmates at midyear 2007, excluding inmates under age 18 and inmates held in jails with an average daily population of five inmates or fewer. • Inmates with 21 or more sexual part- cExcludes persons of Hispanic or Latino origin. ners prior to admission reported the dIncludes American Indians, Alaska Natives, Asians, Native Hawaiians, and other Pacific Island- highest rates of victimization (4.1%); ers. inmates with 1 or no prior sexual fIncludes persons with associate degrees. partners reported the lowest rates (2.4%).

• Inmates who had experienced a prior sexual assault were about 6 times more likely to report a sexual victimization in jail (11.8%), compared to those with no sexual assault history (1.9%).

• Among inmates who reported having been sexually assaulted at another prison or jail in the past, a third reported having been sexually victimized at the current facility.

6 Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007 Inmate-on-inmate victimization occurred most often in Table 8. Circumstances surrounding incidents of inmate the victim’s cell; staff-on-inmate victimization occurred sexual victimization in local jails, National Inmate Survey, in a closet, office, or other locked room 2007 Circumstances varied between inmate-on-inmate and staff- Inmate-on-inmate Staff-on-inmate on-inmate incidents. An estimated 48% of inmate-on- Noncon- All inci- sensual All inci- Unwilling inmate incidents occurred between 6 p.m. and midnight, Circumstance dents sexual acts dents activity while 47% of staff-on-inmate incidents occurred from mid- Number of victims 12,100 5,200 15,200 10,400 night to 6 a.m. (table 8). Over half of inmate-on-inmate victimizations took place in the victim’s cell or room (56%), Time of daya while a closet, office, or other locked room was the most 6 a.m. to noon 24.1% 32.4% 28.3% 32.2% Noon to 6 p.m. 30.4 35.7 24.3 28.2 common location for staff-on-inmate victimizations (47%). 6 p.m. to midnight 48.4 50.8 28.0 32.4 Inmate-on-inmate sexual assault victims most often Midnight to 6 p.m. 35.5 46.6 47.0 44.1 reported being threatened with harm or a weapon (44%) or Where occurreda “persuaded or talked into it” (41%). Staff-on-inmate sexual Victim's cell/room 56.3% 63.7% 30.3% 30.0% assault victims were most often “given a bribe or black- Another inmate's cell/ room 37.2 50.0 14.5 17.3 mailed” (52%). Two-thirds (67%) of inmate-on-inmate inci- Shower/bathroom 19.4 29.4 22.7 24.6 dents involved one perpetrator, compared to 80% of staff- Yard/recreation area 14.2 14.7 9.2 10.3 on-inmate incidents. Closet, office or other locked room 10.0 16.7 47.0 47.4 About half of the victims of inmate-on-inmate sexual Workshop/kitchen 8.0 11.4 26.6 29.7 assault said the most serious incidents (nonconsensual Classroom/library 5.6 9.0 20.5 24.9 sexual acts) had occurred only once. One in 7 victims said Elsewhere in facility 5.9 3.7 5.4 5.6 Off facility grounds 6.8 10.8 14.4 15.3 they had been a victim of a nonconsensual sexual act 11 times or more. Among victims of staff-on-inmate sexual Type of coerciona misconduct, 34% said they had unwilling sexual contact Persuaded/talked into it 40.6% 56.3% 35.2% 42.0% Given bribe/blackmailed 34.1 52.4 52.3 60.8 once; 15% reported 11 times or more. Given drugs/alcohol 16.7 29.1 24.7 32.6 One in 4 victims of an inmate-on-inmate assault told some- Offered protection from other inmates 26.3 41.0 22.1 29.8 one else within or outside the facility about the incident; Threatened with harm or about 1 in 7 victims of staff-on-inmate incidents said they a weapon 43.7 54.3 24.6 32.1 reported the incident to someone. Physically held down or restrained 34.1 41.8 15.0 18.7 Percent of staff-on-inmate sexual victim- Physically harmed/injured 25.6 32.5 11.4 14.3 izations, by gender of inmate and staff Number of perpetrators Unwilling Willing All incidents activity activity One 66.8% 57.8% 79.6% 73.4% More than one 33.2 42.2 20.4 26.6 Male inmates Female staff 61.5% 47.7% 78.7% Number of times Male staff 14.4 20.4 5.0 1 : 50.8% : 34.3% Both male and female 13.1 17.9 8.8 2 : 13.8 : 24.4 Female inmates 3 to 10 : 21.3 : 26.3 Female staff 1.7% 1.8% 1.8% 11 or more : 14.1 : 15.0 Male staff 7.7 10.2 5.0 Reported at least one Both male and female 1.5 1.9 0.8 incidentb Yes 23.9% 33.0% 14.4% 20.2% Nearly 62% of all reported incidents of staff sexual miscon- No 76.1 67.0 85.6 79.8 duct involved female staff with male inmates; 8% involved : Not calculated. a male staff with female inmates. Female staff were involved Detail may sum to more than 100% because multiple responses were allowed for each item. in 48% of incidents reported by male inmates who said they bIndicated at least one incident was reported to facility staff (line staff, were unwilling and in 79% of incidents with male inmates medical or mental health staff, teacher, counselor, volunteer, or chap- who said they were willing. In an effort to better understand lain), another inmate, or a family member or friend. the allegations of staff sexual misconduct, the 2008 NIS will include questions to determine how often sexual contact reported as unwilling occurred in the course of pat downs or strip searches.

Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007 7 Methodology state. Jails in six states were determined to lack a sufficient total number of inmates statewide to meet the one facility- The National Inmate Survey (NIS) was conducted in 282 per-state requirement. These facilities were grouped to local jails between April and December 2007, by RTI Inter- form separate strata. One facility from each stratum was national under a cooperative agreement with the Bureau of selected with probability proportionate to size. Overall, six Justice Statistics (BJS). The NIS comprised two question- jails in these small states were selected. naires—a survey of sexual victimization and a survey of past drug and alcohol use and abuse. Inmates were ran- Second, 294 jails in the remaining 44 large states and the domly assigned one of the questionnaires so that, at the District of Columbia were selected. Thirty-two were time of the interview, the content of the survey remained selected with certainty, in that their large population yielded unknown to facility staff and the survey interviewers. a probability of selection equal to 1.0. After ordering the remaining facilities by region and state, 262 facilities were The interviews, which averaged 26 minutes in length, used selected based on their size relative to the total number of computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI) and audio inmates in all noncertainty facilities. computer-assisted self interviewing (ACASI) collection methods. For approximately the first five minutes, survey Third, two of the selected jails were determined to be multi- interviewers conducted a personal interview using CAPI to facility jail jurisdictions (New York City and Cook County, obtain background data, date of admission, conviction sta- IL). Initial size measures for these jurisdictions included all tus, and current offense. For the remainder of the interview, facilities. As a result, jail facilities in these jurisdictions were respondents interacted with a computer-administered enumerated and then sampled—three in New York City questionnaire using a touch-screen and synchronized and two in Cook County—with probabilities proportionate to audio instructions delivered through headphones. Respon- the number of inmates in the facility relative to the total dents completed the ACASI portion of the interview in pri- reported for the jurisdiction. vate, with the interviewer either leaving the room or moving Of the 303 selected jails, 21 facilities were excluded from away from the computer. the survey (table 9). Five facilities refused to participate in A shorter paper questionnaire was available for inmates the survey. Eight facilities were determined to be ineligible, who were unable to come to the private interviewing room. because more than 90% of inmates in each were pre- The paper form was completed by 223 inmates (0.6% of all arraigned or held for Immigration and Customs Enforce- sexual violence interviews), primarily those housed in ment (ICE) or the U.S. Marshals Service or because the administrative or disciplinary segregation or considered too Table 9. Sampled jail facilities excluded from the survey, violent to be interviewed. National Inmate Survey, 2007 Before the interview, inmates were informed verbally and in 5 facilities refused to participate in the survey: writing that participation was voluntary and that all informa- Decatur Co. Prison (GA) tion provided would be held in confidence. Interviews were Jefferson Parish Corr. Fac. (LA) conducted in English (94%) or Spanish (6%). Mississippi Co. Jail (MO) Mobile Co. Jail (AL) Rutherford Co. Adult Det. Ctr. (TN) Selection of local jail facilities 8 facilities were determined to be ineligible: A sample of 303 local jails was drawn to produce a 10% Baltimore City Central Booking & Intake Ctr. (MD)a sample of the 3,002 local jail facilities identified in the 2005 Broward Co. Work Rel. Ctr. (FL)b Leavenworth Det. Ctr. (KS)b Census of Jail Inmates. The 2005 census was a complete b enumeration of all jail jurisdictions, including all publicly Los Angeles Co. Mira Loma Fac. (CA) Onondaga Co. Jail (NY)a operated and privately operated facilities under contract to Sedgwick Co. Work Rel. Ctr. (KS)c local jail authorities. The 2007 NIS was restricted to jails Val Verde Co. Jail & Corr. Fac. (TX)b that had more than five inmates on June 30, 2005. Based Ventura Co. East Valley Branch Jail (CA)a on estimates from the 2007 Annual Survey of Jails, these 8 facilities will be in the 2008 sample with certainty:d jails held an estimated 772,800 inmates age 18 or older on Columbia Co. Det. Ctr. (FL) June 29, 2007. Dauphin Co. Prison (PA) Henderson Co. Jail (TX) Local jail facilities were systematically sampled to ensure Jackson Co. Jail (MS) that at least one jail was selected in each state, except in Merced Co. Jail (CA) Alaska (with 14 facilities operated by local municipalities) Philadelphia City Det. Ctr. & Health Serv. Unit (PA) and in Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Rutherford Co. Jail (NC) Salt Lake Co. Jail (UT) Vermont, in which there were no jails. In these states, facili- a ties with jail functions were state-operated and were More than 90% of inmates were pre-arraigned. b included in the 2007 NIS prison collection. More than 90% of inmates held for ICE or U.S. Marshals. cCommunity-based facility. All jail facilities were selected in a three-step process. First, dUnable to participate due to lack of space, staffing, or jail jails on the sampling frame were sorted by region and renovation/expansion; will be surveyed in 2008, when logistical issues are resolved.

8 Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007 facility was a community-based facility. (The 2008 NIS will Weighting and non-response adjustments include all inmates held for ICE and U.S. Marshals Ser- Responses from sampled interviewed inmates were vice.) Eight facilities were unable to participate due to lack weighted to provide national-level and facility-level esti- of space or staffing or because the jail was being reno- mates. Each interviewed inmate was assigned an initial vated. All expect to be included in the 2008 NIS. All other weight corresponding to the inverse of the probability of selected jails participated fully in the survey. selection within each sampled facility. A series of adjustment factors were applied to the initial weight to minimize Selection of inmates potential bias due to non-response and to provide national The number of inmates sampled in each facility varied estimates. based on 5 criteria: Bias occurs when the estimated prevalence is different • an expected prevalence rate of sexual victimization of from the actual prevalence for a given facility. In each facil- 4% ity, bias could result if the random sample of inmates did not accurately represent the facility population. Bias could • a desired level of precision based on a standard error of also result if the non-respondents were different from the 1.75% respondents. Post-stratification and non-response adjust- • a projected 70% response rate among selected inmates ments were made to the data to compensate for these two possibilities. These adjustments included: • a 10% chance among participating inmates of not receiving the sexual victimization questionnaire • calibration of the weights of the responding inmates within each facility so that the estimates accurately • a pre-arraignment adjustment factor equal to 1 in facili- reflected the facility’s entire population in terms of known ties where the status was known for all inmates, and less demographic characteristics. (These characteristics than 1 in facilities where only the overall proportion of included distributions by inmate age, gender, race, date prearraigned was known. of admission, and sentence length.) This adjustment ensures that the estimates accurately reflect the entire An initial roster of inmates was obtained in the week prior to population of the facility and not just the inmates who the start of interviewing at each facility. Inmates under age were randomly sampled. 18 and inmates who had not been arraigned were deleted from the roster. Each eligible inmate was assigned a ran- • calibration of the weights so that the weight from a non- dom number and sorted in ascending order. Inmates were responding inmate is assigned to a responding inmate selected from the list up to the expected number of inmates with similar demographic characteristics. This adjustment determined by the sampling criteria. ensures that the estimates accurately reflect the full sam- Due to the dynamic nature of jail populations, a second ros- ple, rather than only the inmates who responded. ter of inmates was obtained on the first day of data collection. Eligible inmates on the second roster who were not on For each inmate, these adjustments were based on a gen- the initial roster were identified. These inmates had either eralized exponential model, developed by Folsom and been arraigned since the initial roster was created or were Singh, and applied to the sexual assault survey respon- newly admitted to the facility and arraigned. A random sam- dents.2 ple of these new inmates was selected using the same A final ratio adjustment to each inmate weight was made to probability of selection derived from the first roster. provide national-level estimates for the total number of A total of 74,713 inmates were selected. (See appendix inmates held in jails with an average daily population of table 1 for the number of inmates sampled in each facility.) more than six inmates at midyear 2007. These ratios repre- After selection, an additional 7,314 ineligible inmates were sented the estimated number of inmates by gender in the excluded — 6,549 were transferred to another facility survey estimates and accuracy of the 2007 Annual Survey before interviewing began, 676 were mentally or physically of Jails divided by the number of inmates by gender in the unable to be interviewed, and 89 were under age 18. 2007 NIS after calibration for sampling and non-response. Overall, 45,414 inmates participated in the survey, yielding Survey estimates and accuracy a response rate of 67%. Approximately 90% of the participating inmates (40,419) received the sexual assault survey. Survey estimates are subject to sampling error arising from Of all selected inmates, 18% refused to participate in the the fact that the estimates are based on a sample rather survey; 4% were not available to be interviewed (e.g., in than a complete enumeration. Within each facility, the esti- court, in medical segregation, determined by the facility to mated sampling error varies by the size of the estimate, the be too violent to be interviewed, or restricted from participa- number of completed interviews, and the size of the facility. tion by another legal jurisdiction); and 11% were not inter- 2R.E. Folsom, Jr., and A.C. Singh, (2002), “The Generalized Exponential viewed due to survey logistics (e.g., language barriers and Model for Sampling Weight Calibration for Extreme Values, Nonresponse, transfers to another facility after interviewing began). and Poststratification,” Proceedings of the American Statistical Associa- tion, Section on Survey Research Methods, 598-603.

Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007 9 Estimates of the standard errors for selected measures of Table 10. Standard errors for the prevalence of inmate sexual victimization are presented in tables 10 and 11 and sexual victimization for characteristics of jail inmates, in appendix tables 2 through 5. National Inmate Survey, 2007 These standard errors may be used to construct confi- Percent of inmates reporting sexual a dence intervals around survey estimates (that is, numbers, victimization Nonconsen- percents, and rates), as well as around differences in these Inmate-on- Staff-on- sual sexual estimates. Inmate characteristic Total inmate inmate acts For example, the 95% confidence interval around the per- Gender cent of inmates reporting sexual victimization in the Tor- Male 0.11% 0.08% 0.09% 0.09% Female 0.36 0.42 0.23 0.22 rance County Detention Facility (New Mexico) is approximately 13.4% plus or minus 1.96 times 4.1% (or 5.4% to Race/Hispanic origin b 21.4%). Based on similarly constructed samples, 95% of White 0.24% 0.16% 0.16% 0.16% Blackb 0.19 0.10 0.15 0.13 the intervals would be expected to contain the true (but Hispanic 0.33 0.16 0.31 0.31 unknown) percentage. Otherb,c 0.74 0.55 0.57 0.60 Two or more racesb 0.57 0.32 0.48 0.49 The standard errors may also be used to construct confidence intervals around differences between facility esti- Age mates. For example, the 95% confidence interval compar- 18-19 0.67% 0.34% 0.57% 0.59% 20-24 0.52 0.24 0.37 0.36 ing the percent of inmates reporting sexual victimization in 25-34 0.27 0.16 0.19 0.20 the Riverside County Robert Presley Detention Center 35-44 0.22 0.15 0.18 0.14 (California), 6.4%, with the Torrance County Detention 45-54 0.19 0.15 0.18 0.19 Facility (New Mexico), 13.4%, may be calculated. The con- 55 or older 0.52 0.43 0.29 0.46 fidence interval around the difference of 7.0% is approxi- Education mately 1.96 times 4.7% (the square root of the pooled vari- Less than high school 0.16% 0.14% 0.11% 0.12% ance estimate, 21.7%). The pooled variance estimate is High school graduate 0.24 0.12 0.25 0.24 d calculated by taking the square root of the sum of each Some college 0.26 0.17 0.27 0.29 2 College degree or standard error squared, i.e., the square root of (2.2 ) plus more 0.73 0.57 0.53 0.53 (4.12). Since the interval (-2.2% to 16.2%) contains zero, Sexual orientation the difference between the Riverside County facility and the Heterosexual 0.11% 0.07% 0.08% 0.08% Torrance County facility is not statistically significant. Bi-sexual 0.96 0.74 0.72 0.79 Homosexual 1.85 1.90 2.09 2.03 Exposure period Other 1.49 1.05 1.30 1.37 For purposes of calculating comparative rates of sexual vic- Number of prior sexual partners timization, respondents were asked to provide the most 0-1 0.22% 0.17% 0.18% 0.19% recent date of admission to the current facility. If the date of 2-4 0.27 0.18 0.26 0.20 admission was at least 6 months prior to the date of the 5-10 0.30 0.20 0.20 0.20 interview, inmates were asked questions related to their 11-20 0.45 0.28 0.23 0.23 experiences during the past 6 months. If the admission 21 or more 0.26 0.19 0.19 0.19 date was less than 6 months prior to the interview, inmates Prior sexual assault were asked about their experiences since they had arrived Yes 0.55% 0.49% 0.38% 0.49% at the facility. No 0.09 0.06 0.09 0.08 Sexually assaulted at Overall, the average exposure period for sexual victimiza- another facility tion among sampled jail inmates was 2.6 months. Among Yes 2.64% 2.88% 1.71% 2.08% sampled inmates, approximately 20% had been in jail for 2 No 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.09 weeks or less; 15% between 2 weeks and a month; 17% a between 1 and 2 months; 30% between 2 and 6 months; Percent of inmates reporting one or more incidents of sexual victimization involving another inmate or facility staff in the past 6 months or and 18% more than 6 months. since admission to the facility, if less than 6 months. bExcludes persons of Hispanic or Latino origin. Measuring sexual victimization cIncludes American Indians, Alaska Natives, Asians, Native Hawaiians, and other Pacific Islanders. The survey of sexual victimization relied on the reporting of dIncludes persons with associate degrees. the direct experience of each inmate, rather than on the reporting on the experience of other inmates. Questions asked related to inmate-on-inmate sexual activity were asked separately from questions related to staff sexual misconduct. (For specific survey questions see appendices 7 and 8.)

10 Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007 The ACASI survey began with a series of questions that Unwilling activity — incidents of unwanted sexual contacts screened for specific sexual activities, without restriction, with another inmate or staff. including both wanted and unwanted sex or sexual con- Willing activity — incidents of willing sexual contacts with tacts with other inmates. As a means to fully measure all staff. These contacts are characterized by the reporting sexual activities, questions related to the touching of body inmates as willing; however, all sexual contacts between parts in a sexual way were followed by questions related to inmates and staff are legally nonconsensual. explicit giving or receiving of sexual gratification and questions related to acts involving oral, anal, or vaginal sex. The Table 11. Standard errors for circumstances surrounding nature of coercion (including use of physical force, pres- incidents of sexual victimization in local jails, by type of sure, or other forms of coercion) was measured for each incident, National Inmate Survey, 2007 type of reported sexual activity. Inmate-on-inmate Staff-on-inmate Nonconsen- ACASI survey items related to staff sexual misconduct All inci- sual sexual All inci- Unwilling were asked in a different order. Inmates were first asked Circumstance dents acts dents activity about being pressured or being made to feel they had to Number of victims 12,100 5,200 15,200 10,400 have sex or sexual contact with the staff and then asked about being physically forced. In addition, inmates were Time of day asked if any facility staff had offered favors or special privi- 6 a.m. to noon 2.09% 2.99% 2.78% 3.32% Noon to 6 p.m. 2.31 3.45 1.64 2.30 leges in exchange for sex. Finally, inmates were asked if 6 p.m. to midnight 2.75 3.29 1.76 2.05 they willingly had sex or sexual contact with staff. All Midnight to 6 p.m. 3.00 3.21 2.50 4.20 reports of sex or sexual contact between an inmate and Where occurred facility staff, regardless of the level of coercion, were classi- Victim's cell/room 2.69% 2.95% 1.77% 3.07% fied as staff sexual misconduct. Another inmate's cell/ room 2.42 3.35 1.71 2.52 The ACASI survey included additional questions related to Shower/bathroom 1.88 3.01 2.35 2.82 both inmate-on-inmate and staff-on-inmate sexual victim- Yard/recreation area 1.67 2.38 1.47 1.65 ization. These questions, known as latent class measures, Closet, office, or other were included to assess the reliability of the survey ques- locked room 1.32 2.44 2.58 2.61 Workshop/kitchen 1.21 2.14 1.79 2.41 tionnaire. After being asked detailed questions, all inmates Classroom/library 1.01 1.93 1.63 2.35 were asked a series of general questions to determine if Elsewhere in facility 1.13 1.18 1.05 1.10 they had experienced any type of unwanted sex or sexual Off facility grounds 1.11 2.04 1.71 1.99 contact with another inmate or had any sex or sexual con- Type of coercion tact with staff. (See appendix 9.) Persuaded/talked into it 2.58% 3.28% 2.23% 2.34% Given a bribe/black- The entire ACASI questionnaire (listed as National Inmate mailed 2.48 3.33 2.70 2.61 Survey) and the shorter paper and pencil survey form Given drugs/alcohol 1.71 3.17 1.70 2.32 (PAPI) are available on the BJS web site at . other inmates 2.17 3.04 1.67 2.38 Threatened with harm or a weapon 2.93 3.51 2.57 3.37 Definition of terms Physically held down or restrained 3.07 3.59 1.87 2.49 Sexual victimization — all types of sexual activity, e.g., oral, Physically harmed/ anal, or vaginal penetration; handjobs; touching of the injured 3.30 3.16 1.57 2.15 inmate’s buttocks, thighs, penis, breasts, or vagina in a Number of perpetrators sexual way; abusive sexual contacts; and both willing and More than one 3.09% 3.12% 2.25% 2.88% unwilling sexual activity with staff. Number of times Nonconsensual sexual acts — unwanted contacts with 1 : 3.37% : 2.99% 2 : 2.32 : 2.85 another inmate or any contacts with staff that involved oral, 3 to 10 : 2.79 : 2.36 anal, vaginal penetration, handjobs, and other sexual acts. 11 or more : 2.95 : 2.10 Abusive sexual contacts only — unwanted contacts with Reported at least one incident* another inmate or any contacts with staff that involved Yes 2.05% 3.17% 1.89% 2.60% touching of the inmate’s buttocks, thigh, penis, breasts, or : Not calculated. vagina in a sexual way. *Indicated at least one incident was reported to facility staff (line staff, medical or mental health staff, teacher, counselor, volunteer, or chaplain), another inmate, or a family member or friend.

Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007 11 U.S. Department of Justice *NCJ~221946* PRESORTED STANDARD POSTAGE & FEES PAID Office of Justice Programs DOJ/BJS Bureau of Justice Statistics Permit No. G-91

Washington, DC 20531

Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300

The Bureau of Justice Statistics is the statistical Paige M. Harrison, under the supervision of Allen J. agency of the U.S. Department of Justice. Jeffrey Beck, was project manager for the National Inmate Sedgwick is the Director. Survey. RTI, International staff, under a cooperative agreement and in collaboration with BJS, designed the Allen J. Beck and Paige M. Harrison wrote this report. survey, developed the questionnaires, and monitored The statistical unit of RTI, under Marcus Berzofsky, data collection and data processing, including Rachel produced the appendix tables. Allen J. Beck, Paige M. Caspar, Principal Investigator/Instrumentation Task Harrison, Paul Guerino, and RTI staff provided Leader; Christopher Krebs, Co-principal Investigator; statistical review and verification. Tina Dorsey Ellen Stutts, Co-principal Investigator and Data produced the report, Catherine Bird edited it, and Collection Task Leader; Susan Brumbaugh, Logistics Jayne Robinson prepared the report for publication, Task Leader; Jamia Bachrach, Human Subjects Task under the supervision of Doris J. James. Leader; David Forvendel, Research Computing Task Leader; Ralph Folsom, Senior Statistician; and Marcus Berzofsky, Statistics Task Leader. June 2008 NCJ 221946

Office of Justice Programs This report in portable document format and in Innovation • Partnerships • Safer Neighborhoods ASCII and its related statistical data and tables are http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov available at the BJS World Wide Web Internet site: .

12 Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007 Appendix table 1. Characteristics of local jails selected in the National Inmate Survey, 2007 Number of respondents Number Number Number Sexual of inmates of inmates of ineligible victimization Response Facility name in custodya sampled inmatesb Total survey ratec Total 306,598 74,713 7,314 45,414 40,419 67.4%

Alabama Anniston City Jail 67 67 24 30 26 69.8 Bullock Co. Jail 33 30 3 11 9 40.7 Etowah Co. Det. Ctr. 590 265 2 205 185 77.9 Jackson Co. Jail 187 164 15 113 102 75.8 Limestone Co. Jail 220 179 22 105 96 66.9 Shelby Co. Jail 509 252 30 149 134 67.1 Arizona Coconino Co. Jail 596 278 32 150 134 61.0 Maricopa Co. Jail - 4th Avenue 2,009 323 15 227 201 73.7 Maricopa Co. Jail - Durango 2,366 345 42 259 232 85.5 Maricopa Co. Jail - Estrellad 1,160 315 41 199 179 72.6 Maricopa Co. Jail - Lower Buckeye 2,446 343 29 231 203 73.6 Pinal Co. Jail 1,100 330 2 205 182 62.5 Arkansas Searcy Co. Jail 11 11 0 8 8 72.7 California Alameda Co. Santa Rita Jail 4,183 358 45 184 161 58.8 Fresno Co. Det. Fac. - Main Jail 1,005 315 29 149 130 52.1 Imperial Co. Jail 569 276 52 156 134 69.6 Kern Co. Lerdo Pre-Trial Fac. 1,322 322 30 206 183 70.5 Los Angeles Co. Mens Central Jail 5,847 429 63 158 132 43.2 Los Angeles Co. North Corr. Fac. 4,307 363 31 200 174 60.2 Los Angeles Co. Pitchess Honor Rancho Jail - North 1,681 321 16 204 183 66.9 Los Angeles Co. Twin Towers Corr. Fac. 4,118 389 135 108 95 42.5 Orange Co. Central Jail Complex 2,701 347 67 216 196 77.1 Orange Co. James A. Musick Fac. 1,186 326 19 264 240 86.0 Riverside Co. Larry D. Smith Corr. Ctr. 595 256 17 188 168 78.7 Riverside Co. Robert Presley Det. Ctr. 734 278 30 164 141 66.1 Sacramento Co. Rio Cosumnes Corr. Ctr. 2,384 341 26 205 186 65.1 Sacramento Co. Main Jail 2,340 349 49 221 200 73.7 San Bernardino Co. W. Valley Det. Ctr. 2,997 348 42 156 135 51.0 San Bernardino Co Glen Helen Rehab. Ctr. 1,185 297 18 225 208 80.6 San Bernardino Co. Central Det. Ctr. 942 312 12 241 216 80.3 San Diego Co. George F. Bailey Det. Fac. 1,724 322 24 214 195 71.8 San Diego Co. Las Colinas Women's Det. Fac.d 735 267 21 177 162 72.0 San Francisco Co. Jail - No. 1 479 287 43 136 119 55.7 San Joaquin Co. Jail 1,752 335 46 203 182 70.2 Santa Barbara Co. Jail 1,068 317 26 218 183 74.9 Santa Clara Co. Elmwood Corr. Complex 4,943 340 92 170 148 68.5 Santa Clara Co. Main Jail - North 845 267 16 161 143 64.1 Stanislaus Co. Public Safety Ctr. 746 271 14 179 165 69.6 Tulare Co. Men's Corr. Fac. 1,673 308 21 220 206 76.7 Ventura Co. Jail - Todd Road 847 283 10 202 183 74.0 Colorado Adams Co. Det. Fac. 1,469 304 38 190 177 71.4 Arapahoe Co. Jail 1,296 315 20 191 162 64.7 El Paso Co. Det. Fac. 1,704 379 62 233 200 73.5 Garfield Co. Jail 109 109 9 72 66 72.0 Prowers Co. Jail 31 31 9 20 19 90.9 Weld Co. Jail 523 266 30 180 159 76.3 District of Columbia D.C. Dept. of Corr. Jail 3,226 340 20 206 179 64.4

Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007 13 Appendix table 1. Characteristics of local jails selected in the National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.) Number of respondents Number Number Number Sexual of inmates of inmates of ineligible victimization Response Facility name in custodya sampled inmatesb Total survey ratec

Florida Alachua Co. Jail 1,167 307 16 218 191 74.9 Brevard Co. Det. Ctr. 2,000 327 30 247 228 83.2 Broward Co. Conte Corr. Fac. 1,388 316 24 188 172 64.4 Broward Co. Main Jail 1,788 373 88 134 119 47.0 Broward Co. North Jail - Pompano Beach 1,092 312 26 175 161 61.2 Broward Co. Stockade 689 292 50 148 130 61.2 Collier Co. Jail 1,300 307 19 172 157 59.7 Dixie Co. Jail 106 105 8 65 56 67.0 Hillsborough Co. Falkenburg Road Jail 2,524 338 27 223 202 71.7 Hillsborough Co. Orient Road Jail 2,109 380 78 187 167 61.9 Jackson Co. Corr. Fac. 237 186 9 126 111 71.2 Jacksonville City Montgomery Corr. Ctr. 786 284 8 213 186 77.2 Lake Co. Jail 1,278 318 40 180 163 64.7 Lee Co. Jail 670 275 40 95 87 40.4 Marion Co. Jail 2,102 325 12 247 228 78.9 Miami-Dade Co. Metro West Det. Ctr. 2,905 336 16 203 183 63.4 Miami-Dade Co. Training & Treatment Ctr. 1,355 352 25 173 151 52.9 Miami-Dade Co. Turner Guilford Knight Corr. Ctr. 1,204 295 26 152 134 56.5 Orange Co. 33rd Street Corr. Ctr. 4,295 343 31 206 192 66.0 Orange Co. Work Release Ctr. 300 203 9 115 104 59.3 Pinellas Co. Central Division Fac. 824 307 48 174 152 67.2 Pinellas Co. South Fac. (Max. Sec.) 1,506 292 33 151 133 58.3 Sarasota North Co. Jail 1,120 294 8 178 156 62.2 Seminole Co. John E. Polk Corr. Fac. 1,235 319 31 200 169 69.4 South Co. Jail 1,444 294 3 177 157 60.8 St. Johns Co. Jail 579 266 18 197 173 79.4 Georgia Atlanta City Jail 731 432 53 157 145 41.4 Bartow Co. Jail 556 245 15 160 137 69.6 Carroll Co. Jail 520 253 24 186 162 81.2 Cobb Co. Sheriff's Office Jail & Prison Unit 2,973 341 28 244 221 78.0 Coweta Co. Jail 365 230 31 140 121 70.4 Crisp Co. Jail 169 154 37 90 79 76.9 Dekalb Co. Jail 3,365 354 22 236 215 71.1 Dooly Co. Jail 66 65 4 44 34 72.1 Dougherty Co. Jail 863 285 23 178 164 67.9 Floyd Co. Jail 730 280 26 188 173 74.0 Fulton Co. Jail 2,464 367 59 206 187 66.9 Gwinnett Co. Comprehensive Corr. Complex 521 246 7 178 163 74.5 Gwinnett Co. Jail 2,826 342 33 230 203 74.4 Muscogee Co. Jail 1,439 319 45 213 180 77.7 Paulding Co. Det. Ctr. 347 228 24 94 83 46.1 Pelham Municipal Jail 143 140 3 73 67 53.3 Richmond Co. Corr. Inst. 243 183 4 120 107 67.0 Idaho Bingham Co. Jail 134 134 29 51 45 48.6 Illinois Coles Co. Jail 97 94 0 78 70 83.0 Cook Co. Jail - Division 2 2,080 356 44 203 182 65.1 Cook Co. Jail - Division 11 1,593 329 40 210 180 72.7 Ogle Co. Jail 39 39 4 22 20 62.9 Pulaski Co. Tri-County Justice & Det. Ctr.e 200 200 0 17 15 8.5 Will Co. Adult Det. Fac. 991 364 100 192 172 72.7 Indiana Daviess Co. Jail 186 167 11 100 90 64.1 Hamilton Co. Jail 375 234 7 144 130 63.4 Harrison Co. Jail 147 147 3 76 71 52.8 Hendricks Co. Jail 300 211 24 102 88 54.5 Lake Co. Jail 959 291 19 183 165 67.3 Marion Co. Jail Intake Fac. 258 234 76 90 80 57.0 Wayne Co. Jail 370 224 18 154 131 74.8

14 Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007 Appendix table 1. Characteristics of local jails selected in the National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.) Number of respondents Number Number Number Sexual of inmates of inmates of ineligible victimization Response Facility name in custodya sampled inmatesb Total survey ratec

Iowa Polk Co. Jail 1,150 302 189 83 74 73.5 Story Co. Jail 81 81 14 42 38 62.7 Kansas Atchison Co. Jail 77 77 0 44 39 57.1 Kentucky Boyd Co. Jail 280 206 23 118 107 64.5 Daviess Co. Det. Ctr. 681 282 27 202 178 79.2 Grant Co. Jail 360 216 8 134 119 64.4 Hardin Co. Det. Ctr. 616 263 9 203 179 79.9 Kentucky River Reg. Jail 266 197 23 111 92 63.8 Lexington-Fayette Co. Det. Ctr. 1,323 319 21 188 161 63.1 Louisville-Jefferson Co. Dept. of Corr. 1,960 333 34 179 155 59.9 Warren Co. Reg. Jail 537 255 21 143 120 61.1 Louisiana Ascension Parish Jail 297 202 14 152 137 80.9 Avoyelles Parish Bunkie Det. Ctr. 316 204 3 173 150 86.1 Caldwell Parish Jails (2 facilities) 566 252 7 227 210 92.7 Catahoula Corr. Ctr.e 796 385 28 311 272 87.1 East Baton Rouge Prison 1,638 313 18 240 202 81.4 Franklin Parish Jail 713 266 8 230 205 89.1 La Fourche Parish Jail 264 245 19 173 151 76.5 Lafayette Parish Corr. Center 998 286 15 232 206 85.6 Sabine Parish Det. Ctr. 115 115 5 82 76 74.5 St. Bernard Parish Prison 181 167 29 115 104 83.3 St. Tammany Parish Jail 977 298 30 206 174 76.9 Terrebonne Parish Jail 697 274 19 236 215 92.5 Maine Androscoggin Co. Jail 116 116 21 64 55 67.4 Maryland Anne Arundel Co. Dept. of Det. Fac. 1,197 308 23 187 172 65.6 Baltimore City Det. Ctr. 2,966 358 28 207 182 62.7 Cecil Co. Comm. Adult Rehab. Ctr. 49 49 5 33 32 75.0 Montgomery Co. Corr. Fac. 740 278 17 202 181 77.4 Washington Co. Det. Ctr. 425 238 19 154 142 70.3 Massachusetts Barnstable Co. Corr. Fac. 444 230 12 169 149 77.5 Berkshire Co. Jail & House of Corr. 363 216 3 185 159 86.9 Hampden Co. Western Massachusetts Corr. Alcohol Ctr. 184 160 5 131 117 84.5 Middlesex Co. House of Corr. - Billerica 1,245 289 43 161 151 65.4 Plymouth Co. Corr. Fac. 1,611 307 10 198 174 66.7 Worcester Co. Jail & House of Corr. 1,465 303 10 198 179 67.6 Michigan Bay Co. Jail 251 189 6 117 108 63.9 Kalamazoo Co. Jail 394 222 30 139 126 72.4 Kent Co. Corr. Fac. 1,401 303 20 228 199 80.6 Montmorency Co. Jail 37 37 9 25 22 89.3 Oakland Co. Jail 1,800 352 40 231 204 74.0 Ottawa Co. Jail 444 244 27 176 162 81.1 Wayne Co. Andrew C. Baird Det. Fac. 2,088 600 68 165 149 31.0 Wayne Co. William Dickerson Det. Fac. 1,219 376 87 177 153 61.2 Minnesota Hennepin Co. Adult Det. Ctr. 964 327 64 150 133 57.0 Koochiching Co. Law Enforcement Ctr. 20 20 6 14 9 100.0 Mississippi Madison Co. Jail 533 287 15 227 212 83.5 Tippah Co. Jail 38 38 3 29 26 82.9 Missouri Clay Co. Det. Ctr. 305 205 15 133 122 70.0 Jackson Co. Municipal Corr. Inst. 219 196 48 63 55 42.6 St. Louis Co. Jail 1,270 315 24 218 192 74.9 Wayne Co. Jail 16 8 1 6 6 85.7

Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007 15 Appendix table 1. Characteristics of local jails selected in the National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.) Number of respondents Number Number Number Sexual of inmates of inmates of ineligible victimization Response Facility name in custodya sampled inmatesb Total survey ratec Montana Cascade Co. Reg. Jail 391 233 5 136 120 59.6 Nebraska Douglas Dept. of Corr. 1,277 305 31 165 146 60.2 Nevada Clark Co. Det. Ctr. 3,259 368 38 204 180 61.8 Las Vegas City Det. Ctr. 1,172 383 61 175 156 54.3 Washoe Co. Det. Ctr. 1,284 382 52 264 233 80.0 New Hampshire Hillsborough Co. House of Corr. 575 260 16 158 146 64.8 New Jersey Atlantic Co. Gerard L. Gormley Justice Fac. 1,403 317 13 145 125 47.7 Camden Co. Corr. Fac. 1,798 324 24 240 213 80.0 Essex Co. Corr. Fac. 2,306 345 23 201 178 62.4 Hudson Co. Corr. Fac. 1,825 320 14 226 198 73.9 Mercer Co. Corr. Ctr. 920 450 36 209 186 50.5 Morris Co. Corr. Fac. 348 230 32 137 121 69.2 Union Co. Jail 1,000 294 26 182 163 67.9 New Mexico Bernalillo Co. Metropolitan Det. Ctr. 3,064 341 25 132 117 41.8 San Juan Co. Det. Ctr. 740 296 32 205 191 77.7 Santa Fe Co. Adult Corr. Fac. 597 264 19 171 147 69.8 Torrance Co. Det. Fac.e 241 185 8 71 67 40.1 New York Albany Co. Corr. Fac. 853 297 19 150 140 54.0 Erie Co. Corr. Fac. 1,072 326 26 214 196 71.3 Erie Co. Holding Ctr. 716 324 41 133 118 47.0 Franklin Co. Jail 114 110 7 89 81 86.4 New York City Anna M. Kross Ctr. 2,565 334 20 172 150 54.8 New York City Otis Bantum Corr. Ctr. 1,279 319 44 175 157 63.6 New York City Rose M. Singer Ctr.d 1,109 308 20 195 178 67.7 Oswego Co. Corr. Fac. 139 133 5 92 85 71.9 Westchester Co. Penitentiary 667 271 16 202 183 79.2 North Carolina Cabarrus Co. Jail 265 195 45 68 61 45.3 Chowan Co. Det. Fac. 37 32 4 16 15 57.1 Cleveland Co. 267 226 30 122 108 62.2 Mecklenburg Co. Jail 2,386 365 42 217 192 67.2 Mecklenburg Co. Jail - North 737 276 14 161 139 61.5 New Hanover Co. Det. Ctr. 567 277 34 136 117 56.0 Wake Co. Jail 1,416 311 30 201 179 71.5 North Dakota Cass Co. Jail 222 203 27 126 110 71.6 Ohio Cuyahoga Co. Corr. Ctr. 2,173 366 32 211 186 63.2 Franklin Co. Corrections Ctr. I 2,714 383 62 187 174 58.3 Hamilton Co. Justice Ctr. 1,240 316 31 214 186 75.1 Hamilton Co. Talbert House Drug & Alcohol Treatment 147 147 8 121 103 87.1 Marion-Hardin Co. Multi-County Corr. Ctr. 184 183 39 64 61 44.4 Northwest Ohio Reg. Corr. Ctr. 662 289 44 172 154 70.2 River City Corr. Fac. 185 158 0 138 124 87.3 Southeastern Ohio Reg. Jail 204 204 37 95 85 56.9 Oklahoma Mayes Co. Jail 118 118 0 46 40 39.0 Oklahoma Co. Det. Ctr. 2,021 322 33 218 194 75.4 Rogers Co. Jail 182 179 18 126 108 78.3 Oregon Coos Co. Jail 100 100 13 65 58 74.7 Marion Co. Corr. Fac. 602 275 35 187 169 77.9 Washington Co. Jail 638 288 40 175 157 70.6

16 Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007 Appendix table 1. Characteristics of local jails selected in the National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.) Number of respondents Number Number Number Sexual of inmates of inmates of ineligible victimization Response Facility name in custodya sampled inmatesb Total survey ratec

Pennsylvania Allegheny Co. Jail 2,817 345 13 257 230 77.4 Berks Co. Prison 1,325 313 34 211 176 75.6 Blair Co. Prison 298 204 19 151 133 81.6 Erie Co. Prison 564 258 14 193 164 79.1 Lancaster Co. Prison 1,248 298 10 204 180 70.8 Lycoming Co. Pre-Release Ctr. 59 59 2 42 38 73.7 Montgomery Co. Corr. Fac. 1,738 320 19 195 170 64.8 Philadelphia City Alternative & Special Det. Fac. 510 248 13 157 141 66.8 Philadelphia City Curran/Fromhold Corr. Fac. 3,125 345 25 219 189 68.4 Philadelphia City House of Corr. 1,700 319 14 227 198 74.4 Philadelphia City Industrial Corr. Ctr. 1,209 293 10 202 180 71.4 York Co. Prison 2,199 334 12 211 188 65.5 South Carolina Beaufort Co. Det. Ctr. 336 212 17 146 133 74.9 Berkeley Co. Hill-Finklea Det. Ctr. 377 229 15 129 115 60.3 Charleston Co. Det. Ctr. 1,769 329 40 170 148 58.8 Florence Co. Det. Ctr. 458 247 21 180 163 79.6 Lancaster Co. Det. Ctr. 198 194 30 81 70 49.4 Sumter-Lee Reg. Det. Ctr. 361 219 16 140 129 69.0 South Dakota Pennington Co. Jail 386 252 29 133 121 59.6 Tennessee Davidson Co. Criminal Justice Ctr. 758 272 28 104 90 42.6 Greene Co. Det. Ctr. 324 213 19 110 103 56.7 Knox Co. Work Release Ctr. 64 64 7 41 35 71.9 Madison Co. Penal Farm 71 71 4 59 54 88.1 Shelby Co. Corr. Ctr. 3,142 330 17 229 199 73.2 Shelby Co. Justice Ctr. 2,995 343 30 253 224 80.8 Sullivan Co. Jail 727 275 13 198 184 75.6 Tipton Co. Jail 172 172 12 119 111 74.4 Warren Co. Jail 216 180 14 113 102 68.1 Texas Bexar Co. Adult Det. Ctr. 4,179 418 67 156 145 44.4 Bowie Co. Corr. Ctr. 757 274 24 155 138 62.0 Brazoria Co. Jail & Det. Ctr. 932 319 40 198 181 71.0 Cameron Co. Jail 1,368 308 16 118 100 40.4 Dallas Co. Decker Det. Ctr. 455 275 46 152 134 66.4 Dallas Co. George Allen Jail 789 287 24 163 146 62.0 Dallas Co. North Tower Jail 3,185 344 27 222 202 70.0 Dallas Co. West Tower Jail 1,386 322 18 173 156 56.9 Denton Co. Det. Ctr. 1,018 296 16 213 192 76.1 El Paso Co. Jail Annex 1,426 305 18 203 181 70.7 Galveston Co. Jail 1,206 320 32 194 170 67.4 Gregg Co. Jail 952 314 43 176 161 64.9 Harris Co. Jail 4,634 351 25 257 229 78.8 Harris Co. Jail - Baker Street 4,537 351 35 248 216 78.5 Haskell Co. Rolling Plains Reg. Jail & Det. Ctr.e 550 270 15 171 152 67.1 Jefferson Co. Det. Ctr. 1,354 347 27 235 204 73.4 Kleberg Co. Jail 127 127 17 55 50 50.0 Limestone Co. Det. Ctr.e 1,169 408 45 140 127 38.6 Montgomery Co. Jail 1,097 306 22 231 201 81.3 Newton Co. Corr. Ctr.e 878 276 2 260 225 94.9 Potter Co. Det. Ctr. 625 276 28 164 144 66.1 Tarrant Co. Corr. Ctr. 2,081 336 33 196 176 64.7 Travis Co. Corr. Fac. 2,432 351 39 245 217 78.5 Utah Weber Co. Corr. Fac. 890 298 16 208 196 73.8

Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007 17 Appendix table 1. Characteristics of local jails selected in the National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.) Number of respondents Number Number Number Sexual of inmates of inmates of ineligible victimization Response Facility name in custodya sampled inmatesb Total survey ratec Virginia Central Virginia Reg. Jail 410 230 7 144 132 64.6 Culpeper Co. Jail 113 113 25 61 58 69.3 Dinwiddie Co. Jail 59 59 5 41 39 75.9 Duffield Reg. Jail Fac. 404 231 18 161 141 75.6 Newport News City Jail 700 277 18 153 131 59.1 Norfolk City Jail 1,797 320 18 223 198 73.8 Prince William-Manassas Reg. Adult Corr. Ctr. 793 285 20 161 145 60.8 Richmond City Jail 1,529 309 22 214 184 74.6 Roanoke City Jail 666 276 10 150 131 56.4 Roanoke Co. Jail 330 221 29 105 89 54.7 Rockbridge Co. Reg. Jail 63 63 4 46 40 78.0 Virginia Beach Corr. Ctr. 1,653 323 14 228 205 73.8 Washington Chelan Co. Reg. Jail 368 242 28 149 127 69.6 Clark Co. Jail 905 304 41 186 163 70.7 King Co. Corr. Fac. 1,511 386 57 186 168 56.5 King Co. Reg. Justice Ctr. 1,249 332 38 193 181 65.6 Snohomish Co. Jail 1,291 327 42 210 194 73.7 Whatcom Co. Jail 387 283 21 175 156 66.8 West Virginia Western Reg. Jail 502 253 9 175 154 71.7 Wisconsin Dane Co. Jail 1,035 303 37 182 152 68.4 La Crosse Co. Jail 211 182 24 96 89 60.8 Marathon Co. Adult Det. Fac. 377 230 29 155 132 77.1 Milwaukee Co. House of Corr. 2,002 326 18 195 171 63.3 Milwaukee Co. Jail 1,217 357 98 144 127 55.6 Waukesha Co. Jail 464 259 24 157 141 66.8 Waupaca Co. Jail 203 161 17 106 97 73.6 Wyoming Sheridan Co. Det. Ctr. 99 99 0 79 70 79.8

aNumber of inmates in the facility on the day of the facility roster plus any new inmates admitted prior to the first day of data collection. bInmates were considered ineligible if they were (1) under age 18, (2) mentally or physically incapacitated, (3) transferred or released after sample selection, but before data collection period, or (4) identified as pre-arraigned. See Methodology for sample selection criteria. cResponse rate is equal to the total number of respondents divided by the number of inmates sampled minus the number of ineligible inmates times 100%. dFemale facility. ePrivate facility.

18 Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007 Appendix table 2. Percent of local jail inmates reporting sexual victimization and estimated standard error, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007 Percent of inmates reporting nonconsensual Percent of inmates reporting sexual victimizationa sexual acts or abusive sexual contactsb Facility name Reported Weightedc Standard errord Weightedc Standard errord

Total 3.3% 3.2% 0.1% 2.6% 0.1%

Alabama Anniston City Jaile 3.8 3.6 2.3 3.6 2.3 Bullock Co. Jaile 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Etowah Co. Det. Ctr. 1.6 1.5 0.7 1.5 0.7 Jackson Co. Jail 2.9 2.3 0.8 2.3 0.8 Limestone Co. Jaile 2.1 2.1 1.2 2.1 1.2 Shelby Co. Jail 2.2 1.9 0.9 1.9 0.9 Arizona Coconino Co. Jail 3.0 2.1 1.0 1.3 0.8 Maricopa Co. Jail - 4th Avenue 3.5 2.9 1.0 2.9 1.0 Maricopa Co. Jail - Durango 2.2 2.1 0.9 2.1 0.9 Maricopa Co. Jail - Estrellaf 2.8 2.7 1.1 2.7 1.1 Maricopa Co. Jail - Lower Buckeye 3.0 2.6 1.0 2.3 1.0 Pinal Co. Jaile 1.6 1.8 1.0 1.8 1.0 Arkansas Searcy Co. Jaile 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 California Alameda Co. Santa Rita Jail 3.1 3.4 1.6 3.4 1.6 Fresno Co. Det. Fac. - Main Jail 3.1 3.1 1.5 3.1 1.5 Imperial Co. Jail 3.0 3.3 1.4 3.3 1.4 Kern Co. Lerdo Pre-Trial Fac. 3.3 2.9 1.1 2.9 1.1 Los Angeles Co. Mens Central Jail 3.8 3.3 1.5 3.3 1.5 Los Angeles Co. North Corr. Fac. 4.0 3.2 1.2 1.9 0.9 Los Angeles Co. Pitchess Honor Rancho Jail - Northe 1.6 1.6 0.9 1.2 0.8 Los Angeles Co. Twin Towers Corr. Fac. 7.4 6.4 2.6 6.4 2.6 Orange Co. Central Jail Complex 5.1 4.3 1.4 4.3 1.4 Orange Co. James A. Musick Fac. 2.5 2.2 0.9 2.2 0.9 Riverside Co. Larry D. Smith Corr. Ctr. 2.4 2.7 1.1 1.8 0.9 Riverside Co. Robert Presley Det. Ctr. 5.7 6.4 2.2 6.4 2.2 Sacramento Co. Rio Cosumnes Corr. Ctr. 3.2 3.2 1.3 2.1 0.9 Sacramento Co. Main Jail 2.0 2.5 1.2 2.0 1.1 San Bernardino Co. W. Valley Det. Ctr. 8.1 6.0 2.2 4.6 2.0 San Bernardino Co Glen Helen Rehab. Ctr. 2.9 3.1 1.2 2.6 1.1 San Bernardino Co. Central Det. Ctr. 2.3 2.1 0.8 1.6 0.7 San Diego Co. George F. Bailey Det. Fac. 5.1 4.9 1.6 4.4 1.5 San Diego Co. Las Colinas Women's Det. Fac.f 5.6 5.9 1.8 5.9 1.8 San Francisco Co. Jail - No. 1 5.0 4.9 1.7 4.9 1.7 San Joaquin Co. Jaile 1.1 0.9 0.6 0.9 0.6 Santa Barbara Co. Jail 4.4 4.0 1.3 4.0 1.3 Santa Clara Co. Elmwood Corr. Complex 2.7 2.2 1.1 2.2 1.1 Santa Clara Co. Main Jail - North 4.2 4.0 1.5 4.0 1.5 Stanislaus Co. Public Safety Ctr.e 1.8 2.0 1.1 2.0 1.1 Tulare Co. Men's Corr. Fac.e 1.5 1.0 0.6 0.5 0.4 Ventura Co. Jail - Todd Road 3.3 2.8 1.0 1.8 0.8 Colorado Adams Co. Det. Fac. 5.6 4.2 1.6 4.2 1.6 Arapahoe Co. Jail 4.9 3.0 1.1 3.0 1.1 El Paso Co. Det. Fac. 3.0 2.6 1.0 2.1 0.9 Garfield Co. Jail 4.5 5.5 1.9 5.5 1.9 Prowers Co. Jaile 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Weld Co. Jail e 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.7 District of Columbia D.C. Dept. of Corr. Jail 3.9 4.2 1.7 4.2 1.7

Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007 19 Appendix table 2. Percent of local jail inmates reporting sexual victimization and estimated standard error, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.) Percent of inmates reporting nonconsensual Percent of inmates reporting sexual victimizationa sexual acts or abusive sexual contactsb Facility name Reported Weightedc Standard errord Weightedc Standard errord Florida Alachua Co. Jail 4.2 3.8 1.2 3.8 1.2 Brevard Co. Det. Ctr. 7.9 8.5 1.9 7.1 1.8 Broward Co. Conte Corr. Fac. 2.9 3.0 1.3 2.2 1.1 Broward Co. Main Jail 5.0 5.7 2.5 5.0 2.4 Broward Co. North Jail - Pompano Beach 4.3 4.2 1.5 4.2 1.5 Broward Co. Stockadee 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.6 Collier Co. Jail 5.7 5.4 1.8 4.7 1.7 Dixie Co. Jail 5.4 6.5 2.5 6.5 2.5 Hillsborough Co. Falkenburg Road Jail 3.0 2.4 1.0 2.4 1.0 Hillsborough Co. Orient Road Jaile 1.8 1.2 0.7 1.2 0.7 Jackson Co. Corr. Fac. 1.8 1.6 0.8 0.9 0.6 Jacksonville City Montgomery Corr. Ctr. 2.7 2.8 1.1 2.8 1.1 Lake Co. Jaile 1.8 1.8 0.9 1.8 0.9 Lee Co. Jaile 3.4 3.3 1.7 2.2 1.4 Marion Co. Jail 4.8 5.2 1.5 4.2 1.3 Miami-Dade Co. Metro West Det. Ctr. 2.2 2.5 1.3 2.5 1.3 Miami-Dade Co. Training & Treatment Ctr.e 1.3 1.2 0.8 1.2 0.8 Miami-Dade Co. Turner Guilford Knight Corr. Ctr. 5.2 5.1 1.9 4.5 1.8 Orange Co. 33rd Street Corr. Ctr. 3.6 3.1 1.2 2.6 1.1 Orange Co. Work Release Ctr. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pinellas Co. Central Division Fac. 2.6 2.4 1.1 1.8 0.9 Pinellas Co. South Fac. (Max. Sec.) 3.0 3.2 1.6 3.2 1.6 Sarasota North Co. Jail 6.4 6.3 1.8 5.6 1.7 Seminole Co. John E. Polk Corr. Fac. 4.7 5.0 1.7 5.0 1.7 South Co. Jail 4.5 4.9 1.7 2.8 1.3 St. Johns Co. Jail 1.7 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 Georgia Atlanta City Jail 4.8 7.1 3.0 7.1 3.0 Bartow Co. Jail 3.6 3.3 1.3 2.0 1.0 Carroll Co. Jail 1.9 2.2 1.0 2.2 1.0 Cobb Co. Sheriff's Office Jail & Prison Unit 5.0 5.4 1.6 5.4 1.6 Coweta Co. Jail 2.5 2.9 1.3 2.9 1.3 Crisp Co. Jaile 1.3 1.2 0.8 0.0 0.0 Dekalb Co. Jail 2.8 3.5 1.5 2.9 1.4 Dooly Co. Jaile 2.9 3.6 2.4 3.6 2.4 Dougherty Co. Jail 3.0 2.4 1.0 0.7 0.5 Floyd Co. Jaile 1.2 1.1 0.7 1.1 0.7 Fulton Co. Jail 7.5 7.1 1.8 5.7 1.7 Gwinnett Co. Comprehensive Corr. Complexe 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.5 Gwinnett Co. Jail 3.9 3.7 1.2 3.2 1.2 Muscogee Co. Jail 3.3 2.7 1.0 2.3 1.0 Paulding Co. Det. Ctr. 6.0 5.4 2.1 5.4 2.1 Pelham Municipal Jaile 1.5 1.7 1.2 0.0 0.0 Richmond Co. Corr. Inst. 2.8 2.3 1.0 1.6 0.8 Idaho Bingham Co. Jail 6.7 5.2 2.3 5.2 2.3 Illinois Coles Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cook Co. Jail - Division 2 3.3 2.6 1.0 1.3 0.8 Cook Co. Jail - Division 11 3.9 3.9 1.4 3.5 1.3 Ogle Co. Jail 5.0 4.8 3.1 4.8 3.1 Pulaski Co. Tri-County Justice & Det. Ctr.e,g 6.7 6.7 6.4 0.0 0.0 Will Co. Adult Det. Fac. 5.2 6.8 2.0 4.8 1.6 Indiana Daviess Co. Jail 3.3 2.6 1.0 1.8 0.9 Hamilton Co. Jail 3.1 3.6 1.4 3.6 1.4 Harrison Co. Jaile 1.4 2.0 1.4 2.0 1.4 Hendricks Co. Jail 3.4 3.1 1.5 3.1 1.5 Lake Co. Jail 4.8 4.9 1.6 3.5 1.3 Marion Co. Jail Intake Fac. 3.8 4.1 1.8 2.9 1.5 Wayne Co. Jail 7.6 7.5 1.9 7.5 1.9

20 Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007 Appendix table 2. Percent of local jail inmates reporting sexual victimization and estimated standard error, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.) Percent of inmates reporting nonconsensual Percent of inmates reporting sexual victimizationa sexual acts or abusive sexual contactsb Facility name Reported Weightedc Standard errord Weightedc Standard errord Iowa Polk Co. Jaile 4.1 4.8 2.6 3.4 2.2 Story Co. Jaile 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Kansas Atchison Co. Jaile 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Kentucky Boyd Co. Jail 5.6 5.4 1.6 4.6 1.5 Daviess Co. Det. Ctr. 1.7 2.4 1.2 1.7 1.1 Grant Co. Jail 3.4 3.2 1.3 1.4 0.8 Hardin Co. Det. Ctr. 2.8 2.5 0.9 2.1 0.9 Kentucky River Reg. Jail 5.4 4.0 1.5 3.2 1.3 Lexington-Fayette Co. Det. Ctr. 6.2 6.1 1.9 3.3 1.4 Louisville-Jefferson Co. Dept. of Corr. 3.9 4.3 1.9 2.3 1.1 Warren Co. Reg. Jail 3.3 3.8 1.7 1.4 0.9 Louisiana Ascension Parish Jail 1.5 1.4 0.7 1.4 0.7 Avoyelles Parish Bunkie Det. Ctr.e 1.3 1.5 0.8 0.9 0.7 Caldwell Parish Jails - (2 facilities) 6.2 6.9 1.6 5.3 1.4 Catahoula Corr. Ctr.e 1.8 2.1 0.7 1.7 0.7 East Baton Rouge Prison 4.0 3.7 1.2 3.2 1.1 Franklin Parish Jail 3.9 3.9 1.1 3.4 1.1 La Fourche Parish Jail 7.9 6.6 1.2 5.0 1.0 Lafayette Parish Corr. Center 5.8 5.6 1.4 4.1 1.2 Sabine Parish Det. Ctr.e 1.3 1.3 0.7 1.3 0.7 St. Bernard Parish Prison 1.9 1.9 0.8 1.9 0.8 St. Tammany Parish Jail 4.6 4.5 1.4 4.1 1.4 Terrebonne Parish Jail 5.1 4.7 1.2 4.4 1.1 Maine Androscoggin Co. Jail 7.3 6.7 2.2 5.1 2.0 Maryland Anne Arundel Co. Dept. of Det. Fac. 3.5 2.8 1.1 2.2 0.9 Baltimore City Det. Ctr. 3.3 3.5 1.4 2.4 1.2 Cecil Co. Comm. Adult Rehab. Ctr.e 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Montgomery Co. Corr. Fac. 3.9 3.8 1.2 1.3 0.8 Washington Co. Det. Ctr. 2.8 3.0 1.3 2.3 1.1 Massachusetts Barnstable Co. Corr. Fac. 2.7 2.4 0.9 2.4 0.9 Berkshire Co. Jail & House of Corr. 4.4 4.6 1.3 3.0 1.0 Hampden Co. Western Massachusetts Corr. Alcohol Ctr.e 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Middlesex Co. House of Corr. - Billericae 0.7 1.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 Plymouth Co. Corr. Fac. 2.3 2.3 1.1 0.9 0.6 Worcester Co. Jail & House of Corr. 3.9 4.2 1.5 3.2 1.2 Michigan Bay Co. Jaile 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.9 0.7 Kalamazoo Co. Jail 3.2 4.1 1.6 1.5 1.1 Kent Co. Corr. Fac. 4.5 4.3 1.3 4.3 1.3 Montmorency Co. Jail 4.5 3.6 1.7 3.6 1.7 Oakland Co. Jaile 1.5 1.7 1.0 1.7 1.0 Ottawa Co. Jaile 1.2 1.1 0.6 1.1 0.6 Wayne Co. Andrew C. Baird Det. Fac.e 0.7 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Wayne Co. William Dickerson Det. Fac.e 0.7 1.0 0.9 1.0 0.9 Minnesota Hennepin Co. Adult Det. Ctr. 3.0 2.6 1.2 1.3 0.9 Koochiching Co. Law Enforcement Ctr.e 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mississippi Madison Co. Jail 3.3 4.6 1.4 4.6 1.4 Tippah Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Missouri Clay Co. Det. Ctr.e 1.6 1.5 0.8 1.5 0.8 Jackson Co. Municipal Corr. Inst.e 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 St. Louis Co. Jaile 1.6 1.6 0.8 1.6 0.8 Wayne Co. Jaile 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007 21 Appendix table 2. Percent of local jail inmates reporting sexual victimization and estimated standard error, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.) Percent of inmates reporting nonconsensual Percent of inmates reporting sexual victimizationa sexual acts or abusive sexual contactsb Facility name Reported Weightedc Standard errord Weightedc Standard errord Montana Cascade Co. Reg. Jail 4.2 3.8 1.5 3.8 1.5 Nebraska Douglas Dept. of Corr. 3.4 3.1 1.3 2.7 1.3 Nevada Clark Co. Det. Ctr. 2.2 2.2 1.1 1.7 0.9 Las Vegas City Det. Ctr.e 1.3 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.4 Washoe Co. Det. Ctr. 3.0 3.1 1.1 1.9 0.8 New Hampshire Hillsborough Co. House of Corr. 3.4 2.9 1.1 2.1 1.0 New Jersey Atlantic Co. Gerard L. Gormley Justice Fac. 4.8 4.2 1.7 3.2 1.4 Camden Co. Corr. Fac. 1.9 2.0 1.0 1.3 0.7 Essex Co. Corr. Fac. 2.8 1.8 0.8 0.7 0.4 Hudson Co. Corr. Fac. 2.5 2.6 1.1 2.0 1.0 Mercer Co. Corr. Ctr. 3.8 3.0 1.0 1.5 0.7 Morris Co. Corr. Fac. 2.5 1.7 0.8 1.3 0.7 Union Co. Jail 2.5 3.7 1.8 2.2 1.1 New Mexico Bernalillo Co. Metropolitan Det. Ctr. 7.7 8.9 2.9 7.8 2.7 San Juan Co. Det. Ctr.e 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.0 0.0 Santa Fe Co. Adult Corr. Fac. 4.1 3.7 1.3 2.9 1.1 Torrance Co. Det. Fac.g 10.4 13.4 4.1 10.1 3.8 New York Albany Co. Corr. Fac. 3.6 3.1 1.3 2.2 1.0 Erie Co. Corr. Fac. 3.6 3.1 1.1 2.8 1.1 Erie Co. Holding Ctr. 7.6 5.8 1.7 5.2 1.6 Franklin Co. Jail 7.4 7.3 1.4 5.1 1.2 New York City Anna M. Kross Ctr. 4.7 4.4 1.6 4.4 1.6 New York City Otis Bantum Corr. Ctr. 3.8 2.8 1.1 1.2 0.8 New York City Rose M. Singer Ctr.f 7.9 7.2 1.7 6.9 1.7 Oswego Co. Corr. Fac. 2.4 1.8 0.7 1.8 0.7 Westchester Co. Penitentiary 2.7 2.7 1.0 0.5 0.4 North Carolina Cabarrus Co. Jaile 4.9 2.8 1.4 2.0 1.3 Chowan Co. Det. Fac.e 6.7 8.6 5.8 0.0 0.0 Cleveland Co. 5.6 6.0 1.9 4.3 1.4 Mecklenburg Co. Jail 3.6 3.8 1.4 3.0 1.2 Mecklenburg Co. Jail - North 5.8 6.1 1.9 4.7 1.7 New Hanover Co. Det. Ctr.e 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.6 Wake Co. Jail 3.9 3.9 1.3 3.3 1.2 North Dakota Cass Co. Jail 1.8 1.6 0.7 0.8 0.5 Ohio Cuyahoga Co. Corr. Ctr.e 1.1 1.1 0.7 1.1 0.7 Franklin Co. Corrections Ctr. I 3.4 4.2 1.8 3.7 1.7 Hamilton Co. Justice Ctr. 2.7 3.2 1.3 2.5 1.1 Hamilton Co. Talbert House Drug & Alcohol Treatment 5.8 5.9 1.2 4.9 1.1 Marion-Hardin Co. Multi-County Corr. Ctr.e 1.6 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.6 Northwest Ohio Reg. Corr. Ctr.e 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 River City Corr. Fac. 2.4 2.5 0.8 2.5 0.8 Southeastern Ohio Reg. Jail 8.2 8.1 2.1 8.1 2.1 Oklahoma Mayes Co. Jaile 5.0 5.5 3.1 5.5 3.1 Oklahoma Co. Det. Ctr. 4.6 4.5 1.4 4.5 1.4 Rogers Co. Jail 3.7 4.4 1.3 4.4 1.3 Oregon Coos Co. Jaile 1.7 1.4 0.8 1.4 0.8 Marion Co. Corr. Fac. 3.0 3.0 1.1 2.7 1.1 Washington Co. Jaile 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.4

22 Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007 Appendix table 2. Percent of local jail inmates reporting sexual victimization and estimated standard error, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.) Percent of inmates reporting nonconsensual Percent of inmates reporting sexual victimizationa sexual acts or abusive sexual contactsb Facility name Reported Weightedc Standard errord Weightedc Standard errord Pennsylvania Allegheny Co. Jail 2.2 2.2 0.9 1.4 0.8 Berks Co. Prisone 1.7 1.7 0.9 1.1 0.7 Blair Co. Prisone 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.7 0.5 Erie Co. Prisone 1.2 1.3 0.8 0.4 0.3 Lancaster Co. Prison 4.4 4.2 1.4 2.1 1.0 Lycoming Co. Pre-Release Ctr.e 2.6 2.2 1.3 0.0 0.0 Montgomery Co. Corr. Fac. 2.9 2.8 1.2 2.8 1.2 Philadelphia City Alternative & Special Det. Fac. 3.5 4.1 1.6 3.5 1.5 Philadelphia City Curran/Fromhold Corr. Fac. 3.7 3.9 1.4 2.3 1.1 Philadelphia City House of Corr.e 1.5 1.5 0.8 1.1 0.7 Philadelphia City Industrial Corr. Ctr. 7.8 6.9 1.8 5.9 1.6 York Co. Prison 2.1 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 South Carolina Beaufort Co. Det. Ctr. 2.3 1.9 0.8 1.3 0.7 Berkeley Co. Hill-Finklea Det. Ctr. 2.6 2.1 1.0 1.5 0.9 Charleston Co. Det. Ctr.e 1.4 1.9 1.3 1.2 1.1 Florence Co. Det. Ctr. 3.7 3.8 1.2 2.4 0.9 Lancaster Co. Det. Ctr.e 2.9 2.4 1.4 2.4 1.4 Sumter-Lee Reg. Det. Ctr. 3.1 3.2 1.3 3.2 1.3 South Dakota Pennington Co. Jail 3.3 3.2 1.3 3.2 1.3 Tennessee Davidson Co. Criminal Justice Ctr.e 3.3 4.2 2.5 1.8 1.2 Greene Co. Det. Ctr.e 1.9 2.0 1.1 2.0 1.1 Knox Co. Work Release Ctr.e 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Madison Co. Penal Farm 1.9 2.6 1.1 2.6 1.1 Shelby Co. Corr. Ctr. 5.0 5.3 1.8 5.3 1.8 Shelby Co. Justice Ctr. 2.2 2.1 0.9 1.8 0.9 Sullivan Co. Jail 2.7 2.5 1.0 1.8 0.8 Tipton Co. Jail 1.8 1.6 0.6 0.0 0.0 Warren Co. Jail 4.9 4.3 1.4 4.3 1.4 Texas Bexar Co. Adult Det. Ctr.e 2.1 1.6 0.9 1.6 0.9 Bowie Co. Corr. Ctr. 4.3 2.8 1.1 2.3 1.0 Brazoria Co. Jail & Det. Ctr.e 1.1 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.4 Cameron Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Dallas Co. Decker Det. Ctr. 2.2 1.8 0.9 1.8 0.9 Dallas Co. George Allen Jail 3.4 3.1 1.4 3.1 1.4 Dallas Co. North Tower Jail 5.0 5.0 1.5 4.7 1.5 Dallas Co. West Tower Jail 5.1 5.2 1.9 5.2 1.9 Denton Co. Det. Ctr.e 2.1 1.7 1.0 0.7 0.4 El Paso Co. Jail Annex 4.4 3.9 1.3 3.6 1.3 Galveston Co. Jail 4.1 4.0 1.4 4.0 1.4 Gregg Co. Jail 3.7 3.8 1.4 3.2 1.3 Harris Co. Jail 2.6 3.8 1.6 2.8 1.4 Harris Co. Jail - Baker Street 5.1 5.0 1.5 4.7 1.5 Haskell Co. Rolling Plains Reg. Jail & Det. Ctr.e,g 2.0 1.3 0.8 0.8 0.7 Jefferson Co. Det. Ctr. 4.4 3.8 1.2 3.4 1.1 Kleberg Co. Jaile 2.0 2.5 1.8 2.5 1.8 Limestone Co. Det. Ctr.e,g 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.6 Montgomery Co. Jail 3.0 3.1 1.1 2.6 1.1 Newton Co. Corr. Ctr.e 1.3 1.1 0.6 0.8 0.5 Potter Co. Det. Ctr.e 2.1 3.0 1.7 1.3 0.8 Tarrant Co. Corr. Ctr. 3.4 3.7 1.5 3.7 1.5 Travis Co. Corr. Fac. 5.5 6.0 1.7 6.0 1.7 Utah Weber Co. Corr. Fac. 4.1 4.5 1.5 4.5 1.5

Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007 23 Appendix table 2. Percent of local jail inmates reporting sexual victimization and estimated standard error, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.) Percent of inmates reporting nonconsensual Percent of inmates reporting sexual victimizationa sexual acts or abusive sexual contactsb Facility name Reported Weightedc Standard errord Weightedc Standard errord Virginia Central Virginia Reg. Jaile 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.0 0.0 Culpeper Co. Jaile 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Dinwiddie Co. Jaile 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Duffield Reg. Jail Fac. 3.5 3.5 1.3 3.0 1.2 Newport News City Jaile 2.3 3.7 2.1 3.7 2.1 Norfolk City Jaile 1.5 1.5 0.8 1.2 0.8 Prince William-Manassas Reg. Adult Corr. Ctr. 2.8 2.4 1.1 2.4 1.1 Richmond City Jail 4.9 4.5 1.4 4.5 1.4 Roanoke City Jaile 5.3 5.4 1.9 4.6 1.8 Roanoke Co. Jaile 2.2 2.1 1.3 0.7 0.6 Rockbridge Co. Reg. Jaile 2.5 2.0 1.1 2.0 1.1 Virginia Beach Corr. Ctr.e 2.0 2.4 1.4 2.4 1.4 Washington Chelan Co. Reg. Jaile 1.6 1.5 0.8 1.5 0.8 Clark Co. Jail 8.0 9.1 2.2 8.5 2.1 King Co. Corr. Fac. 5.4 4.2 1.4 4.2 1.4 King Co. Reg. Justice Ctr.e 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.0 0.0 Snohomish Co. Jail 1.5 1.4 0.8 1.4 0.8 Whatcom Co. Jail 6.4 5.6 1.5 5.1 1.5 West Virginia Western Reg. Jail 3.2 3.9 1.5 2.9 1.3 Wisconsin Dane Co. Jail 4.6 3.6 1.3 3.1 1.2 La Crosse Co. Jaile 2.2 0.6 0.3 0.6 0.3 Marathon Co. Adult Det. Fac. 3.8 3.7 1.3 2.7 1.1 Milwaukee Co. House of Corr.e 2.3 2.6 1.4 2.6 1.4 Milwaukee Co. Jail 2.4 1.8 1.0 1.8 1.0 Waukesha Co. Jail 3.5 3.1 1.1 1.8 0.9 Waupaca Co. Jail 2.1 2.0 0.9 2.0 0.9 Wyoming Sheridan Co. Det. Ctr.e 1.4 1.1 0.6 1.1 0.6

aInmates reporting one or more incidents of sexual victimization involving another inmate or facility staff since admission to the facility or since admission if less than 6 months. bExcludes staff-on-inmate acts and contacts reported by inmate as willing. cWeights were applied so that inmates who responded accurately reflected the entire population of each facility on selected characteristics, including age, gender, race, time served, and sentence length. (See Methodology for weighting and nonresponse adjustments.) dStandard errors may be used to construct confidence intervals around the weighted survey estimates. For example, the 95% confidence interval around the total percent is 4.5% plus or minus 1.96 times 0.3% (or 3.9% to 5.1%). eThe 95% confidence level around the weighted estimate includes zero. fFemale facility. gPrivate facility.

24 Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007 Appendix table 3. Percent of local jail inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual contacts, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007 Nonconsensual sexual actsa Abusive sexual contacts onlyb Facility name Percent victimized Standard errorc Percent victimized Standard errorc Total 2.1% 0.1% 1.1% 0.1%

Alabama Etowah Co. Det. Ctr. 0.4 0.3 1.1 0.7 Jackson Co. Jail 1.3 0.5 1.0 0.6 Shelby Co. Jail 1.3 0.8 0.6 0.5 Arizona Coconino Co. Jail 1.7 0.9 0.4 0.4 Maricopa Co. Jail - 4th Avenue 1.7 0.8 1.1 0.6 Maricopa Co. Jail - Durango 1.3 0.7 0.8 0.5 Maricopa Co. Jail - Estrellad 1.8 1.0 0.9 0.6 Maricopa Co. Jail - Lower Buckeye 2.6 1.0 0.0 0.0 California Alameda Co. Santa Rita Jail 1.9 1.4 1.5 0.9 Fresno Co. Det. Fac. - Main Jail 2.2 1.2 1.0 0.9 Imperial Co. Jail 2.7 1.4 0.6 0.5 Kern Co. Lerdo Pre-Trial Fac. 2.4 1.0 0.5 0.5 Los Angeles Co. Mens Central Jail 1.3 1.0 2.0 1.1 Los Angeles Co. North Corr. Fac. 2.9 1.1 0.3 0.3 Los Angeles Co. Twin Towers Corr. Fac. 2.7 1.7 3.6 2.0 Orange Co. Central Jail Complex 1.0 0.7 3.3 1.2 Orange Co. James A. Musick Fac. 1.4 0.7 0.7 0.5 Riverside Co. Larry D. Smith Corr. Ctr. 1.6 0.9 1.1 0.6 Riverside Co. Robert Presley Det. Ctr. 4.2 1.9 2.2 1.1 Sacramento Co Rio Cosumnes Corr. Ctr. 2.5 1.3 0.7 0.5 Sacramento Co. Main Jail 1.1 0.7 1.4 1.0 San Bernardino Co. W. Valley Det. Ctr. 3.8 1.9 2.2 1.2 San Bernardino Co. Glen Helen Rehab. Ctr. 1.5 0.8 1.6 0.9 San Bernardino Co. Central Det. Ctr. 1.6 0.7 0.5 0.5 San Diego Co. George F. Bailey Det. Fac. 2.4 0.9 2.5 1.3 San Diego Co. Las Colinas Women's Det. Fac.d 3.3 1.3 2.7 1.2 San Francisco Co. Jail - No. 1 1.5 0.9 3.4 1.4 Santa Barbara Co. Jail 3.5 1.2 0.4 0.4 Santa Clara Co. Elmwood Corr. Complex 0.6 0.6 1.5 0.9 Santa Clara Co. Main Jail - North 3.4 1.4 0.7 0.6 Ventura Co. Jail - Todd Road 2.2 0.9 0.6 0.5 Colorado Adams Co. Det. Fac. 2.5 1.0 1.8 1.3 Arapahoe Co. Jail 0.1 0.1 2.9 1.1 El Paso Co. Det. Fac. 2.1 0.9 0.4 0.4 Garfield Co. Jail 3.0 1.2 2.5 1.4 District of Columbia D.C. Dept. of Corr. Jail 3.1 1.5 1.1 0.7 Florida Alachua Co. Jail 1.9 0.9 1.9 0.9 Brevard Co. Det. Ctr. 7.8 1.8 0.8 0.5 Broward Co. Conte Corr. Fac. 1.1 0.8 1.9 1.1 Broward Co. Main Jail 2.5 1.9 3.3 1.7 Broward Co. North Jail - Pompano Beach 3.8 1.5 0.5 0.4 Collier Co. Jail 5.1 1.8 0.3 0.3 Dixie Co. Jail 1.2 0.8 5.3 2.4 Hillsborough Co. Falkenburg Road Jail 1.7 0.8 0.7 0.5 Jackson Co. Corr. Fac. 0.7 0.5 0.9 0.6 Jacksonville City Montgomery Corr. Ctr. 1.6 0.8 1.2 0.7 Marion Co. Jail 3.0 1.1 2.2 1.0 Miami-Dade Co. Metro West Det. Ctr. 2.5 1.3 0.0 0.0 Miami-Dade Co. Turner Guilford Knight Corr. Ctr. 3.8 1.7 1.2 0.8 Orange Co. 33rd Street Corr. Ctr. 1.9 1.0 1.1 0.7 Pinellas Co. Central Division Fac. 2.4 1.1 0.0 0.0 Pinellas Co. South Fac. (Max. Sec.) 3.2 1.6 0.0 0.0 Sarasota North Co. Jail 2.5 1.2 3.7 1.4 Seminole Co. John E. Polk Corr. Fac. 4.2 1.5 0.8 0.7 South Co. Jail 2.9 1.4 2.0 1.1 St. Johns Co. Jail 1.5 0.9 0.5 0.4

Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007 25 Appendix table 3. Percent of local jail inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual contacts, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.) Nonconsensual sexual actsa Abusive sexual contacts onlyb Facility name Percent victimized Standard errorc Percent victimized Standard errorc Georgia Atlanta City Jail 5.6 2.9 1.4 0.8 Bartow Co. Jail 1.2 0.7 2.1 1.0 Carroll Co. Jail 2.2 1.0 0.0 0.0 Cobb Co. Sheriff's Office Jail & Prison Unit 2.1 0.9 3.3 1.3 Coweta Co. Jail 1.9 1.0 1.0 0.8 Dekalb Co. Jail 1.0 0.7 2.5 1.3 Dougherty Co. Jail 2.0 0.9 0.4 0.3 Fulton Co. Jail 4.8 1.6 2.3 1.0 Gwinnett Co. Jail 1.0 0.6 2.7 1.1 Muscogee Co. Jail 1.5 0.8 1.3 0.7 Paulding Co. Det. Ctr. 3.5 1.8 1.8 1.1 Richmond Co. Corr. Inst. 0.7 0.5 1.6 0.8 Idaho Bingham Co. Jail 2.0 1.5 3.2 1.7 Illinois Cook Co. Jail - Division 2 2.6 1.0 0.0 0.0 Cook Co. Jail - Division 11 3.4 1.3 0.5 0.4 Will Co. Adult Det. Fac. 4.7 1.8 2.1 1.1 Indiana Daviess Co. Jail 1.5 0.7 1.1 0.7 Hamilton Co. Jail 2.7 1.3 0.9 0.7 Hendricks Co. Jail 2.1 1.2 1.0 0.8 Lake Co. Jail 4.6 1.6 0.4 0.3 Marion Co. Jail Intake Fac. 4.1 1.8 0.0 0.0 Wayne Co. Jail 1.5 0.8 6.0 1.7 Kentucky Boyd Co. Jail 1.6 0.9 3.8 1.4 Daviess Co. Det. Ctr. 1.3 0.8 1.1 0.9 Grant Co. Jail 1.7 1.0 1.5 0.8 Hardin Co. Det. Ctr. 1.4 0.7 1.1 0.7 Kentucky River Reg. Jail 4.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 Lexington-Fayette Co. Det. Ctr. 5.5 1.8 0.6 0.6 Louisville-Jefferson Co. Dept. of Corr. 2.8 1.6 1.5 1.0 Warren Co. Reg. Jail 2.4 1.5 1.4 0.9 Louisiana Ascension Parish Jail 0.7 0.5 0.7 0.5 Caldwell Parish Jails - (2 facilities) 5.0 1.4 1.9 0.7 Catahoula Corr. Ctr.e 2.1 0.7 0.0 0.0 East Baton Rouge Prison 1.4 0.7 2.3 1.0 Franklin Parish Jail 2.4 0.9 1.5 0.7 La Fourche Parish Jail 4.0 0.9 2.6 0.7 Lafayette Parish Corr. Center 3.8 1.2 1.7 0.8 St. Bernard Parish Prison 1.0 0.5 0.9 0.5 St. Tammany Parish Jail 2.7 1.1 1.8 1.0 Terrebonne Parish Jail 1.7 0.7 3.1 1.0 Maine Androscoggin Co. Jail 5.1 2.0 1.6 1.0 Maryland Anne Arundel Co. Dept. of Det. Fac. 1.1 0.7 1.7 0.8 Baltimore City Det. Ctr. 2.9 1.3 0.6 0.6 Montgomery Co. Corr. Fac. 3.1 1.1 0.7 0.6 Washington Co. Det. Ctr. 2.4 1.2 0.6 0.5 Massachusetts Barnstable Co. Corr. Fac. 1.2 0.7 1.2 0.7 Berkshire Co. Jail & House of Corr. 3.0 1.2 1.6 0.7 Plymouth Co. Corr. Fac. 1.8 1.0 0.5 0.5 Worcester Co. Jail & House of Corr. 1.5 0.8 2.8 1.3 Michigan Kalamazoo Co. Jail 3.1 1.4 1.0 0.7 Kent Co. Corr. Fac. 3.1 1.2 1.2 0.6 Montmorency Co. Jail 3.6 1.7 0.0 0.0

26 Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007 Appendix table 3. Percent of local jail inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual contacts, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.) Nonconsensual sexual actsa Abusive sexual contacts onlyb Facility name Percent victimized Standard errorc Percent victimized Standard errorc Minnesota Hennepin Co. Adult Det. Ctr. 2.6 1.2 0.0 0.0 Mississippi Madison Co. Jail 2.5 1.0 2.1 1.0 Montana Cascade Co. Reg. Jail 1.3 0.7 2.5 1.3 Nebraska Douglas Dept. of Corr. 2.3 1.1 0.8 0.8 Nevada Clark Co. Det. Ctr. 1.2 0.8 1.0 0.7 Washoe Co. Det. Ctr. 1.6 0.7 1.5 0.8 New Hampshire Hillsborough Co. House of Corr. 1.2 0.7 1.7 0.9 New Jersey Atlantic Co. Gerard L. Gormley Justice Fac. 4.2 1.7 0.0 0.0 Camden Co. Corr. Fac. 1.4 0.8 0.6 0.5 Essex Co. Corr. Fac. 1.3 0.8 0.4 0.3 Hudson Co. Corr. Fac. 2.2 1.0 0.4 0.4 Mercer Co. Corr. Ctr. 2.5 0.9 0.4 0.4 Morris Co. Corr. Fac. 1.1 0.7 0.6 0.5 Union Co. Jail 3.7 1.8 0.0 0.0 New Mexico Bernalillo Co. Metropolitan Det. Ctr. 6.7 2.5 2.2 1.6 Santa Fe Co. Adult Corr. Fac. 3.7 1.3 0.0 0.0 Torrance Co. Det. Fac.e 8.9 3.3 4.5 2.7 New York Albany Co. Corr. Fac. 1.2 0.9 1.9 1.0 Erie Co. Corr. Fac. 1.9 0.8 1.2 0.8 Erie Co. Holding Ctr. 3.8 1.4 2.0 1.0 Franklin Co. Jail 5.3 1.2 2.0 0.7 New York City Anna M. Kross Ctr. 3.7 1.5 0.7 0.7 New York City Otis Bantum Corr. Ctr. 2.8 1.1 0.0 0.0 New York City Rose M. Singer Ctr.d 1.5 0.7 5.7 1.6 Oswego Co. Corr. Fac. 0.9 0.5 0.9 0.5 Westchester Co. Penitentiary 2.1 0.9 0.6 0.5 North Carolina Cleveland Co. 5.4 1.9 0.6 0.4 Mecklenburg Co. Jail 1.5 1.0 2.3 1.0 Mecklenburg Co. Jail - North 3.5 1.4 2.5 1.3 Wake Co. Jail 1.8 1.0 2.1 1.0 North Dakota Cass Co. Jail 0.8 0.5 0.8 0.5 Ohio Franklin Co. Corrections Ctr. I 2.9 1.3 1.3 1.3 Hamilton Co. Justice Ctr. 2.4 1.1 0.9 0.8 Hamilton Co. Talbert House Drug & Alcohol Treatment 1.9 0.7 4.0 1.0 River City Corr. Fac. 2.5 0.8 0.0 0.0 Southeastern Ohio Reg. Jail 5.8 1.8 2.3 1.2 Oklahoma Oklahoma Co. Det. Ctr. 2.2 1.0 2.4 1.0 Rogers Co. Jail 2.5 1.0 2.0 0.8 Oregon Marion Co. Corr. Fac. 2.1 1.0 0.9 0.6 Pennsylvania Allegheny Co. Jail 1.7 0.8 0.5 0.5 Lancaster Co. Prison 2.1 1.0 2.1 1.0 Montgomery Co. Corr. Fac. 1.9 1.1 0.9 0.6 Philadelphia City Alternative & Special Det. Fac. 1.8 1.1 2.3 1.1 Philadelphia City Curran/Fromhold Corr. Fac. 2.1 1.0 1.8 1.0 Philadelphia City Industrial Corr. Ctr. 5.3 1.6 1.6 0.8 York Co. Prison 1.3 0.9 0.6 0.4

Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007 27 Appendix table 3. Percent of local jail inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual contacts, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.) Nonconsensual sexual actsa Abusive sexual contacts onlyb Facility name Percent victimized Standard errorc Percent victimized Standard errorc South Carolina Beaufort Co. Det. Ctr. 1.9 0.8 0.0 0.0 Berkeley Co. Hill-Finklea Det. Ctr. 1.4 0.8 0.8 0.6 Florence Co. Det. Ctr. 2.5 1.0 1.2 0.7 Sumter-Lee Reg. Det. Ctr. 1.8 1.0 1.4 0.8 South Dakota Pennington Co. Jail 2.1 1.0 1.1 0.9 Tennessee Madison Co. Penal Farm 0.0 0.0 2.6 1.1 Shelby Co. Corr. Ctr. 3.8 1.6 1.5 0.8 Shelby Co. Justice Ctr. 1.3 0.8 0.7 0.5 Sullivan Co. Jail 1.1 0.7 1.4 0.7 Tipton Co. Jail 1.6 0.6 0.0 0.0 Warren Co. Jail 2.8 1.2 1.5 0.7 Texas Bowie Co. Corr. Ctr. 1.1 0.6 1.7 0.9 Dallas Co. Decker Det. Ctr. 1.4 0.8 0.3 0.3 Dallas Co. George Allen Jail 1.8 1.1 1.3 1.0 Dallas Co. North Tower Jail 3.2 1.3 1.8 0.9 Dallas Co. West Tower Jail 2.6 1.4 2.6 1.2 El Paso Co. Jail Annex 2.1 1.0 1.8 0.9 Galveston Co. Jail 1.8 1.0 2.3 1.1 Gregg Co. Jail 3.1 1.2 0.7 0.6 Harris Co. Jail 2.3 1.1 1.5 1.1 Harris Co. Jail - Baker Street 5.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 Jefferson Co. Det. Ctr. 2.6 1.0 1.2 0.6 Montgomery Co. Jail 2.0 0.9 1.1 0.7 Newton Co. Corr. Ctr.e 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.3 Tarrant Co. Corr. Ctr. 3.4 1.4 0.3 0.3 Travis Co. Corr. Fac. 3.0 1.2 3.0 1.2 Utah Weber Co. Corr. Fac. 2.1 1.1 2.4 1.0 Virginia Duffield Reg. Jail Fac. 0.9 0.5 2.6 1.2 Prince William-Manassas Reg. Adult Corr. Ctr. 2.4 1.1 0.0 0.0 Richmond City Jail 3.1 1.2 1.4 0.8 Roanoke City Jail 1.4 0.9 4.0 1.7 Washington Clark Co. Jail 3.4 1.3 5.7 1.8 King Co. Corr. Fac. 3.6 1.2 0.6 0.6 Whatcom Co. Jail 4.4 1.4 1.2 0.5 West Virginia Western Reg. Jail 2.8 1.2 1.1 0.9 Wisconsin Dane Co. Jail 2.7 1.1 1.0 0.6 Marathon Co. Adult Det. Fac. 3.7 1.3 0.0 0.0 Waukesha Co. Jail 2.6 1.1 0.6 0.5 Waupaca Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.9

Note: Excludes facilities with rates of sexual victimization not statistically different from zero at the 95% confidence level. Detail may not sum due to rounding. aIncludes all inmates who reported unwanted contacts with another inmate or any contacts with staff that involved oral, anal, or vaginal penetration, handjobs, and other sexual acts. bIncludes all inmates who reported unwanted contacts with another inmate or any contacts with staff that involved touching of the inmate's buttocks, thighs, penis, breasts, or vagina in a sexual way. cStandard errors may be used to construct confidence intervals around weighted survey estimates. (See Methodology.) dFemale facility. ePrivately operated facility.

28 Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007 Appendix table 4. Percent of local jail inmates reporting sexual victimization, by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007 Inmate-on-inmatea Staff-on-inmatea Facility name Percent victimized Standard errorb Percent victimized Standard errorb

Total 1.6% 0.1% 2.0% 0.1%

Alabama Etowah Co. Det. Ctr. 1.5 0.7 0.0 0.0 Jackson Co. Jail 1.8 0.7 1.3 0.5 Shelby Co. Jail 1.9 0.9 0.6 0.5 Arizona Coconino Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 2.1 1.0 Maricopa Co. Jail - 4th Avenue 1.7 0.8 1.1 0.6 Maricopa Co. Jail - Durango 1.6 0.8 0.9 0.6 Maricopa Co. Jail - Estrellac 2.7 1.1 0.4 0.4 Maricopa Co. Jail - Lower Buckeye 0.4 0.4 2.6 1.0 California Alameda Co. Santa Rita Jail 2.1 1.1 1.3 1.2 Fresno Co. Det. Fac. - Main Jail 1.6 1.1 1.5 1.0 Imperial Co. Jail 1.3 0.8 2.0 1.2 Kern Co. Lerdo Pre-Trial Fac. 1.4 0.7 2.0 0.9 Los Angeles Co. Mens Central Jail 1.0 0.8 2.5 1.3 Los Angeles Co. North Corr. Fac. 1.4 0.8 2.9 1.1 Los Angeles Co. Twin Towers Corr. Fac. 5.0 2.4 1.3 1.0 Orange Co. Central Jail Complex 3.3 1.2 1.0 0.7 Orange Co. James A. Musick Fac. 1.8 0.8 1.4 0.7 Riverside Co. Larry D. Smith Corr. Ctr. 1.2 0.7 2.2 1.0 Riverside Co. Robert Presley Det. Ctr. 3.7 1.3 3.7 1.9 Sacramento Co. Rio Cosumnes Corr. Ctr. 1.2 0.7 2.0 1.2 Sacramento Co. Main Jail 0.0 0.0 2.5 1.2 San Bernardino Co. W. Valley Det. Ctr. 3.6 1.8 2.6 1.2 San Bernardino Co. Glen Helen Rehab. Ctr. 1.3 0.9 1.7 0.8 San Bernardino Co. Central Det. Ctr. 0.4 0.3 1.8 0.8 San Diego Co. George F. Bailey Det. Fac. 3.0 1.3 3.7 1.4 San Diego Co. Las Colinas Women's Det. Fac.c 3.8 1.4 3.2 1.5 San Francisco Co. Jail - No. 1 3.4 1.4 1.5 0.9 Santa Barbara Co. Jail 3.1 1.2 2.1 1.0 Santa Clara Co. Elmwood Corr. Complex 2.2 1.1 0.6 0.6 Santa Clara Co. Main Jail - North 2.9 1.3 1.2 0.8 Ventura Co. Jail - Todd Road 1.1 0.7 1.6 0.8 Colorado Adams Co. Det. Fac. 3.7 1.6 1.0 0.6 Arapahoe Co. Jail 3.0 1.1 0.2 0.2 El Paso Co. Det. Fac. 1.7 0.8 1.3 0.7 Garfield Co. Jail 4.0 1.7 3.0 1.2 District of Columbia D.C. Dept. of Corr. Jail 3.1 1.5 3.2 1.5 Florida Alachua Co. Jail 2.9 1.1 0.9 0.6 Brevard Co. Det. Ctr. 6.7 1.7 4.4 1.5 Broward Co. Conte Corr. Fac. 1.9 1.0 1.1 0.8 Broward Co. Main Jail 1.7 1.4 4.1 2.1 Broward Co. North Jail - Pompano Beach 3.8 1.5 0.8 0.5 Collier Co. Jail 1.5 0.7 4.2 1.7 Dixie Co. Jail 5.3 2.4 1.2 0.8 Hillsborough Co. Falkenburg Road Jail 1.6 0.8 0.8 0.6 Jackson Co. Corr. Fac. 0.9 0.6 0.7 0.5 Jacksonville City Montgomery Corr. Ctr. 1.4 0.8 1.4 0.7 Marion Co. Jail 2.7 1.0 3.2 1.1 Miami-Dade Co. Metro West Det. Ctr. 0.0 0.0 2.5 1.3 Miami-Dade Co. Turner Guilford Knight Corr. Ctr. 2.4 1.5 4.6 1.8 Orange Co. 33rd Street Corr. Ctr. 1.4 0.7 1.9 1.0 Pinellas Co. Central Division Fac. 0.0 0.0 2.4 1.1 Pinellas Co. South Fac. (Max. Sec.) 2.2 1.3 2.7 1.5 Sarasota North Co. Jail 5.0 1.6 1.2 0.8 Seminole Co. John E. Polk Corr. Fac. 3.7 1.5 1.9 1.0 South Co. Jail 0.6 0.6 4.3 1.6 St. Johns Co. Jail 1.2 0.7 1.5 0.9

Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007 29 Appendix table 4. Percent of local jail inmates reporting sexual victimization, by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.) Inmate-on-inmatea Staff-on-inmatea Facility name Percent victimized Standard errorb Percent victimized Standard errorb Georgia Atlanta City Jail 6.2 2.9 3.2 2.1 Bartow Co. Jail 1.4 0.8 2.0 1.0 Carroll Co. Jail 1.5 0.8 0.7 0.6 Cobb Co. Sheriff's Office Jail & Prison Unit 3.5 1.3 2.4 1.1 Coweta Co. Jail 1.8 1.0 1.9 1.0 Dekalb Co. Jail 2.5 1.3 1.0 0.7 Dougherty Co. Jail 0.3 0.2 2.1 1.0 Fulton Co. Jail 3.0 1.2 4.0 1.4 Gwinnett Co. Jail 2.7 1.1 1.9 0.9 Muscogee Co. Jail 2.3 1.0 0.4 0.4 Paulding Co. Det. Ctr. 3.5 1.8 5.4 2.1 Richmond Co. Corr. Inst. 1.6 0.8 0.7 0.5 Idaho Bingham Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 5.2 2.3 Illinois Cook Co. Jail - Division 2 0.7 0.4 1.9 0.9 Cook Co. Jail - Division 11 1.5 0.8 2.4 1.1 Will Co. Adult Det. Fac. 1.8 0.9 5.6 1.9 Indiana Daviess Co. Jail 1.1 0.7 1.5 0.7 Hamilton Co. Jail 1.7 0.9 1.9 1.1 Hendricks Co. Jail 3.1 1.5 1.1 0.9 Lake Co. Jail 2.3 1.1 3.1 1.3 Marion Co. Jail Intake Fac. 0.0 0.0 4.1 1.8 Wayne Co. Jail 5.5 1.7 1.9 0.9 Kentucky Boyd Co. Jail 4.6 1.5 1.6 0.9 Daviess Co. Det. Ctr. 1.1 0.9 1.3 0.8 Grant Co. Jail 1.4 0.8 1.8 1.0 Hardin Co. Det. Ctr. 1.1 0.7 1.4 0.7 Kentucky River Reg. Jail 1.2 0.7 4.0 1.5 Lexington-Fayette Co. Det. Ctr. 2.1 1.2 4.5 1.6 Louisville-Jefferson Co. Dept. of Corr. 1.8 1.0 2.5 1.6 Warren Co. Reg. Jail 0.0 0.0 3.8 1.7 Louisiana Ascension Parish Jail 0.7 0.5 0.7 0.5 Caldwell Parish Jails - (2 facilities) 2.3 0.9 4.5 1.3 Catahoula Corr. Ctr.d 1.3 0.6 0.8 0.5 East Baton Rouge Prison 2.8 1.1 1.4 0.7 Franklin Parish Jail 1.9 0.8 2.0 0.8 La Fourche Parish Jail 3.7 0.9 4.0 0.9 Lafayette Parish Corr. Center 2.7 1.0 2.8 1.0 St. Bernard Parish Prison 1.9 0.8 1.9 0.8 St. Tammany Parish Jail 4.1 1.4 2.3 1.0 Terrebonne Parish Jail 3.7 1.0 2.0 0.8 Maine Androscoggin Co. Jail 5.1 2.0 2.7 1.3 Maryland Anne Arundel Co. Dept. of Det. Fac. 1.2 0.7 1.6 0.8 Baltimore City Det. Ctr. 0.0 0.0 3.5 1.4 Montgomery Co. Corr. Fac. 0.6 0.5 3.2 1.1 Washington Co. Det. Ctr. 0.5 0.4 3.0 1.3 Massachusetts Barnstable Co. Corr. Fac. 1.8 0.8 1.2 0.7 Berkshire Co. Jail & House of Corr. 2.4 0.9 2.9 1.1 Plymouth Co. Corr. Fac. 0.0 0.0 2.3 1.1 Worcester Co. Jail & House of Corr. 2.1 1.0 2.6 1.3 Michigan Kalamazoo Co. Jail 1.5 1.1 2.6 1.2 Kent Co. Corr. Fac. 1.5 0.8 3.5 1.2 Montmorency Co. Jail 3.6 1.7 0.0 0.0

30 Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007 Appendix table 4. Percent of local jail inmates reporting sexual victimization, by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.) Inmate-on-inmatea Staff-on-inmatea Facility name Percent victimized Standard errorb Percent victimized Standard errorb

Minnesota Hennepin Co. Adult Det. Ctr. 0.5 0.4 2.6 1.2 Mississippi Madison Co. Jail 1.8 0.7 3.2 1.3 Montana Cascade Co. Reg. Jail 3.1 1.3 0.7 0.6 Nebraska Douglas Dept. of Corr. 2.1 1.1 2.3 1.1 Nevada Clark Co. Det. Ctr. 0.4 0.4 2.2 1.1 Washoe Co. Det. Ctr. 1.0 0.5 2.4 1.0 New Hampshire Hillsborough Co. House of Corr. 1.3 0.8 1.6 0.8 New Jersey Atlantic Co. Gerard L. Gormley Justice Fac. 2.5 1.2 2.2 1.3 Camden Co. Corr. Fac. 0.8 0.6 1.4 0.8 Essex Co. Corr. Fac. 0.4 0.3 1.3 0.8 Hudson Co. Corr. Fac. 0.9 0.6 2.2 1.0 Mercer Co. Corr. Ctr. 1.1 0.6 2.2 0.9 Morris Co. Corr. Fac. 1.3 0.7 1.1 0.7 Union Co. Jail 0.7 0.6 3.0 1.7 New Mexico Bernalillo Co. Metropolitan Det. Ctr. 3.8 2.2 6.7 2.5 Santa Fe Co. Adult Corr. Fac. 1.2 0.7 3.7 1.3 Torrance Co. Det. Fac.d 6.4 3.1 7.0 3.0 New York Albany Co. Corr. Fac. 0.0 0.0 3.1 1.3 Erie Co. Corr. Fac. 2.8 1.1 1.7 0.8 Erie Co. Holding Ctr. 1.9 1.0 4.5 1.5 Franklin Co. Jail 2.2 0.7 6.4 1.3 New York City Anna M. Kross Ctr. 2.1 1.2 3.0 1.3 New York City Otis Bantum Corr. Ctr. 0.0 0.0 2.8 1.1 New York City Rose M. Singer Ctr.c 5.5 1.5 2.9 1.1 Oswego Co. Corr. Fac. 1.8 0.7 0.9 0.5 Westchester Co. Penitentiary 0.0 0.0 2.7 1.0 North Carolina Cleveland Co. 1.6 0.8 5.4 1.9 Mecklenburg Co. Jail 1.5 0.8 2.2 1.2 Mecklenburg Co. Jail - North 2.2 1.2 4.8 1.8 Wake Co. Jail 0.4 0.4 3.5 1.3 North Dakota Cass Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.7 Ohio Franklin Co. Corrections Ctr. I 3.7 1.7 1.0 0.7 Hamilton Co. Justice Ctr. 0.9 0.8 2.4 1.1 Hamilton Co. Talbert House Drug & Alcohol Treat- ment 4.9 1.1 1.9 0.7 River City Corr. Fac. 1.7 0.7 1.6 0.6 Southeastern Ohio Reg. Jail 2.5 1.2 6.9 1.9 Oklahoma Oklahoma Co. Det. Ctr. 2.9 1.1 1.6 0.9 Rogers Co. Jail 1.7 0.7 2.7 1.1 Oregon Marion Co. Corr. Fac. 1.5 0.9 1.5 0.7 Pennsylvania Allegheny Co. Jail 1.0 0.7 1.2 0.6 Lancaster Co. Prison 1.6 0.9 2.6 1.1 Montgomery Co. Corr. Fac. 2.8 1.2 0.0 0.0 Philadelphia City Alternative & Special Det. Fac. 3.5 1.5 0.6 0.5 Philadelphia City Curran/Fromhold Corr. Fac. 1.8 1.0 2.1 1.0 Philadelphia City Industrial Corr. Ctr. 4.0 1.3 3.4 1.3 York Co. Prison 2.0 1.0 0.0 0.0

Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007 31 Appendix table 4. Percent of local jail inmates reporting sexual victimization, by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.) Inmate-on-inmatea Staff-on-inmatea Facility name Percent victimized Standard errorb Percent victimized Standard errorb South Carolina Beaufort Co. Det. Ctr. 0.7 0.5 1.3 0.6 Berkeley Co. Hill-Finklea Det. Ctr. 0.0 0.0 2.1 1.0 Florence Co. Det. Ctr. 0.6 0.5 3.1 1.1 Sumter-Lee Reg. Det. Ctr. 3.2 1.3 1.1 0.9 South Dakota Pennington Co. Jail 2.1 1.2 2.2 1.1 Tennessee Madison Co. Penal Farm 2.6 1.1 0.0 0.0 Shelby Co. Corr. Ctr. 2.1 0.9 3.2 1.6 Shelby Co. Justice Ctr. 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.9 Sullivan Co. Jail 1.4 0.7 1.1 0.7 Tipton Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.6 Warren Co. Jail 3.6 1.3 0.7 0.5 Texas Bowie Co. Corr. Ctr. 2.3 1.0 1.1 0.6 Dallas Co. Decker Det. Ctr. 0.8 0.5 0.9 0.7 Dallas Co. George Allen Jail 2.7 1.4 0.5 0.3 Dallas Co. North Tower Jail 3.0 1.2 2.1 1.0 Dallas Co. West Tower Jail 3.0 1.4 2.2 1.2 El Paso Co. Jail Annex 1.3 0.7 2.7 1.1 Galveston Co. Jail 2.9 1.2 1.1 0.7 Gregg Co. Jail 1.7 0.9 2.0 1.1 Harris Co. Jail 2.2 1.3 1.6 0.9 Harris Co. Jail - Baker Street 2.5 1.0 3.0 1.2 Jefferson Co. Det. Ctr. 1.0 0.6 2.8 1.0 Montgomery Co. Jail 2.2 1.0 1.2 0.6 Newton Co. Corr. Ctr.d 0.4 0.3 0.8 0.5 Tarrant Co. Corr. Ctr. 1.1 0.8 2.6 1.2 Travis Co. Corr. Fac. 4.6 1.5 2.5 1.1 Utah Weber Co. Corr. Fac. 3.1 1.3 2.5 1.2 Virginia Duffield Reg. Jail Fac. 3.0 1.2 0.5 0.4 Prince William-Manassas Reg. Adult Corr. Ctr. 1.2 0.7 2.4 1.1 Richmond City Jail 2.9 1.1 3.2 1.2 Roanoke City Jail 4.0 1.7 2.0 1.1 Washington Clark Co. Jail 5.1 1.7 4.0 1.4 King Co. Corr. Fac. 2.7 1.2 2.4 0.9 Whatcom Co. Jail 0.8 0.4 4.8 1.4 West Virginia Western Reg. Jail 1.4 0.8 3.2 1.4 Wisconsin Dane Co. Jail 0.4 0.4 3.2 1.2 Marathon Co. Adult Det. Fac. 1.0 0.6 2.9 1.2 Waukesha Co. Jail 1.1 0.6 2.0 1.0 Waupaca Co. Jail 0.9 0.5 1.1 0.7

Note: Excludes facilities with rates of sexual victimization not statistically different from zero at the 95% confidence level. Detail may sum to more than total because victims may have reported both inmate-on-inmate and staff-on-inmate sexual victimization. aIncludes all types of sexual victimization, including oral, anal, or vaginal penetration, touching of the inmate's buttocks, thighs, penis, breasts, or vagina in a sexual way and other sexual acts. bStandard errors may be used to construct confidence intervals around weighted survey estimates. (See Methodology.) cFemale facility. dPrivate facility.

32 Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007 Appendix table 5. Percent of local jail inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts, by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007 Inmate-on-inmate Staff-on-inmate Facility name Percent victimizeda Standard errorb Percent victimizedc Standard errorb

Total 0.7% 0.1% 1.6% 0.1%

Alabama Etowah Co. Det. Ctr. 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 Jackson Co. Jail 0.8 0.4 1.3 0.5 Shelby Co. Jail 1.3 0.8 0.0 0.0 Arizona Coconino Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.9 Maricopa Co. Jail - 4th Avenue 0.9 0.6 0.8 0.5 Maricopa Co. Jail - Durango 0.5 0.4 0.9 0.6 Maricopa Co. Jail - Estrellad 1.8 1.0 0.4 0.4 Maricopa Co. Jail - Lower Buckeye 0.0 0.0 2.6 1.0 California Alameda Co. Santa Rita Jail 0.6 0.6 1.3 1.2 Fresno Co. Det. Fac. - Main Jail 0.6 0.6 1.5 1.0 Imperial Co. Jail 0.8 0.7 2.0 1.2 Kern Co. Lerdo Pre-Trial Fac. 0.9 0.6 2.0 0.9 Los Angeles Co. Mens Central Jail 0.3 0.3 1.3 1.0 Los Angeles Co. North Corr. Fac. 0.6 0.5 2.9 1.1 Los Angeles Co. Twin Towers Corr. Fac. 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.0 Orange Co. Central Jail Complex 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.7 Orange Co. James A. Musick Fac. 1.1 0.7 1.4 0.7 Riverside Co. Larry D. Smith Corr. Ctr. 0.7 0.6 1.6 0.9 Riverside Co. Robert Presley Det. Ctr. 2.2 1.0 2.6 1.7 Sacramento Co. Rio Cosumnes Corr. Ctr. 0.8 0.6 1.6 1.1 Sacramento Co. Main Jail 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.7 San Bernardino Co. W. Valley Det. Ctr. 2.2 1.6 1.6 0.9 San Bernardino Co. Glen Helen Rehab. Ctr. 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.8 San Bernardino Co. Central Det. Ctr. 0.4 0.3 1.3 0.6 San Diego Co. George F. Bailey Det. Fac. 1.5 0.7 1.7 0.8 San Diego Co. Las Colinas Women's Det. Fac.d 1.2 0.7 2.1 1.2 San Francisco Co. Jail - No. 1 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.7 Santa Barbara Co. Jail 2.6 1.1 2.1 1.0 Santa Clara Co. Elmwood Corr. Complex 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.6 Santa Clara Co. Main Jail - North 2.2 1.2 1.2 0.8 Ventura Co. Jail - Todd Road 0.6 0.5 1.6 0.8 Colorado Adams Co. Det. Fac. 1.9 0.9 1.0 0.6 Arapahoe Co. Jail 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 El Paso Co. Det. Fac. 1.3 0.7 1.3 0.7 Garfield Co. Jail 1.5 0.9 3.0 1.2 District of Columbia D.C. Dept. of Corr. Jail 2.0 1.3 2.3 1.4 Florida Alachua Co. Jail 1.0 0.6 0.9 0.6 Brevard Co. Det. Ctr. 4.5 1.3 4.4 1.5 Broward Co. Conte Corr. Fac. 0.8 0.7 0.3 0.3 Broward Co. Main Jail 0.0 0.0 2.5 1.9 Broward Co. North Jail - Pompano Beach 3.0 1.4 0.8 0.5 Collier Co. Jail 1.1 0.7 4.2 1.7 Dixie Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.8 Hillsborough Co. Falkenburg Road Jail 0.9 0.6 0.8 0.6 Jackson Co. Corr. Fac. 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.5 Jacksonville City Montgomery Corr. Ctr. 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.5 Marion Co. Jail 1.2 0.7 2.2 0.9 Miami-Dade Co. Metro West Det. Ctr. 0.0 0.0 2.5 1.3 Miami-Dade Co. Turner Guilford Knight Corr. Ctr. 0.5 0.5 3.8 1.7 Orange Co. 33rd Street Corr. Ctr. 0.3 0.3 1.9 1.0 Pinellas Co. Central Division Fac. 0.0 0.0 2.4 1.1 Pinellas Co. South Fac. (Max. Sec.) 2.2 1.3 2.7 1.5 Sarasota North Co. Jail 1.3 0.8 1.2 0.8 Seminole Co. John E. Polk Corr. Fac. 2.4 1.2 1.9 1.0 South Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 2.9 1.4 St. Johns Co. Jail 0.7 0.6 1.5 0.9

Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007 33 Appendix table 5. Percent of local jail inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts, by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.) Inmate-on-inmate Staff-on-inmate Facility name Percent victimizeda Standard errorb Percent victimizedc Standard errorb

Georgia Atlanta City Jail 4.8 2.9 3.2 2.1 Bartow Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.7 Carroll Co. Jail 1.5 0.8 0.7 0.6 Cobb Co. Sheriff's Office Jail & Prison Unit 1.3 0.7 1.2 0.7 Coweta Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 1.9 1.0 Dekalb Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.7 Dougherty Co. Jail 0.3 0.2 1.7 0.9 Fulton Co. Jail 1.3 0.9 3.5 1.3 Gwinnett Co. Jail 1.0 0.6 0.5 0.5 Muscogee Co. Jail 1.0 0.7 0.4 0.4 Paulding Co. Det. Ctr. 2.8 1.7 3.5 1.8 Richmond Co. Corr. Inst. 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.5 Idaho Bingham Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.5 Illinois Cook Co. Jail - Division 2 0.7 0.4 1.9 0.9 Cook Co. Jail - Division 11 1.1 0.7 2.4 1.1 Will Co. Adult Det. Fac. 0.9 0.6 3.8 1.7 Indiana Daviess Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.7 Hamilton Co. Jail 0.8 0.6 1.9 1.1 Hendricks Co. Jail 2.1 1.2 1.1 0.9 Lake Co. Jail 1.4 0.9 3.1 1.3 Marion Co. Jail Intake Fac. 0.0 0.0 4.1 1.8 Wayne Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.8 Kentucky Boyd Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.9 Daviess Co. Det. Ctr. 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.8 Grant Co. Jail 0.7 0.6 1.0 0.8 Hardin Co. Det. Ctr. 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.7 Kentucky River Reg. Jail 0.7 0.6 4.0 1.5 Lexington-Fayette Co. Det. Ctr. 1.5 1.0 4.5 1.6 Louisville-Jefferson Co. Dept. of Corr. 0.4 0.3 2.5 1.6 Warren Co. Reg. Jail 0.0 0.0 2.4 1.5 Louisiana Ascension Parish Jail 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.5 Caldwell Parish Jails - (2 facilities) 0.7 0.5 4.3 1.3 Catahoula Corr. Ctr.e 1.3 0.6 0.8 0.5 East Baton Rouge Prison 1.0 0.6 0.9 0.6 Franklin Parish Jail 0.4 0.4 2.0 0.8 La Fourche Parish Jail 0.4 0.2 4.0 0.9 Lafayette Parish Corr. Center 1.5 0.8 2.4 0.9 St. Bernard Parish Prison 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 St. Tammany Parish Jail 1.7 0.9 1.5 0.8 Terrebonne Parish Jail 1.4 0.6 0.8 0.4 Maine Androscoggin Co. Jail 3.5 1.7 2.7 1.3 Maryland Anne Arundel Co. Dept. of Det. Fac. 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.7 Baltimore City Det. Ctr. 0.0 0.0 2.9 1.3 Montgomery Co. Corr. Fac. 0.6 0.5 2.5 0.9 Washington Co. Det. Ctr. 0.5 0.4 2.4 1.2 Massachusetts Barnstable Co. Corr. Fac. 0.6 0.5 1.2 0.7 Berkshire Co. Jail & House of Corr. 1.3 0.7 2.4 1.1 Plymouth Co. Corr. Fac. 0.0 0.0 1.8 1.0 Worcester Co. Jail & House of Corr. 1.5 0.8 0.5 0.4 Michigan Kalamazoo Co. Jail 1.5 1.1 1.7 0.9 Kent Co. Corr. Fac. 1.1 0.8 2.7 1.1 Montmorency Co. Jail 3.6 1.7 0.0 0.0

34 Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007 Appendix table 5. Percent of local jail inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts, by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.) Inmate-on-inmate Staff-on-inmate Facility name Percent victimizeda Standard errorb Percent victimizedc Standard errorb

Minnesota Hennepin Co. Adult Det. Ctr. 0.5 0.4 2.6 1.2 Mississippi Madison Co. Jail 0.8 0.5 1.6 0.9 Montana Cascade Co. Reg. Jail 0.5 0.4 0.7 0.6 Nebraska Douglas Dept. of Corr. 0.6 0.6 1.7 1.0 Nevada Clark Co. Det. Ctr. 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.8 Washoe Co. Det. Ctr. 0.7 0.4 0.9 0.6 New Hampshire Hillsborough Co. House of Corr. 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.7 New Jersey Atlantic Co. Gerard L. Gormley Justice Fac. 2.0 1.1 2.2 1.3 Camden Co. Corr. Fac. 0.3 0.3 1.4 0.8 Essex Co. Corr. Fac. 0.3 0.3 1.0 0.7 Hudson Co. Corr. Fac. 0.5 0.5 2.2 1.0 Mercer Co. Corr. Ctr. 0.3 0.3 2.2 0.9 Morris Co. Corr. Fac. 0.7 0.6 1.1 0.7 Union Co. Jail 0.7 0.6 3.0 1.7 New Mexico Bernalillo Co. Metropolitan Det. Ctr. 2.4 1.7 5.8 2.4 Santa Fe Co. Adult Corr. Fac. 0.6 0.5 3.7 1.3 Torrance Co. Det. Fac.e 4.7 2.7 4.2 2.1 New York Albany Co. Corr. Fac. 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.9 Erie Co. Corr. Fac. 1.2 0.6 1.7 0.8 Erie Co. Holding Ctr. 0.6 0.5 3.2 1.3 Franklin Co. Jail 1.2 0.6 5.3 1.2 New York City Anna M. Kross Ctr. 1.4 1.0 3.0 1.3 New York City Otis Bantum Corr. Ctr. 0.0 0.0 2.8 1.1 New York City Rose M. Singer Ctr.d 1.3 0.7 1.5 0.7 Oswego Co. Corr. Fac. 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.5 Westchester Co. Penitentiary 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.9 North Carolina Cleveland Co. 1.6 0.8 4.8 1.8 Mecklenburg Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 1.5 1.0 Mecklenburg Co. Jail - North 2.2 1.2 1.3 0.8 Wake Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 1.8 1.0 North Dakota Cass Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.5 Ohio Franklin Co. Corrections Ctr. I 2.4 1.2 1.0 0.7 Hamilton Co. Justice Ctr. 0.0 0.0 2.4 1.1 Hamilton Co. Talbert House Drug & Alcohol Treat- ment 1.0 0.5 1.9 0.7 River City Corr. Fac. 0.9 0.5 1.6 0.6 Southeastern Ohio Reg. Jail 1.2 0.9 5.8 1.8 Oklahoma Oklahoma Co. Det. Ctr. 1.0 0.7 1.2 0.8 Rogers Co. Jail 1.0 0.6 1.4 0.8 Oregon Marion Co. Corr. Fac. 0.8 0.7 1.2 0.7 Pennsylvania Allegheny Co. Jail 0.5 0.5 1.2 0.6 Lancaster Co. Prison 0.0 0.0 2.1 1.0 Montgomery Co. Corr. Fac. 1.9 1.1 0.0 0.0 Philadelphia City Alternative & Special Det. Fac. 1.2 1.0 0.6 0.5 Philadelphia City Curran/Fromhold Corr. Fac. 0.0 0.0 2.1 1.0 Philadelphia City Industrial Corr. Ctr. 2.4 1.0 3.4 1.3 York Co. Prison 1.3 0.9 0.0 0.0

Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007 35 Appendix table 5. Percent of local jail inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts, by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.) Inmate-on-inmate Staff-on-inmate Facility name Percent victimizeda Standard errorb Percent victimizedc Standard errorb

South Carolina Beaufort Co. Det. Ctr. 0.7 0.5 1.3 0.6 Berkeley Co. Hill-Finklea Det. Ctr. 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.8 Florence Co. Det. Ctr. 0.0 0.0 2.5 1.0 Sumter-Lee Reg. Det. Ctr. 1.8 1.0 1.1 0.9 South Dakota Pennington Co. Jail 1.0 0.8 1.1 0.6 Tennessee Madison Co. Penal Farm 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Shelby Co. Corr. Ctr. 1.2 0.6 2.7 1.5 Shelby Co. Justice Ctr. 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.8 Sullivan Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.7 Tipton Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.6 Warren Co. Jail 2.1 1.1 0.7 0.5 Texas Bowie Co. Corr. Ctr. 0.5 0.5 1.1 0.6 Dallas Co. Decker Det. Ctr. 0.5 0.4 0.9 0.7 Dallas Co. George Allen Jail 1.6 1.0 0.2 0.2 Dallas Co. North Tower Jail 1.1 0.8 2.1 1.0 Dallas Co. West Tower Jail 1.6 1.1 1.0 1.0 El Paso Co. Jail Annex 0.9 0.6 1.2 0.8 Galveston Co. Jail 1.2 0.8 0.6 0.6 Gregg Co. Jail 1.0 0.7 2.0 1.1 Harris Co. Jail 0.7 0.7 1.6 0.9 Harris Co. Jail - Baker Street 2.5 1.0 2.5 1.1 Jefferson Co. Det. Ctr. 0.6 0.5 2.0 0.8 Montgomery Co. Jail 1.1 0.7 1.2 0.6 Newton Co. Corr. Ctre 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.5 Tarrant Co. Corr. Ctr. 0.8 0.7 2.6 1.2 Travis Co. Corr. Fac. 1.5 0.8 1.9 1.0 Utah Weber Co. Corr. Fac. 1.0 0.9 2.1 1.1 Virginia Duffield Reg. Jail Fac. 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.4 Prince William-Manassas Reg. Adult Corr. Ctr. 1.2 0.7 1.8 0.9 Richmond City Jail 1.4 0.7 2.7 1.1 Roanoke City Jail 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.9 Washington Clark Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 3.4 1.3 King Co. Corr. Fac. 2.1 1.0 1.8 0.8 Whatcom Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 4.4 1.4 West Virginia Western Reg. Jail 0.7 0.6 2.1 1.0 Wisconsin Dane Co. Jail 0.4 0.4 2.2 1.0 Marathon Co. Adult Det. Fac. 0.7 0.6 2.9 1.2 Waukesha Co. Jail 0.5 0.4 2.0 1.0 Waupaca Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Note: Excludes facilities with rates of sexual victimization not statistically different from zero at the 95% confidence level. aIncludes reports of oral, anal, or vaginal penetration, handjobs, and other sexual acts by another inmate. bStandard errors may be used to construct confidence intervals around weighted survey estimates. (See Methodology.) cIncludes all reports of staff sexual misconduct including oral, anal, or vaginal penetration, handjobs, and other sexual acts. dFemale facility. ePrivate facility.

36 Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007 Appendix table 6. Percent of local jail inmates reporting sexual victimization, by type of incident, level of coercion, and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007 Inmate-on-inmate Staff-on-inmate Without force Facility name Physically forced Pressureda Physically forced Pressureda or pressureb Total 1.1% 1.1% 0.8% 1.2% 1.1%

Alabama Etowah Co. Det. Ctr. 1.5 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 Jackson Co. Jail 1.8 1.8 1.3 1.3 0.0 Shelby Co. Jail 1.9 1.9 0.6 0.6 0.0 Arizona Coconino Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 1.7 Maricopa Co. Jail - 4th Avenue 1.3 1.4 0.3 0.8 0.7 Maricopa Co. Jail - Durango 1.6 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.0 Maricopa Co. Jail - Estrellac 1.3 2.2 0.4 0.4 0.0 Maricopa Co. Jail - Lower Buckeye 0.4 0.0 2.3 1.9 1.3 California Alameda Co. Santa Rita Jail 0.9 1.5 1.3 1.3 0.0 Fresno Co. Det. Fac. - Main Jail 1.0 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.5 Imperial Co. Jail 0.8 1.3 1.2 2.0 2.0 Kern Co. Lerdo Pre-Trial Fac. 1.4 0.5 2.0 2.0 1.2 Los Angeles Co. Mens Central Jail 0.3 0.7 2.5 1.8 1.7 Los Angeles Co. North Corr. Fac. 0.9 1.4 1.0 1.5 1.8 Los Angeles Co. Twin Towers Corr. Fac. 0.6 4.5 0.4 1.0 0.4 Orange Co. Central Jail Complex 0.7 3.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 Orange Co. James A. Musick Fac. 1.3 1.1 1.4 1.4 0.4 Riverside Co. Larry D. Smith Corr. Ctr. 1.2 0.7 1.3 0.7 1.6 Riverside Co. Robert Presley Det. Ctr. 2.4 3.2 2.6 3.3 3.0 Sacramento Co. Rio Cosumnes Corr. Ctr. 0.8 0.4 0.0 0.9 1.6 Sacramento Co. Main Jail 0.0 0.0 0.6 2.0 0.5 San Bernardino Co. W. Valley Det. Ctr. 2.3 3.4 1.3 1.3 1.9 San Bernardino Co. Glen Helen Rehab. Ctr. 1.3 0.0 1.2 1.2 0.5 San Bernardino Co. Central Det. Ctr. 0.4 0.0 0.6 1.3 0.9 San Diego Co. George F. Bailey Det. Fac. 1.6 2.2 1.6 3.1 1.4 San Diego Co. Las Colinas Women's Det. Fac.c 3.2 2.7 2.8 3.2 0.5 San Francisco Co. Jail - No. 1 0.8 2.6 1.5 1.5 0.0 Santa Barbara Co. Jail 3.1 3.1 1.6 2.1 0.4 Santa Clara Co. Elmwood Corr. Complex 1.5 2.2 0.0 0.6 0.0 Santa Clara Co. Main Jail - North 2.2 2.9 1.2 1.2 0.5 Ventura Co. Jail - Todd Road 0.6 1.1 0.5 0.6 1.5 Colorado Adams Co. Det. Fac. 2.8 1.3 1.0 1.0 0.4 Arapahoe Co. Jail 2.5 2.8 0.0 0.2 0.2 El Paso Co. Det. Fac. 1.7 0.8 0.4 0.9 0.9 Garfield Co. Jail 4.0 4.0 1.5 3.0 0.0 District of Columbia D.C. Dept. of Corr. Jail 2.1 3.1 0.6 2.2 0.4 Florida Alachua Co. Jail 2.4 2.9 0.9 0.9 0.0 Brevard Co. Det. Ctr. 4.1 6.3 1.5 2.6 3.3 Broward Co. Conte Corr. Fac. 0.0 1.9 0.3 0.3 0.8 Broward Co. Main Jail 0.0 1.7 2.8 1.4 0.7 Broward Co. North Jail - Pompano Beach 0.8 3.3 0.3 0.8 0.4 Collier Co. Jail 0.3 1.5 2.0 3.5 2.2 Dixie Co. Jail 5.3 0.0 1.2 1.2 0.0 Hillsborough Co. Falkenburg Road Jail 0.8 1.6 0.0 0.8 0.0 Jackson Co. Corr. Fac. 0.9 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.7 Jacksonville City Montgomery Corr. Ctr. 1.4 0.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 Marion Co. Jail 1.8 1.6 1.4 0.8 0.9 Miami-Dade Co. Metro West Det. Ctr. 0.0 0.0 0.6 1.5 0.0 Miami-Dade Co. Turner Guilford Knight Corr. Ctr. 1.9 1.9 1.5 3.5 1.8 Orange Co. 33rd Street Corr. Ctr. 0.6 1.1 0.9 1.5 0.5 Pinellas Co. Central Division Fac. 0.0 0.0 1.3 1.0 1.1 Pinellas Co. South Fac. (Max. Sec.) 1.1 2.2 0.0 2.7 0.5 Sarasota North Co. Jail 3.7 2.6 0.0 0.6 0.6 Seminole Co. John E. Polk Corr. Fac. 1.9 2.3 0.6 1.3 0.0 South Co. Jail 0.6 0.6 0.0 2.2 2.8 St. Johns Co. Jail 1.2 0.7 0.7 1.5 0.0

Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007 37 Appendix table 6. Percent of local jail inmates reporting sexual victimization, by type of incident, level of coercion, and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.) Inmate-on-inmate Staff-on-inmate Without force Facility name Physically forced Pressureda Physically forced Pressureda or pressureb

Georgia Atlanta City Jail 5.4 5.6 0.9 2.4 2.4 Bartow Co. Jail 1.4 0.6 0.6 0.6 2.0 Carroll Co. Jail 1.5 1.5 0.7 0.7 0.0 Cobb Co. Sheriff's Office Jail & Prison Unit 1.7 3.5 1.2 1.6 0.9 Coweta Co. Jail 1.8 0.8 1.1 1.9 1.1 Dekalb Co. Jail 1.6 1.4 0.0 0.4 1.0 Dougherty Co. Jail 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.0 2.1 Fulton Co. Jail 1.7 2.6 2.7 2.4 1.9 Gwinnett Co. Jail 1.8 1.9 0.5 1.4 0.5 Muscogee Co. Jail 0.8 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.4 Paulding Co. Det. Ctr. 3.5 2.3 3.4 4.1 2.0 Richmond Co. Corr. Inst. 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 Idaho Bingham Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 1.6 5.2 1.6 Illinois Cook Co. Jail - Division 2 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.7 1.3 Cook Co. Jail - Division 11 1.1 1.5 2.0 1.2 1.6 Will Co. Adult Det. Fac. 0.9 0.9 1.1 3.5 2.0 Indiana Daviess Co. Jail 1.1 1.1 0.7 0.7 0.8 Hamilton Co. Jail 0.9 1.7 1.1 0.9 1.1 Hendricks Co. Jail 2.1 2.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 Lake Co. Jail 1.8 1.4 1.7 1.7 2.5 Marion Co. Jail Intake Fac. 0.0 0.0 2.9 2.9 3.0 Wayne Co. Jail 4.9 3.6 1.5 1.9 1.3 Kentucky Boyd Co. Jail 2.5 4.6 0.0 0.8 1.6 Daviess Co. Det. Ctr. 1.1 0.0 0.6 0.6 1.3 Grant Co. Jail 1.4 1.4 0.0 0.0 1.8 Hardin Co. Det. Ctr. 1.1 0.6 0.5 0.9 0.4 Kentucky River Reg. Jail 1.2 0.7 3.2 2.6 0.9 Lexington-Fayette Co. Det. Ctr. 1.5 2.1 1.2 1.2 4.1 Louisville-Jefferson Co. Dept. of Corr. 1.5 1.8 0.5 0.0 2.0 Warren Co. Reg. Jail 0.0 0.0 0.6 1.4 2.4 Louisiana Ascension Parish Jail 0.7 0.0 0.7 0.7 0.0 Caldwell Parish Jails - (2 facilities) 1.7 0.9 1.4 2.3 3.6 Catahoula Corr. Ctr.d 0.9 1.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 East Baton Rouge Prison 2.8 1.4 0.5 0.9 0.5 Franklin Parish Jail 1.5 1.5 0.9 1.0 0.5 La Fourche Parish Jail 2.1 2.2 0.6 2.0 2.0 Lafayette Parish Corr. Center 2.4 2.3 1.4 0.9 1.4 St. Bernard Parish Prison 1.9 1.0 1.9 1.9 1.9 St. Tammany Parish Jail 4.1 3.0 1.4 1.2 0.4 Terrebonne Parish Jail 3.3 2.4 1.7 1.7 0.8 Maine Androscoggin Co. Jail 5.1 2.4 1.1 1.1 2.7 Maryland Anne Arundel Co. Dept. of Det. Fac. 1.2 0.4 0.5 1.0 0.6 Baltimore City Det. Ctr. 0.0 0.0 1.6 2.4 3.5 Montgomery Co. Corr. Fac. 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.7 2.5 Washington Co. Det. Ctr. 0.5 0.0 1.2 2.3 0.7 Massachusetts Barnstable Co. Corr. Fac. 1.8 1.2 1.2 1.2 0.6 Berkshire Co. Jail & House of Corr. 1.3 2.4 1.3 0.6 2.9 Plymouth Co. Corr. Fac. 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.5 1.3 Worcester Co. Jail & House of Corr. 1.0 1.7 1.1 1.1 1.0 Michigan Kalamazoo Co. Jail 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 2.6 Kent Co. Corr. Fac. 1.0 1.5 2.9 2.4 2.1 Montmorency Co. Jail 3.6 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0

38 Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007 Appendix table 6. Percent of local jail inmates reporting sexual victimization, by type of incident, level of coercion, and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.) Inmate-on-inmate Staff-on-inmate Without force Facility name Physically forced Pressureda Physically forced Pressureda or pressureb

Minnesota Hennepin Co. Adult Det. Ctr. 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.3 1.7 Mississippi Madison Co. Jail 1.3 0.8 2.8 2.1 0.0 Montana Cascade Co. Reg. Jail 3.1 1.9 0.0 0.7 0.7 Nebraska Douglas Dept. of Corr. 1.3 1.4 0.5 0.6 1.2 Nevada Clark Co. Det. Ctr. 0.0 0.4 1.0 1.7 1.2 Washoe Co. Det. Ctr. 1.0 0.7 0.7 1.2 1.5 New Hampshire Hillsborough Co. House of Corr. 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.9 New Jersey Atlantic Co. Gerard L. Gormley Justice Fac. 2.5 1.4 0.0 1.2 1.0 Camden Co. Corr. Fac. 0.3 0.6 0.7 0.7 1.1 Essex Co. Corr. Fac. 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.0 1.0 Hudson Co. Corr. Fac. 0.9 0.5 1.6 1.1 1.7 Mercer Co. Corr. Ctr. 0.4 1.1 0.4 0.4 1.4 Morris Co. Corr. Fac. 0.7 1.3 0.7 0.7 0.4 Union Co. Jail 0.7 0.7 1.5 0.9 2.2 New Mexico Bernalillo Co. Metropolitan Det. Ctr. 3.8 1.6 2.5 5.5 2.5 Santa Fe Co. Adult Corr. Fac. 1.2 1.2 1.2 2.9 1.4 Torrance Co. Det. Fac.d 4.7 6.4 1.0 0.0 4.2 New York Albany Co. Corr. Fac. 0.0 0.0 1.9 1.5 2.1 Erie Co. Corr. Fac. 0.9 2.8 0.5 0.8 1.7 Erie Co. Holding Ctr. 1.9 1.9 3.3 3.3 1.9 Franklin Co. Jail 2.2 1.2 2.4 4.1 3.4 New York City Anna M. Kross Ctr. 1.4 2.1 2.5 1.7 1.8 New York City Otis Bantum Corr. Ctr. 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.5 2.8 New York City Rose M. Singer Ctr.c 3.3 4.3 1.1 1.8 1.1 Oswego Co. Corr. Fac. 0.9 1.8 0.0 0.9 0.9 Westchester Co. Penitentiary 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 2.7 North Carolina Cleveland Co. 1.6 1.6 2.8 2.4 3.6 Mecklenburg Co. Jail 0.8 1.5 0.7 0.7 1.5 Mecklenburg Co. Jail - North 2.2 2.2 2.8 2.5 1.3 Wake Co. Jail 0.4 0.0 2.4 2.8 2.4 North Dakota Cass Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.8 Ohio Franklin Co. Corrections Ctr. I 1.9 3.7 0.0 0.5 0.5 Hamilton Co. Justice Ctr. 0.9 0.0 0.7 1.6 1.4 Hamilton Co. Talbert House Drug & Alcohol Treatment 2.6 3.3 1.0 1.0 1.9 River City Corr. Fac. 0.9 1.7 0.8 1.6 1.6 Southeastern Ohio Reg. Jail 1.2 1.2 5.6 5.8 4.4 Oklahoma Oklahoma Co. Det. Ctr. 2.9 0.9 0.5 1.2 0.0 Rogers Co. Jail 0.7 1.0 1.4 2.7 0.0 Oregon Marion Co. Corr. Fac. 1.5 0.8 1.2 1.2 0.2 Pennsylvania Allegheny Co. Jail 1.0 1.0 0.4 0.4 1.2 Lancaster Co. Prison 1.2 1.6 0.0 0.5 2.1 Montgomery Co. Corr. Fac. 2.4 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 Philadelphia City Alternative & Special Det. Fac. 3.5 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.6 Philadelphia City Curran/Fromhold Corr. Fac. 1.2 1.3 0.5 0.5 2.1 Philadelphia City Industrial Corr. Ctr. 1.8 3.1 1.9 2.3 2.0 York Co. Prison 2.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0

Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007 39 Appendix table 6. Percent of local jail inmates reporting sexual victimization, by type of incident, level of coercion, and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.) Inmate-on-inmate Staff-on-inmate Without force Facility name Physically forced Pressureda Physically forced Pressureda or pressureb South Carolina Beaufort Co. Det. Ctr. 0.0 0.7 0.6 0.6 1.3 Berkeley Co. Hill-Finklea Det. Ctr. 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 1.4 Florence Co. Det. Ctr. 0.0 0.6 1.2 1.8 2.5 Sumter-Lee Reg. Det. Ctr. 2.6 2.4 0.0 0.0 1.1 South Dakota Pennington Co. Jail 2.1 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 Tennessee Madison Co. Penal Farm 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Shelby Co. Corr. Ctr. 1.7 2.1 1.3 2.7 2.1 Shelby Co. Justice Ctr. 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.3 Sullivan Co. Jail 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.4 1.1 Tipton Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 Warren Co. Jail 3.6 0.8 0.0 0.7 0.0 Texas Bowie Co. Corr. Ctr. 1.7 1.7 0.0 0.5 0.5 Dallas Co. Decker Det. Ctr. 0.5 0.3 0.9 0.0 0.9 Dallas Co. George Allen Jail 2.7 1.7 0.2 0.5 0.5 Dallas Co. North Tower Jail 2.5 3.0 0.0 1.7 0.4 Dallas Co. West Tower Jail 1.6 1.4 1.0 2.2 1.6 El Paso Co. Jail Annex 1.3 0.9 1.1 2.3 0.4 Galveston Co. Jail 1.7 1.6 1.1 0.5 0.0 Gregg Co. Jail 0.5 1.2 0.8 0.6 2.0 Harris Co. Jail 2.2 0.7 0.6 0.6 1.6 Harris Co. Jail - Baker Street 1.7 2.5 0.8 2.6 0.7 Jefferson Co. Det. Ctr. 1.0 1.0 1.6 2.1 0.4 Montgomery Co. Jail 1.5 1.1 0.4 0.8 0.8 Newton Co. Corr. Ctr.d 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 Tarrant Co. Corr. Ctr. 1.1 1.1 0.8 1.9 1.1 Travis Co. Corr. Fac. 3.4 4.5 1.8 1.9 0.0 Utah Weber Co. Corr. Fac. 2.5 2.5 1.1 1.8 0.4 Virginia Duffield Reg. Jail Fac. 1.9 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 Prince William-Manassas Reg. Adult Corr. Ctr. 0.6 1.2 1.8 1.8 1.7 Richmond City Jail 1.6 2.9 2.6 2.2 0.9 Roanoke City Jail 2.9 2.7 1.3 1.3 1.4 Washington Clark Co. Jail 4.4 0.7 1.2 3.4 1.9 King Co. Corr. Fac. 1.8 2.7 1.6 1.9 0.5 Whatcom Co. Jail 0.4 0.4 4.0 3.5 3.2 West Virginia Western Reg. Jail 1.4 0.0 0.7 2.2 1.0 Wisconsin Dane Co. Jail 0.4 0.4 2.2 2.2 1.3 Marathon Co. Adult Det. Fac. 1.0 0.7 1.1 2.0 0.9 Waukesha Co. Jail 1.1 0.5 0.7 0.7 1.3 Waupaca Co. Jail 0.9 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0

Note: Excludes facilities with rates of sexual victimization not statistically different from zero at the 95% confidence level. Details may sum to more than totals on table 4 because victims may report on more than one incident involving different levels of coercion. aIncludes incidents in which the perpetrator, without using force, pressured the inmate or made the inmate feel that they had to participate. (See Methodology for definitions.) bIncludes incidents in which the staff offered favors or privileges in exchange for sex or sexual contact and incidents in which the inmate reported they willingly had sex or sexual contact with staff. cFemale facility. dPrivate facility.

40 Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007 Appendix 7. Survey items related to inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization, National Inmate Survey, 2007

Males Females E16. During the last 6 months, did another inmate use E18. During the last 6 months, did another inmate use physical force to touch your butt, thighs, or penis in a sex- physical force to touch your butt, thighs, breasts, or vagina ual way? in a sexual way? E17. During the last 6 months, did another inmate, without E19. During the last 6 months, did another inmate, without using physical force, pressure you or make you feel that using physical force, pressure you or make you feel that you had to let them touch your butt, thighs, or penis in a you had to let them touch your butt, thighs, breasts, or sexual way? vagina in a sexual way? E22. During the last 6 months, did another inmate use E24. During the last 6 months, did another inmate use physical force to make you give or receive a handjob? physical force to make you give or receive oral sex? E23. During the last 6 months, did another inmate, without E25. During the last 6 months, did another inmate, without using physical force, pressure you or make you feel that using physical force, pressure you or make you feel that you had to give or receive a handjob? you had to give or receive oral sex? E26. During the last 6 months, did another inmate use E28. During the last 6 months, did another inmate use physical force to make you give or receive oral sex or a physical force to make you have vaginal sex? blow job? E29. During the last 6 months, did another inmate, without E27. During the last 6 months, did another inmate, without using physical force, pressure you or make you feel that using physical force, pressure you or make you feel that you had to have vaginal sex? you had to give or receive oral sex or a blow job? E32. During the last 6 months, did another inmate use E32. During the last 6 months, did another inmate use physical force to make you have anal sex? physical force to make you have anal sex? E33. During the last 6 months, did another inmate, without E33. During the last 6 months, did another inmate, without using physical force, pressure you or make you feel that using physical force, pressure you or make you feel that you had to have anal sex? you had to have anal sex? E34. During the last 6 months, did another inmate use E34. During the last 6 months, did another inmate use physical force to make you have any type of sex or sexual physical force to make you have any type of sex or sexual contact other than sexual touching, oral sex, vaginal sex, contact other than sexual touching, handjobs, oral sex or or anal sex? blow jobs, or anal sex? E35. During the last 6 months, did another inmate, without E35. During the last 6 months, did another inmate, without using physical force, pressure you or make you feel that using physical force, pressure you or make you feel that you had to have any type of sex or sexual contact other you had to have any type of sex or sexual contact other than sexual touching, oral sex, vaginal sex, or anal sex? than sexual touching, handjobs, oral sex or blowjobs, or anal sex?

Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007 41 Appendix 8. Survey items related to staff sexual misconduct, National Inmate Survey, 2007 These next questions are about the behavior of staff at G11 [IF G2 OR G4 OR G5 = Yes] During the last 6 this facility during the last 6 months. By staff we mean months, which of the following types of sex or sexual the employees of this facility and anybody who works as contact did you have with a facility staff person? a volunteer in this facility. G11a. You touched a facility staff person's body or had G4 During the last 6 months, have any facility staff your body touched in a sexual way pressured you or made you feel that you had to let them G11b. You gave or received a handjob have sex or sexual contact with you? G11c. You gave or received oral sex or a blowjob G5 During the last 6 months, have you been physically forced by any facility staff to have sex or sexual con- G11d. You had vaginal sex tact? G11e. You had anal sex G7 During the last 6 months, have any facility staff offered you favors or special privileges in exchange for sex or sexual contact? G2 During the last 6 months, have you willingly had sex or sexual contact with any facility staff?

42 Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007 Appendix 9. Follow-up questions for inmates reporting no sexual activity, National Inmate Survey, 2007

Follow-up questions for inmates reporting no sexual Follow-up questions for inmates reporting no sexual activity in the screener questions for sexual activity activity in the screener questions for sexual activity with inmates: with staff: LCM1 During the last 6 months, did another inmate use LCM5 During the last 6 months, have you had any sex or physical force, pressure you, or make you feel that you sexual contact with staff in this facility whether you wanted had to have any type of sex or sexual contact? to have it or not? LCM2a How long has it been since another inmate in this LCM6a How long has it been since you had any sex or facility used physical force, pressured you, or made you sexual contact with staff in this facility whether you wanted feel that you had to have any type of sex or sexual con- to or not? tact? 1. Within the past 7 days Within the past 7 days 2. More than 7 days ago but within the past 30 days 1. More than 7 days ago but within the past 30 days 3. More than 30 days ago but within the past 12 2. More than 30 days ago but within the past 12 months months 4. More than 12 months ago 3. More than 12 months ago 5. This has not happened to me at this facility 4. This has not happened to me at this facility LCM7 In the last 6 months, did you have oral, vaginal, or LCM3 [If Male] During the last 6 months, did another anal sex with any staff at this facility whether you wanted inmate use physical force, pressure you, or make you feel to or not? that you had to have oral or anal sex? LCM8a How long has it been since you had oral, vaginal, [If Female] During the last 6 months, did another inmate or anal sex with any staff at this facility whether you use physical force, pressure you, or make you feel that wanted to or not? you had to have oral, vaginal, or anal sex? LCM8b How long has it been since you had oral or anal LCM4a [If Male] How long has it been since another sex with any staff at this facility whether you wanted to or inmate in this facility used physical force, pressured you, not? or made you feel that you had to have oral or anal sex? [If Female] How long has it been since another inmate in this facility used physical force, pressured you, or made you feel that you had to have oral, vaginal, or anal sex? LCM4b [If Male] How long has it been since another inmate in this facility used physical force, pressured you, or made you feel that you had to have oral or anal sex? [If Female] How long has it been since another inmate in this facility used physical force, pressured you, or made you feel that you had to have oral, vaginal, or anal sex?

Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007 43 DEFINITIONS:

SEXUAL VIOLENCE– BJS and PREA

Developed under NIC Cooperative Agreement 06S20GJJ1 BJS: Non-Consensual Sexual Acts

• Contact of any person without his or her consent, or of a person who is unable to consent or refuse; and • Contact between the penis and the vagina or the penis and the anus including penetration, however slight; or • Contact between the mouth and the penis, vagina, or anus; or • Penetration of the anal or genital opening of another person by a hand, finger, or other object.

Developed under NIC Cooperative Agreement 06S20GJJ1 BJS: Abusive Sexual Contact

• Contact of any person without his or her consent, or of a person who is unable to consent or refuse; and

• Intentional touching, either directly or through the clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person.

Developed under NIC Cooperative Agreement 06S20GJJ1 BJS: Staff Sexual Misconduct • Any behavior or act of a sexual nature directed toward an inmate by an employee, volunteer, official visitor, or agency representative. Romantic relationships between staff and inmates are included. Consensual or nonconsensual sexual acts include: – Intentional touching of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks with the intent to abuse, arouse, or gratify sexual desire; or – Completed, attempted, threatened, or requested sexual acts; or – Occurrences of indecent exposure, invasion of privacy, or staff voyeurism for sexual gratification. Developed under NIC Cooperative Agreement 06S20GJJ1 BJS: Staff Sexual Harassment

• Repeated verbal statements or comments of a sexual nature to an inmate by an employee, volunteer, official visitor, or agency representative, including: – Demeaning references to gender or derogatory comments about body or clothing; or – Profane or obscene language or gestures.

Developed under NIC Cooperative Agreement 06S20GJJ1 PREA: Sexual Acts

• Carnal Knowledge

• Oral Sodomy

• Prison Rape

• Sexual Assault with an Object

• Sexual Fondling

Developed under NIC Cooperative Agreement 06S20GJJ1 PREA: Carnal Knowledge

Contact between the penis and the vulva or the penis and the anus including penetration of any sort, however slight

Developed under NIC Cooperative Agreement 06S20GJJ1 PREA: Oral Sodomy

Contact between the mouth and the penis, the mouth and the vulva or the mouth and the anus.

Developed under NIC Cooperative Agreement 06S20GJJ1 PREA: Prison Rape • The rape of an inmate in the actual or constructive control of prison officials – Rape means: • The carnal knowledge, oral sodomy, sexual assault with an object, or sexual fondling of a person: – Forcibly or against that person’s will – Forcibly or against that person’s will where the victim is incapable of giving consent because of youth, temporary or permanent mental or physical incapacity – Achieved through exploitation of the fear or threat ofDeveloped physical under violence NIC Cooperative or bodily injury Agreement 06S20GJJ1 PREA: Sexual Assault with an Object

The use of any hand, finger, object, or other instrument to penetrate, however slightly, the genital or anal opening of the body of another person.

Developed under NIC Cooperative Agreement 06S20GJJ1 PREA: Sexual Fondling

The touching of the private body parts of another person, including the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks, for the purpose of sexual gratification

Developed under NIC Cooperative Agreement 06S20GJJ1 PREA: Terms

• Inmate

• Facilities – Police Lock-up – Jail – Prison

Developed under NIC Cooperative Agreement 06S20GJJ1 PREA: Inmate

Any person incarcerated or detained in any facility who is accused of, convicted of, sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent for, violations of criminal law or the terms and conditions of parole, probation, pretrial release, or diversion program.

Developed under NIC Cooperative Agreement 06S20GJJ1 PREA: Police Lock Up

• A temporary holding facility of a federal, state, or local law enforcement agency to hold:

– Inmates pending bail or transport to jail – Inebriates until ready for release – Juveniles pending parental custody or shelter placement

Developed under NIC Cooperative Agreement 06S20GJJ1 PREA: Jail

• A confinement facility of a federal, state or local law enforcement agency to hold:

– Persons pending adjudication of criminal charges

– Persons committed to confinement after adjudication of criminal charges for sentences for sentences of one year or less

Developed under NIC Cooperative Agreement 06S20GJJ1 PREA: Prison

• Any confinement facility of a federal, state, or local government whether administered by such government or by a private organization on behalf of such government and includes: – Any local jail or police lock-up – Any juvenile facility used for the custody or care of juvenile inmates

Developed under NIC Cooperative Agreement 06S20GJJ1 PREA: Exclusions

• Shall not apply to: – Custodial or medical personnel gathering physical evidence, or engaging in other legitimate medical treatment, in the course of investigating prison rape – The use of a health care provider’s hands or fingers or the use of medical devices in the course of appropriate medical treatment unrelated to prison rape – The use of a health care provider’s hands or fingers and the use of instruments to perform body cavity searches in order to maintain security Developed under NIC Cooperative Agreement 06S20GJJ1 PREA Program Model (Robert W. Dumond, 2005)

Inmate Training & Orientation Data Collection & Analysis • Educating new inmates to prison culture • Centralized reporting of all incidents of inmate-on- • Providing clear policy on treating offenders inmate sexual violence by all investigative and/or • Provide clear mechanism to report event/receive internal affairs teams at each DOC institution (to be treatment automated) • Improve likelihood of reporting • Centralized reporting of all incidents of staff sexual misconduct and staff sexual harassment by Office of Investigative Services (OIS) through Investigations Environmental Safety database • Improved surveillance of “blind spots” • Facilitate accurate and timely reporting to meet • Adequate staff monitoring Federal reporting requirements to the Bureau of • House inmate with comparable inmates Justice Statistics (BJS) Survey of Sexual Violence • Increased lighting and enhanced security • Develop mechanism to perform crime mapping, procedures vulnerable area within institutions and trend analysis for increased prevention, intervention, & interdiction/prosecution. Staff Training • Educating staff to dangers of sexual assault, • Review grievances & disciplinary reports for trends including inmate-on-inmate violence and inmate- and patterns of prison sexual violence on-staff violence 1. 2. • Improve professional response Prevention Data Collection • Understand liability for non-compliance & Analysis Public Education Investigation • Provide media on this subject • Comprehensive investigation / evaluation of • Encourage legislative & policy initiatives to 4. 3. incident minimize risk Intervention Interdiction • Rape trained/certified corrections investigators • Educate families and community of problem within each institution in collaboration with & designated la enforcement agencies Prosecution • Timely collection/analysis of physical & Short Term Treatment testimonial evidence • Provide on-going medical follow-up treatment • Provide follow-up on results of STD and HIV+ testing Victim Services • Continue close mental health supervision • Provide support to inmate victims with victim advocate • Continued mental health assessment of suicidality, • Prepare inmate victim for trial experience depression, and mental status • Keep victim informed

Long Term Treatment • Ensuring consistency & availability of treatment as inmate moves through system & community Victim Protection • Scheduled monitoring & assessment of inmate • Provide change of venue (jurisdiction) to eliminate victim risk to victim for testifying • Empowering victim not to place self at risk • Rehouse inmate victims in alternative setting quickly to eliminate “labeling” Administrative Policies Crisis Services • Mandatory reporting Disciplinary Actions • Evaluate suicide risk • Clear established PREA policy • Correctly & promptly utilize DOC Disciplinary policy • Negotiate psychological assistance • Make necessary changes to existing policies for PREA and procedures to provide appropriate sanctions / • Separate victim from offender • Increase reporting of incidents of sexual violence consequences for offenders • Insure safety of victim • Uniform, compatible response between security, • Use discipline in conjunction with prosecution when • Medical care (rape kit, prophylaxis) classification and treatment services available