U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics January 2014, NCJ 244227 Bureau of Justice Statistics Bureau Survey of Sexual Violence in Adult Correctional Facilities, 2009–11 - Statistical Tables Ramona R. Rantala, BJS Statistician, Jessica Rexroat, BJS Intern, and Allen J. Beck, Ph.D., BJS Statistician n 2011, correctional administrators reported Administrators were given the option of mailing back 6,660 allegations of sexual victimization in a completed form or completing it on the internet. Iprisons. Of these, 605 were substantiated based on Data collection forms can be accessed on the BJS follow-up investigation. Local jail authorities reported website. The administrators then completed a separate 2,042 allegations, of which 284 were substantiated. form for each substantiated incident, providing details About half (51%) involved allegations of about the victim, perpetrator, and circumstances nonconsensual sexual acts or abusive sexual contacts surrounding the incident. · of inmates with other inmates, and half (49%) The 2009, 2010, and 2011 surveys included all federal Tables Statistical involved staff sexual misconduct or sexual harassment and state prisons, facilities operated by the U.S. directed toward inmates. While the overall number military and ICE, and a representative sample of jail of allegations reported by authorities in adult jurisdictions, privately operated jails and prisons, and correctional facilities rose from an estimated 6,241 in jails holding adults in Indian country. In total, data 2005 to 8,763 in 2011, the number of substantiated were collected from facilities containing 1.99 million incidents did not change significantly from 2005 (885) inmates in 2009, 1.98 million inmates in 2010, and to 2011 (902). 1.97 million inmates in 2011. (See Methodology for Data are from the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ (BJS) more information about the systems and facilities Survey of Sexual Violence (SSV), which has from which data were collected.) annually collected official records on allegations and The statistical tables that follow provide counts of substantiated incidents of inmate-on-inmate and allegations and substantiated incidents by type of staff-on-inmate sexual victimization since 2004. The victimization for every jurisdiction and facility in the SSV is one of a number of BJS data collections that are 2009, 2010, 2011 surveys. These tables accompany conducted to meet the mandates of the Prison Rape BJS report, Sexual Victimization Reported by Adult Elimination Act of 2003 (PREA). Correctional Authorities, 2009–11, NCJ 234904, On behalf of BJS, staff of the U.S. Census Bureau which provides national estimates and rates of sexual mailed survey forms to correctional administrators in victimization as well as an in-depth examination of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, state prison systems, substantiated incidents covering the number and public and private jails, private prisons, jails in Indian characteristics of victims and perpetrators, location, country, and facilities operated by the U.S. military time of day, nature of the injuries, impact on the and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). victims, and sanctions imposed on the perpetrators. BJS Defining sexual victimization To define sexual victimization under the Prison Rape Staff-on-inmate sexual victimization includes both consensual Elimination Act of 2003, BJS uses uniform definitions that and nonconsensual acts perpetrated on an inmate by staff. classify each sexual act by the perpetrator who carried out it Staff includes an employee, volunteer, contractor, official (i.e., inmate or staff) and the type of act. visitor, or other agency representative. Family, friends, and other visitors are excluded. Inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization involves sexual contact with a victim without his or her consent or with a victim who Staff sexual misconduct includes any act or behavior of a sexual cannot consent or refuse. nature directed toward an inmate by staff, including romantic relationships. Such acts include— Nonconsensual sexual acts are the most serious victimizations, and include— intentional touching of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks with the intent to abuse, arouse, or contact between the penis and the vagina or the penis and gratify sexual desire the anus including penetration, however slight completed, attempted, threatened, or requested sexual acts contact between the mouth and the penis, vagina, or anus occurrences of indecent exposure, invasion of privacy, or penetration of the anal or genital opening of another person staff voyeurism for sexual gratification. by a hand, finger, or other object. Staff sexual harassment includes repeated verbal statements Abusive sexual contacts are less serious victimizations, and or comments of a sexual nature to an inmate by staff. Such include— statements include— intentional touching, either directly or through clothing, of demeaning references to an inmate’s sex or derogatory the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of comments about his or her body or clothing any person repeated profane or obscene language or gestures. incidents in which the intent was to sexually exploit (rather than to harm or debilitate). Survey of Sexual Violence in Adult Correctional Facilities, 2009–11 - Statistical Tables | January 2014 2 Methodology Sampling Public jails The sampling designs for the Bureau of Justice In each year, 700 publicly operated jail facilities were selected Statistics’ (BJS) 2009, 2010, and 2011 Survey of Sexual based on data reported in BJS’s Deaths in Custody Reporting Violence (SSV) varied according to the different facilities Program (DCRP). Based on the DCRP data in each year covered under PREA. prior to the survey, the largest jail jurisdiction was selected in 45 states and the District of Columbia.2 Federal and state prisons Jail jurisdictions with ADPs greater than or equal to In each year, the survey included the Federal Bureau 1,000 inmates were also selected with certainty (128 of Prisons and all 50 state adult prison systems. Prison in 2009, 131 in 2010, and 117 in 2011). The remaining administrators were directed to report only on allegations of jail jurisdictions on the frame were then grouped into sexual victimization that occurred within publicly operated three strata. adult prison facilities and to exclude allegations involving In the 2009 sample, 99 jails (out of 1,489) with an ADP inmates held in local jails, privately operated facilities, and of 85 or fewer inmates were selected in the first stratum, facilities in other jurisdictions. 317 jails (out of 770) with an ADP of 86 to 268 inmates Privately operated state and federal prisons were selected from the second stratum, and 110 jails (out of 434) with an ADP of 269 to 999 inmates were selected In each year, a sample of 125 privately operated state and from the third stratum. federal prison facilities was drawn to produce a sample of the private prisons identified by the 2005 Census of State and In the 2010 sample, 117 jails (out of 1,476) with an ADP Federal Adult Correctional Facilities. The sampling frame of of 85 or fewer inmates were selected in the first stratum; privately operated prison facilities contained 417 facilities 247 jails (out of 762) with an ADP of 86 to 267 inmates in 2009 and 2010 and 393 in 2011 (after removing were selected from the second stratum; and 159 jails (out prisons that had closed). Facilities were sorted by average of 436) with an ADP of 268 to 999 inmates were selected daily population (ADP) in the 12-month period ending from the third stratum. June 30, 2005. In 2009 and 2010, 71 facilities with ADPs of 488 or more were selected with certainty because of their In the 2011 sample, 197 jails (out of 1,489) with an ADP size. In 2011, 69 facilities with ADPs of 445 or more were of 87 or fewer inmates were selected in the first stratum, selected with certainty (i.e., given a 100% chance of selection 120 jails (out of 773) with an ADP of 88 to 273 inmates in each sample because of their size). were selected from the second stratum, and 220 jails (out of 427) with an ADP of 274 to 999 inmates were selected The remaining facilities were sorted by region (i.e., the from the third stratum. Northeast, Midwest, South, or West), state, and ADP, and sampled systematically with probabilities proportional to During the three years, only one publicly operated jail closed their size. Fifty-four facilities were selected in 2009 and 2010, prior to data collection (in 2009). Among the remaining and 56 in 2011.1 selected jail jurisdictions in 2009, six did not respond to the survey: Among the privately operated prisons selected for the survey, 3 had closed prior to data collection in 2009, 14 in Bessemer City Jail, Bessemer, AL 2010, and 10 in 2011. Three facilities selected in 2009 were out-of-scope. Six privately operated prisons did not respond Cooke County Justice Center, Gainesville, TX to the survey in 2009: Marshall County Jail, Marshalltown, IA Carver Correctional Center, Oklahoma City, OK Oklahoma County Jail, Oklahoma City, OK Crossroads Adult Transitional Center, Chicago, IL Osage County Jail, Linn, MO Dismas Charities, El Paso, TX Roberts County Jail, Sisseton, SD. Dismas House, St. Louis, MO 1The chance that a facility would be selected was directly related to the size Joseph Coleman Center, Philadelphia, PA of the facility (i.e., within each stratum, facilities with larger ADPs had a greater chance being selected than facilities with smaller ADPs). Stepping Stones (Community Alcohol Drug Center), 2Five states with combined jail-prison systems had no public jails: Mitchell, SD. Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Vermont. All selected and active privately operated prisons in 2010 and 2011 participated in the survey. Survey of Sexual Violence in Adult Correctional Facilities, 2009–11 - Statistical Tables | January 2014 3 Among the 700 jail jurisdictions selected in 2010, 8 did not jails in Indian country in 2009, 61 in 2010, and 59 in 2011.