U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs

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
By Allen J. Beck, Ph.D.,
and Paige M. Harrison,
BJS Statisticians
The Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-79)
requires the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) to carry out,
for each calendar year, a comprehensive statistical review
and analysis of the incidence and effects of prison rape.
This report fulfills the requirement under Sec. 4(c)(2)(B)(ii)
of the Act to provide a listing of State and Federal prisons
ranked according to the incidence of prison rape.
Between April and August 2007, BJS completed the first
National Inmate Survey (NIS) of 146 State and Federal
prisons. The survey, conducted by RTI International
(Research Triangle Park, NC), was restricted to adult confinement facilities, including prisons, penitentiaries, prison
hospitals, prison farms, boot camps, and centers for reception, classification, or alcohol and drug treatment. The NIS
excluded community-based facilities, such as halfway
houses, group homes, and work release centers. The sample was designed in accordance with the requirement that
BJS draw a random sample, or other scientifically appropriate sample, of not less than 10% of prison facilities. (See
Methodology for sample description.)
Unlike previous BJS surveys of sexual violence that were
based on administrative records, the NIS collected reports
of sexual violence directly from inmates. The NIS survey
consisted of an Audio Computer-Assisted Self Interview
(ACASI) in which inmates, using a touch-screen, interacted
with a computer-assisted questionnaire and followed audio
instructions delivered via headphones. A small number of
inmates (2% of all participants in the survey) completed a
short paper form. These were inmates housed primarily in
administrative or disciplinary segregation or considered too
violent to be interviewed.

State and Federal prisoners reporting sexual
victimization, 2007
Type*
Total

National estimate
Number
Percent
60,500

4.5%

Inmate-on-inmate
Nonconsensual sexual acts
Abusive sexual contacts only

27,500
16,800
10,600

2.1%
1.3
0.8

Staff sexual misconduct
Unwilling activity
Excluding touching
Touching only
Willing activity
Excluding touching
Touching only

38,600
22,600
16,900
5,700
22,700
20,600
2,100

2.9%
1.7%
1.3
0.4
1.7%
1.5
0.2

Note: Detail may not sum to total because inmates may report more
than one type of victimization. They may also report victimization by
both other inmates and staff.
*See Methodology for definition of terms.

Inmate self-reports provide a basis for comparing and
ranking facilities
Past surveys of administrative records could not provide
reliable facility-level estimates of sexual violence because
they were limited to incidents reported to correctional
authorities. Some victims may be reluctant to report incidents to correctional authorities due to lack of trust in staff,
fear of reprisal from perpetrators, a code of silence among
inmates, or personal embarrassment. Moreover, administrative records may vary in the way incidents and allegations are defined, reported, and recorded, which further
complicate facility-level comparisons.
The NIS is a self-administered survey which provides anonymity to respondents and encourages fuller reporting of
victimization. The survey employs computer-assisted technology to provide more uniform conditions under which
inmates complete the survey. Facility-level comparisons in

the NIS are further enhanced through the application of statistical methods that ensure that the estimates reflect the
entire population of each facility, rather than only the
inmates who participated in the survey. (See Methodology
for sample description and non-response adjustments.)
For purposes of calculating comparative rates, the NIS limited the reports of sexual victimization to incidents that
occurred at the sampled facilities during the 12 months
prior to the date of the interview. Inmates who had served
less than 12 months were asked about their experiences
since they had arrived at the facility.

specific body parts in a sexual way. (See Methodology for
specific survey questions and definitions.)
Among inmates reporting experiences of sexual misconduct by staff, the number that reported they had sex or sexual contact willingly (22,700) was nearly identical to those
who reported contact as a result of physical force, pressure, or offers of special favors or privileges (22,600). A
majority of victims of staff misconduct reported activity
beyond simple touching in a sexual way.
10 facilities had prevalence rates of 9.3% or greater;
6 facilities had no reported incidents

Despite efforts of survey staff to reassure inmates that their
Among the 146 prison facilities in the 2007 NIS, 6 had no
survey responses about sexual violence would be kept
reports of sexual victimization from the sampled inmates;
confidential, some inmates may not have felt confident to
10 had an overall victimization rate of at least 9.3% (table
report experiences of sexual victimization since admission
1). Though other measures may be considered when comor in the past 12 months. At the same time, some inmates
paring facilities, the overall victimization rate is a measure
may have made false allegations. In 2006, about a quarter
of prevalence that includes all experiences, regardless of
of the allegations brought to the attention of State and Fedthe level of coercion and type of sexual activity.
eral correctional authorities, upon completion of an official
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
of sexual victimization, National Inmate Survey, 2007
and false reporting in the NIS is unknown.
Percent of inmates
reporting sexual victimizationa

An estimated 60,500 inmates experienced one
or more incidents of sexual victimization
Among the 23,398 inmates who participated in the
2007 survey, 1,109 reported one or more incidents
of sexual victimization. Because the NIS is a sample survey, weights were applied for sampled facilities and inmates within facilities to produce
national-level and facility-level estimates of sexual
violence. The estimated number of State and Federal inmates experiencing sexual violence totaled
60,500 (or 4.5% of the Nation’s prisoners).
Nationwide, about 2.1% of inmates (27,500)
reported an incident involving another inmate, and
2.9% (38,600) reported an incident involving staff.
Some inmates (0.5%) said they had been sexually
victimized by both other inmates and staff.
The NIS screened for specific sexual activities.
Using uniform definitions of sexual violence developed by BJS in 2004, reports of inmate-on-inmate
sexual violence were classified as either nonconsensual sexual acts or abusive sexual contacts
only. Approximately 1.3% of all inmates (16,800,
nationwide) said they had nonconsensual sex with
another inmate, including giving or receiving sexual gratification and oral, anal or vaginal sex. An
additional 0.8% of all inmates (10,600) said they
had only experienced an abusive sexual contact,
that is, unwanted touching by another inmate of
_______
1

See Sexual Violence Reported by Correctional Authorities,
2006, at <http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/svcra06.htm>.

Facility name

Response
Number of
respondentsb rate
23,398

U.S. total

72%

10 highest
Estelle Unit, TX
Clements Unit, TX
Tecumseh State Corr. Inst., NE
Charlotte Corr. Inst., FL
Great Meadow Corr. Fac., NY
Rockville Corr. Fac., INe
Valley State Prison for Women, CAe
Allred Unit, TX
Mountain View Unit, TXe
Coffield Unit, TX

197
142
85
163
144
169
181
186
154
194

84
59
39
73
62
79
78
71
80
76

6 lowestf
Ironwood State Prison, CA
Penitentiary of New Mexico, NM
Gates Corr. Ctr., NC
Bennettsville-Camp, BOP
Big Spring Corr. Inst., BOPe
Schuylkill Fed. Corr. Inst., BOP

141
83
52
77
155
174

60%
38
74
69
66
70

Weighted Standard
percentc errord
4.5%
15.7
13.9
13.4
12.1
11.3
10.8
10.3
9.9
9.5
9.3

0.3%
2.6
2.9
4.0
2.7
2.7
2.4
2.3
2.2
1.9
2.1

0.0%
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

~
~
~
~
~
~

Note: BOP refers to the Bureau of Prisons.
~Not applicable.
a

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
shorter.

bNumber
cWeights

of respondents selected for the NIS on sexual victimization.

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 details.)

d
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%).
e
f

Female facility.

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
the highest prevalence rate. Since the estimates are
based on a sample of inmates, rather than a complete
enumeration, they are subject to sampling error. The precision of each facility-level estimate can be calculated
based on the estimated standard error. For example, the
victimization rate of 15.7% recorded for the Estelle Unit
(Texas) has a precision of plus or minus 5.1% with a 95%
level of confidence. This precision, based on the standard
error of 2.6% multiplied by 1.96, implies that we are 95%
confident that the true prevalence rate in the Estelle Unit is
between 10.6% and 20.8%.
As a consequence of sampling error, the NIS cannot provide an exact ranking for all facilities as required under the
Prison Rape Elimination Act. However, detailed tabulations of the survey results by facility and State are presented in Appendix tables 1 through 9. Facility prevalence
rates vary by level and type of victimization, and observed
differences between facilities will not always be statistically significant. Consequently, these measures cannot be
used to reliably rank facilities from 1 (the highest) to 146
(the lowest).
Despite limitations of sampling errors, the NIS does provide the ability to statistically identify a small group of facilities with the highest rates of sexual victimization. Based
on the confidence interval around the Estelle Unit (15.7%
plus or minus 5.1%), 6 facilities would be included in the
interval, but these facilities also have estimated rates with
surrounding confidence intervals. By placing a 95%-confidence interval around the difference between the Estelle
Unit and the Coffield Unit (Texas), we can identify a group
of 10 facilities with the highest prevalence of sexual victimization. Since the confidence interval around the observed
difference (6.4% plus or minus 6.5%) includes zero, the
Coffield Unit is considered statistically similar to the Estelle
Unit. However, facilities with rates lower than the Coffield
Unit (9.3%) would be considered statistically different
(assuming a standard error of 2.1%). (See Methodology
for calculation of confidence intervals comparing facilities.)
Identification of the 3 facilities with the highest rates
of sexual victimization depends on non-statistical
judgments
Among the 10 facilities with the highest overall prevalence
rates, 3 had prevalence rates of staff sexual misconduct
that exceeded 10% (table 2). The rate was highest in
Tecumseh State Correctional Institution (Nebraska), in
which 12.2% of inmates reported one or more incidents of
staff sexual misconduct. This rate was followed by a rate
of 11.6% in the Clements Unit (Texas) and 11.4% in the
Charlotte Correctional Institution (Florida). Among these 3
facilities, the Charlotte facility had the smallest standard
error (2.6%); its 95%-confidence interval ranged from
6.3% to 16.5%.

Table 2. Prison facilities with the highest prevalence
of sexual victimization, by another inmate or staff, National
Inmate Survey, 2007

Facility name
U.S. total
Estelle Unit, TX
Clements Unit, TX
Tecumseh State Corr. Inst., NE
Charlotte Corr. Inst., FL
Great Meadow Corr. Fac., NY
Rockville Corr. Fac., INc
Valley State Prison for Women, CAc
Allred Unit, TX
Mountain View Unit, TXc
Coffield Unit, TX

Percent of inmates reporting sexual
victimizationa
Inmate-on- Staff-oninmate
inmate
Totalb
4.5%
15.7
13.9
13.4
12.1
11.3
10.8
10.3
9.9
9.5
9.3

2.1%
8.5
3.3
1.2
1.1
3.0
10.2
7.9
4.8
8.7
4.4

2.9%
7.6
11.6
12.2
11.4
9.6
2.0
5.3
6.7
3.4
5.7

Note: Detail may add to more than total because respondents may report
victimization by both another inmate and staff.
a

Includes 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. (See Methodology for survey items.)

bPercent

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 shorter.

cFemale

facility.

Table 3. Prison facilities with the highest prevalence
of sexual victimization, by type, National Inmate Survey, 2007

Facility name
U.S. total
Estelle Unit, TX
Clements Unit, TX
Tecumseh State Corr. Inst., NE
Charlotte Corr. Inst., FL
Great Meadow Corr. Fac., NY
Rockville Corr. Fac., INd
Valley State Prison for Women, CAd
Allred Unit, TX
Mountain View Unit, TXd
Coffield Unit, TX

Percent of inmates reporting sexual
assaulta
Nonconsen- Abusive
sual sexual sexual
Total
contactsc
prevalencea actsb
4.5%
15.7
13.9
13.4
12.1
11.3
10.8
10.3
9.9
9.5
9.3

3.3%
11.3
8.1
11.2
12.1
6.1
6.6
2.4
8.0
3.4
7.7

1.3%
4.4
5.8
2.2
0.0
5.3
4.2
7.9
1.9
6.2
1.5

a

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 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.)
bIncludes

allegations of oral, anal, and vaginal penetration, handjobs, and
reports of other sexual acts.

cIncludes
d

allegations of unwanted touching only.

Female facility.

Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007

3

Rockville Correctional Facility (Indiana) had the highest
reported rate of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization;
10.2% of inmates reported one or more incidents. Its 95%confidence interval ranged from 5.7% to 14.7%. Three
other facilities had rates that exceeded 5%: Mountain View
Unit (Texas), 8.7%; Estelle Unit (Texas), 8.5%; and Valley
State Prison for Women (California), 7.9%.
For more serious types of sexual victimization (e.g., nonconsensual acts among inmates and unwilling sexual contact with staff involving more than touching), 3 facilities had
rates of 10% or higher (table 3). Charlotte Correctional
Institution had the highest rate of nonconsensual sexual
acts (12.1%), followed by Estelle Unit (11.3%) and Tecumseh State Correctional Institution(11.2%). The confidence
interval for the Charlotte Correctional Institution was 6.8%
to 17.4%.
Similar to types of sexual victimization, levels of coercion
also varied among facilities. Among the 10 facilities with the
highest overall prevalence of sexual victimization, 3 facilities had high levels of physical force in inmate-on-inmate
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 Facility (6.5%) and the Estelle Unit (5.1%). Inmates in 2 facilities
reported high rates of physical force used by staff: Tecumseh State Correctional Institution (7.5%) and Great
Meadow Correctional Facility (6.0%).

An estimated 0.8% of inmates nationwide reported being
injured as a result of the sexual victimization. Approximately 0.5% of the inmates had been injured by another
inmate, and 0.3% had been injured by staff. Injuries
included anal or vaginal tearing, knife or stab wounds, broken bones, chipped or knocked out teeth, internal injuries,
bruises, black eyes, sprains, cuts, scratches, swelling, or
welts.
Although injury rates from sexual victimization were generally low, 2 facilities among the 10 with the highest prevalence of overall victimization had rates of injury by other
inmates that exceeded 3% (table 4). Rockville Correctional
Facility (3.7%) and Allred Unit (3.3%) had the highest rates
of inmate-on-inmate injury. Tecumseh State Correctional
Institution (3.9%) and Clements Unit (3.1%) had the highest
rates of injury resulting from staff sexual misconduct.
Using these different measures of sexual victimization,
comparisons among the 10 facilities with the highest overall
rates may be made. The 3 highest facilities may be
selected based on one or more of these measures.

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

Facility name
U.S. total
Estelle Unit, TX
Clements Unit, TX
Tecumseh State Corr. Inst., NE
Charlotte Corr. Inst., FL
Great Meadow Corr. Fac., NY
Rockville Corr. Fac., INc
Valley State Prison for Women, CAc
Allred Unit, TX
Mountain View Unit, TXc
Coffield Unit, TX

Inmate-on-inmate sexual assault
Physically
Total
Pressured
Injuredb
prevalencea forced
4.5%
15.7
13.9
13.4
12.1
11.3
10.8
10.3
9.9
9.5
9.3

1.3%
5.1
1.7
0.0
0.6
1.0
6.5
4.7
3.6
7.5
2.1

1.7%
7.9
3.3
1.2
1.1
2.8
7.5
5.9
3.2
6.8
3.9

0.5%
2.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.7
1.5
3.3
2.7
0.0

Staff-on-inmate sexual assault
Physically
Reported
forced
Pressured as willing
Injuredb
0.9%
0.9
4.1
7.5
2.6
6.0
0.5
1.5
2.8
0.7
0.4

1.5%
4.4
6.8
11.8
6.1
6.3
1.1
3.3
3.2
3.0
1.4

1.7%
5.2
5.6
5.9
5.7
2.8
0.9
3.3
2.3
1.4
4.3

0.3%
0.4
3.1
3.9
0.0
2.0
0.6
0.9
0.9
2.1
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.)
b

Injuries 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.

c

Female facility.

4 Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007

Inmates reported an estimated 189,400 incidents of
nonconsensual sexual acts with other inmates or staff
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
four pre-coded categories: 1 time, 2 times, 3 to 10 times, or
11 times or more. Categories containing ranges were provided, rather than more detailed categories, because of
concerns that (1) some inmates would be unable to accurately report exact counts and (2) some inmates would be
re-traumatized by a request to recount each incident. The
total number of incidents by type in each facility was estimated by assigning the value 5 to the category of 3 to 10
times and 12 to the category of 11 times or more. (See
Methodology for additional details.)
Based on these measures, the 1,109 inmates participating
in the NIS who reported one or more allegations of sexual
victimization said they had experienced a total of 1,428
incidents of nonconsensual sexual activity with another
inmate and 2,028 incidents of unwilling sexual contact with
staff. Taking into account weights for sampling facilities and
inmates within facilities, the estimated number of incidents
nationwide totaled 189,400 (75,300 nonconsensual sexual
acts with other inmates and 114,100 incidents of unwilling
sexual contact with staff).
Expressed as a rate, nationwide an estimated 141 incidents of sexual victimization per 1,000 inmates held in
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
Table 5. Prison facilities with the highest number
of incidents of nonconsensual sexual acts per 1,000
inmates, National Inmate Survey, 2007

Facility name
U.S. total
Tecumseh State Corr. Inst., NE
Charlotte Corr. Inst., FL
Clements Unit, TX
Estelle Unit, TX
Great Meadow Corr. Fac., NY
Utah State Prison, UTc
Mule Creek State Prison, CA
R.J. Donovan Corr. Fac. at Rock Mtn., CA
Rockville Corr. Fac., INd
Mountain View Unit, TXd
Dixon Corr. Inst., LA
Allred Unit, TX
Julia Tutwiler, ALd
Waupun Corr. Inst., WI

Number of incidents per 1,000
inmates
Inmate-on- Staff-onTotal inmatea
inmateb
141
931
515
477
438
393
376
373
336
320
321
319
317
314
303

56
62
18
135
278
45
284
267
203
274
154
211
123
199
5

a

85
869
498
342
160
348
92
106
133
46
166
108
194
115
298

Includes all incidents of unwanted contacts with another inmate that
involved oral sex, anal sex, vaginal sex, handjobs, and other sexual acts.

b
c

Includes all incidents of unwilling sexual contacts with staff.

Facility houses both males and females.

d

56 incidents of inmate-on-inmate nonconsensual sexual
acts per 1,000 inmates and 85 incidents of unwilling sexual
contacts with staff per 1,000 inmates were reported.
14 facilities had nonconsensual sex rates of 300 or
more incidents per 1,000 inmates
Among the 146 prison facilities in the 2007 NIS, 14 had
incident rates of nonconsensual sex that exceeded 300
incidents per 1,000 inmates (table 5). The 5 facilities
recording the highest prevalence rates also recorded the
highest incident rates. Tecumseh State Correctional Institution (with 931 incidents of nonconsensual sex per 1,000
inmates) had the highest rate, followed by the Charlotte
Correctional Institution (515 per 1,000) and the Clements
Unit (477 per 1,000). In each of these facilities, unwilling
sexual contact with staff was the most frequently reported
type of sexual victimization.
More than 109,300 incidents nationwide involved “willing”
sexual contacts with staff. These incidents of staff sexual
misconduct, though reported as willing by inmates, are
considered nonconsensual by law. A total of 82 such incidents of staff sexual misconduct per 1,000 inmates were
reported as willing. Among facilities, inmates in the Tecumseh State Correctional Institution (Nebraska) reported the
highest incident rates of willing sexual contact with staff
(447 per 1,000), followed by inmates in the St. Brides Correctional Center in Virginia (408 per 1,000) (See Appendix
table 9).
Further analyses of sexual victimization and facility
variations underway
In response to other provisions of the Prison Rape Elimination Act, BJS will conduct further analyses of sexual victimization and facility variations. Expected to be completed by
June 30, 2008, these analyses will examine victim characteristics and provide detailed descriptions of the circumstances surrounding reported incidents. They will include
items on characteristics of perpetrators, reporting of incidents to staff or others, reasons for not reporting, and subsequent actions taken by administrators. In addition, BJS
will examine characteristics of facilities that may correlate
with sexual victimization, such as size, crowding, types of
inmates held, security level, staff-to-inmate ratios, staff
characteristics, and rates of assault on inmates and staff.
Facility characteristics are based on data from the 2005
Census of State and Federal Adult Correctional Facilities
and other items included in the 2007 NIS.
BJS is conducting a survey of sexual victimization in local
jails, using the same sampling procedures and ACASI collection methodologies. Data collection in local jails is
expected to be completed in January 2008. A report listing
the 302 sampled local jail facilities ranked according to the
incidence of sexual victimization is expected to be issued in
April 2008.

Female facility.

Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007

5

Methodology
The National Inmate Survey (NIS) was conducted in 146
State and Federal prisons between April and August 2007,
by RTI International under a cooperative agreement with
the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). The NIS comprised
two questionnaires — a survey of sexual victimization and
a survey of past drug and alcohol use and abuse. Inmates
were randomly assigned one of the questionnaires so that
at the time of the interview the content of the survey
remained unknown to facility staff and the survey interviewers. A total of 23,398 inmates participated in the survey.
The interviews, which averaged 27 minutes in length, used
computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI) and audio
computer-assisted self interviewing (ACASI) collection
methods. For approximately the first 5 minutes, survey
interviewers conducted a personal interview using CAPI to
obtain background data, date of admission to the facility,
conviction status, and current offense. For the remainder of
the interview, respondents interacted with a computeradministered questionnaire using a touch-screen and synchronized audio instructions delivered via headphones.
Respondents completed the ACASI portion of the interview
in private, with the interviewer either leaving the room or
moving away from the computer.
A shorter paper questionnaire was made available for
inmates who were unable to come to the private interviewing room. The paper form was completed by 530 inmates
(2.3% of all interviews), housed primarily in administrative
or disciplinary segregation or considered too violent to be
interviewed.
Before the interview, inmates were informed verbally and in
writing that participation was voluntary and that all information provided would be held in confidence. Interviews were
conducted in either English (95%) or Spanish (5%).
Selection of State and Federal prisons
A sample of 130 State prisons was drawn to produce a
10% sample of the 1,267 adult State confinement facilities
identified in the 2005 Census of State and Federal Adult
Correctional Facilities. The 2005 census was a complete
enumeration of State prisons, including all publicly operated and privately operated facilities under contract to State
correctional authorities. The 2007 NIS was restricted to
confinement facilities — institutions in which fewer than
50% of the inmates were regularly permitted to leave,
unaccompanied by staff, for work, study, or treatment. Such
facilities included prisons, penitentiaries, prison hospitals,
prison farms, boot camps, and centers for reception, classification, or alcohol and drug treatment. The 2007 NIS
excluded community-based facilities, such as halfway
houses, group homes, and work release centers.

State confinement facilities were systematically sampled
with probabilities of selection proportionate to size (as measured by the number of inmates held on December 31,
2005). Facilities on the sampling frame were first sorted by
public or private operation, gender housed, region, and
State. Prior to selection, the size measures for facilities
housing female inmates were doubled to ensure a sufficient
number of women to allow for meaningful analyses of sexual victimization by gender. Facilities were sampled ensuring that at least one facility in every State was selected.
The remaining facilities were selected from each region
with probabilities proportionate to size.
Overall, these procedures resulted in the selection of 114
male facilities and 16 female facilities. Based on 2005 census data, these 130 facilities held 250,873 inmates (or 20%
of inmates held in State confinement facilities nationwide
on December 31, 2005).
Somewhat different sampling procedures were used to
select Federal prisons. Facilities were selected based on
data reported in the Bureau of Prisons’ (BOP) Weekly Population Report on September 28, 2006. At that time the
Federal system had 176 BOP-operated facilities and 13 privately-managed facilities. Combined, these facilities held
180,152 inmates. Contract juveniles, long-term boarders,
and offenders held in halfway houses, home confinement,
and jail/short term detention were excluded.
Facilities on the sampling frame were sorted by population
size, region, and public or private operation. They were
selected based on probabilities proportionate to the inmate
count, regardless of gender of inmate housed. The sample
resulted in the selection of 17 BOP-operated facilities and 3
private facilities.
Of the 150 selected State and Federal facilities, 4 were
excluded from the survey for the following reasons:
• Federal Transfer Facility (Oklahoma City, OK) – Inmates
moved through this facility too quickly (within 24 hours)
to permit data collection.
• Huron Valley Complex — Women (Ypsilanti, MI) –
Interviewing was terminated early due to concerns
regarding data quality as many of the inmates were
involved in a class action lawsuit against the facility.
• Taft Correctional Institute (Taft, CA) — The facility was
selected twice, once as a State prison and once as a
Federal facility. (It was excluded from the State sample,
but left in the sample as a Federal facility.)
• Southern Michigan Correctional Facility (Jackson, MI) —
The facility was scheduled to be closed prior to data collection.

6 Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007

All other selected prison facilities participated fully in the
survey.
Selection of inmates
The number of inmates sampled in each facility varied
based on 5 criteria:
• an expected prevalence rate of sexual victimization of
4%.
• a desired level of precision based on a standard error of
1.75%.
• a projected 70% response rate among selected inmates.
• a 10% chance among participating inmates of not
receiving the sexual victimization questionnaire.

tions by inmate age, gender, race, date of admission,
and sentence length. This adjustment ensures that the
estimates accurately reflect the entire population of the
facility and not just the inmates who were randomly sampled.
• calibration of the weights so that the weight from a nonresponding inmate is assigned to a responding inmate
with similar characteristics. This adjustment ensures that
the estimates accurately reflect the full sample, rather
than only the inmates who responded.
For each inmate these adjustments were based on a generalized exponential model, developed by Folsom and
Singh, and applied to the sexual assault survey respondents.2
Survey estimates and accuracy

• size of the facility.
A roster of inmates was obtained just prior to the start of
interviewing at each facility. Inmates under age 18 and
inmates expected to be released prior to the date of data
collection were deleted from the roster. Each eligible
inmate was assigned a random number and sorted in
ascending order. Inmates were selected from the list up to
the expected number of inmates determined by the sampling criteria. A total of 37,362 inmates were selected. (See
Appendix table 1 for the number of inmates sampled in
each facility.)
Overall, 26,157 inmates participated in the survey, yielding
a response rate of 72% (after an additional 1,017 ineligible
inmates were excluded). Approximately 90% of the participating inmates (23,398) received the sexual assault survey.
Weighting and non-response adjustments
Responses from sampled interviewed inmates were
weighted to provide national-level and facility-level estimates. Each interviewed inmate was assigned an initial
weight corresponding to the inverse of the probability of
selection within each sampled facility. A series of adjustment factors were applied to the initial weight to minimize
potential bias due to non-response and to provide national
estimates.
Bias occurs when the estimated prevalence is different
from the actual prevalence for a given facility. First, in each
facility, bias could result if the random sample did not accurately represent the facility population. Second, bias could
result if the non-respondents were different from the
respondents. Post-stratification and non-response adjustments were made to the data to compensate for these two
possibilities. These adjustments included:
• calibration of the weights of the responding inmates
within each facility so that the estimates accurately
reflected the facility’s entire population in terms of known
characteristics. These characteristics included distribu-

Survey estimates are subject to sampling error arising from
the fact that the estimates are based on a sample rather
than a complete enumeration. Within each facility, the estimated sampling error varies by the size of the estimate, the
number of completed interviews, and the size of the facility.
Estimates of the standard errors for selected measures of
sexual victimization are presented in Appendix tables 2
through 5 and 8.
These standard errors may be used to construct confidence intervals around survey estimates (e.g., numbers,
percents, and rates), as well as differences in these estimates.
For example, the 95% confidence interval around the percent of inmates reporting sexual victimization in the Julia
Tutwiler Prison (Alabama) is approximately 6.3% plus or
minus 1.96 times 1.5% (or 3.4% to 9.2%). Based on similarly constructed samples, 95% of the intervals would be
expected to contain the true (but unknown) percentage.
The standard errors may also be used to construct confidence intervals around differences between facility estimates. For example, the 95% confidence interval comparing the percent of inmates reporting sexual victimization in
the Julia Tutwiler Prison (Alabama), 6.3%, with the Estelle
Unit (Texas), 15.7%, may be calculated. The confidence
interval around the difference of 9.4% is approximately 1.96
times 3.0% (the square root of the pooled variance estimate, 9.01%). The pooled variance estimate is calculated
by taking the square root of the sum of each standard error
squared, e.g., the square root of (1.5)2 plus (2.6)2. Since
the interval (3.5% to 15.3%) does not contain zero, the difference between the Tutwiler prison and the Estelle Unit is
statistically significant.
______

2
R.E. Folsom, Jr. and A.C. Singh, The Generalized Exponential Model
for Sampling Weight Calibration for Extreme Values, Nonresponse, and
Poststratification, Proceedings of the American Statistical Association,
Section on Survey Research Methods, 598-603, 2002.

Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007

7

Exposure period
For purposes of calculating comparative rates of sexual victimization, respondents were asked to provide the most
recent date of admission to the current facility. If the date of
admission was at least 12 months prior to the date of the
interview, inmates were asked questions related to their
experiences during the past 12 months. If the admission
date was less than 12 months prior to the interview,
inmates were asked about their experiences since they had
arrived at the facility. Overall, the average exposure period
of inmates participating in the sexual victimization survey
was 8.5 months.
Measuring sexual victimization
The survey of sexual victimization relied on the reporting of
the direct experience of each inmate, rather than inmates
reporting on the experience of other inmates. Questions
were asked related to inmate-on-inmate sexual activity
separately from questions related to staff sexual misconduct. (See pages 9 and 10 for specific survey items.)
The ACASI survey began with a series of questions that
screened for specific sexual activities, without restriction,
including both wanted and unwanted sex or sexual contacts with other inmates. As a means to measure fully all
sexual activities, questions related to the touching of body
parts in a sexual way were followed by questions related to
explicit giving or receiving of sexual gratification, and questions related to acts involving oral, anal, or vaginal sex. The
nature of coercion (including use of physical force, pressure, or other forms of coercion) was measured for each
type of reported sexual activity.
Once the types of sexual activity and the nature of coercion
were established, inmates were asked to report on the
number of times they had experienced each form of sexual
victimization. Incidents were separated into two categories:
nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual contacts.
(See Definition of terms on this page.) In reporting the number of times for each type of incident, inmates could select
one of four pre-coded categories: 1 time, 2 times, 3 to 10
times, and 11 times or more.

Inmates were also asked to report on the number of times
they had experienced each form of staff sexual misconduct,
willing or unwilling. The same pre-coded categories were
provided: 1 time, 2 times, 3 to 10 times, and 11 times or
more.
The ACASI survey included additional questions related to
both inmate-on-inmate and staff-on-inmate sexual victimization. These questions, known as latent class measures,
were included to assess the reliability of the survey questionnaire. After being asked detailed questions, all inmates
were asked a series of general questions to determine if
they had experienced any type of unwanted sex or sexual
contact with another inmate or had any sex or sexual contact with staff. (See page 11 for specific survey items.)
The entire ACASI questionnaire and the shorter paper and
pencil survey form (PAPI) are available on the BJS web site
at <http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/quest.htm#nis>.
Definition of terms
Sexual victimization - all types of sexual activity, e.g., 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. Includes nonconsensual sexual
acts, abusive sexual contacts, and both willing and unwilling sexual acitivity with staff.
Nonconsensual sexual acts - unwanted contacts with
another inmate or unwilling contacts with staff that involved
oral sex, anal sex, vaginal sex, handjobs, and other sexual
acts.
Abusive sexual contacts only - 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.
Unwilling activity - incidents of unwanted sexual contacts
with another inmate or staff.
Willing activity - incidents of willing sexual contacts with
staff. These contacts are characterized by the reporting
inmate as willing; however, all sexual contacts between
inmates and staff are legally nonconsensual.

ACASI survey items related to staff sexual misconduct
were asked in a different order from inmate-on-inmate
activity. Inmates were first asked about being pressured or
being made to feel they had to have sex or sexual contact
and then asked about being physically forced. In addition,
inmates were asked if any facility staff had offered favors or
special privileges in exchange for sex. Finally, inmates
were asked if they willingly had sex or sexual contact with
staff. All reports of sex or sexual contact between an
inmate and facility staff were included in the total sexual
victimization classification, regardless of level of coercion.

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
use physical force to touch your butt, thighs, or penis
in a sexual way?

E18. During the last 12 months, did another inmate
use physical force to touch your butt, thighs, breasts,
or vagina in a sexual way?

E17. During the last 12 months, did another inmate,
without using physical force, pressure you or make
you feel that you had to let them touch your butt,
thighs, or penis in a sexual way?

E19. During the last 12 months, did another inmate,
without using physical force, pressure you or make
you feel that you had to let them touch your butt,
thighs, breasts, or vagina in a sexual way?

E22. During the last 12 months, did another inmate
use physical force to make you give or receive a
handjob?

E24. During the last 12 months, did another inmate
use physical force to make you give or receive oral
sex?

E23. During the last 12 months, did another inmate,
without using physical force, pressure you or make
you feel that you had to give or receive a handjob?

E25. During the last 12 months, did another inmate,
without using physical force, pressure you or make
you feel that you had to give or receive oral sex?

E26. During the last 12 months, did another inmate
use physical force to make you give or receive oral
sex or a blow job?

E28. During the last 12 months, did another inmate
use physical force to make you have vaginal sex?

E27. During the last 12 months, did another inmate,
without using physical force, pressure you or make
you feel that you had to give or receive oral sex or a
blow job?
E32. During the last 12 months, did another inmate
use physical force to make you have anal sex?
E33. During the last 12 months, did another inmate,
without using physical force, pressure you or make
you feel that you had to have anal sex?
E34. During the last 12 months, did another inmate
use physical force to make you have any type of sex
or sexual contact other than sexual touching,
handjobs, oral sex or blow jobs, or anal sex?
E35. During the last 12 months, did another inmate,
without using physical force, pressure you or make
you feel that you had to have any type of sex or
sexual contact other than sexual touching, handjobs,
oral sex or blowjobs, or anal sex?

E29. During the last 12 months, did another inmate,
without using physical force, pressure you or make
you feel that you had to have vaginal sex?
E32. During the last 12 months, did another inmate
use physical force to make you have anal sex?
E33. During the last 12 months, did another inmate,
without using physical force, pressure you or make
you feel that you had to have anal sex?
E34. During the last 12 months, did another inmate
use physical force to make you have any type of sex
or sexual contact other than sexual touching, oral sex,
vaginal sex, or anal sex?
E35. During the last 12 months, did another inmate,
without using physical force, pressure you or make
you feel that you had to have any type of sex or
sexual contact other than sexual touching, oral sex,
vaginal sex, 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
employees of this facility and anybody who works as a volunteer in this facility.
G4 During the last 12 months, have any facility staff
pressured you or made you feel that you had to let them
have sex or sexual contact with you?
G5 During the last 12 months, have you been physically
forced by any facility staff to have sex or sexual contact?
G7 During the last 12 months, have any facility staff
offered you favors or special privileges in exchange for
sex or sexual contact?

G11 [IF G2 OR G4 OR G5 = Yes] During the last 12
months, which of the following types of sex or sexual contact did you have with a facility staff person?
G11a. You touched a facility staff person's body or had
your body touched in a sexual way.
G11b. You gave or received a handjob.
G11c. You gave or received oral sex or a blowjob.
G11d. You had vaginal sex.
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
activity in the screener questions for sexual activity
with inmates:

Follow-up questions for inmates reporting no sexual
activity in the screener questions for sexual activity
with staff:

LCM1 During the last 12 months, did another inmate use
physical force, pressure you, or make you feel that you
had to have any type of sex or sexual contact?

LCM5 During the last 12 months, have you had any sex
or sexual contact with staff in this facility whether you
wanted to have it or not?

LCM2 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 any type of sex or sexual
contact?

LCM6 How long has it been since you had any sex or
sexual contact with staff in this facility whether you wanted
to or not?
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
months

4. ‰ More than 12 months ago

4. ‰ More than 12 months ago

5. ‰ This has not happened to me at this facility

5. ‰ This has not happened to me at this facility

LCM7 In the last 12 months, did you have oral, vaginal,
or anal sex with any staff at this facility whether you
wanted to or not?

LCM3 [If Male] During the last 12 months, did another
inmate use physical force, pressure you, or make you feel
that you had to have oral or anal sex?
[If Female] During the last 12 months, did another
inmate use physical force, pressure you, or make you feel
that you had to have oral, vaginal, or anal sex?
LCM4 [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?

LCM8 How long has it been since you had oral, vaginal,
or anal sex with any staff at this facility whether you
wanted to or not?
LCM8b How long has it been since you had oral or anal
sex with any staff at this facility whether you wanted to or
not?

[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
Office of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Statistics

*NCJ~219414*

PRESORTED STANDARD
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
DOJ/BJS
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
Sedgwick is Director.
Allen J. Beck and Paige M. Harrison wrote this report.
RTI International statisticians, under the direction of
Marcus Berzofsky, produced tables in the appendix.
Allen J. Beck, Paige M. Harrison, and RTI staff
provided statistical review and verification. Doris J.
James and Tina Dorsey produced and edited the
report. Jayne Robinson prepared the report for
publication.
Paige M. Harrison, under the supervision of Allen J.
Beck, was project manager for the National Inmate

This report in portable document format and in
ASCII and its related statistical data and tables are
available at the BJS World Wide Web Internet site:
<http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/
svsfpri07.htm>.

Survey. RTI staff, under a cooperative agreement and
in collaboration with BJS, designed the survey,
developed the questionnaires, and monitored data
collection and data processing: Rachel Caspar,
Principal Investigator/Instrumentation Task Leader;
Christopher Krebs, Co-Principal Investigator; Ellen
Stutts, Co-Principal Investigator and Data Collection
Task Leader; Susan Brumbaugh, Logistics Task
Leader; Jamia Bachrach, Protection of Human
Subjects Task Leader; David Forvendel, Research
Computing Task Leader; Ralph Folsom, Senior
Statistician; and Marcus Berzofsky, Sampling and
Statistical Analysis Task Leader.
December 2007 NCJ 219414
Office of Justice Programs
Innovation • Partnerships • Safer Neighborhoods
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

Facility name
Total
Alabama
Julia Tutwiler Prisond
Limestone Corr. Fac.
Alaska
Wildwood Corr. Complex
Arizona
Arizona State Prison Complex - Eyman
Arizona State Prison Complex - Florence
Arizona State Prison Complex - Tucson
Arkansas
Diagnostic Unit
Jefferson County Corr. Fac.
California
Avenal State Prison
California Inst. for Men
California Sub. Abuse Treatment Fac. - Corcoran
California Men’s Colony
California Rehabilitation Ctr.
Calipatria State Prison
Central California Women's Fac.d
Corr. Training Fac.
Ironwood State Prison
Mule Creek State Prison
North Kern State Prison
R. J. Donovan Corr. Fac. at Rock Mountain
San Quentin State Prison
Sierra Conservation Ctr.
Valley State Prison for Womend
Colorado
Fremont Corr. Fac.
High Plains Corr. Fac.d,f
Connecticut
Osborn Corr. Inst.
Delaware
Howard R. Young Corr. Inst.e
Florida
Central Florida Reception Ctr. East, South & Main
Charlotte Corr. Inst.
Cross City Corr. Inst. & Work Camp
Hamilton Corr. Inst., Annex & Work Camp
Lowell Corr. Inst., Annex & Work Campd
Sumter Corr. Inst., Boot Camp & Work Camp
Taylor Corr. Inst. & Annex
Georgia
Hays State Prison
Men's Corr. State Prison
Metro State Prisond
Walker Corr. Inst.
Wilcox State Prison
Hawaii
Waiawa Corr. Fac.
Idaho
South Idaho Corr. Inst.
Illinois
Danville Corr. Ctr.
Dixon Corr. Ctr.
Logan Corr. Ctr.
Vienna Corr. Ctr.
Indiana
Plainfield Corr. Fac.
Rockville Corr. Fac.d
Iowa
Anamosa State Penitentiary

Number of respondents
Sexual
victimization Response
Total
survey
ratec

Number of
inmates
sampled

Number of
ineligible
inmatesb

264,251

37,362

1,017

26,157

23,398

959
2,044

251
274

6
2

228
210

212
191

93
77

361

199

4

130

121

67

4,702
3,938
3,528

288
286
284

3
6
10

206
228
213

188
205
193

72
81
78

383
358

205
205

13
8

154
157

132
138

80
80

7,510
5,515
5,484
6,496
3,842
4,169
3,211
7,025
4,612
3,762
5,044
4,166
4,729
3,937
2,867

292
290
289
291
285
286
283
291
288
285
289
287
367
286
282

9
41
6
7
8
0
8
5
11
6
13
16
22
5
26

240
139
188
211
209
162
194
175
165
219
206
163
188
202
200

210
129
173
180
192
146
170
153
141
190
193
147
171
173
181

85
56
66
74
75
57
71
61
60
78
75
60
54
72
78

1,466
220

265
161

2
0

183
90

166
81

70
56

1,919

273

5

220

193

82

1,627

310

6

256

231

84

2,184
1,052
1,215
2,660
2,350
1,839
2,064

279
254
260
280
278
272
274

49
1
6
23
9
6
0

143
184
216
201
180
231
184

125
163
195
180
155
210
169

62
73
85
78
67
87
67

868
650
888
617
1,487

247
233
248
230
266

7
15
7
0
6

201
198
180
191
236

190
189
163
173
206

84
91
75
83
91

298

184

2

143

126

79

723

237

0

172

153

73

1,802
2,164
1,854
1,362

271
275
272
267

1
7
3
28

213
211
228
157

193
189
211
133

79
79
85
66

1,484
1,145

266
258

9
7

184
198

162
169

72
79

1,291

261

0

163

147

62

Number of
inmates in
custodya

72%

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.)

Facility name
Kansas
Hutchinson Corr. Fac.
Kentucky
Western Kentucky Corr. Complex
Louisiana
Dixon Corr. Inst.
Forcht-Wade Corr. Ctr.
Maine
Maine Corr. Ctr.e
Maryland
Baltimore Pre-Release Unit - Womend
Maryland Corr. Training Ctr.
Roxbury Corr. Inst.
Massachusetts
Old Colony Corr. Ctr.
Michigan
Bellamy Creek Corr. Fac.
Marquette Branch Prison
Ojibway Corr. Fac.
Minnesota
Minnesota Corr. Fac. - Stillwater
Mississippi
Harrison Community Work Ctr.
Missouri
Jefferson City Corr. Ctr.
Northeast Corr. Ctr.
Southeast Corr. Ctr.
Montana
Montana State Prison
Nebraska
Tecumseh State Corr. Inst.
Nevada
Florence McClure Women's Corr. Ctr.d
Southern Desert Corr. Ctr.
New Hampshire
New Hampshire State Prison for Men
New Jersey
Northern State Prison
South Woods State Prison
New Mexico
Lea County Corr. Fac.f
Penitentiary of New Mexico
New York
Arthur Kill Corr. Fac.
Elmira Corr. Fac.
Great Meadow Corr. Fac.
Greene Corr. Fac.
Wende Corr. Fac.
North Carolina
Avery Mitchell Corr. Inst.
Fountain Corr. Ctr.d
Gates Corr. Ctr.
Harnett Corr. Inst.
Odom Corr. Inst.
North Dakota
North Dakota State Penitentiary
Ohio
Belmont Corr. Inst.
Grafton Corr. Inst.
North Central Corr. Inst.
Oklahoma
Joseph Harp Corr. Ctr.
Oregon
Oregon State Corr. Inst.

Number of respondents
Sexual
victimization Response
Total
survey
ratec

Number of
inmates
sampled

Number of
ineligible
inmatesb

1,681

269

1

217

195

81%

624

234

12

112

100

50

1,549
629

267
231

3
7

208
162

184
146

79
72

690

237

8

189

173

83

120
2,773
1,733

123
280
270

3
4
4

66
177
207

64
160
189

55
64
78

932

250

3

137

119

55

1,746
1,155
1,060

271
258
255

6
9
2

190
196
188

170
174
168

72
79
74

1,388

264

5

189

163

73

98

99

1

87

80

89

1,947
1,872
1,445

273
272
265

6
5
1

236
246
191

215
225
171

88
92
72

1,447

265

3

203

189

77

885

245

2

94

85

39

618
1,579

230
268

3
7

181
218

160
203

80
84

1,498

266

2

190

173

72

2,775
3,331

280
283

4
3

163
203

148
179

59
73

1,215
858

259
246

2
4

166
92

148
83

65
38

923
1,610
1,604
1,672
870

249
270
268
270
247

8
22
5
7
11

186
141
164
209
156

168
126
144
189
140

77
57
62
79
66

803
458
91
866
381

243
214
92
247
204

5
6
1
3
9

186
144
67
178
119

164
129
52
163
103

78
69
74
73
61

388

205

15

137

124

72

2,720
1,435
2,321

280
265
277

5
2
4

195
145
174

177
133
147

71
55
64

1,328

263

19

209

195

86

867

247

9

200

177

84

Number of
inmates in
custodya

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.)

Facility name
Pennsylvania
Cambridge Springs State Corr. Inst.d
Dallas State Corr. Inst.
Fayette State Corr. Inst.
Graterford State Corr. Inst.
Rockview State Corr. Inst.
Rhode Island
John Moran Medium Security Fac.
Women's Divisiond
South Carolina
Allendale Corr. Inst.
Lee Corr. Inst.
South Dakota
South Dakota State Penitentiary
Tennessee
Northwest Corr. Complex
Tennessee Prison for Womend
Whiteville Corr. Fac.f
Texas
Allred Unit
Clements Unit
Coffield Unit
Dawson State Jaile,f
Estelle Unit
Fort Stockton Transfer Fac.
Hilltop Unitd
Holliday Transfer Fac.
Lockhart Unite,f
Lopez State Jail
McConnell Unit
Mountain View Unitd
Polunsky Unit
Ramsey Unit #2
Wynne Unit
Utah
Utah State Prisone
Vermont
Chittenden Regional Corr. Fac.
Virginia
Red Onion State Prisong
St. Brides Corr. Ctr.
Washington
Stafford Creek Corr. Ctr.
West Virginia
Northern Regional Corr. Fac.
Wisconsin
Stanley Corr. Inst.
Waupun Corr. Inst.
Wyoming
Wyoming State Penitentiary

Number of
inmates in
custodya

Number of Number of
inmates
ineligible
sampled
inmatesb

Number of respondents
Sexual
victimization
Total
survey

Response
ratec

995
2,031
1,977
2,848
2,037

252
274
273
281
274

2
2
5
11
3

225
235
223
128
235

208
215
196
117
204

90%
86
83
47
87

881
248

247
214

1
15

150
141

132
128

61
71

1,282
1,690

261
270

9
11

153
180

138
154

61
70

1,406

265

15

186

158

74

2,233
722
1,477

276
238
265

8
3
2

184
169
200

161
152
179

69
72
76

3,623
3,636
4,085
2,111
2,760
577
624
1,873
995
1,049
2,819
566
2,848
1,148
2,590

284
285
286
275
280
227
230
275
252
254
281
227
281
257
279

1
10
1
5
14
6
1
27
2
1
8
11
1
3
3

200
161
217
188
223
184
219
220
160
170
187
172
256
217
217

186
142
194
165
197
163
197
195
132
148
162
154
236
197
200

71
59
76
70
84
83
96
89
64
67
69
80
91
85
79

3,786

285

5

228

196

81

167

175

25

94

82

63

257
380

173
200

1
0

97
75

87
67

56
38

1,953

273

1

147

134

54

249

171

1

121

106

71

1,499
1,233

266
260

13
1

171
189

157
172

68
73

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.)

Facility name
Federal Facilities (Bureau of Prisons)
Allenwood Low Fed. Corr. Inst.
Beaumont Low Fed. Corr. Inst.
Bennettsville-Camp
Big Sandy U.S. Penitentiary
Big Spring Corr. Inst.f
Cibola County Corr. Inst.f
Fort Dix Fed. Corr. Inst.
La Tuna - Fed. Satellite Fac. (El Paso)
Lexington Fed. Medical Fac.
McCreary U.S. Penitentiary
Memphis Fed. Corr. Inst.
Milan Fed. Corr. Inst.
Oakdale Fed. Detention Fac.
Pekin Fed. Corr. Inst.
Schuylkill Fed. Corr. Inst.
Taft Corr. Inst.f
Terminal Island Fed. Corr. Inst.
Victorville Med. I Fed. Corr. Inst.
Yazoo City Med. Fed. Corr. Inst.
aNumber
bInmates

Number of
inmates in
custodya
1,390
1,767
134
1,410
2,757
1,091
2,416
375
1,454
1,104
1,142
1,169
817
1,055
1,328
1,729
1,006
1,442
1,604

Number of Number of
inmates
ineligible
sampled
inmatesb
264
271
125
308
280
256
278
200
266
256
257
258
248
254
283
270
253
265
268

1
1
1
9
4
3
5
1
8
5
3
5
27
4
2
7
8
4
9

Number of respondents
Sexual
victimization
Total
survey
223
219
85
141
182
154
213
155
185
128
152
198
67
143
196
251
172
133
217

199
194
77
125
155
139
192
133
166
112
134
175
55
130
174
227
153
123
190

Response ratec
85%
81
69
47
66
61
78
78
72
51
60
78
30
57
70
95
70
51
84

of inmates in custody on day when the facility provided the sample roster.

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.)

c
Response 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.
d
e
f

Female facility.
Facility houses both males and females.

Privately 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
Total
Alabama
Julia Tutwiler Prisond
Limestone Corr. Fac.
Alaska
Wildwood Corr. Complex
Arizona
Arizona State Prison Complex - Eyman
Arizona State Prison Complex - Florence
Arizona State Prison Complex - Tucson
Arkansas
Diagnostic Unit
Jefferson County Corr. Fac.
California
Avenal State Prison
California Inst. for Men
California Sub. Abuse Treatment Fac. - Corcoran
California Men’s Colony
California Rehabilitation Ctr.
Calipatria State Prison
Central California Women's Fac.d
Corr. Training Fac.
Ironwood State Prison
Mule Creek State Prison
North Kern State Prison
R. J. Donovan Corr. Fac. at Rock Mountain
San Quentin State Prison
Sierra Conservation Ctr.
Valley State Prison for Womend
Colorado
Fremont Corr. Fac.
High Plains Corr. Fac.d,f
Connecticut
Osborn Corr. Inst.
Delaware
Howard R. Young Corr. Inst.e
Florida
Central Florida Reception Ctr. East, South & Main
Charlotte Corr. Inst.
Cross City Corr. Inst. & Work Camp
Hamilton Corr. Inst., Annex & Work Camp
Lowell Corr. Inst., Annex & Work Campd
Sumter Corr. Inst., Boot Camp & Work Camp
Taylor Corr. Inst. & Annex
Georgia
Hays State Prison
Men's Corr. State Prison
Metro State Prisond
Walker Corr. Inst.
Wilcox State Prison
Hawaii
Waiawa Corr. Fac.
Idaho
South Idaho Corr. Inst.
Illinois
Danville Corr. Ctr.
Dixon Corr. Ctr.
Logan Corr. Ctr.
Vienna Corr. Ctr.
Indiana
Plainfield Corr. Fac.
Rockville Corr. Fac.d

Reported

Weightedb

Standard errorc

4.8%

4.5%

0.3%

6.6
3.1

6.3
3.3

1.5
1.3

5.0

4.9

1.6

5.3
1.0
1.0

7.5
0.8
0.9

2.5
0.5
0.6

0.8
2.2

0.9
3.5

0.7
1.8

1.4
3.1
6.9
2.2
3.1
1.4
7.1
1.3
0.0
6.3
0.5
6.1
5.3
5.2
9.9

1.4
2.6
7.2
2.3
3.1
1.3
7.0
1.1
0.0
6.8
0.7
5.9
4.1
4.7
10.3

0.8
1.3
2.0
1.2
1.2
0.9
2.1
0.9
0.0
1.9
0.7
1.9
1.4
1.5
2.3

6.0
4.9

5.2
5.9

1.6
2.7

2.1

1.7

0.8

3.0

4.1

1.6

0.8
10.4
5.1
5.0
7.7
5.2
3.0

0.4
12.1
5.5
5.1
7.0
5.9
2.7

0.4
2.7
1.6
1.6
2.1
1.8
1.2

9.0
7.9
7.4
1.7
2.9

9.1
7.0
8.0
2.3
2.8

1.9
1.7
2.2
1.2
1.1

1.6

1.6

0.9

2.0

1.8

1.0

1.6
6.9
2.8
3.0

1.6
6.7
3.3
2.9

0.9
1.9
1.3
1.4

8.0
11.2

7.8
10.8

2.1
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
Iowa
Anamosa State Penitentiary
Kansas
Hutchinson Corr. Fac.
Kentucky
Western Kentucky Corr. Complex
Louisiana
Dixon Corr. Inst.
Forcht-Wade Corr. Ctr.
Maine
Maine Corr. Ctr.e
Maryland
Baltimore Pre-Release Unit - Womend
Maryland Corr. Training Ctr.
Roxbury Corr. Inst.
Massachusetts
Old Colony Corr. Ctr.
Michigan
Bellamy Creek Corr. Fac.
Marquette Branch Prison
Ojibway Corr. Fac.
Minnesota
Minnesota Corr. Fac. - Stillwater
Mississippi
Harrison Community Work Ctr.
Missouri
Jefferson City Corr. Ctr.
Northeast Corr. Ctr.
Southeast Corr. Ctr.
Montana
Montana State Prison
Nebraska
Tecumseh State Corr. Inst.
Nevada
Florence McClure Women's Corr. Ctr.d
Southern Desert Corr. Ctr.
New Hampshire
New Hampshire State Prison for Men
New Jersey
Northern State Prison
South Woods State Prison
New Mexico
Lea County Corr. Fac.f
Penitentiary of New Mexico
New York
Arthur Kill Corr. Fac.
Elmira Corr. Fac.
Great Meadow Corr. Fac.
Greene Corr. Fac.
Wende Corr. Fac.
North Carolina
Avery Mitchell Corr. Inst.
Fountain Corr. Ctr.d
Gates Corr. Ctr.
Harnett Corr. Inst.
Odom Corr. Inst.
North Dakota
North Dakota State Penitentiary
Ohio
Belmont Corr. Inst.
Grafton Corr. Inst.
North Central Corr. Inst.

Reported

Weightedb

4.8%

4.1%

1.5%

5.1

5.4

1.6

2.0

2.0

1.3

4.9
1.4

5.4
1.5

1.7
0.9

5.8

5.6

1.6

4.7
7.5
7.4

6.0
8.5
8.2

2.5
2.4
2.0

6.7

6.6

2.2

8.2
7.5
4.8

7.9
6.8
4.6

2.1
1.7
1.5

3.1

2.2

1.0

1.2

0.9

0.4

7.9
4.0
7.0

7.9
3.7
7.1

1.7
1.2
1.9

7.4

7.9

1.9

11.8

13.4

4.0

9.4
4.9

7.7
5.8

1.8
1.7

6.4

6.2

1.7

4.0
3.4

3.7
4.4

1.6
2.1

4.0
0.0

5.0
0.0

1.9
0.0

4.2
4.8
11.8
2.1
6.4

3.4
5.1
11.3
1.9
6.2

1.1
2.2
2.7
0.9
1.9

3.7
5.4
0.0
6.1
4.8

3.6
4.3
0.0
5.5
4.7

1.4
1.4
0.0
1.6
1.8

5.6

5.6

1.8

3.4
3.8
4.8

3.6
4.8
3.8

1.4
2.0
1.4

18 Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007

Standard errorc

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
Oklahoma
Joseph Harp Corr. Ctr.
Oregon
Oregon State Corr. Inst.
Pennsylvania
Cambridge Springs State Corr. Inst.d
Dallas State Corr. Inst.
Fayette State Corr. Inst.
Graterford State Corr. Inst.
Rockview State Corr. Inst.
Rhode Island
John Moran Medium Security Fac.
Women's Divisiond
South Carolina
Allendale Corr. Inst.
Lee Corr. Inst.
South Dakota
South Dakota State Penitentiary
Tennessee
Northwest Corr. Complex
Tennessee Prison for Womend
Whiteville Corr. Fac.f
Texas
Allred Unit
Clements Unit
Coffield Unit
Dawson State Jaile,f
Estelle Unit
Fort Stockton Transfer Fac.
Hilltop Unitd
Holliday Transfer Fac.
Lockhart Unite,f
Lopez State Jail
McConnell Unit
Mountain View Unitd
Polunsky Unit
Ramsey Unit #2
Wynne Unit
Utah
Utah State Prisone
Vermont
Chittenden Regional Corr. Fac.
Virginia
Red Onion State Prisong
St. Brides Corr. Ctr.
Washington
Stafford Creek Corr. Ctr.
West Virginia
Northern Regional Corr. Fac.
Wisconsin
Stanley Corr. Inst.
Waupun Corr. Inst.
Wyoming
Wyoming State Penitentiary

Reported

Weightedb

Standard errorc

6.2%

6.3%

1.7%

5.1

4.2

1.3

4.3
2.3
7.1
4.3
2.0

4.4
2.5
8.1
3.8
1.9

1.3
1.1
2.0
1.9
1.0

3.8
8.6

3.5
7.5

1.4
1.6

5.1
9.1

4.7
8.7

1.7
2.2

7.0

7.2

2.2

4.4
5.3
7.3

3.5
4.8
7.1

1.4
1.5
1.9

10.2
14.1
9.3
3.0
15.2
1.2
3.6
1.0
5.3
1.4
8.6
12.3
5.5
4.1
5.0

9.9
13.9
9.3
2.9
15.7
1.3
3.4
1.1
7.3
1.3
8.0
9.5
5.3
4.5
5.5

2.2
2.9
2.1
1.3
2.6
0.8
1.1
0.7
2.7
0.8
2.1
1.9
1.4
1.4
1.7

8.7

7.7

1.9

4.9

5.3

1.8

3.4
4.5

3.6
4.2

1.7
2.2

5.2

6.5

2.6

4.7

4.3

1.5

4.5
7.0

3.8
6.8

1.4
1.8

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
Federal Facilities (Bureau of Prisons)
Allenwood Low Fed. Corr. Inst.
Beaumont Low Fed. Corr. Inst.
Bennettsville-Camp
Big Sandy U.S. Penitentiary
Big Spring Corr. Inst.f
Cibola County Corr. Inst.f
Fort Dix Fed. Corr. Inst.
La Tuna - Fed. Satellite Fac. (El Paso)
Lexington Fed. Medical Fac.
McCreary U.S. Penitentiary
Memphis Fed. Corr. Inst.
Milan Fed. Corr. Inst.
Oakdale Fed. Detention Fac.
Pekin Fed. Corr. Inst.
Schuylkill Fed. Corr. Inst.
Taft Corr. Inst.f
Terminal Island Fed. Corr. Inst.
Victorville Med. I Fed. Corr. Inst.
Yazoo City Med. Fed. Corr. Inst.

Reported
1.5%
1.6
0.0
2.4
0.0
1.4
1.6
1.5
2.4
0.9
2.2
0.6
1.8
6.2
0.0
0.4
1.3
3.2
3.2

Weightedb
1.3%
1.6
0.0
2.4
0.0
0.7
0.8
1.0
2.3
0.8
1.8
0.8
2.7
4.8
0.0
0.3
1.0
3.5
3.1

Standard errorc
0.7%
0.9
0.0
1.4
0.0
0.5
0.5
0.6
1.1
0.7
1.0
0.7
2.6
1.8
0.0
0.3
0.7
1.7
1.3

a
Percent 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.
b

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
weighting and nonresponse adjustments.)

c
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%).
d

Female facility.

eFacility

houses both males and females.

fPrivately
g

operated facility.

Excludes 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

Facility name
Total
Alabama
Julia Tutwiler Prisond
Limestone Corr. Fac.
Alaska
Wildwood Corr. Complex
Arizona
Arizona State Prison Complex - Eyman
Arizona State Prison Complex - Florence
Arizona State Prison Complex - Tucson
Arkansas
Diagnostic Unit
Jefferson County Corr. Fac.
California
Avenal State Prison
California Inst. for Men
California Sub. Abuse Treatment Fac. - Corcoran
California Men’s Colony
California Rehabilitation Ctr.
Calipatria State Prison
Central California Women's Fac.d
Corr. Training Fac.
Ironwood State Prison
Mule Creek State Prison
North Kern State Prison
R. J. Donovan Corr. Fac. at Rock Mountain
San Quentin State Prison
Sierra Conservation Ctr.
Valley State Prison for Womend
Colorado
Fremont Corr. Fac.
High Plains Corr. Fac.d,f
Connecticut
Osborn Corr. Inst.
Delaware
Howard R. Young Corr. Inst.e
Florida
Central Florida Reception Ctr. East, South & Main
Charlotte Corr. Inst.
Cross City Corr. Inst. & Work Camp
Hamilton Corr. Inst., Annex & Work Camp
Lowell Corr. Inst., Annex & Work Campd
Sumter Corr. Inst., Boot Camp & Work Camp
Taylor Corr. Inst. & Annex
Georgia
Hays State Prison
Men's Corr. State Prison
Metro State Prisond
Walker Corr. Inst.
Wilcox State Prison
Hawaii
Waiawa Corr. Fac.
Idaho
South Idaho Corr. Inst.
Illinois
Danville Corr. Ctr.
Dixon Corr. Ctr.
Logan Corr. Ctr.
Vienna Corr. Ctr.
Indiana
Plainfield Corr. Fac.
Rockville Corr. Fac.d

Percent victimized Standard errorc

Abusive sexual contacts onlyb

Percent victimized Standard errorc

3.3%

0.2%

1.3%

0.1%

5.3
2.6

1.4
1.2

1.0
0.7

0.5
0.7

4.0

1.4

0.9

0.7

4.7
0.0
0.9

2.3
0.0
0.6

2.8
0.8
0.0

1.2
0.5
0.0

0.9
2.9

0.7
1.8

0.0
0.6

0.0
0.4

1.0
1.8
5.7
2.3
2.7
1.3
4.2
0.0
0.0
4.7
0.7
4.8
2.8
4.1
2.4

0.7
1.0
1.9
1.2
1.2
0.9
1.5
0.0
0.0
1.6
0.7
1.8
1.1
1.4
1.1

0.4
0.8
1.5
0.0
0.4
0.0
2.8
1.1
0.0
2.2
0.0
1.1
1.3
0.6
7.9

0.4
0.8
0.9
0.0
0.4
0.0
1.5
0.9
0.0
1.1
0.0
0.8
0.8
0.6
2.1

3.2
4.5

1.3
2.6

2.0
1.5

1.0
0.8

0.8

0.5

0.9

0.6

2.8

1.0

1.4

1.2

0.4
12.1
4.0
4.3
3.7
4.5
1.7

0.4
2.7
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.6
0.9

0.0
0.0
1.5
0.8
3.3
1.4
1.0

0.0
0.0
0.9
0.8
1.3
0.8
0.7

5.4
4.3
4.3
1.1
2.8

1.5
1.2
1.5
0.7
1.1

3.7
2.7
3.7
1.2
0.0

1.3
1.2
1.7
1.0
0.0

1.6

0.9

0.0

0.0

1.1

0.7

0.8

0.7

0.5
6.0
2.2
2.9

0.5
1.7
0.9
1.4

1.1
0.7
1.0
0.0

0.8
0.7
1.0
0.0

6.4
6.6

1.9
2.0

1.4
4.2

1.0
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
Facility name
Iowa
Anamosa State Penitentiary
Kansas
Hutchinson Corr. Fac.
Kentucky
Western Kentucky Corr. Complex
Louisiana
Dixon Corr. Inst.
Forcht-Wade Corr. Ctr.
Maine
Maine Corr. Ctr.e
Maryland
Baltimore Pre-Release Unit - Womend
Maryland Corr. Training Ctr.
Roxbury Corr. Inst.
Massachusetts
Old Colony Corr. Ctr.
Michigan
Bellamy Creek Corr. Fac.
Marquette Branch Prison
Ojibway Corr. Fac.
Minnesota
Minnesota Corr. Fac. - Stillwater
Mississippi
Harrison Community Work Ctr.
Missouri
Jefferson City Corr. Ctr.
Northeast Corr. Ctr.
Southeast Corr. Ctr.
Montana
Montana State Prison
Nebraska
Tecumseh State Corr. Inst.
Nevada
Florence McClure Women's Corr. Ctr.d
Southern Desert Corr. Ctr.
New Hampshire
New Hampshire State Prison for Men
New Jersey
Northern State Prison
South Woods State Prison
New Mexico
Lea County Corr. Fac.f
Penitentiary of New Mexico
New York
Arthur Kill Corr. Fac.
Elmira Corr. Fac.
Great Meadow Corr. Fac.
Greene Corr. Fac.
Wende Corr. Fac.
North Carolina
Avery Mitchell Corr. Inst.
Fountain Corr. Ctr.d
Gates Corr. Ctr.
Harnett Corr. Inst.
Odom Corr. Inst.
North Dakota
North Dakota State Penitentiary

c

Percent victimized Standard error

Abusive sexual contacts onlyb

Percent victimized Standard errorc

1.7%

0.9%

2.4%

1.2%

4.8

1.5

0.5

0.5

2.0

1.3

0.0

0.0

4.7
0.8

1.6
0.7

0.6
0.7

0.6
0.7

2.1

0.9

3.5

1.4

2.8
6.6
5.7

1.9
2.2
1.7

3.2
1.9
2.5

1.7
1.0
1.2

2.7

1.5

3.9

1.6

6.6
5.7
3.9

1.9
1.6
1.4

1.4
1.1
0.7

1.0
0.7
0.6

1.3

0.7

1.0

0.6

0.9

0.4

0.0

0.0

3.8
3.1
5.8

1.3
1.1
1.7

4.1
0.6
1.4

1.3
0.4
0.9

5.3

1.7

2.6

1.1

11.2

3.6

2.2

2.1

4.4
2.3

1.3
1.1

3.2
3.5

1.3
1.3

5.3

1.6

0.9

0.8

2.5
3.9

1.3
2.1

1.2
0.5

0.8
0.5

4.1
0.0

1.7
0.0

0.9
0.0

0.9
0.0

2.9
5.1
6.1
1.6
3.5

1.1
2.2
2.1
0.9
1.5

0.4
0.0
5.3
0.3
2.7

0.4
0.0
1.7
0.3
1.3

3.0
2.4
0.0
3.7
4.7

1.2
1.0
0.0
1.3
1.8

0.6
1.9
0.0
1.7
0.0

0.5
0.9
0.0
0.9
0.0

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
Facility name
Ohio
Belmont Corr. Inst.
Grafton Corr. Inst.
North Central Corr. Inst.
Oklahoma
Joseph Harp Corr. Ctr.
Oregan
Oregon State Corr. Inst.
Pennsylvania
Cambridge Springs State Corr. Inst.d
Dallas State Corr. Inst.
Fayette State Corr. Inst.
Graterford State Corr. Inst.
Rockview State Corr. Inst.
Rhode Island
John Moran Medium Security Fac.
Women's Divisiond
South Carolina
Allendale Corr. Inst.
Lee Corr. Inst.
South Dakota
South Dakota State Penitentiary
Tennessee
Northwest Corr. Complex
Tennessee Prison for Womend
Whiteville Corr. Fac.f
Texas
Allred Unit
Clements Unit
Coffield Unit
Dawson State Jaile,f
Estelle Unit
Fort Stockton Transfer Fac.
Hilltop Unitd
Holliday Transfer Fac.
Lockhart Unite,f
Lopez State Jail
McConnell Unit
Mountain View Unitd
Polunsky Unit
Ramsey Unit #2
Wynne Unit
Utah
Utah State Prisone
Vermont
Chittenden Regional Corr. Fac.
Virginia
Red Onion State Prisong
St. Brides Corr. Ctr.
Washington
Stafford Creek Corr. Ctr.
West Virginia
Northern Regional Corr. Fac.
Wisconsin
Stanley Corr. Inst.
Waupun Corr. Inst.
Wyoming
Wyoming State Penitentiary

Percent victimized Standard error

c

Abusive sexual contacts onlyb

Percent victimized Standard errorc

3.6%
4.8
2.1

1.4%
2.0
1.0

0.0%
0.0
1.6

0.0%
0.0
0.9

3.6

1.3

2.6

1.2

2.7

1.0

1.5

0.8

2.3
1.6
6.1
3.2
1.9

1.0
0.9
1.7
1.8
1.0

2.2
0.9
2.0
0.6
0.0

0.9
0.6
1.1
0.5
0.0

2.7
5.3

1.2
1.3

0.8
2.2

0.7
0.9

4.7
7.6

1.7
2.1

0.0
1.1

0.0
0.8

5.2

1.8

2.1

1.3

2.6
3.7
6.3

1.1
1.3
1.7

0.9
1.1
0.8

0.9
0.7
0.8

8.0
8.1
7.7
0.7
11.3
0.7
1.9
1.1
3.6
1.3
5.6
3.4
3.2
3.4
3.2

2.0
2.3
1.9
0.6
2.3
0.6
0.8
0.7
2.0
0.8
1.7
1.1
1.1
1.3
1.3

1.9
5.8
1.5
2.2
4.4
0.6
1.5
0.0
3.7
0.0
2.4
6.2
2.1
1.1
2.4

1.0
2.0
0.9
1.2
1.5
0.5
0.7
0.0
1.8
0.0
1.3
1.6
0.9
0.7
1.2

5.0

1.6

2.8

1.1

4.0

1.6

1.3

0.9

3.6
4.2

1.7
2.2

0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0

4.6

2.3

1.9

1.3

1.8

1.0

2.6

1.1

3.1
5.2

1.2
1.6

0.7
1.6

0.6
0.9

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
Facility name
Federal Facilities (Bureau of Prisons)
Allenwood Low Fed. Corr. Inst.
Beaumont Low Fed. Corr. Inst.
Bennettsville-Camp
Big Sandy U.S. Penitentiary
Big Spring Corr. Inst.f
Cibola County Corr. Inst.f
Fort Dix Fed. Corr. Inst.
La Tuna - Fed. Satellite Fac. (El Paso)
Lexington Fed. Medical Fac.
McCreary U.S. Penitentiary
Memphis Fed. Corr. Inst.
Milan Fed. Corr. Inst.
Oakdale Fed. Detention Fac.
Pekin Fed. Corr. Inst.
Schuylkill Fed. Corr. Inst.
Taft Corr. Inst.f
Terminal Island Fed. Corr. Inst.
Victorville Med. I Fed. Corr. Inst.
Yazoo City Med. Fed. Corr. Inst.

Percent victimized Standard
1.3%
1.6
0.0
2.4
0.0
0.7
0.6
0.4
1.7
0.0
0.6
0.0
2.7
1.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.5
2.2

errorc

0.7%
0.9
0.0
1.4
0.0
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.9
0.0
0.5
0.0
2.6
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.7
1.0

Abusive sexual contacts onlyb

Percent victimized Standard errorc
0.0%
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.5
0.6
0.8
1.2
0.8
0.0
3.5
0.0
0.3
1.0
0.0
0.9

0.0%
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.7
0.0
1.6
0.0
0.3
0.7
0.0
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.)

b
Includes all inmates who reported unwanted contacts with another inmate or unwilling contacts with staff that involved touching
of the inmate's butt, thighs, penis, breasts, or vagina in a sexual way.
c

Standard errors may be used to construct confidence intervals around the weighted survey estimates. (See Methodology.)

d

Female facility.

eFacility
f

houses both males and females.

Privately operated facility.

g

Excludes 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
Facility name
Total
Alabama
Julia Tutwiler Prisonc
Limestone Corr. Fac.
Alaska
Wildwood Corr. Complex
Arizona
Arizona State Prison Complex - Eyman
Arizona State Prison Complex - Florence
Arizona State Prison Complex - Tucson
Arkansas
Diagnostic Unit
Jefferson County Corr. Fac.
California
Avenal State Prison
California Inst. for Men
California Sub. Abuse Treatment Fac. - Corcoran
California Men’s Colony
California Rehabilitation Ctr.
Calipatria State Prison
Central California Women's Fac.c
Corr. Training Fac.
Ironwood State Prison
Mule Creek State Prison
North Kern State Prison
R. J. Donovan Corr. Fac. at Rock Mountain
San Quentin State Prison
Sierra Conservation Ctr.
Valley State Prison for Womenc
Colorado
Fremont Corr. Fac.
High Plains Corr. Fac.c,e
Connecticut
Osborn Corr. Inst.
Delaware
Howard R. Young Corr. Inst.d
Florida
Central Florida Reception Ctr. East, South & Main
Charlotte Corr. Inst.
Cross City Corr. Inst. & Work Camp
Hamilton Corr. Inst., Annex & Work Camp
Lowell Corr. Inst., Annex & Work Campc
Sumter Corr. Inst., Boot Camp & Work Camp
Taylor Corr. Inst. & Annex
Georgia
Hays State Prison
Men's Corr. State Prison
Metro State Prisonc
Walker Corr. Inst.
Wilcox State Prison
Hawaii
Waiawa Corr. Fac.
Idaho
South Idaho Corr. Inst.
Illinois
Danville Corr. Ctr.
Dixon Corr. Ctr.
Logan Corr. Ctr.
Vienna Corr. Ctr.
Indiana
Plainfield Corr. Fac.
Rockville Corr. Fac.c

Percent victimized Standard error

b

Staff-on-inmatea

Percent victimized Standard errorb

2.1%

0.1%

2.9%

0.2%

5.0
2.6

1.4
1.1

1.7
0.8

0.8
0.7

2.5

1.2

3.1

1.3

1.9
0.4
0.5

1.1
0.4
0.5

5.6
0.4
0.3

2.3
0.4
0.3

0.0
1.3

0.0
0.7

0.9
2.2

0.7
1.7

0.9
0.8
2.9
0.9
1.0
0.0
5.7
0.2
0.0
5.3
0.0
3.9
2.0
1.9
7.9

0.6
0.8
1.3
0.6
0.7
0.0
2.0
0.2
0.0
1.7
0.0
1.6
0.9
1.0
2.0

1.0
1.8
4.2
1.8
2.1
1.3
1.7
0.9
0.0
2.2
0.7
3.3
2.2
3.7
5.3

0.7
1.0
1.6
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.9
0.0
1.1
0.7
1.5
1.1
1.4
1.8

3.6
2.2

1.3
1.2

2.2
3.8

1.1
2.5

0.4

0.4

1.3

0.7

1.4

0.7

3.8

1.6

0.4
1.1
2.0
3.3
5.7
2.4
0.4

0.4
0.7
1.1
1.3
1.9
1.2
0.4

0.0
11.4
3.5
2.8
1.8
3.5
2.3

0.0
2.6
1.2
1.2
0.9
1.4
1.1

4.1
5.1
7.6
1.6
1.4

1.4
1.5
2.2
1.1
0.7

6.6
2.9
1.6
0.6
2.0

1.7
1.0
0.9
0.5
0.9

0.7

0.5

1.6

0.9

0.0

0.0

1.8

1.0

1.6
4.2
1.4
0.6

0.9
1.5
1.0
0.5

0.0
3.9
1.8
2.3

0.0
1.4
0.9
1.3

4.1
10.2

1.5
2.3

4.0
2.0

1.5
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
Facility name
Iowa
Anamosa State Penitentiary
Kansas
Hutchinson Corr. Fac.
Kentucky
Western Kentucky Corr. Complex
Louisiana
Dixon Corr. Inst.
Forcht-Wade Corr. Ctr.
Maine
Maine Corr. Ctr.d
Maryland
Baltimore Pre-Release Unit - Womenc
Maryland Corr. Training Ctr.
Roxbury Corr. Inst.
Massachusetts
Old Colony Corr. Ctr.
Michigan
Bellamy Creek Corr. Fac.
Marquette Branch Prison
Ojibway Corr. Fac.
Minnesota
Minnesota Corr. Fac. - Stillwater
Mississippi
Harrison Community Work Ctr.
Missouri
Jefferson City Corr. Ctr.
Northeast Corr. Ctr.
Southeast Corr. Ctr.
Montana
Montana State Prison
Nebraska
Tecumseh State Corr. Inst.
Nevada
Florence McClure Women's Corr. Ctr.c
Southern Desert Corr. Ctr.
New Hampshire
New Hampshire State Prison for Men
New Jersey
Northern State Prison
South Woods State Prison
New Mexico
Lea County Corr. Fac.e
Penitentiary of New Mexico
New York
Arthur Kill Corr. Fac.
Elmira Corr. Fac.
Great Meadow Corr. Fac.
Greene Corr. Fac.
Wende Corr. Fac.
North Carolina
Avery Mitchell Corr. Inst.
Fountain Corr. Ctr.c
Gates Corr. Ctr.
Harnett Corr. Inst.
Odom Corr. Inst.
North Dakota
North Dakota State Penitentiary

Percent victimized Standard error

b

Staff-on-inmatea

Percent victimized Standard errorb

3.4%

1.4%

0.7%

0.5%

1.2

0.8

5.4

1.6

0.0

0.0

2.0

1.3

3.9
1.5

1.4
0.9

3.7
0.0

1.4
0.0

4.4

1.5

1.5

0.7

6.0
4.2
3.9

2.5
1.8
1.4

0.0
4.2
5.4

0.0
1.6
1.7

3.5

1.6

3.2

1.5

3.1
3.3
1.3

1.3
1.1
0.9

5.2
5.8
3.3

1.8
1.6
1.2

1.4

0.8

0.8

0.6

0.0

0.0

0.9

0.4

2.9
2.1
3.2

1.1
1.0
1.3

5.8
1.6
4.0

1.5
0.7
1.4

4.0

1.4

4.7

1.6

1.2

1.2

12.2

3.9

6.6
3.2

1.7
1.3

1.7
3.9

0.9
1.4

4.6

1.5

2.2

1.0

1.2
0.9

0.9
0.6

3.7
3.5

1.6
2.0

0.9
0.0

0.9
0.0

4.1
0.0

1.7
0.0

1.0
1.9
3.0
0.7
3.3

0.6
1.4
1.4
0.5
1.5

2.9
3.3
9.6
1.6
4.6

1.1
1.7
2.5
0.9
1.6

2.5
3.8
0.0
3.6
0.9

1.2
1.3
0.0
1.3
0.8

2.0
0.4
0.0
3.0
3.7

0.9
0.4
0.0
1.1
1.6

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
Facility name
Ohio
Belmont Corr. Inst.
Grafton Corr. Inst.
North Central Corr. Inst.
Oklahoma
Joseph Harp Corr. Ctr.
Oregan
Oregon State Corr. Inst.
Pennsylvania
Cambridge Springs State Corr. Inst.c
Dallas State Corr. Inst.
Fayette State Corr. Inst.
Graterford State Corr. Inst.
Rockview State Corr. Inst.
Rhode Island
John Moran Medium Security Fac.
Women's Divisionc
South Carolina
Allendale Corr. Inst.
Lee Corr. Inst.
South Dakota
South Dakota State Penitentiary
Tennessee
Northwest Corr. Complex
Tennessee Prison for Womenc
Whiteville Corr. Fac.e
Texas
Allred Unit
Clements Unit
Coffield Unit
Dawson State Jaild,e
Estelle Unit
Fort Stockton Transfer Fac.
Hilltop Unitc
Holliday Transfer Fac.
Lockhart Unitd,e
Lopez State Jail
McConnell Unit
Mountain View Unitc
Polunsky Unit
Ramsey Unit #2
Wynne Unit
Utah
Utah State Prisond
Vermont
Chittenden Regional Corr. Fac.
Virginia
Red Onion State Prison
St. Brides Corr. Ctr.
Washington
Stafford Creek Corr. Ctr.
West Virginia
Northern Regional Corr. Fac.
Wisconsin
Stanley Corr. Inst.
Waupun Corr. Inst.
Wyoming
Wyoming State Penitentiary

Percent victimized Standard

errorb

Staff-on-inmatea

Percent victimized Standard errorb

2.6%
2.7
2.2

1.3%
1.5
1.1

3.6%
2.1
2.2

1.4%
1.4
1.1

6.3

1.7

0.0

0.0

1.7

0.7

2.9

1.1

4.4
2.0
2.3
0.6
1.2

1.3
0.9
1.1
0.5
0.8

0.0
0.5
7.0
3.2
1.1

0.0
0.5
1.9
1.8
0.6

1.4
4.4

0.9
1.2

2.1
3.1

1.1
1.1

1.5
1.0

0.8
0.7

3.1
7.7

1.5
2.1

2.2

1.1

5.6

2.0

1.3
1.1
1.4

0.9
0.7
1.0

2.2
4.3
7.1

1.0
1.4
1.9

4.8
3.3
4.4
1.3
8.5
0.0
3.0
0.5
5.5
0.0
3.5
8.7
1.2
1.9
1.5

1.5
1.6
1.5
0.8
2.1
0.0
1.0
0.5
2.2
0.0
1.5
1.8
0.7
1.0
0.9

6.7
11.6
5.7
2.2
7.6
1.3
1.5
0.5
1.8
1.3
5.4
3.4
4.2
2.7
4.0

1.9
2.7
1.6
1.3
1.9
0.8
0.7
0.5
1.6
0.8
1.8
1.1
1.2
1.1
1.5

6.6

1.8

2.4

1.0

2.7

1.4

2.6

1.3

1.3
0.0

1.1
0.0

3.6
4.2

1.7
2.2

2.3

1.3

4.2

2.3

3.3

1.2

1.8

1.0

0.5
0.5

0.5
0.5

3.2
6.3

1.3
1.8

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

Facility name
Federal Facilities (Bureau of Prisons)
Allenwood Low Fed. Corr. Inst.
Beaumont Low Fed. Corr. Inst.
Bennettsville-Camp
Big Sandy U.S. Penitentiary
Big Spring Corr. Inst.e
Cibola County Corr. Inst.e
Fort Dix Fed. Corr. Inst.
La Tuna - Fed. Satellite Fac. (El Paso)
Lexington Fed. Medical Fac.
McCreary U.S. Penitentiary
Memphis Fed. Corr. Inst.
Milan Fed. Corr. Inst.
Oakdale Fed. Detention Fac.
Pekin Fed. Corr. Inst.
Schuylkill Fed. Corr. Inst.
Taft Corr. Inst.e
Terminal Island Fed. Corr. Inst.
Victorville Med. I Fed. Corr. Inst.
Yazoo City Med. Fed. Corr. Inst.

Percent victimized Standard errorb
0.0%
1.0
0.0
1.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.5
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.8
0.0
0.3
1.0
1.6
1.7

0.0%
0.7
0.0
1.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.8
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.0
0.3
0.7
1.1
1.1

Staff-on-inmatea

Percent victimized Standard errorb
1.3%
1.0
0.0
1.3
0.0
0.7
0.8
1.0
0.7
0.8
1.8
0.8
2.7
4.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.7
2.2

0.7%
0.7
0.0
0.9
0.0
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.7
1.0
0.7
2.6
1.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.5
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.

a

Includes 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
c

errors may be used to construct confidence intervals around the weighted survey estimates. (See Methodology.)

Female 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

Facility name
Total
Alabama
Julia Tutwiler Prisond
Limestone Corr. Fac.
Alaska
Wildwood Corr. Complex
Arizona
Arizona State Prison Complex - Eyman
Arizona State Prison Complex - Florence
Arizona State Prison Complex - Tucson
Arkansas
Diagnostic Unit
Jefferson County Corr. Fac.
California
Avenal State Prison
California Inst. for Men
California Sub. Abuse Treatment Fac. - Corcoran
California Men’s Colony
California Rehabilitation Ctr.
Calipatria State Prison
Central California Women's Fac.d
Corr. Training Fac.
Ironwood State Prison
Mule Creek State Prison
North Kern State Prison
R. J. Donovan Corr. Fac. at Rock Mountain
San Quentin State Prison
Sierra Conservation Ctr.
Valley State Prison for Womend
Colorado
Fremont Corr. Fac.
High Plains Corr. Fac.d,f
Connecticut
Osborn Corr. Inst.
Delaware
Howard R. Young Corr. Inst.e
Florida
Central Florida Reception Ctr. East, South & Main
Charlotte Corr. Inst.
Cross City Corr. Inst. & Work Camp
Hamilton Corr. Inst., Annex & Work Camp
Lowell Corr. Inst., Annex & Work Campd
Sumter Corr. Inst., Boot Camp & Work Camp
Taylor Corr. Inst. & Annex
Georgia
Hays State Prison
Men's Corr. State Prison
Metro State Prisond
Walker Corr. Inst.
Wilcox State Prison
Hawaii
Waiawa Corr. Fac.
Idaho
South Idaho Corr. Inst.
Illinois
Danville Corr. Ctr.
Dixon Corr. Ctr.
Logan Corr. Ctr.
Vienna Corr. Ctr.

Percent victimizeda Standard errorb

Staff-on-inmate

Percent victimizedc

Standard errorb

1.3%

0.1%

2.3%

0.2%

4.0
1.9

1.3
0.9

1.7
0.8

0.8
0.7

0.9

0.7

3.1

1.3

0.7
0.0
0.5

0.6
0.0
0.5

4.0
0.0
0.3

2.2
0.0
0.3

0.0
0.7

0.0
0.6

0.9
2.2

0.7
1.7

0.4
0.0
1.9
0.9
0.6
0.0
3.5
0.0
0.0
3.8
0.0
2.8
0.7
0.8
1.4

0.4
0.0
1.1
0.6
0.6
0.0
1.5
0.0
0.0
1.5
0.0
1.4
0.5
0.6
0.8

1.0
1.8
3.8
1.8
2.1
1.3
1.1
0.0
0.0
1.6
0.7
2.8
2.1
3.7
1.5

0.7
1.0
1.6
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.7
1.4
1.0
1.4
0.8

1.3
1.3

0.8
1.1

1.8
3.1

1.0
2.4

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.9

0.6

2.4

1.0

0.4
1.1
0.8
2.5
2.4
1.7
0.4

0.4
0.7
0.7
1.1
1.5
1.0
0.4

0.0
11.4
3.2
2.8
1.8
2.8
1.3

0.0
2.6
1.2
1.2
0.9
1.3
0.9

2.5
3.0
3.6
0.4
1.4

1.1
1.0
1.3
0.4
0.7

4.4
1.8
1.2
0.6
2.0

1.4
0.8
0.8
0.5
0.9

0.7

0.5

1.6

0.9

0.0

0.0

1.1

0.7

0.5
3.1
0.4
0.6

0.5
1.3
0.4
0.5

0.0
3.9
1.8
2.3

0.0
1.4
0.9
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

Facility name
Indiana
Plainfield Corr. Fac.
Rockville Corr. Fac.d
Iowa
Anamosa State Penitentiary
Kansas
Hutchinson Corr. Fac.
Kentucky
Western Kentucky Corr. Complex
Louisiana
Dixon Corr. Inst.
Forcht-Wade Corr. Ctr.
Maine
Maine Corr. Ctr.e
Maryland
Baltimore Pre-Release Unit - Womend
Maryland Corr. Training Ctr.
Roxbury Corr. Inst.
Massachusetts
Old Colony Corr. Ctr.
Michigan
Bellamy Creek Corr. Fac.
Marquette Branch Prison
Ojibway Corr. Fac.
Minnesota
Minnesota Corr. Fac. - Stillwater
Mississippi
Harrison Community Work Ctr.
Missouri
Jefferson City Corr. Ctr.
Northeast Corr. Ctr.
Southeast Corr. Ctr.
Montana
Montana State Prison
Nebraska
Tecumseh State Corr. Inst.
Nevada
Florence McClure Women's Corr. Ctr.d
Southern Desert Corr. Ctr.
New Hampshire
New Hampshire State Prison for Men
New Jersey
Northern State Prison
South Woods State Prison
New Mexico
Lea County Corr. Fac.f
Penitentiary of New Mexico
New York
Arthur Kill Corr. Fac.
Elmira Corr. Fac.
Great Meadow Corr. Fac.
Greene Corr. Fac.
Wende Corr. Fac.
North Carolina
Avery Mitchell Corr. Inst.
Fountain Corr. Ctr.d
Gates Corr. Ctr.
Harnett Corr. Inst.
Odom Corr. Inst.
North Dakota
North Dakota State Penitentiary

Percent victimizeda

Staff-on-inmate

Standard error

Percent victimizedb

Standard error

2.7%
4.6

1.2%
1.8

3.6%
2.0

1.5%
1.1

1.3

0.9

0.4

0.4

1.2

0.8

4.8

1.5

0.0

0.0

2.0

1.3

3.9
0.8

1.4
0.7

2.4
0.0

1.2
0.0

0.9

0.6

1.3

0.6

2.8
3.6
2.1

1.9
1.7
1.0

0.0
3.0
4.3

0.0
1.3
1.5

2.1

1.4

0.6

0.6

2.6
2.2
0.6

1.2
0.9
0.6

4.3
5.3
3.3

1.6
1.5
1.2

0.5

0.4

0.8

0.6

0.0

0.0

0.9

0.4

2.4
2.1
1.8

1.0
1.0
1.0

2.2
1.0
4.0

0.9
0.5
1.4

1.5

1.0

3.8

1.4

1.2

1.2

10.0

3.4

2.8
0.6

0.9
0.6

1.7
2.3

0.9
1.1

3.1

1.2

2.2

1.0

1.2
0.5

0.9
0.5

2.5
3.5

1.3
2.0

0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0

4.1
0.0

1.7
0.0

0.5
1.9
1.5
0.5
2.4

0.5
1.4
1.1
0.4
1.3

2.4
3.3
4.5
1.6
2.8

1.0
1.7
1.8
0.9
1.3

2.5
1.9
0.0
2.0
0.9

1.2
1.0
0.0
1.0
0.8

1.4
0.4
0.0
2.5
3.7

0.7
0.4
0.0
1.0
1.6

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

Facility name
Ohio
Belmont Corr. Inst.
Grafton Corr. Inst.
North Central Corr. Inst.
Oklahoma
Joseph Harp Corr. Ctr.
Oregan
Oregon State Corr. Inst.
Pennsylvania
Cambridge Springs State Corr. Inst.d
Dallas State Corr. Inst.
Fayette State Corr. Inst.
Graterford State Corr. Inst.
Rockview State Corr. Inst.
Rhode Island
John Moran Medium Security Fac.
Women's Divisiond
South Carolina
Allendale Corr. Inst.
Lee Corr. Inst.
South Dakota
South Dakota State Penitentiary
Tennessee
Northwest Corr. Complex
Tennessee Prison for Womend
Whiteville Corr. Fac.f
Texas
Allred Unit
Clements Unit
Coffield Unit
Dawson State Jaile,f
Estelle Unit
Fort Stockton Transfer Fac.
Hilltop Unitd
Holliday Transfer Fac.
Lockhart Unite,f
Lopez State Jail
McConnell Unit
Mountain View Unitd
Polunsky Unit
Ramsey Unit #2
Wynne Unit
Utah
Utah State Prisone
Vermont
Chittenden Regional Corr. Fac.
Virginia
Red Onion State Prison
St. Brides Corr. Ctr.
Washington
Stafford Creek Corr. Ctr.
West Virginia
Northern Regional Corr. Fac.
Wisconsin
Stanley Corr. Inst.
Waupun Corr. Inst.
Wyoming
Wyoming State Penitentiary

Staff-on-inmate

Percent victimizeda

Standard error

Percent victimizedb

2.1%
2.7
1.6

1.2%
1.5
0.9

3.6%
2.1
0.5

1.4%
1.4
0.5

3.6

1.3

0.0

0.0

0.8

0.5

2.3

0.9

2.3
1.6
1.6
0.0
0.8

1.0
0.9
0.9
0.0
0.7

0.0
0.0
5.6
3.2
1.1

0.0
0.0
1.7
1.8
0.6

0.6
2.2

0.5
0.8

2.1
3.1

1.1
1.1

1.5
1.0

0.8
0.7

3.1
6.6

1.5
2.0

1.8

1.0

3.9

1.6

0.4
0.0
1.4

0.4
0.0
1.0

2.2
3.7
6.3

1.0
1.3
1.7

4.0
1.6
3.3
0.0
5.1
0.0
1.0
0.5
1.9
0.0
2.1
2.7
0.7
1.4
0.6

1.4
1.1
1.3
0.0
1.6
0.0
0.6
0.5
1.3
0.0
1.2
1.0
0.5
0.9
0.5

4.9
6.5
5.3
0.7
6.6
0.7
1.0
0.5
1.8
1.3
4.5
2.3
2.5
2.1
2.6

1.6
2.0
1.5
0.6
1.7
0.6
0.6
0.5
1.6
0.8
1.6
0.9
1.0
0.9
1.2

4.1

1.5

1.8

0.9

2.7

1.4

1.3

0.9

1.3
0.0

1.1
0.0

3.6
4.2

1.7
2.2

1.4

1.0

3.1

2.1

0.7

0.5

1.8

1.0

0.5
0.5

0.5
0.5

2.5
4.7

1.1
1.5

0.0

0.0

4.2

1.4

Standard error

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

Facility name
Federal Facilities (Bureau of Prisons)
Allenwood Low Fed. Corr. Inst.
Beaumont Low Fed. Corr. Inst.
Bennettsville-Camp
Big Sandy U.S. Penitentiary
Big Spring Corr. Inst.f
Cibola County Corr. Inst.f
Fort Dix Fed. Corr. Inst.
La Tuna - Fed. Satellite Fac. (El Paso)
Lexington Fed. Medical Fac.
McCreary U.S. Penitentiary
Memphis Fed. Corr. Inst.
Milan Fed. Corr. Inst.
Oakdale Fed. Detention Fac.
Pekin Fed. Corr. Inst.
Schuylkill Fed. Corr. Inst.
Taft Corr. Inst.f
Terminal Island Fed. Corr. Inst.
Victorville Med. I Fed. Corr. Inst.
Yazoo City Med. Fed. Corr. Inst.
a
b

Standard error

0.0%
1.0
0.0
1.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.6
0.7

0.0%
0.7
0.0
1.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.1
0.7

Staff-on-inmate

Percent victimizedb Standard error
1.3%
1.0
0.0
1.3
0.0
0.7
0.6
0.4
0.7
0.0
0.6
0.0
2.7
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.7
2.2

0.7%
0.7
0.0
0.9
0.0
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.7
0.0
0.5
0.0
2.6
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.5
1.0

Includes only reports involving unwanted oral, anal, or vaginal penetration, handjobs, and other sexual acts by other inmates.
Standard errors may be used to construct confidence intervals around the weighted survey estimates. (See Methodology.)

cIncludes
dFemale
e

Percent victimizeda

all reports of staff sexual misconduct involving oral, anal ,or vaginal penetration, handjobs, and other sexual acts.

facility.

Facility 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
Facility name
Total
Alabama
Julia Tutwiler Prisonc
Limestone Corr. Fac.
Alaska
Wildwood Corr. Complex
Arizona
Arizona State Prison Complex - Eyman
Arizona State Prison Complex - Florence
Arizona State Prison Complex - Tucson
Arkansas
Diagnostic Unit
Jefferson County Corr. Fac.
California
Avenal State Prison
California Inst. for Men
California Sub. Abuse Treatment Fac. - Corcoran
California Men’s Colony
California Rehabilitation Ctr.
Calipatria State Prison
Central California Women's Fac.c
Corr. Training Fac.
Ironwood State Prison
Mule Creek State Prison
North Kern State Prison
R. J. Donovan Corr. Fac. at Rock Mountain
San Quentin State Prison
Sierra Conservation Ctr.
Valley State Prison for Womenc
Colorado
Fremont Corr. Fac.
High Plains Corr. Fac.c,e
Connecticut
Osborn Corr. Inst.
Delaware
Howard R. Young Corr. Inst.d
Florida
Central Florida Reception Ctr. East, South & Main
Charlotte Corr. Inst.
Cross City Corr. Inst. & Work Camp
Hamilton Corr. Inst., Annex & Work Camp
Lowell Corr. Inst., Annex & Work Campc
Sumter Corr. Inst., Boot Camp & Work Camp
Taylor Corr. Inst. & Annex
Georgia
Hays State Prison
Men's Corr. State Prison
Metro State Prisonc
Walker Corr. Inst.
Wilcox State Prison
Hawaii
Waiawa Corr. Fac.
Idaho
South Idaho Corr. Inst.
Illinois
Danville Corr. Ctr.
Dixon Corr. Ctr.
Logan Corr. Ctr.
Vienna Corr. Ctr.
Indiana
Plainfield Corr. Fac.
Rockville Corr. Fac.c

Physically forced

Pressureda

Staff-on-inmate
Without force or
pressureb
Physically forced Pressureda

1.3%

1.7%

0.9%

1.5%

1.7%

2.7
1.0

4.3
2.6

0.9
0.8

1.3
0.8

0.0
0.8

2.5

0.9

1.5

2.2

1.5

1.2
0.0
0.0

1.2
0.4
0.5

0.9
0.4
0.0

1.5
0.0
0.0

4.5
0.4
0.3

0.0
1.3

0.0
0.7

0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0

0.9
2.2

0.4
0.8
2.4
0.0
1.0
0.0
4.1
0.2
0.0
2.3
0.0
1.9
2.0
1.4
4.7

0.9
0.0
2.3
0.9
0.6
0.0
3.9
0.0
0.0
5.3
0.0
3.9
1.5
1.4
5.9

0.4
1.3
1.6
0.0
1.1
0.5
0.8
0.0
0.0
1.3
0.0
0.8
1.1
1.7
1.5

0.4
1.1
2.0
0.7
1.5
1.3
1.3
0.9
0.0
1.8
0.0
3.3
1.1
2.8
3.3

0.5
1.2
2.8
1.0
1.7
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.7
0.0
1.0
1.4
3.3

1.2
0.8

3.6
2.2

0.6
0.0

0.5
0.0

1.2
3.8

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.5

1.4

1.0

1.8

1.0

3.3

0.0
0.6
1.3
2.0
1.5
1.8
0.4

0.4
1.1
2.0
2.9
5.7
1.7
0.4

0.0
2.6
1.4
0.0
0.3
0.3
0.7

0.0
6.1
1.4
0.5
1.0
1.3
1.2

0.0
5.7
1.9
2.3
0.5
2.2
1.7

2.4
2.7
5.6
1.6
0.9

3.4
4.2
5.0
0.4
1.4

1.0
1.7
1.2
0.0
0.0

2.7
1.8
1.6
0.0
0.0

5.4
2.2
0.4
0.6
2.0

0.7

0.7

1.6

1.6

0.0

0.0

0.0

1.3

1.3

1.1

0.4
3.0
0.4
0.6

1.6
3.8
1.4
0.6

0.0
1.4
0.5
0.8

0.0
2.2
1.4
1.6

0.0
1.9
1.0
2.3

2.8
6.5

4.1
7.5

0.0
0.5

2.0
1.1

3.0
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
Facility name
Iowa
Anamosa State Penitentiary
Kansas
Hutchinson Corr. Fac.
Kentucky
Western Kentucky Corr. Complex
Louisiana
Dixon Corr. Inst.
Forcht-Wade Corr. Ctr.
Maine
Maine Corr. Ctr.d
Maryland
Baltimore Pre-Release Unit - Womenc
Maryland Corr. Training Ctr.
Roxbury Corr. Inst.
Massachusetts
Old Colony Corr. Ctr.
Michigan
Bellamy Creek Corr. Fac.
Marquette Branch Prison
Ojibway Corr. Fac.
Minnesota
Minnesota Corr. Fac. - Stillwater
Mississippi
Harrison Community Work Ctr.
Missouri
Jefferson City Corr. Ctr.
Northeast Corr. Ctr.
Southeast Corr. Ctr.
Montana
Montana State Prison
Nebraska
Tecumseh State Corr. Inst.
Nevada
Florence McClure Women's Corr. Ctr.c
Southern Desert Corr. Ctr.
New Hampshire
New Hampshire State Prison for Men
New Jersey
Northern State Prison
South Woods State Prison
New Mexico
Lea County Corr. Fac.e
Penitentiary of New Mexico
New York
Arthur Kill Corr. Fac.
Elmira Corr. Fac.
Great Meadow Corr. Fac.
Greene Corr. Fac.
Wende Corr. Fac.
North Carolina
Avery Mitchell Corr. Inst.
Fountain Corr. Ctr.c
Gates Corr. Ctr.
Harnett Corr. Inst.
Odom Corr. Inst.
North Dakota
North Dakota State Penitentiary
Ohio
Belmont Corr. Inst.
Grafton Corr. Inst.
North Central Corr. Inst.

Physically forced

Pressureda

Staff-on-inmate
Without force or
pressureb
Physically forced Pressureda

0.7%

2.6%

0.4%

0.4%

0.3%

0.7

1.2

2.1

2.6

4.1

0.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

0.0

2.7
0.7

3.9
0.8

0.9
0.0

2.9
0.0

1.9
0.0

1.8

3.7

1.3

1.5

0.5

3.2
0.7
3.5

2.8
4.2
2.8

0.0
1.2
0.5

0.0
1.9
1.6

0.0
3.0
4.5

2.7

3.5

2.3

2.5

0.0

2.5
3.3
0.6

2.2
2.8
1.3

0.9
1.4
1.1

0.9
2.0
1.9

5.2
2.9
1.4

1.4

1.4

0.0

0.2

0.8

0.0

0.0

0.9

0.9

0.9

2.4
2.1
2.5

2.9
2.1
2.5

1.2
0.7
1.6

3.9
0.6
1.7

2.2
0.9
4.0

2.4

3.5

0.4

1.3

4.3

0.0

1.2

7.5

11.8

5.9

5.6
3.2

4.7
0.6

0.4
1.6

1.7
2.6

0.0
2.4

2.1

4.2

0.5

1.1

1.1

1.2
0.9

1.2
0.9

1.2
1.1

2.1
1.1

2.6
3.5

0.9
0.0

0.9
0.0

1.6
0.0

1.6
0.0

3.3
0.0

0.5
1.9
1.0
0.5
2.6

1.0
1.4
2.8
0.7
2.4

1.5
1.6
6.0
0.8
2.5

1.5
2.5
6.3
1.1
2.8

1.0
0.8
2.8
0.8
1.4

2.0
2.6
0.0
2.3
0.9

2.5
2.6
0.0
3.0
0.9

0.6
0.0
0.0
1.6
1.9

0.6
0.4
0.0
1.3
1.8

0.8
0.0
0.0
0.9
2.7

1.5

1.5

2.1

3.5

2.0

1.2
0.0
1.0

2.1
2.7
2.2

1.9
0.0
0.6

3.6
0.8
1.7

3.1
1.3
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
Facility name
Oklahoma
Joseph Harp Corr. Ctr.
Oregon
Oregon State Corr. Inst.
Pennsylvania
Cambridge Springs State Corr. Inst.c
Dallas State Corr. Inst.
Fayette State Corr. Inst.
Graterford State Corr. Inst.
Rockview State Corr. Inst.
Rhode Island
John Moran Medium Security Fac.
Women's Divisionc
South Carolina
Allendale Corr. Inst.
Lee Corr. Inst.
South Dakota
South Dakota State Penitentiary
Tennessee
Northwest Corr. Complex
Tennessee Prison for Womenc
Whiteville Corr. Fac.e
Texas
Allred Unit
Clements Unit
Coffield Unit
Dawson State Jaild,e
Estelle Unit
Fort Stockton Transfer Fac.
Hilltop Unitc
Holliday Transfer Fac.
Lockhart Unitd,e
Lopez State Jail
McConnell Unit
Mountain View Unitc
Polunsky Unit
Ramsey Unit #2
Wynne Unit
Utah
Utah State Prisond
Vermont
Chittenden Regional Corr. Fac.
Virginia
Red Onion State Prison
St. Brides Corr. Ctr.
Washington
Stafford Creek Corr. Ctr.
West Virginia
Northern Regional Corr. Fac.
Wisconsin
Stanley Corr. Inst.
Waupun Corr. Inst.
Wyoming
Wyoming State Penitentiary

Physically forced

Pressureda

Staff-on-inmate
Without force or
pressureb
Physically forced Pressureda

3.8%

5.7%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

1.7

0.8

2.3

2.3

1.5

2.6
1.4
1.0
0.6
0.8

3.0
2.0
2.3
0.6
1.2

0.0
0.0
2.7
0.7
0.3

0.0
0.5
3.5
2.0
0.7

0.0
0.0
4.1
1.2
0.8

0.6
3.6

0.8
4.4

0.0
1.5

1.4
1.5

0.7
1.6

1.5
1.0

1.1
0.5

0.6
1.0

1.6
3.7

1.5
7.7

2.2

1.8

2.3

5.1

2.2

0.0
0.5
1.4

1.3
1.1
1.4

0.2
1.2
2.9

0.2
2.5
3.3

2.0
3.2
5.4

3.6
1.7
2.1
1.3
5.1
0.0
1.4
0.5
3.1
0.0
2.4
7.5
0.3
1.1
1.1

3.2
3.3
3.9
1.0
7.9
0.0
2.0
0.0
4.3
0.0
2.1
6.8
1.2
1.9
1.0

2.8
4.1
0.4
0.5
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.6
0.7
1.2
1.6
0.8

3.2
6.8
1.4
0.7
4.4
0.6
1.1
0.5
1.8
0.6
2.5
3.0
2.1
1.1
1.3

2.3
5.6
4.3
1.0
5.2
0.7
0.5
0.0
0.0
1.3
4.5
1.4
2.4
1.1
2.0

5.4

5.1

1.2

1.8

0.8

1.5

2.7

0.0

0.0

2.6

1.3
0.0

1.3
0.0

1.3
0.0

2.6
2.8

2.3
4.2

1.7

2.3

1.6

1.6

2.6

3.3

2.5

0.0

0.0

1.8

0.0
0.0

0.5
0.5

0.9
1.8

2.1
3.0

1.3
3.4

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
Facility name
Federal Facilities (Bureau of Prisons)
Allenwood Low Fed. Corr. Inst.
Beaumont Low Fed. Corr. Inst.
Bennettsville-Camp
Big Sandy U.S. Penitentiary
Big Spring Corr. Inst.e
Cibola County Corr. Inst.e
Fort Dix Fed. Corr. Inst.
La Tuna - Fed. Satellite Fac. (El Paso)
Lexington Fed. Medical Fac.
McCreary U.S. Penitentiary
Memphis Fed. Corr. Inst.
Milan Fed. Corr. Inst.
Oakdale Fed. Detention Fac.
Pekin Fed. Corr. Inst.
Schuylkill Fed. Corr. Inst.
Taft Corr. Inst.e
Terminal Island Fed. Corr. Inst.
Victorville Med. I Fed. Corr. Inst.
Yazoo City Med. Fed. Corr. Inst.

Physically forced
0.0%
1.0
0.0
1.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.9
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
1.0
0.8
0.0

Pressureda

Staff-on-inmate
Without force or
pressureb
Physically forced Pressureda

0.0%
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.5
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.8
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.8
1.7

0.5%
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
1.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.9

0.9%
1.0
0.0
1.3
0.0
0.5
0.2
0.5
0.0
0.8
1.1
0.8
0.0
3.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.7

0.5%
0.4
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.2
0.3
0.0
0.7
0.0
1.2
0.8
2.7
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.7
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.

a

Includes 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
d
e

facility.

Facility houses both males and females.
Privately 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
Facility name
Total
Alabama
Julia Tutwiler Prisonb
Limestone Corr. Fac.
Alaska
Wildwood Corr. Complex
Arizona
Arizona State Prison Complex - Eyman
Arizona State Prison Complex - Florence
Arizona State Prison Complex - Tucson
Arkansas
Diagnostic Unit
Jefferson County Corr. Fac.
California
Avenal State Prison
California Inst. for Men
California Sub. Abuse Treatment Fac. - Corcoran
California Men’s Colony
California Rehabilitation Ctr.
Calipatria State Prison
Central California Women's Fac.b
Corr. Training Fac.
Ironwood State Prison
Mule Creek State Prison
North Kern State Prison
R. J. Donovan Corr. Fac. at Rock Mountain
San Quentin State Prison
Sierra Conservation Ctr.
Valley State Prison for Womenb
Colorado
Fremont Corr. Fac.
High Plains Corr. Fac.b,d
Connecticut
Osborn Corr. Inst.
Delaware
Howard R. Young Corr. Inst.c
Florida
Central Florida Reception Ctr. East, South & Main
Charlotte Corr. Inst.
Cross City Corr. Inst. & Work Camp
Hamilton Corr. Inst., Annex & Work Camp
Lowell Corr. Inst., Annex & Work Campb
Sumter Corr. Inst., Boot Camp & Work Camp
Taylor Corr. Inst. & Annex
Georgia
Hays State Prison
Men's Corr. State Prison
Metro State Prisonb
Walker Corr. Inst.
Wilcox State Prison
Hawaii
Waiawa Corr. Fac.
Idaho
South Idaho Corr. Inst.
Illinois
Danville Corr. Ctr.
Dixon Corr. Ctr.
Logan Corr. Ctr.
Vienna Corr. Ctr.
Indiana
Plainfield Corr. Fac.
Rockville Corr. Fac.b

All incidents
Victimized
Injureda

Inmate-on-inmate
Victimized Injureda

Staff-on-inmate
Victimized Injureda

4.5%

0.8%

2.1%

0.5%

2.9%

0.3%

6.3
3.3

1.1
0.4

5.0
2.6

1.1
0.4

1.7
0.8

0.0
0.0

4.9

0.6

2.5

0.0

3.1

0.6

7.5
0.8
0.9

0.6
0.0
0.0

1.9
0.4
0.5

0.6
0.0
0.0

5.6
0.4
0.3

0.0
0.0
0.0

0.9
3.5

0.0
0.0

0.0
1.3

0.0
0.0

0.9
2.2

0.0
0.0

1.4
2.6
7.2
2.3
3.1
1.3
7.0
1.1
0.0
6.8
0.7
5.9
4.1
4.7
10.3

0.4
0.7
2.8
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.9
0.0
1.3
0.0
0.5
1.1
0.4
2.3

0.9
0.8
2.9
0.9
1.0
0.0
5.7
0.2
0.0
5.3
0.0
3.9
2.0
1.9
7.9

0.4
0.0
1.3
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.0
0.0
1.3
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.4
1.5

1.0
1.8
4.2
1.8
2.1
1.3
1.7
0.9
0.0
2.2
0.7
3.3
2.1
3.7
5.3

0.4
0.7
1.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.1
0.0
0.9

5.2
5.9

0.0
0.0

3.6
2.2

0.0
0.0

2.2
3.8

0.0
0.0

1.7

0.4

0.4

0.0

1.3

0.4

4.1

0.9

1.4

0.5

3.8

0.4

0.4
12.1
5.5
5.1
7.0
5.9
2.7

0.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.4
1.1
2.0
3.3
5.7
2.4
0.4

0.0
0.0
0.0
1.5
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
11.4
3.5
2.8
1.8
3.5
2.3

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0

9.1
7.0
8.0
2.3
2.8

2.9
0.3
1.2
0.4
0.0

4.1
5.1
7.6
1.6
1.4

2.1
0.3
1.2
0.4
0.0

6.6
2.9
1.6
0.6
2.0

0.8
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.0

1.6

0.0

0.7

0.0

1.6

0.0

1.8

0.0

0.0

0.0

1.8

0.0

1.6
6.7
3.3
2.9

0.0
1.7
0.0
0.8

1.6
4.2
1.4
0.6

0.0
0.8
0.0
0.0

0.0
3.9
1.8
2.3

0.0
0.9
0.0
0.8

7.8
10.8

0.9
3.7

4.1
10.2

0.9
3.7

4.0
2.0

0.0
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,)
Facility name
Iowa
Anamosa State Penitentiary
Kansas
Hutchinson Corr. Fac.
Kentucky
Western Kentucky Corr. Complex
Louisiana
Dixon Corr. Inst.
Forcht-Wade Corr. Ctr.
Maine
Maine Corr. Ctr.c
Maryland
Baltimore Pre-Release Unit - Womenb
Maryland Corr. Training Ctr.
Roxbury Corr. Inst.
Massachusetts
Old Colony Corr. Ctr.
Michigan
Bellamy Creek Corr. Fac.
Marquette Branch Prison
Ojibway Corr. Fac.
Minnesota
Minnesota Corr. Fac. - Stillwater
Mississippi
Harrison Community Work Ctr.
Missouri
Jefferson City Corr. Ctr.
Northeast Corr. Ctr.
Southeast Corr. Ctr.
Montana
Montana State Prison
Nebraska
Tecumseh State Corr. Inst.
Nevada
Florence McClure Women's Corr. Ctr.b
Southern Desert Corr. Ctr.
New Hampshire
New Hampshire State Prison for Men
New Jersey
Northern State Prison
South Woods State Prison
New Mexico
Lea County Corr. Fac.d
Penitentiary of New Mexico
New York
Arthur Kill Corr. Fac.
Elmira Corr. Fac.
Great Meadow Corr. Fac.
Greene Corr. Fac.
Wende Corr. Fac.
North Carolina
Avery Mitchell Corr. Inst.
Fountain Corr. Ctr.b
Gates Corr. Ctr.
Harnett Corr. Inst.
Odom Corr. Inst.
North Dakota
North Dakota State Penitentiary
Ohio
Belmont Corr. Inst.
Grafton Corr. Inst.
North Central Corr. Inst.

All incidents
Victimized
Injured*

Inmate-on-inmate
Victimized Injured*

Staff-on-inmate
Victimized Injured*

4.1%

0.0%

3.4%

0.0%

0.7%

0.0%

5.4

0.7

1.2

0.7

5.4

0.7

2.0

1.0

0.0

0.0

2.0

1.0

5.4
1.5

2.4
0.0

3.9
1.5

2.4
0.0

3.7
0.0

0.6
0.0

5.6

1.1

4.4

0.7

1.5

0.4

6.0
8.5
8.2

0.0
0.5
1.6

6.0
4.2
3.9

0.0
0.0
1.6

0.0
4.2
5.4

0.0
0.5
0.7

6.6

1.1

3.5

1.1

3.2

0.0

7.9
6.8
4.6

1.2
3.5
0.0

3.1
3.3
1.3

1.2
1.8
0.0

5.2
5.8
3.3

0.0
2.0
0.0

2.2

0.9

1.4

0.9

0.8

0.0

0.9

0.9

0.0

0.0

0.9

0.9

7.9
3.7
7.1

1.4
1.8
1.3

2.9
2.1
3.2

1.4
1.5
1.3

5.8
1.6
4.0

0.0
0.3
0.0

7.9

1.3

4.0

0.9

4.7

0.4

13.4

3.9

1.2

0.0

12.2

3.9

7.7
5.8

1.6
1.7

6.6
3.2

1.6
0.6

1.7
3.9

0.0
1.1

6.2

1.4

4.6

1.4

2.2

0.0

3.7
4.4

1.2
0.0

1.2
0.9

1.2
0.0

3.7
3.5

0.0
0.0

5.0
0.0

1.7
0.0

0.9
0.0

0.9
0.0

4.1
0.0

0.8
0.0

3.4
5.1
11.3
1.9
6.2

0.6
1.7
2.0
0.0
3.1

1.0
1.9
3.0
0.7
3.3

0.0
1.4
0.0
0.0
1.7

2.9
3.3
9.6
1.6
4.6

0.6
0.3
2.0
0.0
1.4

3.6
4.3
0.0
5.5
4.7

1.9
0.8
0.0
1.1
0.9

2.5
3.8
0.0
3.6
0.9

1.3
0.8
0.0
1.1
0.9

2.0
0.4
0.0
3.0
3.7

0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

5.6

0.7

1.5

0.0

4.1

0.7

3.6
4.8
3.8

1.2
0.0
0.6

2.6
2.7
2.2

0.7
0.0
0.6

3.6
2.1
2.2

0.5
0.0
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,)
Facility name
Oklahoma
Joseph Harp Corr. Ctr.
Oregon
Oregon State Corr. Inst.
Pennsylvania
Cambridge Springs State Corr. Inst.b
Dallas State Corr. Inst.
Fayette State Corr. Inst.
Graterford State Corr. Inst.
Rockview State Corr. Inst.
Rhode Island
John Moran Medium Security Fac.
Women's Divisionb
South Carolina
Allendale Corr. Inst.
Lee Corr. Inst.
South Dakota
South Dakota State Penitentiary
Tennessee
Northwest Corr. Complex
Tennessee Prison for Womenb
Whiteville Corr. Fac.d
Texas
Allred Unit
Clements Unit
Coffield Unit
Dawson State Jailc,d
Estelle Unit
Fort Stockton Transfer Fac.
Hilltop Unitb
Holliday Transfer Fac.
Lockhart Unitc,d
Lopez State Jail
McConnell Unit
Mountain View Unitb
Polunsky Unit
Ramsey Unit #2
Wynne Unit
Utah
Utah State Prisonc
Vermont
Chittenden Regional Corr. Fac.
Virginia
Red Onion State Prison
St. Brides Corr. Ctr.
Washington
Stafford Creek Corr. Ctr.
West Virginia
Northern Regional Corr. Fac.
Wisconsin
Stanley Corr. Inst.
Waupun Corr. Inst.
Wyoming
Wyoming State Penitentiary

All incidents
Victimized
Injured*

Inmate-on-inmate
Victimized Injured*

Staff-on-inmate
Victimized Injured*

6.3%

2.9%

6.3%

2.9%

0.0%

0.0%

4.2

2.4

1.7

0.8

2.9

2.0

4.4
2.5
8.1
3.8
1.9

1.0
0.5
1.6
0.7
1.2

4.4
2.0
2.3
0.6
1.2

1.0
0.5
1.1
0.0
1.2

0.0
0.5
7.0
3.2
1.1

0.0
0.0
0.5
0.7
0.4

3.5
7.5

1.4
2.0

1.4
4.4

0.0
1.4

2.1
3.1

1.4
0.7

4.7
8.7

1.1
0.5

1.5
1.0

1.1
0.5

3.1
7.7

0.0
0.0

7.2

1.6

2.2

1.2

5.6

0.4

3.5
4.8
7.1

0.9
0.0
1.9

1.3
1.1
1.4

0.9
0.0
0.0

2.2
4.3
7.1

0.0
0.0
1.9

9.9
13.9
9.3
2.9
15.7
1.3
3.4
1.1
7.3
1.3
8.0
9.5
5.3
4.5
5.5

3.3
4.0
0.0
0.0
2.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.4
3.2
0.8
0.0
1.9

4.8
3.3
4.4
1.3
8.5
0.0
3.0
0.5
5.5
0.0
3.5
8.7
1.2
1.9
1.5

3.3
1.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
2.7
0.5
0.0
1.1

6.7
11.6
5.7
2.2
7.6
1.3
1.5
0.5
1.8
1.3
5.4
3.4
4.2
2.7
4.0

0.9
3.1
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
2.1
0.3
0.0
0.8

7.7

2.6

6.6

2.6

2.4

0.4

5.3

0.0

2.7

0.0

2.6

0.0

3.6
4.2

0.0
0.0

1.3
0.0

0.0
0.0

3.6
4.2

0.0
0.0

6.4

0.0

2.3

0.0

4.2

0.0

4.3

0.7

3.3

0.7

1.8

0.0

3.8
6.8

0.4
1.3

0.5
0.5

0.0
0.0

3.2
6.3

0.4
1.3

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,)
Facility name
Federal Facilities (Bureau of Prisons)
Allenwood Low Fed. Corr. Inst.
Beaumont Low Fed. Corr. Inst.
Bennettsville-Camp
Big Sandy U.S. Penitentiary
Big Spring Corr. Inst.d
Cibola County Corr. Inst.d
Fort Dix Fed. Corr. Inst.
La Tuna - Fed. Satellite Fac. (El Paso)
Lexington Fed. Medical Fac.
McCreary U.S. Penitentiary
Memphis Fed. Corr. Inst.
Milan Fed. Corr. Inst.
Oakdale Fed. Detention Fac.
Pekin Fed. Corr. Inst.
Schuylkill Fed. Corr. Inst.
Taft Corr. Inst.d
Terminal Island Fed. Corr. Inst.
Victorville Med. I Fed. Corr. Inst.
Yazoo City Med. Fed. Corr. Inst.

All incidents
Victimized
Injured*
1.3%
1.6
0.0
2.4
0.0
0.7
0.8
1.0
2.3
0.8
1.8
0.8
2.7
4.8
0.0
0.3
1.0
3.5
3.1

Inmate-on-inmate
Victimized Injured*

0.0%
1.6
0.0
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.6

0.0%
1.0
0.0
1.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.5
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.8
0.0
0.3
1.0
1.6
1.7

0.0%
1.0
0.0
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.0

Staff-on-inmate
Victimized Injured*
1.3%
1.0
0.0
1.3
0.0
0.7
0.8
1.0
0.7
0.8
1.8
0.8
2.7
4.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.7
2.2

0.0%
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
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.
a

Injuries 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.

b

Female 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
Facility name
Total
Alabama
Julia Tutwiler Prisone
Limestone Corr. Fac.
Alaska
Wildwood Corr. Complex
Arizona
Arizona State Prison Complex - Eyman
Arizona State Prison Complex - Florence
Arizona State Prison Complex - Tucson
Arkansas
Diagnostic Unit
Jefferson County Corr. Fac.
California
Avenal State Prison
California Inst. for Men
California Sub. Abuse Treatment Fac. - Corcoran
California Men’s Colony
California Rehabilitation Ctr.
Calipatria State Prison
Central California Women's Fac.e
Corr. Training Fac.
Ironwood State Prison
Mule Creek State Prison
North Kern State Prison
R. J. Donovan Corr. Fac. at Rock Mountain
San Quentin State Prison
Sierra Conservation Ctr.
Valley State Prison for Womene
Colorado
Fremont Corr. Fac.
High Plains Corr. Fac.e,g
Connecticut
Osborn Corr. Inst.
Delaware
Howard R. Young Corr. Inst.f
Florida
Central Florida Reception Ctr. East, South & Main
Charlotte Corr. Inst.
Cross City Corr. Inst. & Work Camp
Hamilton Corr. Inst., Annex & Work Camp
Lowell Corr. Inst., Annex & Work Campe
Sumter Corr. Inst., Boot Camp & Work Camp
Taylor Corr. Inst. & Annex
Georgia
Hays State Prison
Men's Corr. State Prison
Metro State Prisone
Walker Corr. Inst.
Wilcox State Prison
Hawaii
Waiawa Corr. Fac.
Idaho
South Idaho Corr. Inst.
Illinois
Danville Corr. Ctr.
Dixon Corr. Ctr.
Logan Corr. Ctr.
Vienna Corr. Ctr.
Indiana
Plainfield Corr. Fac.
Rockville Corr. Fac.e

Nonconsensual sexual actsa
Incident ratec Standard errord

Abusive sexual contacts onlyb
Incident ratec Standard errord

56

5

81

7

199
173

91
100

181
115

63
64

25

12

60

37

25
4
62

15
4
60

114
20
62

75
19
60

0
41

0
28

0
25

0
14

25
8
105
22
16
0
104
2
0
267
0
203
61
83
109

21
8
54
17
12
0
50
2
0
115
0
123
45
56
36

57
8
112
22
27
0
105
8
0
196
0
261
144
60
219

52
8
56
17
21
0
45
8
0
86
0
138
79
45
74

52
22

20
12

155
54

72
34

8

7

8

7

33

23

80

49

4
18
28
76
84
65
21

4
13
16
35
33
37
20

4
37
72
200
182
63
21

4
30
43
96
86
41
20

90
81
109
16
80

42
27
34
11
48

97
141
153
146
36

37
60
51
120
26

80

61

80

61

0

0

0

0

16
91
31
6

9
45
22
5

23
113
31
6

15
48
22
5

119
274

61
101

156
394

74
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
Facility name
Iowa
Anamosa State Penitentiary
Kansas
Hutchinson Corr. Fac.
Kentucky
Western Kentucky Corr. Complex
Louisiana
Dixon Corr. Inst.
Forcht-Wade Corr. Ctr.
Maine
Maine Corr. Ctr.f
Maryland
Baltimore Pre-Release Unit - Womene
Maryland Corr. Training Ctr.
Roxbury Corr. Inst.
Massachusetts
Old Colony Corr. Ctr.
Michigan
Bellamy Creek Corr. Fac.
Marquette Branch Prison
Ojibway Corr. Fac.
Minnesota
Minnesota Corr. Fac. - Stillwater
Mississippi
Harrison Community Work Ctr.
Missouri
Jefferson City Corr. Ctr.
Northeast Corr. Ctr.
Southeast Corr. Ctr.
Montana
Montana State Prison
Nebraska
Tecumseh State Corr. Inst.
Nevada
Florence McClure Women's Corr. Ctr.e
Southern Desert Corr. Ctr.
New Hampshire
New Hampshire State Prison for Men
New Jersey
Northern State Prison
South Woods State Prison
New Mexico
Lea County Corr. Fac.g
Penitentiary of New Mexico
New York
Arthur Kill Corr. Fac.
Elmira Corr. Fac.
Great Meadow Corr. Fac.
Greene Corr. Fac.
Wende Corr. Fac.
North Carolina
Avery Mitchell Corr. Inst.
Fountain Corr. Ctr.e
Gates Corr. Ctr.
Harnett Corr. Inst.
Odom Corr. Inst.
North Dakota
North Dakota State Penitentiary
Ohio
Belmont Corr. Inst.
Grafton Corr. Inst.
North Central Corr. Inst.

Nonconsensual sexual actsa
Incident ratec
Standard errord

Abusive sexual contacts onlyb
Incident ratec Standard errord

86

45

139

62

88

79

88

79

0

0

0

0

211
45

85
34

259
15

107
9

46

15

145

60

87
171
167

41
113
95

68
243
122

27
135
62

45

24

184

123

78
32
13

36
14
9

105
63
111

64
35
77

33

23

107

65

0

0

0

0

57
71
115

27
36
75

119
118
122

64
75
75

82

44

133

66

62

59

62

59

99
56

28
30

163
56

45
30

157

75

198

86

106
14

97
10

106
9

97
6

9
0

9
0

46
0

43
0

10
73
45
26
78

6
66
24
22
39

14
73
31
26
72

9
66
15
22
39

45
45
0
132
46

22
17
0
76
39

156
109
0
244
46

85
47
0
115
39

36

22

36

22

96
112
64

74
66
38

153
60
126

96
42
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
Facility name
Oklahoma
Joseph Harp Corr. Ctr.
Oregon
Oregon State Corr. Inst.
Pennsylvania
Cambridge Springs State Corr. Inst.e
Dallas State Corr. Inst.
Fayette State Corr. Inst.
Graterford State Corr. Inst.
Rockview State Corr. Inst.
Rhode Island
John Moran Medium Security Fac.
Women's Divisione
South Carolina
Allendale Corr. Inst.
Lee Corr. Inst.
South Dakota
South Dakota State Penitentiary
Tennessee
Northwest Corr. Complex
Tennessee Prison for Womene
Whiteville Corr. Fac.g
Texas
Allred Unit
Clements Unit
Coffield Unit
Dawson State Jailf,g
Estelle Unit
Fort Stockton Transfer Fac.
Hilltop Unite
Holliday Transfer Fac.
Lockhart Unitf,g
Lopez State Jail
McConnell Unit
Mountain View Unite
Polunsky Unit
Ramsey Unit #2
Wynne Unit
Utah
Utah State Prisonf
Vermont
Chittenden Regional Corr. Fac.
Virginia
Red Onion State Prison
St. Brides Corr. Ctr.
Washington
Stafford Creek Corr. Ctr.
West Virginia
Northern Regional Corr. Fac.
Wisconson
Stanley Corr. Inst.
Waupun Corr. Inst.
Wyoming
Wyoming State Penitentiary

Nonconsensual sexual actsa
Incident ratec
Standard errord

Abusive sexual contacts onlyb
Incident ratec Standard errord

188

68

340

132

34

20

42

22

90
39
42
6
96

38
24
24
5
87

190
117
145
31
96

89
72
90
23
87

14
40

9
11

46
101

38
31

91
88

60
65

91
32

60
26

96

50

97

67

13
11
28

9
7
20

49
22
44

43
13
29

123
135
115
13
278
0
35
11
55
0
80
154
40
43
15

57
110
46
8
132
0
13
10
22
0
49
50
31
28
9

106
135
149
31
321
0
108
5
75
0
108
263
88
43
34

56
110
60
20
139
0
54
5
31
0
56
85
58
28
24

284

127

309

130

27

14

88

55

66
0

54
0

159
0

129
0

23

13

65

44

61

29

161

73

27
5

26
5

27
5

26
5

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
Facility name
Federal Facilities (Bureau of Prisons)
Allenwood Low Fed. Corr. Inst.
Beaumont Low Fed. Corr. Inst.
Bennettsville-Camp
Big Sandy U.S. Penitentiary
Big Spring Corr. Inst.g
Cibola County Corr. Inst.g
Fort Dix Fed. Corr. Inst.
La Tuna - Fed. Satellite Fac. (El Paso)
Lexington Fed. Medical Fac.
McCreary U.S. Penitentiary
Memphis Fed. Corr. Inst.
Milan Fed. Corr. Inst.
Oakdale Fed. Detention Fac.
Pekin Fed. Corr. Inst.
Schuylkill Fed. Corr. Inst.
Taft Corr. Inst.g
Terminal Island Fed. Corr. Inst.
Victorville Med. I Fed. Corr. Inst.
Yazoo City Med. Fed. Corr. Inst.

Nonconsensual sexual actsa
Incident ratec
Standard errord
0
27
0
18
0
0
0
5
40
0
68
0
0
8
0
3
10
25
17

Abusive sexual contacts onlyb
Incident ratec Standard errord

0
21
0
13
0
0
0
4
26
0
64
0
0
7
0
3
7
18
11

0
27
0
91
0
0
0
11
40
0
68
0
0
8
0
7
126
50
121

0
21
0
76
0
0
0
9
26
0
64
0
0
7
0
6
83
41
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.
b

Includes 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.

c

Incident rate represents that the number of incidents reported by inmates per 1,000 inmates.

dStandard
e
f

errors may be used to construct confidence intervals around the weighted survey estimates. (See Methodology.)

Female facility.

Facility houses both males and females.

g

Privately 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
Facility name
Total
Alabama
Julia Tutwiler Prisone
Limestone Corr. Fac.
Alaska
Wildwood Corr. Complex
Arizona
Arizona State Prison Complex - Eyman
Arizona State Prison Complex - Florence
Arizona State Prison Complex - Tucson
Arkansas
Diagnostic Unit
Jefferson County Corr. Fac.
California
Avenal State Prison
California Inst. for Men
California Sub. Abuse Treatment Fac. - Corcoran
California Men’s Colony
California Rehabilitation Ctr.
Calipatria State Prison
Central California Women's Fac.e
Corr. Training Fac.
Ironwood State Prison
Mule Creek State Prison
North Kern State Prison
R. J. Donovan Corr. Fac. at Rock Mountain
San Quentin State Prison
Sierra Conservation Ctr.
Valley State Prison for Womene
Colorado
Fremont Corr. Fac.
High Plains Corr. Fac.e,g
Connecticut
Osborn Corr. Inst.
Delaware
Howard R. Young Corr. Inst.f
Florida
Central Florida Reception Ctr. East, South & Main
Charlotte Corr. Inst.
Cross City Corr. Inst. & Work Camp
Hamilton Corr. Inst., Annex & Work Camp
Lowell Corr. Inst., Annex & Work Campe
Sumter Corr. Inst., Boot Camp & Work Camp
Taylor Corr. Inst. & Annex
Georgia
Hays State Prison
Men's Corr. State Prison
Metro State Prisone
Walker Corr. Inst.
Wilcox State Prison
Hawaii
Waiawa Corr. Fac.
Idaho
South Idaho Corr. Inst.
Illinois
Danville Corr. Ctr.
Dixon Corr. Ctr.
Logan Corr. Ctr.
Vienna Corr. Ctr.

Unwilling sexual contacta
Incident ratec Standard errord

Willing sexual contactb
Incident ratec Standard errord

85

8

82

8

115
38

64
36

17
38

8
36

151

79

196

105

100
4
3

42
4
3

121
4
3

60
4
3

9
22

7
18

9
45

7
35

26
102
169
25
51
68
33
109
0
106
7
133
142
189
125

21
86
94
17
33
60
20
108
0
79
7
98
91
96
53

15
102
113
31
70
13
60
9
0
36
7
33
42
143
142

11
86
56
19
39
9
47
9
0
20
7
15
26
80
62

27
38

14
25

44
162

23
123

59

44

19

12

56

28

126

63

0
498
51
49
54
35
50

0
171
19
27
29
14
32

0
349
41
146
23
57
30

0
109
16
79
12
23
15

156
78
45
6
20

63
39
25
5
9

237
51
16
32
139

75
20
9
27
75

144

88

16

9

125

85

46

27

0
97
60
55

0
48
35
39

0
101
36
62

0
57
22
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.)
Facility name
Indiana
Plainfield Corr. Fac.
Rockville Corr. Fac.e
Iowa
Anamosa State Penitentiary
Kansas
Hutchinson Corr. Fac.
Kentucky
Western Kentucky Corr. Complex
Louisiana
Dixon Corr. Inst.
Forcht-Wade Corr. Ctr.
Maine
Maine Corr. Ctr.f
Maryland
Baltimore Pre-Release Unit - Womene
Maryland Corr. Training Ctr.
Roxbury Corr. Inst.
Massachusetts
Old Colony Corr. Ctr.
Michigan
Bellamy Creek Corr. Fac.
Marquette Branch Prison
Ojibway Corr. Fac.
Minnesota
Minnesota Corr. Fac. - Stillwater
Mississippi
Harrison Community Work Ctr.
Missouri
Jefferson City Corr. Ctr.
Northeast Corr. Ctr.
Southeast Corr. Ctr.
Montana
Montana State Prison
Nebraska
Tecumseh State Corr. Inst.
Nevada
Florence McClure Women's Corr. Ctr.e
Southern Desert Corr. Ctr.
New Hampshire
New Hampshire State Prison for Men
New Jersey
Northern State Prison
South Woods State Prison
New Mexico
Lea County Corr. Fac.g
Penitentiary of New Mexico
New York
Arthur Kill Corr. Fac.
Elmira Corr. Fac.
Great Meadow Corr. Fac.
Greene Corr. Fac.
Wende Corr. Fac.
North Carolina
Avery Mitchell Corr. Inst.
Fountain Corr. Ctr.e
Gates Corr. Ctr.
Harnett Corr. Inst.
Odom Corr. Inst.
North Dakota
North Dakota State Penitentiary

Unwilling sexual contacta
Incident ratec Standard errord

Willing sexual contactb
Incident ratec Standard errord

92
46

41
28

114
56

50
42

49

43

20

15

135

80

295

107

167

116

20

13

108
0

46
0

76
0

41
0

107

58

19

10

0
124
97

0
81
61

0
144
151

0
68
85

229

127

32

15

41
147
126

15
74
71

194
74
71

71
32
30

8

6

14

12

9

4

9

4

122
18
74

58
8
33

110
26
190

59
13
89

130

64

169

65

869

371

447

236

65
178

33
89

17
194

9
98

42

26

66

37

58
154

24
91

181
204

109
105

41
0

17
0

91
0

46
0

129
126
348
104
147

69
73
125
87
64

50
41
300
24
82

25
22
132
13
37

87
9
0
41
174

65
8
0
17
90

14
4
0
52
165

8
4
0
23
91

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.)
Facility name
Ohio
Belmont Corr. Inst.
Grafton Corr. Inst.
North Central Corr. Inst.
Oklahoma
Joseph Harp Corr. Ctr.
Oregon
Oregon State Corr. Inst.
Pennsylvania
Cambridge Springs State Corr. Inst.e
Dallas State Corr. Inst.
Fayette State Corr. Inst.
Graterford State Corr. Inst.
Rockview State Corr. Inst.
Rhode Island
John Moran Medium Security Fac.
Women's Divisione
South Carolina
Allendale Corr. Inst.
Lee Corr. Inst.
South Dakota
South Dakota State Penitentiary
Tennessee
Northwest Corr. Complex
Tennessee Prison for Womene
Whiteville Corr. Fac.g
Texas
Allred Unit
Clements Unit
Coffield Unit
Dawson State Jailf,g
Estelle Unit
Fort Stockton Transfer Fac.
Hilltop Unite
Holliday Transfer Fac.
Lockhart Unitf,g
Lopez State Jail
McConnell Unit
Mountain View Unite
Polunsky Unit
Ramsey Unit #2
Wynne Unit
Utah
Utah State Prisonf
Vermont
Chittenden Regional Corr. Fac.
Virginia
Red Onion State Prison
St. Brides Corr. Ctr.
Washington
Stafford Creek Corr. Ctr.
West Virginia
Northern Regional Corr. Fac.
Wisconsin
Stanley Corr. Inst.
Waupun Corr. Inst.
Wyoming
Wyoming State Penitentiary

Unwilling sexual contacta
Incident ratec Standard errord

Willing sexual contactb
Incident ratec Standard errord

191
29
51

101
19
32

237
71
68

110
60
40

0

0

0

0

206

82

117

56

0
11
138
39
14

0
10
64
22
8

0
5
211
79
62

0
5
75
59
48

35
38

19
14

29
65

16
26

97
106

56
31

137
216

84
73

184

92

168

75

24
78
235

11
36
116

48
129
220

24
53
90

194
342
108
22
160
13
15
65
18
13
75
166
66
38
115

87
105
53
13
59
8
7
62
16
8
27
74
25
17
92

78
273
214
63
274
20
20
5
18
13
131
82
66
38
79

28
98
83
50
90
13
10
5
16
8
52
45
23
16
46

92

68

24

10

13

9

26

13

63
197

31
154

129
408

68
223

58

30

62

41

18

10

56

31

90
298

57
122

79
180

56
62

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.)
Facility name
Federal Facilities (Bureau of Prisons)
Allenwood Low Fed. Corr. Inst.
Beaumont Low Fed. Corr. Inst.
Bennettsville-Camp
Big Sandy U.S. Penitentiary
Big Spring Corr. Inst.g
Cibola County Corr. Inst.g
Fort Dix Fed. Corr. Inst.
La Tuna - Fed. Satellite Fac. (El Paso)
Lexington Fed. Medical Fac.
McCreary U.S. Penitentiary
Memphis Fed. Corr. Inst.
Milan Fed. Corr. Inst.
Oakdale Fed. Detention Fac.
Pekin Fed. Corr. Inst.
Schuylkill Fed. Corr. Inst.
Taft Corr. Inst.g
Terminal Island Fed. Corr. Inst.
Victorville Med. I Fed. Corr. Inst.
Yazoo City Med. Fed. Corr. Inst.
a
b
c

Unwilling sexual contacta
Incident ratec Standard errord
32
50
0
13
0
11
8
28
0
39
40
39
27
254
0
0
0
27
178

22
34
0
9
0
9
5
18
0
37
28
36
26
131
0
0
0
15
103

Willing sexual contactb
Incident ratec Standard errord
18
14
0
19
0
15
21
10
7
8
86
8
27
51
0
0
0
164
120

11
10
0
13
0
11
16
6
7
7
65
7
26
21
0
0
0
113
85

Includes all incidents of reported unwilling sexual contacts with staff.
Includes all incidents of willing sexual contacts with staff inmate.

Incident rate represents the number of incidents reported by inmates per 1,000 inmates.

dStandard
eFemale
fFacility
g

errors may be used to construct confidence intervals around the weighted survey estimates. (See Methodology.)

facility.

houses both males and females.

Privately operated facility.

48 Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007