Skip navigation

Bjs Sexual Victimization Prisons Jails 2011-2012

Download original document:
Brief thumbnail
This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.
Ij\
..,

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Statistics

Sexual Victimization in Prisons
and Jails Reported by Inmates,
2011–12
National Inmate Survey, 2011–12

,e

•
and state prisons
• Federal
Local jails

Allen J. Beck, Ph.D.
BJS Statistician
Marcus Berzofsky, Dr.P.H., Rachel Caspar,
and Christopher Krebs, Ph.D., RTI International
May 2013, NCJ 241399

BJS

Bureau of Justice Statistics
William J. Sabol
Acting Director
BJS Website:
www.bjs.gov
askbjs@usdoj.gov
The Bureau of Justice Statistics is the statistics agency of the U.S. Department of
Justice. William J. Sabol is the acting director.
This report was written by Allen J. Beck, Ph.D., BJS Statistician, and Marcus
Berzofsky, Dr.P.H., Rachel Caspar, and Christopher Krebs, Ph.D., RTI
International.
Paige M. Harrison (former BJS statistician) was the project manager for the
NIS-3. RTI International staff, under a cooperative agreement and in
collaboration with BJS, designed the survey, developed the questionnaires,
and monitored the data collection and processing. The staff included 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, Human Subjects Task Leader; David Forvendel, Research Computing
Task Leader; and Marcus Berzofsky, Statistics Task Leader. Ramona Rantala,
BJS statistician, and RTI staff, including Heather Meier, Barbara Alexander, and
Rodney Baxter, verified the report.
Morgan Young and Jill Thomas edited the report, and Barbara Quinn designed
and produced the report under the supervision of Doris J. James.
May 2013, NCJ 241399

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011–12 | May 2013

2

Sexual Victimization in Prisons
and Jails Reported by Inmates,
2011–12
National Inmate Survey, 2011–12

Federal and state prisons
Local jails

Allen J. Beck, Ph.D.
BJS Statistician
Marcus Berzofsky, Dr.P.H., Rachel Caspar,
and Christopher Krebs, Ph.D., RTI International
May 2013, NCJ 241399

BJS

Contents
Highlights  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 6
National Inmate Survey-3 .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 8
Incidents of sexual victimization  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 8
Facility-level rates  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 10
Demographic and other characteristics  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 17

Special inmate populations—Inmates with a non-heterosexual
sexual orientation .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 30
Methodology .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 32
Appendix 1. Survey items related to inmate-on-inmate sexual
victimization, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12 .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 41

Special inmate populations—Inmates ages 16 to 17  .  .  .  .  .  . 20

Appendix 2. Survey items related to staff sexual misconduct,
National Inmate Survey, 2011–12 .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 42

Special inmate populations— Inmates with mental health
problems .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 24

Appendix 3. Follow-up questions for inmates reporting no sexual
activity, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12 .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 42

List of tables
Table 1.  Adult inmates reporting sexual victimization, by type of
facility and incident, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 9
Table 2.  Prevalence of sexual victimization across inmate surveys, by
type of incident, National Inmate Survey, 2007, 2008–09,
and 2011–12 .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 10
Table 3.  Facilities with high rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual
victimization, by type of facility, National Inmate Survey,
2011–12 .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 12
Table 4.  Facilities with high rates of staff sexual misconduct, by type
of facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12 .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 13
Table 5.  Facilities with low rates of sexual victimization, by type of
facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12 .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 15
Table 6.  Rates of sexual victimization in special correctional facilities,
by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey,
2011–12 .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 16
Table 7.  Prevalence of sexual victimization, by type of incident and
inmate characteristics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12 .  .  .  .  .  . 17
Table 8.  Prevalence of sexual victimization, by type of incident and
inmate sexual characteristics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12  .  . 18
Table 9.  Prevalence of sexual victimization, by type of incident and
inmate criminal justice status and history, National Inmate Survey,
2011–12 .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 19
Table 10.  Prevalence of sexual victimization, by type of incident and
age of inmate, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12 .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 21
Table 11.  Juvenile inmates reporting sexual victimization, by type of
incident, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12 .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 21

Table 12.  Prevalence of sexual victimization among juveniles ages
16–17 and inmates ages 18–19 and 20–24, by type of incident and
inmate characteristics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12 .  .  .  .  .  . 22
Table 13.  Circumstances surrounding incidents among juveniles ages
16–17 and inmates ages 18–19 and 20–24, by type of victimization,
National Inmate Survey, 2011–12  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 23
Table 14.  Prevalence of victimization by current mental health status
and history of mental health problems among inmates, by type of
facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12 .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 24
Table 15.  Prevalence of serious psychological distress among adults
in prisons, jails, and the U.S. civilian noninstitutional population,
2011–12 .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 26
Table 16.  Prevalence of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization,
by current mental health status and inmate characteristics, National
Inmate Survey, 2011–12 .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 27
Table 17.  Prevalence of staff sexual misconduct, by current mental
health status and inmate characteristics, National Inmate Survey,
2011–12 .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 28
Table 18.  Circumstances surrounding incidents among adult inmates,
by current mental health status and type of victimization, National
Inmate Survey, 2011–12 .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 29
Table 19.  Prevalence of sexual victimization, by type of incident and
inmate sexual orientation, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12 .  .  .  . 30
Table 20.  Circumstances surrounding incidents of sexual victimization
among heterosexual and non-heterosexual inmates, National Inmate
Survey, 2011–12 .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 31

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013

4

List of figures
Figure 1.  Confidence intervals at the 95% level for prisons with high
rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization, National Inmate
Survey, 2011–12 .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 11

Figure 3.  Confidence intervals at the 95% level for prisons with high
rates of staff sexual misconduct, National Inmate Survey,
2011–12 .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 14

Figure 2.  Confidence intervals at the 95% level for jails with high
rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization, National Inmate
Survey, 2011–12 .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 11

Figure 4.  Confidence intervals at the 95% level for jails with high
rates of staff sexual misconduct, National Inmate Survey,
2011–12 .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 14

List of appendix tables
Appendix table 1.  Characteristics of state and federal prisons and
prevalence of sexual victimization, by facility, National Inmate Survey,
2011–12 .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 43

Appendix table 14.  Standard errors for table 10: Juvenile inmates
reporting sexual victimization, by type of incident, National Inmate
Survey, 2011–12 .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 102

Appendix table 2.  Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual
victimization, by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey,
2011–12 .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 49

Appendix table 15.  Standard errors for table 11: Prevalence of sexual
victimization, by type of incident and age of inmate, National Inmate
Survey, 2011–12 .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 102

Appendix table 3.  Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual
victimization by level of coercion, by facility, National Inmate Survey,
2011–12 .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 55

Appendix table 16.  Standard errors for table 12: Prevalence of sexual
victimization among juveniles ages 16–17 and inmates ages 18–19
and 20–24, by type of incident and inmate characteristics, National
Inmate Survey, 2011–12 .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 103

Appendix table 4.  Percent of prison inmates reporting
nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual contacts, by facility,
National Inmate Survey, 2011–12  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 61
Appendix table 5.  Characteristics of jails and prevalence of sexual
victimization, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12 .  .  .  .  . 67
Appendix table 6.  Percent of jail inmates reporting victimization, by
type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12 .  .  . 75
Appendix table 7.  Percent of jail inmates reporting sexual
victimization, by level of coercion and facility, National Inmate Survey,
2011–12 .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 83
Appendix table 8.  Percent of jail inmates reporting nonconsensual
sexual acts and abusive sexual contacts, by facility, National Inmate
Survey, 2011–12 .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 91
Appendix table 9.  Characteristics of special correctional facilities and
prevalence of sexual victimization, by facility, National Inmate Survey,
2011–12 .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 99
Appendix table 10.  Standard errors for table 2: Prevalence of sexual
victimization across inmate surveys, by type of incident, National
Inmate Survey, 2007, 2008–09, and 2011–12 .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 99
Appendix table 11.  Standard errors for table 7: Prevalence of sexual
victimization, by type of incident and inmate characteristics, National
Inmate Survey, 2011–12 .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 100
Appendix table 12.  Standard errors for table 8: Prevalence of sexual
victimization, by type of incident and inmate sexual characteristics,
National Inmate Survey, 2011–12  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 101
Appendix table 13.  Standard errors for table 9: Prevalence of sexual
victimization, by type of incident and inmate criminal justice status
and history, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 101

Appendix table 17.  Standard errors for table 13: Circumstances
surrounding incidents among juveniles ages 16–17 and inmates ages
18–19 and 20–24, by type of victimization, National Inmate Survey,
2011–12 .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 103
Appendix table 18.  Standard errors for table 14: Prevalence of
victimization by current mental health status and history of mental
health problems among inmates, by type of facility, National Inmate
Survey, 2011–12 .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 104
Appendix table 19.  Standard errors for table 15: Prevalence of
serious psychological distress among adults in prisons, jails, and the
U.S. civilian noninstitutional population, 2011–12 .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 104
Appendix table 20.  Standard errors for table 16: Prevalence of
inmate-on-inmate victimization, by current mental health status and
inmate characteristics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12 .  .  .  .  . 105
Appendix table 21.  Standard errors for table 17: Prevalence of
staff sexual misconduct, by current mental health status and inmate
characteristics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12 .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 105
Appendix table 22.  Standard errors for table 18: Circumstances
surrounding incidents among adult inmates, by current mental health
status and type of victimization, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12106
Appendix table 23.  Standard errors for table 19: Prevalence of sexual
victimization, by type of incident and inmate sexual orientation,
National Inmate Survey, 2011–12  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 106
Appendix table 24.  Standard errors for table 20: Circumstances
surrounding incidents of sexual victimization among heterosexual and
non-heterosexual inmates, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12  .  .  . 107

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013

5

Highlights
Prevalence of sexual victimization

ƒƒ In 2011-12, an estimated 4.0% of state and federal prison
inmates and 3.2% of jail inmates reported experiencing
one or more incidents of sexual victimization by another
inmate or facility staff in the past 12 months or since
admission to the facility, if less than 12 months.

ƒƒ Using the same methodology since 2007, the rate of sexual
victimization among state and federal prison inmates was
4.5% in 2007 and 4.0% in 2011-12; but, the difference was
not statistically significant. Among jail inmates, the rate of
sexual victimization remained unchanged—3.2% in 2007
and 3.2% in 2011-12.

ƒƒ Among state and federal prison inmates, 2.0% (or

an estimated 29,300 prisoners) reported an incident
involving another inmate, 2.4% (34,100) reported an
incident involving facility staff, and 0.4% (5,500) reported
both an incident by another inmate and staff.

ƒƒ About 1.6% of jail inmates (11,900) reported an incident

with another inmate, 1.8% (13,200) reported an incident
with staff, and 0.2% (2,400) reported both an incident by
another inmate and staff.

ƒƒ From 2007 to 2011-12, reports of “willing” sexual activity
with staff (excluding touching) declined in prisons and
jails, while reports of other types of sexual victimization
remained stable.

Facility rankings

ƒƒ Eleven male prisons, 1 female prison, and 9 jails were

identified as high-rate facilities based on the prevalence
of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization in 2011-12.
Eight male prisons, 4 female prisons, and 12 jails were
identified as high rate based on the prevalence of staff
sexual misconduct. Each of these facilities had a lower
bound of the 95%-confidence interval that was at least
55% higher than the average rate among comparable
facilities.

ƒƒ Seven male prisons, 6 female prisons, and 4 jails

were identified as low-rate facilities based on a small
percentage of inmates reporting any sexual victimization
by another inmate or staff and a low upper bound of the
95%-confidence interval around the rate.

ƒƒ Among the 225 prisons and 358 jails in the survey,

13 prisons and 34 jails had no reported incidents of
sexual victimization.

ƒƒ Two military facilities and one Indian country jail had
high rates of staff sexual misconduct in 2011-12. The

Northwest Joint Regional Correctional Facility (Fort
Lewis, Washington) (6.6%) and the Naval Consolidated
Brig (Miramar, California) (4.9%) had high rates of staff
sexual misconduct that were more than double the
average of prisons (2.4%) and jails (1.8%) nationwide.
The Oglala Sioux Tribal Offenders Facility (Pine Ridge,
South Dakota) (10.8%) reported the highest rate of staff
sexual misconduct among all tribal and nontribal jails in
the survey.
Variations in victimization rates

ƒƒ Patterns of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization in

2011-12 were consistent with patterns in past surveys.
Rates reported by prison and jail inmates were higher
among females than males, higher among whites than
blacks, and higher among inmates with a college degree
than those who had not completed high school.

ƒƒ Variations in staff sexual misconduct rates were also

similar across surveys. Rates reported by inmates were
higher among males in jails than females in jails, higher
among black inmates in prisons and jails than white
inmates in prisons and jails, and lower among inmates
age 35 or older than inmates ages 20 to 24 in both
prisons and jails.

ƒƒ Inmates held for violent sexual offenses reported higher
rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization (3.7%
in prison and 3.9% in jails) than inmates held for other
offenses.

Special inmate populations

ƒƒ In 2011-12, juveniles ages 16 to 17 held in adult prisons

and jails did not have significantly higher rates of sexual
victimization than adult inmates:

•	

An estimated 1.8% of juveniles ages 16 to 17 held in
prisons and jails reported being victimized by another
inmate, compared to 2.0% of adults in prisons and
1.6% of adults in jails.

•	

An estimated 3.2% of juveniles ages 16 to 17 held in
prisons and jails reported experiencing staff sexual
misconduct. Though higher, these rates were not
statistically different from the 2.4% of adults in prisons
and 1.8% of adults in jails.

•	

Juveniles (ages 16 to 17) and young adults (ages
18 to 19 and 20 to 24) reported similar rates of sexual
victimization for most of the key subgroups (sex,
race or Hispanic origin, body mass index, sexual
orientation, and offense).

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013

6

Highlights (continued)
ƒƒ Inmates with serious psychological distress reported high
rates of inmate-on-inmate and staff sexual victimization
in 2011-12:

•	

•	

Among state and federal prison inmates, an estimated
6.3% of those identified with serious psychological
distress reported that they were sexually victimized by
another inmate. In comparison, among prisoners with
no indication of mental illness, 0.7% reported being
victimized by another inmate.
Similar differences were reported by jail inmates.
An estimated 3.6% of those identified with serious
psychological distress reported inmate-on-inmate
sexual victimization, compared to 0.7% of inmates
with no indication of mental illness.

•	

Rates of serious psychological distress in prisons
(14.7%) and jails (26.3%) were substantially higher
than the rate (3.0%) in the U.S. noninstitutional
population age 18 or older.

•	

For each of the measured demographic subgroups,
inmates with serious psychological distress reported
higher rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization
than inmates without mental health problems.

ƒƒ Inmates who reported their sexual orientation as gay,

lesbian, bisexual, or other were among those with the
highest rates of sexual victimization in 2011-12:

•	

Among non-heterosexual inmates, 12.2% of prisoners
and 8.5% of jail inmates reported being sexually
victimized by another inmate; 5.4% of prisoners and
4.3% of jail inmates reported being victimized by staff.

•	

In each demographic subgroup (sex, race or Hispanic
origin, age, and education), non-heterosexual
prison and jail inmates reported higher rates
of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization than
heterosexual inmates.

•	

Among inmates with serious psychological distress,
non-heterosexual inmates reported the highest rates
of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization (21.0% of
prison inmates and 14.7% of jail inmates).

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013

7

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and
Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12
National Inmate Survey-3

B

etween February 2011 and May 2012, BJS completed
the third National Inmate Survey (NIS-3) in 233
state and federal prisons, 358 jails, and
15 special confinement facilities operated by Immigration
and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the U.S. Military, and
correctional authorities in Indian country. The survey,
conducted by RTI International (Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina), was administered to 92,449 inmates age
18 or older, including 38,251 inmates in state and federal
prisons, 52,926 in jails, 573 in ICE facilities, 539 in military
facilities, and 160 in Indian country jails. The survey was
also administered to juveniles ages 16 to 17 held in adult
prisons and jails. Based on 527 completed interviews of
juveniles in state prisons and 1,211 interviews in local
jails, the NIS-3 provides the first-ever national estimates of
sexual victimization of juveniles held in adult facilities.
The NIS-3 is part of the National Prison Rape Statistics
Program, which collects reported sexual violence
from administrative records and allegations of sexual
victimization directly from victims through surveys of
inmates in prisons and jails and surveys of youth held in
juvenile correctional facilities. Administrative records have
been collected annually since 2004. Reports by victims of
sexual victimization have been collected since 2007.
The NIS-3 survey consisted of an audio computer-assisted
self-interview (ACASI) in which inmates used a touchscreen to interact with a computer-assisted questionnaire
and followed audio instructions delivered via headphones.
Some inmates (751) completed a short paper form instead
of using the ACASI. Most of these inmates were housed
in administrative or disciplinary segregation or were
considered too violent to be interviewed.
The Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-79;
PREA) requires the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS)
to carry out a comprehensive statistical review and
analysis of incidents and effects of prison rape for each
calendar year. This report fulfills the requirement under
Sec. 4c(2)(B)(ii) of the act to provide a list of prisons and
jails according to the prevalence of sexual victimization.

As in the NIS-1 (conducted 2007) and the NIS-2
(conducted 2008-09), the NIS-3 collected only allegations
of sexual victimization. Since participation in the survey is
anonymous and reports are confidential, the survey does
not permit any follow-up investigation or substantiation of
reported incidents through review. Some allegations in the
NIS-3 may be untrue. At the same time, some inmates may
not report sexual victimization experienced in the facility,
despite efforts of survey staff to assure inmates that their
responses would be kept confidential. Although the effects
may be offsetting, the relative extent of under reporting and
false reporting in the NIS-3 is unknown.

Incidents of sexual victimization
In 2011-12, 4.0% of prison inmates and 3.2% of jail
inmates reported experiencing one or more incidents of
sexual victimization

Among the 91,177 adult prison and jail inmates
participating in the NIS-3 sexual victimization survey,
3,381 reported experiencing one or more incidents of
sexual victimization in the past 12 months or since
admission to the facility, if less than 12 months. Since the
NIS-3 is a sample survey, weights were applied for sampled
facilities and inmates within facilities to produce nationallevel and facility-level estimates. The estimated number of
prison and jail inmates experiencing sexual victimization
totaled 80,600 (or 4.0% of all prison inmates and 3.2% of
jail inmates nationwide) (table 1).
Among all state and federal prison inmates, 2.0% (or an
estimated 29,300 prisoners) reported an incident involving
another inmate, and 2.4% (34,100) reported an incident
involving facility staff. Some prisoners (0.4% or 5,500)
reported sexual victimization by both another inmate and
facility staff.
Among all jail inmates, about 1.6% (11,900) reported an
incident with another inmate, and 1.8% (13,200) reported
an incident with staff. Approximately 0.2% of jail inmates
(2,400) reported being sexually victimized by both another
inmate and staff.

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013

8

Table 1
Adult inmates reporting sexual victimization, by type of facility and incident, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12
Type of incidentc
Total
Inmate-on-inmate
Nonconsensual sexual acts
Abusive sexual contacts only
Staff sexual misconduct
Unwilling activity
Excluding touching
Touching only
Willing activity
Excluding touching
Touching only

Number of victimsa
Prisons
Jails
57,900
22,700
29,300
11,900
15,400
5,100
13,900
6,800
34,100
13,200
21,500
10,000
15,400
7,400
5,600
2,500
19,700
6,200
17,000
5,200
2,700
900

Percent of inmates
Prisons
Jails
4.0%
3.2%
2.0%
1.6%
1.1
0.7
1.0
0.9
2.4%
1.8%
1.5
1.4
1.1
1.0
0.4
0.3
1.4
0.9
1.2
0.7
0.2
0.1

Standard errorsb
Prisons
Jails
0.2%
0.2%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2%
0.1%
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
-0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
---

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.
--Less than 0.05%.
aEstimates of the number of victims nationwide are based on weighted data and rounded to the nearest 100.
bStandard errors may be used to construct confidence intervals around each estimate. See Methodology for calculations.
cSee Methodology for terms and definitions.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12.

The NIS-3 screened for specific sexual activities in which
inmates may have been involved during the past 12 months
or since admission to the facility, if less than 12 months.
Inmates were then asked if they were forced or pressured
to engage in these activities by another inmate or staff.
(See appendices 1, 2, and 3 for specific survey questions.)
Reports of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization were
classified as either nonconsensual sexual acts or abusive
sexual contacts. (See text box for Terms and definitions.)
Approximately 1.1% of prisoners and 0.7% of jail inmates
said they were forced or pressured to have nonconsensual
sex with another inmate, including manual stimulation
and oral, anal, or vaginal penetration. An additional 1.0%
of prison inmates and 0.9% of jail inmates said they had
experienced one or more abusive sexual contacts only or
unwanted touching of specific body parts in a sexual way
by another inmate.
An estimated 1.5% of prison inmates and 1.4% of jail
inmates reported that they had sex or sexual contact
unwillingly with staff as a result of physical force, pressure,
or offers of special favors or privileges. An estimated 1.4%
of all prison inmates and 0.9% of jail inmates reported they
willingly had sex or sexual contact with staff. Any sexual
contact between inmates and staff is illegal, regardless of
whether an inmate reported being willing or unwilling,
but this difference between willing and unwilling may
be informative when addressing issues of staff training,
prevention, and investigation.

Terms and definitions

Sexual victimization—all types of sexual activity, e.g.,
oral, anal, or vaginal penetration; hand jobs; touching
of the inmate’s buttocks, thighs, penis, breasts, or
vagina in a sexual way; abusive sexual contacts; and
both willing and unwilling sexual activity with staff.
Nonconsensual sexual acts—unwanted contacts with
another inmate or any contacts with staff that involved
oral, anal, vaginal penetration, hand jobs, and other
sexual acts.
Abusive sexual contacts only—unwanted contacts with
another inmate or any contacts with staff that involved
touching of the inmate’s buttocks, thigh, 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 inmates as willing; however, all sexual
contacts between inmates and staff are legally
nonconsensual.
Staff sexual misconduct—includes all incidents of
willing and unwilling sexual contact with facility staff
and all incidents of sexual activity that involved oral,
anal, vaginal penetration, hand jobs, blow jobs, and
other sexual acts with facility staff.

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013

9

The NIS-3 recorded slightly lower rates of sexual
victimization in prisons compared to the NIS-1 and
NIS-2, which was largely driven by a decline in the reported
rates of staff sexual misconduct (table 2). Overall, the
rate of sexual victimization was 4.5% in 2007 and 4.0% in
2011-12, but the difference was not statistically significant.
(See Methodology for discussion of significance testing
and standard errors.) Staff sexual misconduct considered
“willing” by the victims was the only rate to show a decline,
from 1.8% in 2008-09 to 1.4% in 2011-12. This drop was
limited to willing sexual activity, excluding touching.
In addition, willing sexual activity with staff (excluding
touching only) in 2011-12 was significantly different from
2007 (dropping from 1.5% to 1.2%).
Among jail inmates, the overall rates of sexual victimization
remained unchanged (3.2% in 2007, 3.1% in 2008-09, and
3.2% in 2011-12). The rates of staff sexual misconduct
in jails were 2.0% in 2007, 2.0% in 2008-09, and 1.8% in
2011-12, but this decline was not statistically significant. Jail
inmates in 2011-12 were less likely to report experiencing
willing sexual activity with staff (0.9%) than jail inmates in
2007 (1.1%) and 2008-09 (1.1%). This decline was limited
to willing sexual activity, excluding touching.

Facility-level rates
The NIS-3 provides a basis for identifying high rate and
low rate facilities

As required under the Prison Rape Elimination Act, the
NIS-3 provides facility-level estimates of inmate-on-inmate
sexual victimization and staff sexual misconduct. Since
these estimates are based on a sample of inmates rather
than a complete enumeration, they are subject to sampling
error. (See Methodology for description of sampling
procedures.)
The precision of each of the facility-level estimates can be
calculated based on the estimated standard error. Typically,
a 95%-confidence interval around each survey estimate is
calculated by multiplying the standard error by 1.96 and
then adding and subtracting the result from the sample
estimate to create an upper and lower bound. This interval
expresses the range of values that could result among 95%
of the different samples that could be drawn.
For small samples and estimates close to 0%, as is the case
with facility-level estimates of sexual victimization by type
of incident, the use of the standard error to construct the
95%-confidence interval may not be reliable. An alternative
method developed by E. B. Wilson has been shown to
perform better than the traditional method.1,2
1Brown, L.D., Cai, T., & DasGupta, A. (2001). “Interval Estimation for a

Binomial Proportion.” Statistical Science, 16(2), pp. 101–117.

2Wilson, E.B. (1927). “Probable Inference, the Law of Succession, and

Statistical Inference.” Journal of the American Statistical Association,
22(158), pp. 209–12.

Table 2
Prevalence of sexual victimization across inmate surveys, by type of incident, National Inmate Survey, 2007, 2008–09,
and 2011–12
Type of incident
Total
Inmate-on-inmate
Nonconsensual sexual acts
Abusive sexual contacts only
Staff sexual misconduct
Unwilling activity
Excluding touching
Touching only
Willing activity
Excluding touching
Touching only

NIS-1
2007
4.5%
2.1%
1.3
0.8
2.9%
1.7
1.3
0.4
1.7
1.5**
0.2

Percent of prison inmates
NIS-2
NIS-3
2008–09
2011–12*
4.4%
4.0%
2.1%
2.0%
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
2.8%
2.4%
1.7
1.5
1.3
1.1
0.4
0.4
1.8**
1.4
1.5**
1.2
0.3
0.2

NIS-1
2007
3.2%
1.6%
0.7
0.9
2.0%
1.3
1.1
0.3
1.1**
0.9**
0.2

Percent of jail inmates
NIS-2
NIS-3
2008–09
2011–12*
3.1%
3.2%
1.5%
1.6%
0.8
0.7
0.7**
0.9
2.0%
1.8%
1.5
1.4
1.1
1.0
0.4
0.3
1.1**
0.9
0.9**
0.7
0.2
0.1

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 appendix table
10 for standard errors.
*Comparison group.
**Difference with comparison group is significant at the 95%-confidence level. (See Methodology for tests of significance.)
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2007, 2008–09, and 2011–12.

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013

10

As with the NIS-2, the criterion that the lower bound of
the confidence interval be at least 55% higher than the
average rate for comparable facilities was used in the NIS-3
to identify high-rate male prisons, female prisons, and
jails. The criterion that the upper bound of the confidence
interval be lower than 65% of the average rate for
comparable facilities was used to identify low-rate facilities.

This method provides asymmetrical confidence intervals
for facilities in which the lower bound is constrained to
be no less than 0%. It also provides confidence intervals
for facilities in which the survey estimates are 0% (but
other similarly conducted samples could yield non-zero
estimates).
Although the NIS-3 provides facility-level estimates and
measures of precision, it cannot provide an exact ranking
for all facilities as required under PREA. Rates of inmateon-inmate sexual victimization and staff sexual misconduct
differ across facilities, but the observed differences are
not always statistically significant. To address PREA
requirements, facilities have been categorized as having
high rates or low rates based on criteria applied to the lower
and upper bounds of the 95%-confidence interval for each
facility (figure 1 and figure 2).

To better identify variations among correctional facilities
in rates of sexual victimization, prisons and jails are
compared separately by type of sexual victimization.
Though informative, an analysis of a single, overall
prevalence rate of sexual victimization for each
sampled facility would confound differing risk factors,
circumstances, and underlying causes of victimization.
For the same reasons, prisons are compared separately by
the sex of inmates housed.

Figure 1
Confidence intervals at the 95% level for prisons with high rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization, National Inmate
Survey, 2011–12
Percent
25
20
15
10
5
0

All
prisons

Northwest
Florida
Reception
Ctr. (FL)

Idaho
Max.
Security
Inst. (ID)

Montana Montford
State
Psychiatric
Prison (MT) Fac. (TX)

Stiles
Unit (TX)

Southern
State
Corr.
Fac. (VT)

*Facility housed only female inmates.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12.

Apalachee Clements
Corr. Inst./ Unit (TX)
West/ East
Unit/ River
Junction (FL)

Maine
Farmington Utah
Mabel
Corr.
Corr.
State
Bassett
Ctr. (ME) Fac. (MO)
Prison (UT) Corr.
Ctr. (OK)*

Figure 2
Confidence intervals at the 95% level for jails with high rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization, National Inmate
Survey, 2011–12
Percent
12
10
8
6
4
2
0

All jails

Ripley Co.
Jail (IN)

Philadelphia Harris Co. Jail City Riverside 1200 Baker
Corr. Fac. (PA)* Street Jail (TX)

Eastern
Regional
Jail (WV)

Cook Co. Division
11 (IL)

New York City Los Angeles Co. Rose M. Singer Twin Towers
Ctr. (NY)*
Corr. Fac. (CA)

Western
Regional
Jail (WV)

Schenectady
Co. Jail (NY)

*Facility housed only female inmates.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12.

11

The NIS-3 sample was designed to ensure a sufficient
number of female-only prison facilities (44 facilities
participated) and a sufficient number of female respondents
(7,141 completed the survey) to allow for valid comparisons
among female prisons. Four of the 358 jails that
participated in the NIS-3 housed females only and
one other jail was majority female. As a result, rates
of sexual victimization in jails could not be compared
separately by sex of inmates housed.
11 male prisons, 1 female prison, and 9 jails were
identified as having high rates of inmate-on-inmate
sexual victimization in 2011-12

Among the 233 prisons and 358 jails surveyed in the NIS-3,
11 male prisons, 1 female prison, and 9 jails were designated as
high-rate facilities based on reports of inmate-on-inmate sexual

victimization (table 3). Each of these facilities had a rate of
inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization that was at least twice the
national rate of 1.7% for male prisons, 7.2% for female prisons,
and 1.6% for jails. Each had a 95%-confidence interval with a
lower bound that was at least 55% higher than the average rate
among comparable facilities.
Among male prisons, Northwest Florida Reception
Center (Florida), Idaho Maximum Security Institution,
and Montana State Prison recorded inmate-on-inmate
sexual victimization rates of 9.0% or greater. Mabel Bassett
Correctional Center (Oklahoma), with a rate of 15.3%,
was the only female prison that could be classified as high
rate. Eleven other female-only prison facilities had rates of
10% or greater but did not meet the requirement of a lower
bound that was 55% higher than the average rate for all
female prisons. (See appendix table 2.)

Table 3
Facilities with high rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization, by type of facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12
Facility name
All prisons
Male facilities
Northwest Florida Reception Ctr. (FL)
Idaho Max. Security Inst. (ID)
Montana State Prison (MT)
Montford Psychiatric Fac. (TX)
Stiles Unit (TX)
Southern State Corr. Fac. (VT)
Apalachee Corr. Inst./West/ East Unit/ River Junction (FL)
Clements Unit (TX)
Maine Corr. Ctr. (ME)
Farmington Corr. Fac. (MO)
Utah State Prison (UT)
Female facilities
Mabel Bassett Corr. Ctr. (OK)d
All jails
Ripley Co. Jail (IN)
Philadelphia City Riverside Corr. Fac. (PA)d
Harris Co. Jail - 1200 Baker Street Jail (TX)
Eastern Regional Jail (WV)
Cook Co. - Division 11 (IL)
New York City Rose M. Singer Ctr. (NY)d
Los Angeles Co. - Twin Towers Corr. Fac. (CA)
Western Regional Jail (WV)
Schenectady Co. Jail (NY)

Number of
respondentsb
38,251
31,110
131
78
191
166
151
109
161
141
192
240
233
7,141
192
52,926
51
194
238
130
272
202
199
215
162

Response rate
60.0%
59.0%
49.0
39.0
65.0
70.0
49.0
55.0
57.0
44.0
80.0
84.0
73.0
69.0%
70.0
61.0%
89.0
58.0
58.0
51.0
76.0
63.0
44.0
68.0
68.0

Any inmate-on-inmate incidenta
95%-confidence interval
Percentc
Lower bound
Upper bound
2.0%
1.8%
2.3%
1.7%
1.5%
2.0%
9.8
5.8
16.1
9.4
3.9
21.0
9.0
4.6
16.8
8.4
5.2
13.1
7.8
4.3
13.8
7.7
3.9
14.6
7.3
4.3
12.1
6.8
3.8
11.7
6.1
3.6
10.2
5.8
3.6
9.3
5.6
3.2
9.5
7.2%
5.9%
8.6%
15.3
11.3
20.6
1.6%
1.4%
1.9%
7.9
5.1
11.9
6.7
4.2
10.7
6.3
3.4
11.2
6.0
3.3
10.6
5.5
3.5
8.4
5.0
2.9
8.4
4.9
2.6
9.1
4.8
3.0
7.7
4.4
2.7
7.0

Note: High-rate facilities are those in which the lower bound of the 95%-confidence interval is larger than 1.55 times the average among prisons by sex of inmates housed, and 1.55 times
the average among all jail facilities.
aWeighted percent 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
less than 12 months.
bNumber of inmates who responded to the sexual victimization survey.
cWeights were applied so that inmates who responded accurately reflected the entire population of each facility on selected characteristics, including age, sex, race, sentence length, and
time since admission.
dFacility housed only female inmates.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12.

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013

12

Ripley County Jail (Indiana) recorded an inmate-on-inmate
sexual victimization rate of 7.9% and Philadelphia City
Riverside Correctional Facility (Pennsylvania), a femaleonly jail facility, recorded a rate of 6.7%, both of which
were more than four times the average rate among jails
nationwide. Two other jails—Harris County Jail, Baker
Street (Texas) and Eastern Regional Jail (Martinsburg, West
Virginia)—each had rates of 6% or greater.
8 male prisons, 4 female prisons, and 12 jails were
identified as having high rates of staff sexual misconduct

Twelve prisons were identified as high-rate facilities based
on reports of staff sexual misconduct—eight male prisons
and four female prisons (table 4). Twelve jails were also

identified as high-rate facilities. Each had a confidence
interval with a lower bound that was at least 55% higher
than the national rate for male prisons (2.4%), female
prisons (2.4%), and jails (1.8%) (figure 3 and figure 4).
In five state prisons, at least 9% of surveyed inmates
reported being the victims of staff sexual misconduct,
including 10.1% of inmates in Santa Rosa Correctional
Institution (Florida), 9.9% in Montana State Prison, 9.6%
in Walnut Grove Youth Correctional Facility (Mississippi),
9.5% in Clements Unit (Texas), and 10.7% in Denver
Women’s Correctional Facility (Colorado).

Table 4
Facilities with high rates of staff sexual misconduct, by type of facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12
Facility name
All prisons
Male facilities
Santa Rosa Corr. Inst. (FL)
Montana State Prison (MT)
Walnut Grove Youth Corr. Fac. (MS)
Clements Unit (TX)
Apalachee Corr. Inst./West/ East Unit/ River Junction (FL)
Coffield Unit (TX)
Wilkinson Co. Corr. Ctr. - CCA (MS)
Louisiana State Penitentiary (LA)
Female facilities
Denver Women’s Corr. Fac. (CO)d
Broward Corr. Inst. (FL)d
Delores J. Baylor Women’s Corr. Inst. (DE)d
Julia Tutwiler Prison (AL)d
All jails
Marion Co. Jail Intake Fac. (IN)
Baltimore City Det. Ctr. (MD)
St. Louis Med. Security Inst. (MO)
Philadelphia City Industrial Corr. Ctr. (PA)
Santa Clara Co. Main Jail (CA)
Ulster Co. Law Enforcement Ctr. (NY)
Houston Co. Jail (GA)
Contra Costa Co. Martinez Det. Fac. (CA)
Oakland Co. Law Enforcement Complex (MI)
New York City Rose M. Singer Ctr. (NY)d
New York City Otis Bantum Corr. Ctr. (NY)
Robeson Co. Jail (NC)

Number of
respondentsb
38,251
31,110
185
191
249
141
161
210
173
219
7,141
160
154
165
181
52,926
62
261
220
207
130
153
174
143
148
202
170
147

Response rate
60.0%
59.0%
60.0
65.0
92.0
44.0
57.0
66.0
67.0
70.0
69.0%
68.0
64.0
83.0
68.0
61.0%
43.0
66.0
58.0
69.0
37.0
68.0
71.0
42.0
49.0
63.0
44.0
52.0

Any staff sexual misconducta
95%-confidence interval
Percentc
Lower bound
Upper bound
2.4%
2.0%
2.8%
2.4%
2.0%
2.9%
10.1
6.5
15.5
9.9
5.3
17.7
9.6
6.9
13.2
9.5
5.7
15.3
6.8
3.7
12.2
6.8
4.1
11.1
6.4
3.8
10.6
6.3
3.9
10.1
2.4%
1.9%
3.0%
10.7
6.8
16.3
7.3
3.9
13.3
7.0
4.6
10.3
6.8
4.1
10.9
1.8%
1.7%
2.0%
7.7
3.4
16.3
6.7
4.3
10.2
6.3
3.9
10.0
6.3
3.9
10.0
6.2
3.0
12.5
6.1
3.6
10.2
6.0
3.7
9.6
5.9
3.2
10.4
5.9
3.0
11.1
5.9
3.7
9.4
5.6
2.9
10.5
5.2
3.0
8.7

Note: High-rate facilities are those in which the lower bound of the 95%-confidence interval is larger than 1.55 times the average among prisons by sex of inmates housed, and 1.55 times
the average among all jail facilities.
aWeighted percent 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
less than 12 months.
bNumber of inmates who responded to the sexual victimization survey.
cWeights were applied so that inmates who responded accurately reflected the entire population of each facility on selected characteristics, including age, sex, race, sentence length, and
time since admission.
dFacility housed only female inmates.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12.

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013

13

Seven jails had staff sexual misconduct rates of at least
6%. Marion County Jail Intake Facility (Indiana) had the
highest reported rate of staff sexual misconduct (7.7%),
followed by Baltimore City Detention Center (Maryland)
(6.7%), St. Louis Medium Security Institution (Missouri)
(6.3%), and Philadelphia City Industrial Correctional
Center (Pennsylvania) (6.3%).
The reported use or threat of physical force to engage in
sexual activity with staff was generally low among all prison
and jail inmates (0.8%); however, at least 5% of the inmates
in three state prisons and one high-rate jail facility reported
they had been physically forced or threatened with force.
(See appendix tables 3 and 7.) The Clements Unit (Texas)
had the highest percentage of inmates reporting sexual
victimization involving physical force or threat of force by
staff (8.1%), followed by Denver Women’s Correctional
Facility (Colorado) (7.3%), and Idaho Maximum Security

Institution (6.0%). Wilson County Jail (Kansas) led all
surveyed jails, with 5.6% of inmates reporting that staff used
physical force or threat of force to have sex or sexual contact.
While 0.8% of prison and jail inmates reported the use or
threat of physical force, an estimated 1.4% of prison inmates
and 1.2% of jail inmates reported being coerced by facility
staff without any use or threat of force, including being
pressured or made to feel they had to have sex or sexual
contact. In 8 of the 24 facilities with high rates of staff
sexual misconduct, at least 5% of the inmates reported such
pressure by staff. Among state prisoners, the highest rates
were reported by female inmates in the Denver Women’s
Correctional Facility (Colorado) (8.8%) and by male inmates
in the Clements Unit (Texas) (8.7%). Among jail inmates, the
highest rates were reported by inmates in the Rose M. Singer
Center (New York) (5.6%) and the Contra Costa County
Martinez Detention Facility (California) (5.2%).

Figure 3
Confidence intervals at the 95% level for prisons with high rates of staff sexual misconduct, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12
Percent
20
15
10
5
III

0

All
prisons

Santa
Rosa Corr.
Inst. (FL)

Montana
State
Prison
(MT)

Walnut
Grove
Youth
Corr.
Fac. (MS)

Clements
Unit (TX)

Apalachee Coffield
Corr. Inst./ Unit (TX)
West/ East
Unit/River
Junction (FL)

Wilkinson
Co. Corr.
Ctr. - CCA
(MS)

Louisiana
State
Penitentiary
(LA)

Denver
Women's
Corr. Fac.
(CO)*

Broward
Corr. Inst.
(FL)*

Delores J.
Baylor
Women's
Corr. Inst.
(DE)*

Julia
Tutwiler
Prison
(AL)*

*Facility housed only female inmates.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12.

Figure 4
Confidence intervals at the 95% level for jails with high rates of staff sexual misconduct, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12
Percent
20
15
10

t-

5
0

•
All jails

Marion
Co. Jail
Intake
Fac. (IN)

Baltimore
City Det.
Ctr. (MD)

St. Louis
Med.
Security
Inst. (MO)

Philadelphia
City
Industrial
Corr. Ctr. (PA)

Santa
Clara Co.
Main Jail
(CA)

Ulster Co. Houston
Law
Co. Jail (GA)
Enforcement
Ctr. (NY)

Contra
Costa Co.
Martinez
Det. Fac.
(CA)

Oakland
Co. Law
Enforcement
Complex
(MI)

New York
City Rose M.
Singer
Ctr. (NY)*

New York
City Otis
Bantum
Corr. Ctr.
(NY)

Robeson
Co. Jail
(NC)

*Facility housed only female inmates.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12.

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013

14

7 male prisons, 6 female prisons, and 4 jails were
identified as low-rate facilities for sexual victimization
overall

Thirteen prisons and 34 jails had no reported incidents of
sexual victimization of any kind. (See appendix tables 1
and 5.) Estimates of the number of inmates who
experienced a sexual victimization in each of these facilities
are also subject to sampling error and could vary if a
different group of inmates had been interviewed. Although
the lower bound of the 95%-confidence interval in each of
these facilities is 0%, the upper bound varies depending on
the number of completed interviews in each facility.
Combining reports of inmate-on-inmate sexual
victimization and staff sexual misconduct, seven male
prisons and six female prisons were designated as low-rate
facilities. These designations were based on their low rate
of sexual victimization overall and the upper bound of
their 95%-confidence interval that was less than 65% of

the average rate among male and female prisons (table 5).
Six of these facilities had no reported incidents of sexual
victimization, while seven facilities had at least one inmate
who reported sexual victimization.
Danville Correctional Center (Illinois), with a reported
sexual victimization rate of 0.5%, had a confidence interval
with the lowest upper bound (1.8%) among male prisons.
FCI Marianna Camp (operated in Florida by the Federal
Bureau of Prisons), with a reported sexual victimization
rate of 0.6%, had a confidence interval with the lowest
upper bound (2.1%) among female prisons.
Four jails were designated as low-rate facilities based on
the upper bound of the 95%-confidence interval that was
less than 65% of the average for jails nationwide. Woodford
County Detention Center (Kentucky), with a 0.1% overall
sexual victimization rate, had a confidence interval with the
lowest upper bound (0.6%).

Table 5
Facilities with low rates of sexual victimization, by type of facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12
Facility name
All prisons
Male prisons
Danville Corr. Ctr. (IL)
Lawtey Corr. Inst. (FL)
CI Eden (TX)d
CI Reeves III (TX) d
CI Reeves I and II (TX) d
Jackie Brannon Corr. Ctr. (OK)
La Palma Corr. Ctr. (AZ) d
Female prisons
FCI Marianna Camp (FL)
FMC Lexington Camp (KY)
Decatur Corr. Ctr. (IL)
Brunswick Women’s Reception and Pre-Release Ctr. (VA)
Woodman State Jail (TX)
Mary Frances Ctr. (NC)
All jails
Woodford Co. Det. Ctr. (KY)
Cameron Co. Carrizales-Rucker Det. Ctr. (TX)
Jefferson Co. Jail (CO)
Sarasota North Co. Jail (FL)

Number of
respondentsb
38,251
31,110
205
198
185
188
180
179
163
7,141
172
148
157
95
139
68
52,926
34
262
205
203

Response rate
60.0%
59.0%
70.0
80.0
67.0
69.0
64.0
72.0
45.0
69.0%
88.0
83.0
65.0
86.0
57.0
85.0
61.0%
51.0
72.0
62.0
65.0

Inmates reporting any sexual victimizationa
95%-confidence interval
Percentc
Lower bound
Upper bound
4.0%
3.6%
4.5%
3.7%
3.2%
4.3%
0.5
0.2
1.8
0.0
0.0
1.9
0.0
0.0
2.0
0.4
0.1
2.0
0.0
0.0
2.1
0.5
0.1
2.3
0.0
0.0
2.3
8.5%
7.2%
10.0%
0.6
0.2
2.1
0.8
0.2
2.7
1.1
0.3
3.3
0.0
0.0
3.9
1.3
0.4
4.3
0.0
0.0
5.3
3.2%
2.9%
3.5%
0.1
0.0
0.6
0.3
0.1
1.6
0.0
0.0
1.8
0.0
0.0
1.9

Note: Low-rate facilities are those in which the upper bound of the 95%-confidence interval is lower than 0.65 times the average among prisons by sex of inmates housed, and 0.65 times
the average among all jail facilities.
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 less than
12 months.
bNumber of inmates who responded to the sexual victimization survey.
cWeights were applied so that inmates who responded accurately reflected the entire population of each facility on selected characteristics, including age, sex, race, time since admission,
and sentence length.
dPrivately operated facility.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12.

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013

15

In 2011-12, two military facilities and one Indian country
jail had high rates of staff sexual misconduct

The NIS-3 also surveyed 15 special confinement facilities,
including 5 ICE facilities, 5 military facilities, and 5 Indian
country jails. (See Methodology for sample description.)
As a result of too few completed interviews, rates in two
Indian country facilities—Hualapai Adult Detention Center
(Arizona) and Standing Rock Law Enforcement and Adult
Detention Center (North Dakota)—could not be provided.
Among ICE facilities, sexual victimization rates were
highest in the Krome North Service Processing Center
(Florida), in which 3.2% of detainees reported experiencing
sexual victimization by another detainee and 3.0% reported
experiencing staff sexual misconduct (table 6). Overall, an
estimated 3.8% of detainees in this ICE facility reported
experiencing one or more incidents of sexual victimization,
which was somewhat lower than the 4.0% average in
prisons nationwide and slightly higher than the 3.2%
average in jails nationwide. (See appendix table 9.)
The Northwest Joint Regional Correctional Facility
(Washington), which is operated by the U.S. Army
Corrections Command and holds pretrial offenders

and short-term post-trial offenders, had a staff sexual
misconduct rate (6.6%) that was more than double the
average rate for prisons (2.4%) and jails (1.8%) nationwide.
Inmates held at this military facility also reported a high
rate of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization (5.1%),
which was also more than double the 2.0% average among
prisons and 1.6% average among jails nationwide.
Inmates at the Naval Consolidated Brig Mirimar (California)
reported high rates of staff sexual misconduct (4.9%) and
inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization (3.0%). This facility,
which is operated by the U.S. Navy, holds male inmates
sentenced to terms of 10 years or less and female inmates
regardless of sentence length from all military services.
Among all facilities sampled, staff sexual misconduct was
highest in the Oglala Sioux Tribal Offenders Facility (South
Dakota) (10.8%). Based on the 6.2% lower bound of the
95%-confidence interval, the rate of staff sexual misconduct
in this Indian country facility was statistically higher than
the rate reported for any jail nationwide. This facility, with a
peak population of 147 in June 2011, was the most crowded
facility among the 80 Indian jails in operation at midyear
2011. (See Jails in Indian Country, 2011, NCJ 238978.)

Table 6
Rates of sexual victimization in special correctional facilities, by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey,
2011–12
Facility name
Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities
El Centro SPC (CA)
Jena/LaSalle Det. Fac. (LA)b
Krome North SPC (FL)
Otero Co. Processing Ctr. (NM)
Port Isabel Processing Ctr. (TX)
Military facilities
Midwest Joint Regional Corr. Fac., Fort Leavenworth (KS)
Naval Consolidated Brig, Charleston (SC)
Naval Consolidated Brig, Miramar (CA)c
Northwest Joint Regional Corr. Fac. (WA)
United States Disciplinary Barracks, Fort Leavenworth (KS)
Indian country jails
Hualapai Adult Det. Ctr. (AZ)b
Laguna Det. Ctr. (NM)b
Oglala Sioux Tribal Offenders Fac. (SD)b
San Carlos Dept. of Corr. and Rehabilitation - Adult
and Juvenile Det. (AZ)b
Standing Rock Law Enforcement and Adult Det. Ctr. (ND)b

Number of
completed
interviews

Any inmate-on-inmate incident
95%-confidence interval
Percenta Lower bound Upper bound

Any staff sexual misconduct
95%-confidence interval
Percenta Lower bound Upper bound

115
97
60
140
161

0.0%
0.0
3.2
1.7
2.3

0.0%
0.0
0.8
0.6
1.0

3.2%
3.8
11.7
4.4
5.6

0.8%
1.1
3.0
0.5
0.0

0.2%
0.2
0.7
0.1
0.0

3.4%
5.4
11.6
2.4
2.3

82
94
121
85
157

1.0%
2.9
3.0
5.1
2.1

0.3%
1.6
1.5
1.9
0.9

3.6%
5.3
6.0
13.0
5.1

3.0%
2.4
4.9
6.6
1.1

1.3%
1.1
2.5
2.9
0.4

6.7%
5.1
9.4
14.1
3.2

7
26
56

^
0.0%
1.8

^
0.0%
0.5

^
12.9%
6.4

^
0.0%
10.8

^
0.0%
6.2

^
12.9%
17.9

64
7

0.0
^

0.0
^

5.7
^

1.6
^

0.6
^

4.2
^

^Too few cases to provide reliable estimate.
aWeighted percent 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
less than 12 months.
bFacility housed both males and females; both were sampled at this facility.
cFacility housed both males and females; only males were sampled at this facility.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12.

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013

16

ƒƒ Rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization among

Demographic and other characteristics
Overweight and obese prison inmates had lower rates of
inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization and staff misconduct
than inmates who were at or below a normal weight

Variations in reported sexual victimization rates across
inmate demographic categories in the NIS-3 were
consistent with past surveys:

prison inmates were higher among females (6.9%) than
males (1.7%), higher among whites (2.9%) or inmates of
two or more races (4.0%) than among blacks (1.3%), higher
among inmates with a college degree (2.7%) than among
inmates who had not completed high school (1.9%), and
lower among currently married inmates (1.4%) than among
inmates who never married (2.1%) (table 7).

Table 7
Prevalence of sexual victimization, by type of incident and inmate characteristics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12
Characteristic
Sex
Male*
Female
Race/Hispanic origin
Whitec
Blackc*
Hispanic
Otherc,d
Two or more racesc
Age
18–19
20–24*
25–34
35–44
45–54
55 or older
Education
Less than high school*
High school graduate
Some collegee
College degree or more
Marital status
Married*
Widowed, divorced, or separated
Never married
Body Mass Index
Underweight
Normal*
Overweight
Obese
Morbidly obese

Prison inmates reporting sexual victimizationa
Number of
Staff sexual
inmatesb
Inmate-on-inmate
misconduct
1,345,200
96,600

Jail inmates reporting sexual victimizationa
Number of
Staff sexual
inmatesb
Inmate-on-inmate
misconduct

1.7%
6.9**

2.4%
2.3

628,600
91,600

1.4%
3.6**

1.9%
1.4**

430,000
507,900
339,800
38,200
108,300

2.9%**
1.3
1.6
1.7
4.0**

1.6%**
2.6
2.2
2.6
3.9**

240,500
239,200
159,300
18,900
54,300

2.0%**
1.1
1.5
1.2
3.0**

1.4%**
2.1
1.5**
1.8
3.2**

18,500
162,500
457,100
398,200
281,400
124,000

1.6%
2.2
2.3
2.0
2.0
1.1**

2.4%
3.5
2.9
2.3**
1.7**
0.8**

40,000
145,800
250,700
150,900
102,800
30,000

1.9%
2.0
1.9
1.4**
1.1**
1.3

2.6%
2.4
2.2
1.5**
0.9**
0.3**

813,300
293,900
231,100
98,700

1.9%
1.7
2.7**
2.7**

2.4%
2.3
1.8
2.4

379,700
168,700
120,700
47,200

1.4%
1.4
2.3**
3.0**

1.8%
1.7
1.9
2.7**

265,600
390,500
741,200

1.4%
1.9
2.1**

1.9%
1.6
2.5

134,800
165,800
410,800

1.1%
1.9**
1.7**

1.8%
1.7
1.8

12,500
357,000
632,200
348,700
32,700

3.2%
2.7
1.4**
1.8**
2.7

3.6%
2.7
2.0**
1.8**
3.7

9,800
267,000
272,200
133,000
14,400

3.5%**
1.6
1.5
1.7
3.0**

2.0%
1.8
1.7
1.9
2.6

Note: See appendix table 11 for standard errors.
*Comparison group.
**Difference with comparison group is signficant at the 95%-confidence level.
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 less
than 12 months.
bEstimated number of inmates at midyear 2011 and yearend 2011 in prisons and jails represented by NIS-3, excluding inmates under age 18. Estimates have been rounded to
the nearest 100.
cExcludes persons of Hispanic or Latino origin.
dIncludes American Indian, Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian, and other Pacific Islander.
eIncludes persons with an associate degree.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12.

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013

17

ƒƒ Similar patterns of inmate-on-inmate sexual

victimization were reported by jail inmates. Female
jail inmates (3.6%), whites (2.0%), and inmates with
a college degree (3.0%) reported higher rates of
victimization than males (1.4%), blacks (1.1%), and
inmates who had not completed high school (1.4%).

ƒƒ Rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization were

unrelated to age among state and federal prisoners, except
for slightly lower rates among inmates age 55 or older.

ƒƒ Rates were lower among jail inmates in the oldest age

categories (ages 35 to 44, 45 to 54, and 55 or older) than
among jail inmates ages 20 to 24.

ƒƒ Patterns of staff sexual misconduct were different, with

higher rates among males in jails (1.9%) than among
females in jails (1.4%), and higher among black inmates
in prisons (2.6%) and jails (2.1%) than among white
inmates in prisons (1.6%) and jails (1.4%).

ƒƒ In both prisons and jails, rates of reported staff sexual

misconduct were lower among inmates in the oldest
age categories (ages 35 to 44, 45 to 54, and 55 or older),
compared to inmates in the 20 to 24 age category.

With a new survey question on the inmate’s specific height
in combination with a question on the inmate’s weight, the
NIS-3 provides the first opportunity to determine if rates of
sexual victimization vary based on an inmate’s Body Mass
Index (BMI). Among state and federal prison inmates,
obese inmates (with a BMI of 30 to 39) and overweight

inmates (with a BMI of 25 to 30) had lower rates of inmateon-inmate sexual victimization and staff sexual misconduct
than inmates with a normal weight (with a BMI of 18.5 to
24) or who were underweight (a BMI of less than 18.5).
(See Methodology for calculation of BMI.)
Among jail inmates, those underweight (3.5%) and those
morbidly obese (BMI of 40 or greater) (3.0%) have nearly
double the rate of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization
than inmates in other categories (1.6%, normal weight;
1.5%, overweight; and 1.7%, obese). There are no
statistically significant variations in reported staff sexual
misconduct among jail inmates across BMI categories.
Large differences in sexual victimization were found
among inmates based on their sexual orientation and past
sexual experiences

Inmates who identified their sexual orientation as gay,
lesbian, bisexual, or other reported high rates of inmate-oninmate sexual victimization and staff sexual misconduct:

ƒƒ Among heterosexual state and federal prisoners, an

estimated 1.2% reported being sexually victimized by
another inmate, and 2.1% reported being victimized by
staff. In comparison, among non-heterosexual prison
inmates (including gay, lesbian, bisexual, and other
sexual orientations), 12.2% reported being sexually
victimized by another inmate, and 5.4% reported being
sexually victimized by staff (table 8).

Table 8
Prevalence of sexual victimization, by type of incident and inmate sexual characteristics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12
Sexual characteristic
Sexual orientation
Heterosexual*
Non-heterosexualc
Number of sexual partners
0–1*
2–4
5–10
11–20
21 or more
Prior sexual victimization
Yes
No*

Prison inmates reporting sexual victimizationa
Number of
Staff sexual
inmatesb
Inmate-on-inmate
misconduct

Jail inmates reporting sexual victimizationa
Number of
Staff sexual
inmatesb
Inmate-on-inmate
misconduct

1,298,000
111,500

1.2%
12.2**

2.1%
5.4**

654,500
50,100

1.2%
8.5**

1.7%
4.3**

227,500
173,300
242,200
218,500
491,700

1.1%
2.3**
2.1**
2.5**
1.9**

1.2%
1.6
1.5
2.9**
2.8**

106,900
99,900
127,800
117,100
234,600

1.5%
1.7
1.6
1.8
1.8

1.1%
1.4
1.2
1.6
2.9**

178,800
1,262,500

12.0%**
0.6

6.7%**
1.8

94,200
625,800

8.3%**
0.6

5.1%**
1.3

Note: See appendix table 12 for standard errors.
*Comparison group.
**Difference with comparison group is significant at the 95%-confidence level.
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 less
than 12 months.
bEstimated number of inmates at midyear 2011 and yearend 2011 in prisons and jails represented by NIS-3, excluding inmates under age 18. Estimates have been rounded to
the nearest 100.
cIncludes gay, lesbian, bisexual, and other sexual orientations.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12.

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013

18

ƒƒ Among jail inmates, heterosexual inmates reported

lower rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization
(1.2%) and staff sexual misconduct (1.7%) than nonheterosexual inmates (8.5% for inmate-on-inmate and
4.3% for staff sexual misconduct).

ƒƒ Inmates who experienced sexual victimization before

coming to the facility were also more likely than inmates
with no sexual victimization history to report incidents
of sexual victimization involving other inmates and staff.
Among inmates who experienced sexual victimization
before coming to the facility, 12.0% of prisoners and
8.3% of jail inmates reported being sexually victimized

by another inmate at the current facility. An estimated
6.7% of prisoners and 5.1% of jail inmates who
experienced sexual victimization before coming to the
facility reported sexual victimization by staff.
In 2011-12, inmates held for a violent sexual offense
reported higher rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual
victimization than inmates held for other offenses

An estimated 3.7% of violent sex offenders in prison and
3.9% of violent sex offenders in jail reported being sexually
victimized by another inmate in the last 12 months or since
admission to the facility, if less than 12 months (table 9).

Table 9
Prevalence of sexual victimization, by type of incident and inmate criminal justice status and history, National Inmate
Survey, 2011–12
Criminal justice status and history
Most serious offense
Violent sexual offense*
Other violent
Property
Drug
Other
Sentence length
Less than 1 year
1–4 years*
5–9 years
10–19 years
20 years or more
Life/death
Time in a correctional facility prior to current facility
None
Less than 6 months
6–11 months
1–4 years
5 years or more
Number of times arrested
1 time*
2–3
4–10
11 or more
Time since admission
Less than 1 month*
1–5 months
6–11 months
1–4 years
5 years or more

Prison inmates reporting sexual victimizationa
Number of
Inmate-on- Staff sexual
prison inmatesb
inmate
misconduct

Jail inmates reporting sexual victimizationa
Number of
Inmate-on- Staff sexual
jail inmatesb
inmate
misconduct

211,300
440,900
244,100
310,300
162,900

3.7%
2.3**
2.4**
0.7**
1.7**

2.1%
3.4**
2.6
1.1**
2.1

34,300
113,700
165,400
153,900
190,300

3.9%
2.3**
1.9**
1.1**
1.2**

2.0%
3.3**
1.7
1.4
1.6

53,400
350,400
311,100
296,900
239,300
139,600

1.5%
1.8
1.6
1.8
2.2
2.7**

1.6%
1.3
2.2**
2.3**
2.5**
3.2**

:
:
:
:
:
:

:
:
:
:
:
:

:
:
:
:
:
:

296,400
161,400
131,200
384,900
423,500

1.8%
2.3
1.7
1.6
2.2

1.5%
1.7
2.1
1.8
3.0**

204,500
135,500
69,200
171,700
129,700

1.9%
1.7
1.5
1.4**
1.6

1.5%
1.3
1.9
2.1**
2.5**

217,600
427,200
495,400
253,200

2.0%
2.0
1.8
2.0

1.7%
2.2
2.0
2.8**

78,800
197,800
265,900
164,400

2.1%
1.7
1.5
1.5

1.3%
1.6
1.9**
2.3**

79,600
367,500
263,200
558,100
172,400

1.4%
1.6
2.2
2.1
2.9**

0.8%
1.7**
2.6**
2.5**
3.4**

226,800
341,100
92,500
58,000
1,600

0.9%
1.7**
2.7**
2.6**
2.1

1.2%
1.8**
2.5**
3.3**
3.2

Note: See appendix table 13 for standard errors.
: Not calculated.
*Comparison group.
**Difference with comparison group is significant at the 95%-confidence level.
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 less
than 12 months.
bEstimated number of inmates at midyear 2011 and yearend 2011 in prisons and jails represented by NIS-3, excluding inmates under age 18. Estimates have been rounded to
the nearest 100.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12.

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013

19

These rates were higher than those reported by inmates
held for other offenses. Among state and federal prisoners,
rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization were—

ƒƒ higher among prison inmates serving a sentence of life

or death (2.7%) than among inmates serving a sentence
of 1 to 4 years (1.8%).

ƒƒ higher among prison inmates who had been at their

current facility for 5 years or more (2.9%) than among
inmates who had been admitted in the last month (1.4%).

Among jail inmates, the rate of inmate-on-inmate sexual
victimization increased with the length of time served
in the current facility, rising from 0.9% among inmates
who had been at the facility for less than a month to 1.7%
among inmates in jail for 1 to 5 months, 2.7% among
inmates in jail for 6 to 11 months, and 2.6% among those
in jail for 1 to 4 years.
Rates of staff sexual misconduct varied among inmates
based on their criminal justice status and history

ƒƒ Among state and federal prisoners, inmates with a

long sentence, inmates who had served 5 years or more
in prison prior to coming to the current facility, and
inmates who had served 5 years or more at the current
facility were more likely to report experiencing staff
sexual misconduct than inmates with a sentence of 1 to
4 years, inmates who had not served any prior time, and
inmates who had been admitted in the last month.

ƒƒ Among jail inmates, the rate of reported staff sexual

misconduct increased with time served in the current
facility and was higher among inmates who had
previously served time in a correctional facility for 1 year
or more.

These variations in rates of sexual victimization among
inmate subgroups based on demographic characteristics,
sexual history and orientation, and criminal justice status
are almost identical to those reported in the NIS-2. (See
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by
Inmates, 2008-09, NCJ 231169, BJS Web, August 2010.)

Special inmate populations—Inmates ages 16 to 17
In 2011-12, juvenile inmates ages 16 to 17 held in adult
facilities reported rates of sexual victimization similar to
those of adult inmates

The NIS-3 was specially designed to provide estimates of
sexual victimization for inmates ages 16 to 17 held in adult
facilities. Previous NIS collections excluded inmates age 17
or younger due to special human subject issues (related to
consent and assent, as well as risk of trauma in the survey
process) and statistical issues (related to clustering of youth
and the need to oversample to ensure a representative
sample). To address issues of consent and risk, the NIS-3
juvenile sample was restricted to inmates ages 16 to 17
(who represented an estimated 95% of the 1,790 juveniles
held in prisons at yearend 2011 and 97% of the 5,870
juveniles held in local jails at midyear 2011).
The NIS-3 was designed to oversample for facilities that
house juveniles and to oversample juveniles within selected
facilities. The resulting sample was structured to provide
separate nationwide estimates for juveniles in prisons
and jails, while providing national-level and facility-level
estimates for adult inmates that were comparable to
estimates in the NIS-1 and NIS-2. (See Methodology for the
juvenile sample design.)

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013

20

Juveniles ages 16 to 17 held in prisons and jails did not
report significantly higher rates of sexual victimization
than adult inmates. Although the overall rates for juveniles
(4.5% in prisons and 4.7% in jails) were somewhat higher
than those for adults (4.0% in prisons and 3.2% in jails), the
differences were not statistically significant (table 10).
Rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization are
unrelated to age among state and federal prisoners
(table 11). When compared to inmates in every other
age category, inmate ages 16 to 17 reported experiencing
inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization at similar rates.
Among jail inmates, the rate of staff sexual misconduct was
higher for inmates ages 16 to 17 than for older inmates;
however, the differences were statistically significant only
for inmates age 35 or older.
These data do not support the conclusion that juveniles
held in adult prisons and jails are more likely to be sexually
victimized than inmates in other age groups. Due to the
relatively small number of juveniles held in state prisons
(an estimated 1,700 inmates ages 16 to 17 at midyear 2011),
BJS combined these data with reports from juveniles held
in local jails (an estimated 5,700 inmates ages 16 to 17).

Table 10
Juvenile inmates reporting sexual victimization, by type of
incident, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12
Type of incidentb
Total
Inmate-on-inmate
Nonconsensual sexual acts
Abusive sexual contacts only
Staff sexual misconduct
Unwilling activity
Excluding touching
Touching only
Willing activity
Excluding touching
Touching only
Number of inmates

Percent of inmates
All facilities
Prisons
4.7%
4.5%
1.8%
1.8%
0.7
1.6
1.1
0.2
3.2%
2.8%
1.9
0.9
1.6
0.9
0.2
0.0
2.2
2.5
2.2
2.5
0.0
0.0
7,400

1,700

Jails
4.7%
1.8%
0.4
1.4
3.3%
2.2
1.9
0.3
2.1
2.1
0.0
5,700

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
appendix table 14 for standard errors.
: Not calculated.
aStandard errors may be used to construct confidence intervals around each estimate.
See Methodology for calculations.
bSee Methodology for terms and definitions.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12.

Table 11
Prevalence of sexual victimization, by type of incident and age of inmate, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12
Prison inmates
Age
16–17*
18–19
20–24
25–34
35–44
45–54
55 or older

Number
1,700
18,550
162,520
457,060
398,230
281,390
124,050

Inmate-on-inmate
1.8%
1.6
2.2
2.3
2.0
2.0
1.1

Jail inmates
Staff sexual
misconduct
2.8%
2.4
3.5
2.9
2.3
1.7
0.8

Number
5,700
40,000
145,770
250,690
150,890
102,820
30,010

Inmate-on-inmate
1.8%
1.9
2.0
1.9
1.4
1.1
1.3

Staff sexual
misconduct
3.3%
2.6
2.4
2.2
1.5**
0.9**
0.3**

Note: See appendix table 15 for standard errors.
*Comparison group.
**Difference with comparison group is significant at the 95%-confidence level.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12.

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013

21

Overall, the patterns of reported sexual victimization by
juveniles were similar to those for adult inmates, including
higher rates of staff sexual misconduct than rates of inmateon-inmate sexual victimization:

ƒƒ Of juveniles held in prisons and jails, 1.8% reported being

victimized by another inmate in the past 12 months or since
admission to the facility, if less than 12 months)
(table 12). This rate was similar to the rate reported by adult
prisoners (2.0%) and adult jail inmates (1.6%).

ƒƒ Among juveniles held in prisons and jails nationwide,

Among juveniles and young adult inmates in 2011-12,
patterns of sexual victimization across demographic
subgroups showed little variation

Across subgroups defined by sex, race or Hispanic origin,
BMI, sexual orientation, and most serious offense,
juveniles and young adults reported experiencing similar
rates of sexual victimization. Due to the small number of
juveniles within each subgroup, few differences in sexual
victimization rates across age groups were statistically
significant. (Tests across age group not shown; see appendix
table 14 for standard errors.)

3.2% reported experiencing staff sexual misconduct.
Though higher, the rate was not statistically different from
that of adults in prisons (2.4%) and adults in jails (1.8%).

Table 12
Prevalence of sexual victimization among juveniles ages 16–17 and inmates ages 18–19 and 20–24, by type of incident and
inmate characteristics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12
Characteristic
All inmates
Sex
Male*
Female
Race/Hispanic origin
Whitec
Blackc*
Hispanic
Otherc,d
Two or more racesc
Body Mass Index
Underweight
Normal*
Overweight
Obese
Morbidly obese
Sexual orientation
Heterosexual*
Non-heterosexuale
Most serious offense
Violent sexual offense*
Other violent
Property
Drug
Other

Prison and jail inmates reporting sexual victimizationa
Number of inmates
Inmate-on-inmate
Staff sexual misconduct
Ages 16–17
18–19
20–24
Ages 16–17
18–19
20–24
Ages 16–17
18–19
20–24
7,400
58,550
308,290
1.8%
1.8%
2.1%
3.2%
2.5%
2.9%
6,930
470

54,220
4,330

280,670
27,610

1.6%
4.4

1.5%
5.2**

1.8%
5.7**

3.3%
0.9**

2.6%
0.8**

3.1%
1.7**

910
3,760
1,820
100
740

12,080
24,770
14,730
1,120
5,430

76,890
115,000
78,470
8,200
25,910

6.6%
1.1
1.1
0.0**
1.5

3.8%**
1.0
1.6
1.6
2.0

3.6%**
1.2
1.5
1.1
3.8**

3.4%
3.3
3.5
0.0**
1.9

2.5%
2.5
2.0
1.8
3.8

2.0%**
3.0
3.0
4.7
3.6

340
4,410
1,540
520
70

1,260
33,850
15,940
3,970
310

3,670
139,140
110,360
36,160
3,740

5.9%
1.1
2.4
4.8
0.0**

1.7%
1.8
1.9
2.0
5.3

2.5%
2.0
1.7
2.9
4.3

6.6%
2.9
2.7
4.8
0.0**

1.8%
2.6
2.8
0.9**
7.3

4.1%
2.4
3.0
3.2
5.0

6,930
270

54,200
3,150

277,960
22,840

1.7%
6.3

1.1%
13.9**

1.4%
11.3**

3.0%
1.4

2.5%
4.3

2.6%
7.0**

160
3,100
2,170
480
870

2,200
18,580
18,480
6,980
8,230

18,830
94,970
70,730
53,990
50,900

7.5%
1.7
1.0
4.8
2.3

10.4%
1.5
1.5
1.3
1.8

6.9%
2.1**
2.4**
1.4**
1.2**

12.0%
4.3
1.5**
2.9
1.9**

3.0%
3.6
2.4
1.6
1.3

2.4%
4.1**
2.5
2.0
2.1

Note: See appendix table 16 for standard errors.
*Comparison group.
**Difference with comparison group is significant at the 95%-confidence level.
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 less than
12 months.
bEstimated number of inmates at midyear 2011 in jails and yearend 2011 in prisons represented by NIS-3, excluding inmates under age 18. Estimates have been rounded to the
nearest 100.
cExcludes persons of Hispanic or Latino origin.
dIncludes American Indian, Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian, and other Pacific Islander.
eIncludes gay, lesbian, bisexual, and other sexual orientations.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12.

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013

22

Among juvenile inmates ages 16 to 17 and young adult
inmates ages 18 to 19 and 20 to 24—

Among juveniles victimized by other inmates in 2011-12,
more than three-quarters experienced force or threat of
force, and a quarter were injured

ƒƒ Young adult females reported higher rates of inmate-

Juveniles ages 16 to 17 who reported sexual victimization
by other inmates revealed that—

on-inmate sexual victimization than young adult males,
while young adult males reported higher rates of staff
sexual misconduct than young adult females.

ƒƒ White non-Hispanic young adults (ages 18 to 19 and 20

to 24) reported higher rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual
victimization than black non-Hispanic and Hispanic
youth in the same age groups.

ƒƒ Inmates ages 18 to 19 and 20 to 24 with a sexual

orientation other than heterosexual experienced higher
rates of sexual victimization by another inmate than
heterosexual inmates in similar age groups.

ƒƒ Male juvenile inmates reported higher rates of staff
sexual misconduct (3.3%) than female juveniles (0.9%).
ƒƒ Juvenile inmates held for violent sex offenses reported
higher rates of staff sexual misconduct (12.0%) than
those held for property offenses (1.5%).

ƒƒ Two-thirds were victimized more than once (65.5%)
(table 13).

ƒƒ An estimated 78.6% reported experiencing physical

force or threat of force, and 39.8% were pressured by the
perpetrator to engage in the sexual act or other sexual
contact.

ƒƒ More than a quarter (27.7%) were injured in at least one
of the incidents.

ƒƒ Fewer than 1 in 6 (15.4%) reported an incident to

someone at the facility, a family member, or a friend.

Among juvenile inmates ages 16 to 17 who reported
experiencing staff sexual misconduct—

ƒƒ Three-quarters (75.8%) were victimized more than once.
ƒƒ An estimated 43.7% said that staff used force or threat
of force.

ƒƒ An estimated 10.8% were injured in at least one of the
incidents.

ƒƒ Fewer than 1 in 10 (9.0%) reported the staff sexual

misconduct to someone at the facility, a family member,
or a friend.

Table 13
Circumstances surrounding incidents among juveniles ages 16–17 and inmates ages 18–19 and 20–24, by type of
victimization, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12
Victims in prisons and jails
Circumstance
Number of victims
Number of incidentsa
1
2 or more
Type of coercion or forceb
Without pressure or force
Pressured
Force or threat of force
Ever injured
Ever report an incident

Inmate-on-inmate
18–19
1,070

20–24
6,490

16–17*
230

34.5%
65.5

26.2%
73.8

29.9%
70.1

24.2%
75.8

19.7%
80.3

27.9%
72.1

~
39.8%
78.6
27.7%
15.4%

~
62.6%
75.5
33.2%
29.9%

~
73.8%**
62.1
15.9%
18.1%

68.9%
51.2
43.7
10.8%
9.0%

59.9%
52.6
36.2
12.9%
14.3%

67.2%
49.7
33.0
13.5%
16.9%

Ages 16–17*
130

Staff sexual misconduct
18–19
1,470

20–24
9,070

Note: See appendix table 17 for standard errors.
~Not applicable.
*Comparison group.
**Difference with comparison group is significant at the 95%-confidence level.
aNumber of incidents by another inmate and number of reported willing and unwilling incidents of staff sexual misconduct.
bDetail sums to more than 100% because some inmates reported more than one victimization.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12.

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013

23

Special inmate populations— Inmates with mental
health problems
The NIS-3 collected data on the mental health problems of
inmates for the first time in 2011-12. Inmates were asked
whether they had been told by a mental health professional
that they had a mental disorder or if because of a mental
health problem they had stayed overnight in a hospital
or other facility, used prescription medicine, or they had
received counseling or treatment from a trained professional.
These items have been previously used by BJS to determine if
inmates in prisons and jails had any history of mental health
problems. (See Mental Health Problems of Prison and Jail
Inmates, NCJ 213600, BJS Web, September 2006.)
A high percentage of inmates had a history of problems
with their emotions, nerves, or mental health

the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
(DSM-IV) (table 14). Inmates were asked specifically if
they had ever been told they had manic depression, bipolar
disorder, or other depressive disorder, schizophrenia
or another psychotic disorder, post-traumatic stress
disorder, or an anxiety or other personality disorder. (See
Methodology for survey items and full list of disorders.)
More than a third of prison inmates (35.8%) and jail
inmates (39.2%) said they had received some counseling
or therapy from a trained professional for these problems.
An estimated 8.9% of prisoners and 12.8% of jail
inmates reported an overnight stay in a hospital or other
facility before their current admission to prison or jail.
Approximately 15.4% of prisoners and 19.7% of jail inmates
reported taking prescription medication for these mental
health and emotional problems at the time of the offense
for which they were currently being held.

An estimated 36.6% of prison inmates and 43.7% of jail
inmates reported being told by a mental health professional
that they had a mental health disorder, as specified in
Table 14
Prevalence of victimization by current mental health status and history of mental health problems among inmates, by type
of facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12
Mental health status
Current mental health statusa
No mental illness*
Anxiety-mood disorder
Serious psychological distress
History of mental health problemsb
Ever told by mental health
professional had disorder
Yes
No*
Had overnight stay in hospital in
year before current admission
Yes
No*
Used prescription medications at
time of current offense
Yes
No*
Ever received professional mental
health therapy
Yes
No*

Numberb

Adult prison inmates
Inmate-onPercent
inmate

Staff sexual
misconduct

Number

Adult jail inmates
Inmate-onPercent
inmate

Staff sexual
misconduct

926,800
251,700
203,200

67.1%
18.2
14.7

0.7%
2.8**
6.3**

1.1%
3.0**
5.6**

360,600
155,800
184,500

51.4%
22.2
26.3

0.7%
1.3**
3.6**

1.0%
1.4**
3.6**

505,600
875,500

36.6%
63.4

3.8%**
0.8

3.4%**
1.3

305,400
393,500

43.7%
56.3

2.9%**
0.6

2.5%**
1.2

122,800
1,257,700

8.9
91.1

5.7%**
1.5

4.9%**
1.8

89,700
611,300

12.8%
87.2

4.4%**
1.2

3.4%**
1.5

211,800
1,165,000

15.4
84.6

4.5%**
1.4

3.3%**
1.8

137,700
561,400

19.7%
80.3

3.2%**
1.2

2.7%**
1.5

35.8%
64.2

3.6%**
0.9

3.0%**
1.5

274,100
425,200

39.2%
60.8

2.8%**
0.8

2.3%**
1.4

492,000
884,000

Note: See appendix table 18 for standard errors.
*Comparison group.
**Difference with comparison group is signficant at the 95%-confidence level.
aBased on the K6 scale where a score of 1–7 indicates no mental illness, a score of 8–12 indicates anxiety mood-disorder, and a score of 13 or more indicates serious psychological distress.
See Methodology for discussion of the K6 scale and past applications.
bSee Methodology for survey items.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12.

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013

24

Inmates with a history of mental health problems had
higher rates of sexual victimization than other inmates

Inmates who had been told by a mental health professional
that they had a mental disorder were more likely than
other inmates to report being sexually victimized while in
prison or jail. Among inmates who had been told they had
a specific DSM-IV disorder—

ƒƒ During 2011-12, an estimated 3.8% of prison inmates

and 2.9% of jail inmates reported that they were sexually
victimized by another inmate.

ƒƒ Approximately 3.4% of prison inmates and 2.5% of jail

inmates reported that they were sexually victimized by
staff during 2011-12.

Sexual victimization rates were also higher among inmates
who had stayed overnight in a hospital or other treatment
facility because of a mental health problem than among
inmates who had no prior admission for mental health
problems. Among those who had stayed overnight in a
hospital for mental or emotional problems, 5.7% of prison
inmates and 4.4% of jail inmates said they were victimized
by another inmate, and 4.9% of prison inmates and 3.4% of
jail inmates said they were victimized by facility staff.
Differences in sexual victimization rates among inmates
were similar across other mental health measures. Rates of
inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization were—

ƒƒ Two to three times higher among inmates who were

taking prescription medications for their mental health or
emotional problems at the time of the current offense than
among inmates who were not taking such medications.

ƒƒ Three to four times higher among inmates who had

received mental health counseling or treatment from a
trained professional in the past than among inmates who
had not received such counseling or treatment.

In 2011-12, nearly 15% of state and federal prisoners and
26% of jail inmates had symptoms of serious psychological
distress

To determine whether inmates had a current mental
health problem, BJS used the K6 screening scale in the
NIS-3. The K6 was previously developed by Kessler and
others for estimating the prevalence of serious mental
illness in noninstitutional settings as a tool to identify
cases of psychiatric disorder. It has been used widely in
epidemiological surveys in the U.S. and internationally.3,4
3Kessler, R.C., Barker, P.R., Colpe, L.J., Epstein, J.F., Gfroerer, J.C., Hiripi,

E., Howes, M.J., Normand, S.L., Manderscheid, R.W., Walters, E.E., &
Zaslavsky, A.M. (2003). “Screening for serious mental illness in the general
population.” Archives of General Psychiatry, 60, 184–189.

The K6 consists of six questions that ask inmates to report
how often during the past 30 days they had felt—

ƒƒ nervous
ƒƒ hopeless
ƒƒ restless or fidgety
ƒƒ so depressed that nothing could cheer them up
ƒƒ everything was an effort
ƒƒ worthless.
The response options were (1) all of the time, (2) most of
the time, (3) some of the time, (4) a little of the time, and
(5) none of the time. Following Kessler, the responses were
coded from 4 to 0, with 4 assigned to “all of the time” and
0 assigned to “none of the time.” A summary scale
combining the responses from all six items was then
produced with a range of 0 to 24. The summary score was
then reduced to three categories: 0 to 7 indicated no mental
illness, 8 to 12 indicated an anxiety-mood disorder, and 13
or higher indicated serious psychological distress (SPD).
Since 2008, the K6 scale has been used in federal
epidemiological studies to measure symptoms of SPD
rather than serious mental illness. Although the K6 has
been demonstrated to be a good predictor of serious
mental illness in prior studies, a technical advisory group,
convened by the Center for Mental Health Services
at the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration (SAMHSA), recommended that it should
be supplemented with questions on functional impairment
to improve statistical prediction and validity. (See
Methodology for discussion of K6 scaling rules and current
applications.)
Consistent with other measures of mental health or
emotional problems, the K6 reveals that prison and jail
inmates have high rates of SPD. An estimated 203,200
state and federal inmates and 185,500 jail inmates reported
levels of psychological distress in the 30 days prior to the
interview consistent with SPD. These estimates of current
SPD represented nearly 15% of state and federal inmates
and 26% of local jail inmates. These may be underestimates
because some inmates with serious mental illness may have
been unable to participate in the NIS-3 due to cognitive
limitations that precluded them from fully understanding
the informed consent procedures or the survey questions.
4Kessler, R.C., Green, J.G., Gruber, M.J., Sampson, N.A., Bromet, E.,

Cuitan, M., Furukawa, T.A., et al. (2010). “Screening for serious mental
illness in the general population with the K6 screening scale: results from
the WHO World Mental Health (WMH) survey initiative.” International
Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 19 (Spp. 1) 4–22.

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013

25

An additional 251,700 state and federal prisoners (18.2%)
and 155,800 jail inmates (22.2%) reported lower levels of
psychological distress, indicative of anxiety-mood disorders.
Rates of SPD in prisons and jails were substantially higher
than the 3.0% rate of SPD observed in the 2012 National
Health Interview Survey of the noninstitutional U.S.
population age 18 or older, using the same K6 screener.5
Although inmate populations are demographically different
from the general U.S. population, these differences in the
prevalence of SPD remain significant when comparisons
are restricted to demographic subgroups most commonly
held in prisons and jails (table 15):

ƒƒ Among males, 3.0% of the general U.S. population was
identified with SPD, compared to 14.7% of prisoners
and 26.3% of jails inmates.

ƒƒ Among persons ages 18 to 44, 2.7% of the general

population, 14.8% of prisoners and 26.1% of jail inmates had
SPD.

ƒƒ Among black non-Hispanic adults, 2.6% of the general

population was classified with SPD, compared to 13.0% of
prisoners and 22.1% of jail inmates.

ƒƒ Among white non-Hispanic adults, 2.9% of the general

population, 17.5% of prisoners and 30.8% of jail inmates
had SPD.

Inmates with SPD or anxiety-mood disorders reported high
overall rates of sexual victimization in 2011-12

Inmates identified with SPD reported significantly higher rates
of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization and staff sexual
misconduct than inmates without a mental health problem:

ƒƒ Similarly, jail inmates identified with SPD reported higher

rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization (3.6%) and
staff sexual misconduct (3.6%) than inmates with no mental
illness (0.7% for inmate-on-inmate and 1.0% for staff sexual
misconduct).

Table 15
Prevalence of serious psychological distress among adults
in prisons, jails, and the U.S. civilian noninstitutional
population, 2011–12

Demographic characteristic
Total
Sex
Male
Female
Race/Hispanic origin
Whitec
Blackc
Hispanic
Age
18–44
45–64
65 or older

Percent with symptoms of
serious psychological distressa
U.S. noninstitutional Inmates age 18 or older
adult populationb*
Prison
Jail
3.0%
14.7%** 26.3%**
2.8%
3.7

14.3%**
20.8**

25.5%**
32.2**

2.9%
2.6
3.6

17.5%**
13.0**
11.6**

30.8%**
22.4**
23.1**

2.7%
3.9
1.9

14.8%**
14.7**
9.5**

26.1%**
27.7**
19.3**

Note: See appendix table 19 for standard errors.
*Comparison group.
**Difference with comparison group is significant at the 95%-confidence level.
aBased on a score of 13 or more on the K-6 scale.
bBased on household interviews of a national sample of the civilian noninstitutional
population between January and September 2012.
cExcludes persons of Hispanic or Latino origin.
Sources: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12; and Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, National Health Interview Survey, 2012.

ƒƒ Among state and federal inmates, an estimated 6.3% of those
identified with SPD reported being sexually victimized by
another inmate, and 5.6% reported being victimized by staff.
In comparison, among prison inmates with no indication
of mental illness or anxiety-mood disorders, 0.7% reported
being sexually victimized by another inmate and 1.1%
reported experiencing staff sexual misconduct.

5Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Early Release of Selected
Estimates Based on Data from Surveillance Among Adults in the United
States, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 2011;60 (Suppl.) table 7.)
January-September 2012, National Health Interview Survey. Figures 13.113.3, March 2013.

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013

26

Inmates identified as having anxiety-mood disorders
reported higher rates of sexual victimization than inmates
who did not report a mental health problem. Inmates with
anxiety-mood disorders reported lower victimization rates
than inmates with SPD. Among inmates with anxietymood disorders—

ƒƒ An estimated 2.8% of prison inmates and 1.3% of jail

inmates reported that they were sexually victimized by
another inmate.

ƒƒ About 3.0% of prison inmates and 1.4% of jail inmates
reported that they were sexually victimized by staff.

Inmates with mental illness reported higher rates of
sexual victimization than inmates without mental health
problems across subgroups

For each of the measured subgroups (i.e., sex, race or
Hispanic origin, age, sexual orientation, and most serious
offense), inmates with SPD reported higher rates of inmateon-inmate sexual victimization than inmates without
mental health problems (table 16). With the exception of
jail inmates age 45 or older, the differences were large and
statistically significant. Among inmates with SPD, nonheterosexual inmates reported the highest rates of inmateon-inmate sexual victimization (an estimated 21.0% of
prison inmates and 14.7% of jail inmates).

Table 16
Prevalence of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization, by current mental health status and inmate characteristics, National
Inmate Survey, 2011–12

Characteristic
Sex
Male
Female
Race/Hispanic originc
Whited
Blackd
Hispanic
Age
18–24
25–34
35–44
45 or older
Sexual orientation
Heterosexual
Non-heterosexuale
Most serious offense
Violent sexual offense
Other violent
Property
Drug
Other

Prison inmates reporting sexual victimizationa
Serious
No mental
Anxiety-mood
psychological
illness*
disorder
distress

Jail inmates reporting sexual victimizationa
Serious
No mental
Anxiety-mood
psychological
illness*
disorder
distress

0.5%
3.4

2.2%**
8.9**

5.6%**
12.9**

0.5%
2.3

1.1%**
2.8

3.2%**
5.8**

1.1%
0.3
0.6

3.9%**
1.5**
2.2**

7.0%**
5.3**
5.3**

0.8%
0.5
0.6

1.4%**
0.9
1.3**

4.0%**
2.7**
3.8**

0.4%
0.9
0.5
0.7

3.4%**
3.2**
2.4**
2.4**

7.4%**
6.1**
6.9**
5.4**

0.5%
1.0
0.5
0.6

1.8%**
1.6**
0.7
0.8

4.8%**
3.6**
3.4**
2.2

0.4%
5.9

1.6%**
13.4**

4.0%**
21.0**

0.5%
5.0

1.0%**
5.1

2.6%**
14.7**

1.5%
0.9
0.5
0.3
0.6

4.8%**
3.1**
3.1**
1.2**
1.3

9.5%**
6.1**
8.1**
2.8**
4.2**

1.4%
1.2
0.8
0.3
0.5

4.1%
1.8
1.6**
0.6
0.8

6.7%**
3.9**
4.1**
2.9**
2.9**

Note: See appendix table 20 for standard errors.
*Comparison group.
**Difference with comparison group is signficant at the 95%-confidence level.
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 less than 12 months.
bEstimated number of inmates at midyear 2011 in jails and yearend 2011 in prisons represented by NIS-3, excluding inmates under age 18. Estimates have been rounded to the nearest 100.
cDue to small sample size, estimates for other races, including American Indian, Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian, and other Pacific Islander, and two or more races, are not shown.
dExcludes persons of Hispanic or Latino origin.
eIncludes gay, lesbian, bisexual, and other sexual orientations.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12.

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013

27

Patterns of staff sexual misconduct were similar to those of
inmate-on-inmate victimization. Staff sexual misconduct
was also higher among inmates with SPD than those without
mental health problems (table 17). With the exception of

female jail inmates, the differences within each demographic
subgroup were statistically significant. Among inmates with
SPD, non-heterosexual prison inmates recorded the highest
rate (10.5%) of sexual victimization by staff.

Table 17
Prevalence of staff sexual misconduct, by current mental health status and inmate characteristics, National Inmate Survey,
2011–12

Characteristic
Sex
Male
Female
Race/Hispanic originc
Whited
Blackd
Hispanic
Age
18–24
25–34
35–44
45 or older
Sexual orientation
Heterosexual
Non-heterosexuale
Most serious offense
Violent sexual offense
Other violent offense
Property
Drug
Other

Prison inmates reporting sexual victimizationa
Serious
No mental
Anxiety-mood
psychological
illness*
disorder
distress

Jail inmates reporting sexual victimizationa
Serious
No mental
Anxiety-mood
psychological
illness*
disorder
distress

1.1%
1.0

3.0%**
2.4**

5.7%**
5.2**

1.0%
1.1

1.4%**
1.0

4.0%**
1.7

0.6%
1.2
1.1

2.0%**
4.1**
1.7

3.6%**
6.1**
6.8**

0.8%
1.1
0.5

0.7%
1.7
1.2**

2.5%**
4.7**
3.9**

1.8%
1.6
0.9
0.6

3.1%
3.4**
3.3**
2.0**

7.4%**
6.1**
5.6**
4.3**

1.2%
1.3
0.7
0.4

1.8%**
1.6
0.9
0.7

5.1%**
3.9**
3.3**
1.4**

1.0%
3.4

2.9%**
3.6

4.8%**
10.5**

0.9%
3.0

1.3%**
2.4

3.4%**
6.2**

1.4%
1.7
1.1
0.4
0.8

2.3%
3.8**
3.1**
2.9
1.7

4.1%**
7.2**
6.7**
2.3**
5.9**

1.2%
2.2
0.8
0.7
0.8

1.2%
2.2
1.6**
1.0
1.0

3.3%
5.7**
3.3**
2.8**
3.5**

Note: See appendix table 21 for standard errors.
*Comparison group.
**Difference with comparison group is signficant at the 95%-confidence level.
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 less
than 12 months.
bEstimated number of inmates at midyear 2011 in jails and yearend 2011 in prisons represented by NIS-3, excluding inmates under age 18. Estimates have been rounded to
the nearest 100.
cDue to small sample size, estimates for other races, including American Indian, Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian, and other Pacific Islander, and two or more races, are not shown.
dExcludes persons of Hispanic or Latino origin.
eIncludes gay, lesbian, bisexual, and other sexual orientations.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12.

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013

28

Reports of sexual victimization differed among inmates
with SPD and other inmates

Among prison and jail inmates who reported inmate-oninmate sexual victimization, those with SPD were more
likely than those without mental health problems to be—

ƒƒ victimized more than once (80.4% compared to 62.6%)
ƒƒ forced or threatened with force by the perpetrator
(71.2% compared to 57.7%)

ƒƒ injured (26.4% compared to 12.3%) (table 18).

Among victims of staff sexual misconduct, inmates with
SPD were more likely than those without mental health
problems to—

ƒƒ report being pressured by staff (73.4% compared to
50.2%) or forced or threatened with force (47.2%
compared to 33.8%)

ƒƒ be injured by staff (19.8% compared to 6.3%)
ƒƒ report at least one victimization to someone at the

facility, a family member, or a friend (24.9% compared
to 14.1%).

Table 18
Circumstances surrounding incidents among adult inmates, by current mental health status and type of victimization,
National Inmate Survey, 2011–12
Victims in prisons and jails
Inmate-on-inmate
Circumstance
Number of victims
Number of incidentsa
1
2 or more
Type of coercion or forceb
Without pressure or force
Pressured
Force or threat of force
Ever injured
Ever report an incident

Staff sexual misconduct

No mental
illness*
8,880

Anxiety-mood
disorder
9,040

Serious
psychological
distress
19,490

No mental
illness*
13,910

Anxiety-mood
disorder
9,580

Serious
psychological
distress
18,130

37.4%
62.6

33.5%
66.5

19.6%**
80.4**

23.4%
76.6

25.5%
74.5

23.6%
76.4

~
72.7%
57.7
12.3%
21.2%

~
79.4%
61.9
14.1%
15.4%

~
73.7%
71.2**
26.4%**
23.1%

64.1%
50.2
33.8
6.3%
14.1%

57.2%
54.8
29.8
6.1%
18.4%

43.6%**
73.4**
47.2**
19.8%**
24.9%**

Note: See appendix table 22 for standard errors.
~Not applicable.
*Comparison group.
**Difference with comparison group is significant at the 95%-confidence level.
aNumber of sexual acts by another inmate and number of reported willing and unwilling incidents of staff sexual misconduct.
bDetail sums to more than 100% because some inmates reported more than one victimization.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12.

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013

29

Across subgroups, inmate-on-inmate victimization
rates were higher for non-heterosexual inmates than
heterosexual inmates

Special inmate populations—Inmates with a
non-heterosexual sexual orientation
To date, all of the BJS victim self-report surveys conducted
under PREA have found that inmates with the highest
rates of sexual victimization are those who reported their
sexual orientation as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or other. For
example, among non-heterosexual inmates interviewed in
the NIS-2, 11.2% of prison inmates and 7.2% of jail inmates
reported being victimized by another inmate in the past
12 months or since admission to the facility, if less than 12
months. Among former state prison inmates interviewed
in the National Former Prisoner Survey (NFPS, conducted
in 2008), more than a third of non-heterosexual males
(33% of bisexuals and 39% of gays and lesbians) reported
being sexually victimized by another inmate during their
most recent period of incarceration. Combined with the
higher rates among non-heterosexual inmates in the NIS-3
(12.2% in prisons and 8.5% in jails), the surveys clearly
identify a high-risk population. Although the NIS-2 and
NFPS provide detailed multivariate models that control for
other risk factors, NIS-3 provides additional detail on this
population.

In every measured subgroup (i.e., sex, race or Hispanic
origin, age, education, and mental health problems),
non-heterosexual prison and jail inmates reported
higher rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization
than heterosexual inmates (table 19). Rates of sexual
victimization by other inmates against non-heterosexual
inmates were at least 10 times greater than that of
heterosexual inmates when the victim was also male,
black, Hispanic, or had less than a high school education.
These differences were smaller, but still large, among
non-heterosexual female inmates (2.5 times larger), whites
(more than 6 times larger), and high school graduates
(8 times larger).
Within each of the other demographic subgroups, staff-oninmate victimization rates were at least double for nonheterosexual inmates compared to heterosexual inmates.
Among non-heterosexual prison and jail inmates, rates of
staff sexual misconduct were the highest for inmates ages
18 to 24 (6.7%), blacks (6.2%), and males (6.1%).

Table 19
Prevalence of sexual victimization, by type of incident and inmate sexual orientation, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12
Characteristic
Sex
Male
Female
Race/Hispanic originb
Whitec
Blackc
Hispanic
Age
18–24
25–44
45 or older
Education
Less than high school
High school graduate
Some college or more
Current mental health status
No mental illness
Anxiety-mood disorder
Serious psychological distress

Inmate-on-inmate
Heterosexual*
Non-heterosexuala

Staff sexual misconduct
Heterosexual*
Non-heterosexuala

1.0%
3.6

11.9%**
9.4**

2.0%
1.4

6.1%**
3.0**

1.7%
0.6
1.0

11.4%**
10.6**
10.1**

1.3%
2.2
1.8

3.2%**
6.2**
5.9**

1.3%
1.2
0.9

11.6%**
11.9**
8.9**

2.5%
2.2
1.1

6.7%**
5.0**
4.2**

1.0%
1.1
1.7

11.0%**
9.0**
12.6**

2.0%
2.0
1.8

5.1%**
4.9
4.8**

0.4%
1.3
3.3

5.7%**
10.7**
18.6**

1.0%
2.3
4.1

3.2%**
3.2
8.8**

Note: Prison and jail inmates have been combined to obtain a sufficient number of non-heterosexual inmates. See appendix table 23 for standard errors.
*Comparison group.
**Difference with comparison group is significant at the 95%-confidence level.
aIncludes gay, lesbian, bisexual, and other sexual orientations.
bDue to small sample size, estimates for other races, including American Indian, Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian, and other Pacific Islander, and persons of two or more races, are not
shown.
cExcludes persons of Hispanic or Latino origin.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12.

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013

30

Non-heterosexual victims (82.9%) were more likely
than heterosexual victims (68.0%) to report that the
victimization by another inmate involved pressure, but
less likely to report that it involved force or threat of
force (62.0% for non-heterosexual compared to 69.7%

for heterosexual victims) (table 20). In addition, nonheterosexual victims (84.2%) of staff sexual misconduct
were more likely than heterosexual victims (71.4%) to
report more than one incident.

Table 20
Circumstances surrounding incidents of sexual victimization among heterosexual and non-heterosexual inmates, National
Inmate Survey, 2011–12
Circumstance
Number of victims
Number of incidentsb
1
2 or more
Type of coercion or forcec
Without pressure or force
Pressured
Force or threat of force
Ever injured
Ever report an incident

Victims in prisons and jails
Inmate-on-inmate
Staff sexual misconduct
Heterosexual *
Non-heterosexuala
Heterosexual*
Non-heterosexuala
22,960
17,910
38,320
8,130
32.5%
67.5

25.9%
74.1

28.6%
71.4

15.8%**
84.2**

~
68.0%
69.7
22.5%
27.5%

~
82.9%**
62.0**
20.9%
19.4%**

53.0%
60.1
37.8
11.0%
19.5%

60.6%
63.8
41.7
15.6%
26.7%

Note: Prison and jail inmates have been combined to obtain a sufficient number of non-heterosexual inmates. See appendix table 24 for standard errors.
~Not applicable.
*Comparison group.
**Difference with comparison group is significant at the 95%-confidence level.
aIncludes gay, lesbian, bisexual, and other sexual orientations.
bNumber of incidents by another inmate and number of reported willing and unwilling incidents of staff sexual misconduct.
cBased only on victims reporting incidents involving force, threat of force, or pressure.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12.

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013

31

Methodology

T

he National Inmate Survey, 2011-12 (NIS-3) was
conducted in 233 state and federal prisons,
358 jails, and 15 special facilities (military, Indian
country, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(ICE)) between February 2011 and May 2012. The data
were collected by RTI International under a cooperative
agreement with the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS).
The NIS-3 comprised two questionnaires—a survey of
sexual victimization and a survey of mental and physical
health, past drug and alcohol use, and treatment for
substance abuse. Inmates were randomly assigned to
receive one of the questionnaires so that at the time of the
interview the content of the survey remained unknown to
facility staff and the interviewers.
A total of 106,532 inmates participated in NIS-3, including
the sexual victimization survey or the randomly assigned
companion survey. Combined, the surveys included 43,721
inmates in state and federal prisons, 61,351 inmates in jails,
605 inmates in military facilities, 192 inmates in Indian
country jails, and 663 inmates in facilities operated by ICE.
The interviews, which averaged 35 minutes in length,
used computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI)
and audio computer-assisted self-interviewing (ACASI)
data collection methods. For approximately the first
two minutes, survey interviewers conducted a personal
interview using CAPI to obtain background information
and date of admission to the facility. For the remainder
of the interview, respondents interacted with a computeradministered questionnaire using a touchscreen 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 or interact with the computer. The
paper form was completed by 751 prison inmates (or 1.9%
of all prison interviews)—733 were completed by adult
prison inmates (1.9% of adult prison inmate interviews)
and 18 were completed by prisoners ages 16 to 17 (3.4% of
all prison inmate interviews of inmates ages 16 to 17). The
paper questionnaire was also completed by 264 jail inmates
(0.5% of all jail inmate interviews)—255 were completed
by adults (0.5% of adult jail inmate interviews) and 9 were
completed by jail inmates ages 16 to 17 (0.7% of jail inmate
interviews of inmates ages 16 to 17). In addition, five paper
questionnaires were completed by military inmates (0.9%

of all military inmate interviews). Most of these inmates
were housed in administrative or disciplinary segregation
or were 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 (96% in
prisons, 95% in jails, 35% in ICE facilities, and 100% in
military and Indian country facilities) or Spanish (4% in
prisons, 5% in jails, and 65% in ICE facilities).
Selection of state and federal prisons

A sample of 241 state and federal prisons was drawn to
produce a sample representing the 1,158 state and
194 federal adult confinement facilities identified in the
2005 Census of State and Federal Adult Correctional
Facilities, supplemented with updated information
from websites maintained by each state’s department of
corrections (DOC) and the Federal Bureau of Prisons
(BOP). The 2005 census was a complete enumeration
of adult state prisons, including all publicly operated
and privately operated facilities under contract to state
correctional authorities.
The NIS-3 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 NIS-3 excluded community-based facilities,
such as halfway houses, group homes, and work release
centers.
Based on BJS’s 2011 National Prisoner Statistics and 2005
Census of State and Federal Adult Correctional Facilities, the
prisons in the study universe held an estimated 1,238,000
state and 203,800 federal inmates age 18 or older and
1,700 state inmates ages 16 to 17 at yearend 2011. Facilities
that had been closed and new facilities that had opened since
the 2005 census were identified via review of DOC and BOP
websites. Facilities determined to be closed were removed
from the NIS-3 frame and new facilities were added.
State and federal confinement facilities were sequentially
sampled with probabilities of selection proportionate to
size (as measured by the number of inmates held in state
prisons on December 30, 2005, and in federal prisons on
September 9, 2010).

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013

32

Facilities on the sampling frame were stratified by sex of
inmates housed, whether the facility had a mental health
function, and whether the facility held five or more juveniles:

ƒƒ Among facilities that housed males, the measure of size
for facilities that held male inmates and participated in
the NIS-1 in 2007 or NIS-2 in 2008-09 were adjusted to
lower their probability of selection in the NIS-3.

ƒƒ Among facilities with an inmate population that was at
least 50% female, the measure of size for facilities that
participated in the NIS-2 was reduced to lower their
probability of selection in the NIS-3.

ƒƒ The measures of size were further adjusted to increase

the probability of selection of facilities with large juvenile
populations.

Within each stratum, facilities in the sampling frame were
first sorted by region, state, and public or private operation:

ƒƒ The sample measures of size for facilities housing only

female inmates were increased by a factor of 5 to ensure
a sufficient number of women and allow for meaningful
analyses of sexual victimization by sex. This led to an
allocation of 51 female facilities (out of 233) in the
sample.

ƒƒ An additional 25 facilities were allocated to the stratum
with facilities that have a mental health function, and
another 20 facilities were allocated to the strata that
housed juveniles.

ƒƒ This led to the allocation of 66 facilities known to have a

mental health function—49 male facilities and 17 female
facilities—and 38 facilities that housed juveniles (36
facilities that housed males and 2 facilities that housed
females).

Facilities were sampled ensuring that at least one facility
in every state was selected. Federal facilities were grouped
together and treated like a state for sampling purposes. The
remaining facilities were selected from each region with
probabilities proportionate to size.
Of the 241 selected prison facilities, 7 had closed prior to
the start of data collection: Metro State Prison (Georgia),
Hillsborough Corr. Inst. (Florida), Gates Corr. Inst.
(Connecticut), Brush Corr. Fac. (Colorado), Burnet Co.
Intermediate Sanction Fac. (Texas), and Diamondback
Corr. Fac. (Oklahoma). One facility—Chittenden Regional
Corr. Fac. (Vermont)—had transitioned from holding
males to females during the data collection period and
was considered a closed facility. All other selected prison
facilities participated fully in NIS-3.

Selection of inmates within prisons

A roster of inmates was obtained just prior to the start of
data collection at each facility. Inmates age 15 or younger
and inmates who were released prior to data collection
were deleted from the roster. Eligible inmates within a
facility were placed into one of two strata based on their
ages. Inmates who were ages 16 to 17 (juveniles) were
placed in one stratum and inmates age 18 or older (adults)
were placed in the other. Inmates age 15 or younger were
considered ineligible for the NIS-3.
Selection of adult inmates within prisons

The number of adult inmates sampled in each facility
varied based on six criteria—

ƒƒ an expected sexual victimization prevalence rate of 4%
ƒƒ a desired level of precision based on a standard error of
1.75%

ƒƒ a projected 70% response rate among selected inmates
ƒƒ a 10% chance among participating inmates of not
receiving the sexual victimization questionnaire

ƒƒ an adjustment factor of 1.9 to account for the complex
survey design

ƒƒ the size of the facility.
Each eligible adult 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.
Selection of inmates ages 16 to 17 within prisons

The number of inmates ages 16 to 17 sampled in each facility
varied based on the number who appeared on the roster:

ƒƒ If fewer than 50 were on the roster, all inmates ages 16 to
17 were selected.

ƒƒ If between 50 and 149 were on the roster, 75% were
sampled (with a minimum of 50).

ƒƒ If 150 or more were on the roster, 75% were sampled
(with a minimum of 150).

In cases in which not all inmates ages 16 to 17 were
selected, each eligible inmate ages 16 to 17 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.

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013

33

A total of 74,655 prison inmates were selected. After
selection, 2,233 ineligible inmates were excluded—1,441
(1.9%) were released or transferred to another facility
before interviewing began, 657 (0.9%) were mentally or
physically unable to be interviewed, 10 (0.01%) were age
15 or younger or their age could not be obtained during
the interview process, 56 (0.5%) were selected in error
(i.e., an inmate was incorrectly listed on the facility roster),
21 (0.03%) were only in the facility on weekends, and 47
(0.06%) were on unsupervised work release or only served
time on weekends.
Of all selected eligible prison inmates, 32% refused to
participate in the survey, 0.5% were not available to
be interviewed (e.g., in court, in medical segregation,
determined by the facility to be too violent to be
interviewed, or restricted from participation by another
legal jurisdiction), and 0.5% were not interviewed due
to survey logistics (e.g., language barriers, releases, or
transfers to another facility after interviewing began).
Overall, 43,721 prison inmates participated in the survey,
yielding a response rate of 60%. Approximately 90% of
the participating inmates (38,778) received the sexual
assault survey. (See appendix table 1 for the number of
participating inmates in each prison facility.)
Selection of jail facilities

A sample of 393 jails was drawn to represent the 2,957 jail
facilities identified in the Census of Jail Inmates, 2005, and
the sample was supplemented with information obtained
during the NIS-1 and NIS-2. The 2005 census was a
complete enumeration of all jail jurisdictions, including all
publicly operated and privately operated facilities under
contract to jail authorities. The NIS-3 was restricted to
jails that had six or more inmates on June 30, 2005. Jails
identified as closed or ineligible during the NIS-1 and NIS2 were removed from the NIS-3 frame. Based on estimates
from the Annual Survey of Jails, 2011, the jails in the NIS-3
held an estimated 720,171 inmates age 18 or older and
5,700 inmates ages 16 to 17 on June 30, 2011.
Jail facilities were sequentially sampled with probabilities of
selection proportionate to size (as measured by the number
of inmates held on June 30, 2005).

ƒƒ Two facilities that were unable to participate in the
NIS-2 were selected with certainty in the NIS-3.

ƒƒ The measures of size for facilities that participated in

the NIS-1 or NIS-2 were adjusted to give them a lower
probability of selection.

ƒƒ Facilities with juveniles had their measures of size
adjusted to increase their probability of selection.

ƒƒ Facilities were stratified such that facilities in each of the

10 largest jail jurisdictions were placed into a stratum.
Within the large jurisdiction stratum, three facilities
were selected from the five largest jurisdictions with
probabilities proportionate to size, and two facilities
were selected from the next five largest jurisdictions with
probabilities proportionate to size.

ƒƒ All other facilities were placed in a single stratum

and then sorted by region, state, and public or private
operation. Facilities were sampled to ensure that at least
one jail facility in every state was selected. The remaining
jail facilities were selected from each region with
probabilities proportionate to size.

Of the 393 selected jails in the NIS-3, 20 facilities refused to
participate:

ƒƒ Covington Co. Jail (Alabama)
ƒƒ Mobile Co. Metro Jail (Alabama)
ƒƒ Delaware Co. George W. Hill Corr. Fac. (Pennsylvania)
ƒƒ Montcalm Co. Jail (Michigan)
ƒƒ Will Co. Adult Det. Fac. (Illinois)
ƒƒ Northumberland Co. Prison (Pennsylvania)
ƒƒ Kenosha Co. Pre-Trial Det. Fac. (Wisconsin)
ƒƒ Carroll Co. Jail (Tennessee)
ƒƒ Brevard Co. Jail (Florida)
ƒƒ Pinellas Co. North Division (Florida)
ƒƒ Hillsborough Co. Falkenburg Road Jail (Florida)
ƒƒ Paulding Co. Det. Ctr. (Georgia)
ƒƒ Whitfield Co. Jail (Georgia)
ƒƒ Marion Co. Jail (Tennessee)
ƒƒ Sandoval Co. Det. Ctr. (New Mexico)
ƒƒ Williamson Co. Jail (Texas)
ƒƒ Montgomery Co. Jail (North Carolina)
ƒƒ Catahoula Parish Corr. Ctr. (Louisiana)
ƒƒ Escambia Co. Det. Ctr. (Alabama)
ƒƒ Orleans Parish House of Det. (Louisiana).
Williamsburg Co. Jail (South Carolina), was excused due
to construction at the facility. In Nassau Co. Corr. Ctr.
(New York), data were collected only among inmates ages
16 to 17 due to lack of space to interview both adults and
juveniles ages 16 to 17.

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013

34

Fourteen facilities were determined to be ineligible: six
had closed, two were considered part of another facility
on the sampling frame, three had fewer than six eligible
inmates, two were facilities containing only unsupervised
work release inmates, and one had active litigation related
to sexual victimization. All other selected jail facilities
participated fully in NIS-3.
Selection of inmates within jails

A roster of inmates was obtained just prior to the start of
data collection at each facility. Inmates age 15 or younger
and inmates who had not been arraigned were removed
from the roster. Eligible inmates within a facility were
placed into one of two stratum based on their age. Inmates
who were ages 16 to 17 (juveniles) were placed in one
stratum and inmates age 18 or older (adults) were placed
in the other. Inmates age 15 or younger were considered
ineligible for the NIS-3.
Selection of adult inmates within jails

The number of adult inmates sampled in each facility varied
based on six criteria:

ƒƒ an expected prevalence rate of sexual victimization of 3%
ƒƒ a desired level of precision based on a standard error of
1.4%

ƒƒ a projected 65% response rate among selected inmates
ƒƒ a 10% chance among participating inmates of not
receiving the sexual victimization questionnaire

ƒƒ an adjustment factor of 1.9 to account for the complex
survey design

ƒƒ a pre-arraignment adjustment factor equal to 1 in

facilities where the status was known for all inmates and
less than 1 in facilities where only the overall proportion
of inmates who were pre-arraigned was known.

Each eligible adult 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.
Due to the dynamic nature of jail populations, a second
roster of inmates was obtained on the first day of data
collection. Eligible adult inmates who appeared on the
second roster but who had not appeared on the initial
roster were identified. These inmates had been arraigned
since the initial roster was created or were newly admitted
to the facility and arraigned. A random sample of these new
inmates was chosen using the same probability of selection
used to sample from the first roster.

Selection of inmates ages 16 to 17 within jails

The number of inmates ages 16 to 17 sampled in each facility
varied based on the number who appeared on the roster:

ƒƒ If fewer than 50 were on the roster, all inmates ages 16 to
17 were selected.

ƒƒ If between 50 and 149 were on the roster, 75% were
sampled (with a minimum of 50).

ƒƒ If 150 or more were on the roster, 75% were sampled
(with a minimum of 150).

In facilities in which not all inmates ages 16 to 17 were
selected, each eligible inmate ages 16 to 17 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.
As with adult jail inmates, a second roster obtained on the
first day of data collection was used to identify inmates that
had been arraigned since the initial roster was created or
newly admitted. A random sample of these new inmates
was chosen using the same probability of selection used to
sample from the first roster.
A total of 112,594 jail inmates was selected. After selection,
11,342 ineligible inmates were excluded—9,479 (8.4%)
were released or transferred to another facility before
interviewing began, 1,036 (0.8%) were mentally or
physically unable to be interviewed, 25 (0.02%) were age 15
or younger or their age could not be obtained during the
interview process, 296 (0.3%) were selected in error (i.e., an
inmate was incorrectly listed on the facility roster), and
484 (0.4%) were on unsupervised work release or only
served time on weekends.
Of all selected inmates, 22% refused to participate in the
survey, 1.1% were not available to be interviewed (e.g., in
court, in medical segregation, determined by the facility
to be too violent to be interviewed, or restricted from
participation by another legal jurisdiction), and 8% were
not interviewed due to survey logistics (e.g., language
barriers, releases, and transfers to another facility after
interviewing began).
Overall, 61,351 jail inmates participated in the survey,
yielding a response rate of 61%. Approximately 90% of
the participating inmates (54,137) received the sexual
victimization survey. (See appendix table 5 for the number
of participating inmates in each jail facility.)

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013

35

Selection of special confinement facilities

Weighting and nonresponse adjustments

A sample of 16 special facilities was drawn to represent the
inmate populations in military, Indian country, and ICE
facilities. Five military, six Indian country, and five ICE
facilities were included.

Responses from 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
was applied to the initial weight to minimize potential bias
due to nonresponse and to provide national estimates.

The military frame came from the military correctional
facilities population report on April 1, 2011. The Indian
country frame came from the BJS report, Jails in Indian
Country, 2009, NCJ 232223, BJS Web, February 2011. The
ICE frame came from the ICE integrated decision support
system on March 21, 2011.
Military, Indian country, and ICE facilities were
sequentially selected with probability proportionate to the
adjusted number of inmates in the facility. The measures of
size (population) were adjusted to reduce the probability of
selection among facilities included in the NIS-2.
Tohono O’odham Adult Detention Facility (Arizona)
refused to participate in the NIS-3. All other selected special
confinement facilities participated fully in the survey.
Selection of inmates in special confinement facilities

For purposes of inmate selection, military facilities were
treated as prisons, and Indian country and ICE facilities
were treated like jails. The assumptions used to determine
the sample size within a prison or jail and the corresponding
selection procedures were used. However, in ICE facilities, a
second sample of newly admitted inmates was not drawn due
to an inability to identify new inmates on the ICE rosters. In
addition, inmates in ICE facilities who did not speak English
or Spanish were defined as ineligible for the study.
Overall, 2,874 inmates were selected, including 910 in
military facilities, 300 in Indian country facilities, and
1,664 in ICE facilities. After selection, 163 ineligible
inmates were excluded—28 (1.0%) were released or
transferred to another facility before interviewing began,
46 (1.1%) were mentally or physically unable to be
interviewed, 3 (0.1%) were sampled in error, 2 (0.1%) were
inmates in custody only on the weekend, and 84 (3.0%) in
ICE facilities did not speak English or Spanish.
Overall, 1,272 inmates participated in the survey (605 in
military, 192 in Indian country, and 663 in ICE facilities),
yielding a response rate of 68% in military, 68% in Indian
country, and 43% in ICE facilities. Approximately 90%
of the participating inmates (1,379) received the sexual
victimization survey (539 in military, 160 in Indian
country, and 573 in ICE facilities). (See appendix table 9
for the number of participating inmates in each special
confinement facility.)

Bias occurs when the estimated prevalence is different
from the actual prevalence for a given facility. In each
facility, bias could result if the random sample of inmates
did not accurately represent the facility population. Bias
could also result if the nonrespondents were different
from the respondents. Post-stratification and nonresponse
adjustments were made to the data to compensate for these
two possibilities. These adjustments included—

ƒƒ 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 demographic characteristics. These
characteristics included distributions by inmate age, sex,
race, sentence length, and time since admission. This
adjustment ensured that the estimates better reflected
the entire population of the facility and not just the
inmates who were randomly sampled.

ƒƒ calibration of the weights so that the weight from a non-

responding inmate was assigned to a responding inmate
with similar demographic characteristics. This adjustment
ensured that the estimates accurately reflected 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 victimization survey
respondents.6
A final ratio adjustment to each inmate weight was made
to provide national-level estimates for the total number of
inmates age 18 or older and the total number of inmates
ages 16 to 17 who were held in jails at midyear 2011
or in prison at yearend 2011. These ratios represented
the estimated number of inmates by sex (from BJS’s
2011 Annual Survey of Jails and 2011 National Prisoner
Statistics) divided by the number of inmates by sex for
adults and overall for juvenile inmates ages 16 to 17 in the
NIS-3, after calibration for sampling and nonresponse.
The national estimates for state prisons were 1,154,600
6Folsom, Jr., R.E., & Singh, A.C. (2002). “The Generalized Exponential

Model for Sampling Weight Calibration for Extreme Values, Nonresponse,
and Poststratification.” Proceedings of the American Statistical Association,
Survey Research Methods Section, pp. 598–603.

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013

36

adult males, 83,400 adult females, and 1,700 juveniles
ages 16 to 17; for federal prisons, 190,600 adult males and
13,200 adult females (there were no juveniles ages 16 to
17 in federal custody); and for jails (with an average daily
population of six or more inmates), 628,620 adult males,
91,551 adult females, and 5,700 juveniles ages 16 to 17.
Final ratio adjustments were not applied to inmate
weights in military, Indian country, and ICE facilities.
Estimates for special confinement facilities were made at
the facility level only.

analysis, rather than provide the detailed estimates for
every standard error, differences in the estimates of sexual
victimization for subgroups in these tables have been tested
and notated for significance at the 95%-level of confidence.
For example, the difference in the rate of inmate-on-inmate
sexual victimization among female prison inmates (6.9%)
compared to male prison inmates (1.7%) is statistically
significant at the 95%-level of confidence (table 7). In
all tables providing detailed comparisons, statistically
significant differences at the 95%-level of confidence or
greater have been designated with two asterisks (**).

Standard errors and tests of significance

The NIS-3 is statistically unable to provide an exact
ranking for all facilities as required under PREA. As with
any survey, the NIS estimates are subject to error arising
from the fact that they 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.
A common way to express this sampling variability is to
construct a 95%-confidence interval around each survey
estimate. Typically, multiplying the standard error by 1.96
and then adding or subtracting the result from the estimate
produces the confidence interval. This interval expresses
the range of values that could result among 95% of the
different samples that could be drawn.
For small samples and estimates close to 0%, as is the case
with sexual victimization in most prisons and jails, the
use of the standard error to construct the 95%-confidence
interval may not be reliable. An alternative developed
by Wilson has been shown to perform better than the
traditional method when constructing a confidence
interval. (See footnote 1 on page 10.) This method produces
an asymmetrical confidence interval around the facility
estimates in which the lower bound is constrained to be
greater than or equal to 0%. It also provides confidence
intervals for facilities in which the survey estimates are
zero (but other similarly conducted surveys could yield
non-zero estimates). (See tables 3, 4, 5, and 6 and appendix
tables 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 9.)
When applied to large samples, the traditional and the
Wilson confidence intervals are nearly identical. As a result,
the tables that show national estimates display traditional
standard errors. (See tables 1 and 2.) The traditional
standard errors have also been used to compare estimates
of sexual victimization among selected groups of inmates
that have been defined by type of incident, demographic
subgroup, sexual history, and criminal justice status. (See
tables 7 through 9 and 11 through 20.) To facilitate the

Exposure period

To calculate 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.
The average exposure period of inmates participating in the
sexual victimization survey was—

ƒƒ 8.8 months for federal prisoners
ƒƒ 8.1 months for adult state prisoners
ƒƒ 5.5 months for juveniles ages 16 to 17 in state prisons
ƒƒ 3.7 months for jail inmates
ƒƒ 7.6 months for inmates in military facilities
ƒƒ 2.8 months for inmates in ICE facilities
ƒƒ 2.0 months for inmates in Indian country facilities.
Measurement of sexual victimization

The survey of sexual victimization relied on inmates
reporting their direct experiences, rather than inmates
reporting on the experiences of other inmates. Questions
related to inmate-on-inmate sexual activity were
asked separately from questions related to staff sexual
misconduct. (For specific survey questions, see appendices
1 and 2.)
The ACASI survey began with a series of questions that
screened for specific sexual activities without restriction,
including both wanted and unwanted sex and sexual
contacts with other inmates. To fully measure all sexual
activities, questions related to the touching of body parts in
a sexual way were followed by questions related to manual
stimulation and questions related to acts involving oral,

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013

37

anal, and vaginal sex. The nature of coercion (including use
of physical force, pressure, and other forms of coercion)
was measured for each type of reported sexual activity.
ACASI survey items related to staff sexual misconduct were
asked in a different order. Inmates were first asked about
being pressured or being made to feel they had to have
sex or sexual contact with the staff 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,
regardless of the level of coercion, were classified as staff
sexual misconduct.
The ACASI survey included additional questions related
to both inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization and staff
sexual misconduct. 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 appendix 3.)
The entire ACASI questionnaire (listed as the National
Inmate Survey-3) and the shorter paper and pencil survey
form (PAPI) are available on the BJS website at www.bjs.gov.
Interviews checked for inconsistent response patterns

Once data collection was completed, individual response
patterns were assessed to identify interviewer error,
interviews that had been completed in too short of
time, and incomplete interviews. In 141 interviews, the
interviewers administered sex-specific survey items
inconsistent with the sex of the inmate. In 693 interviews,
the inmate failed to complete enough questions to be
considered a completed interview. These interviews were
excluded from the calculations of sexual victimization.
Interviews were also examined for inconsistent response
patterns. A list of 31 indicators were developed based
on inmate characteristics (e.g., education, age, marital
status, and time since admission) and items related to
victimization (e.g., number of times, injuries, willing
contact with staff, sex of staff perpetrator, and reporting
of victimization). Indicators compared responses to initial
questions with responses to detailed follow-up questions.
The indicators were identified as unlikely, highly unlikely,
or extremely unlikely.

Of the 31 indicators, 21 were deemed unlikely, 7 were
deemed highly unlikely, and 3 were deemed extremely
unlikely. An example of an unlikely indicator is when
a respondent indicated victimization occurred, but
responded no to all types of victimization. An example of
a highly unlikely indicator is when a responded indicated
that the first time a victimization occurred was before
the inmate was admitted to the facility. An example of an
extremely unlikely indicator is if the inmate responded yes
to 12 or more of the sex-specific victimization items and
indicated being victimized 11 or more times to both staff
sexual misconduct and inmate-on-inmate victimization.
If any of the extremely unlikely indicators were triggered
and at least one highly unlikely indicator or four or more
unlikely indicators were triggered, the inmate’s data were
removed.
The amount of time the interview took was also reviewed.
Inmates whose average time for the sexual victimization
items was less than 2 seconds per item and inmates
whose total time was less than 10 minutes for English
respondents and less than 12 minutes for Spanish
respondents had their data removed.
Overall, the results revealed very high levels of consistency
in survey responses. Of the 92,689 respondents to the
sexual victimization survey, 87 triggered one extremely
highly unlikely flag. Of these, 20 met the additional
criteria for removal. In addition, data for 12 respondents
were removed because their interviews did not meet the
length of interview criteria. Among the 32 cases that
were removed, 1 respondent was in a federal facility, 13
respondents were in state prisons (2 were juveniles ages 16
to 17), and 18 respondents were in jails. These 32 inmates
came from separate facilities (i.e., only one inmate from
each of these facilities was removed) and were excluded
from the calculation of sexual victimization.
Calculation of Body Mass Index (BMI)

BMI is a measurement of body fat, based on height and
weight, that applies to both men and women ages 18 to 65.
BMI can be used to determine if a person is underweight
(18.5 or less), normal (18.5 to 24.9), overweight (25 to 29.9),
obese (30 to 39.9), or morbidly obese (40 or greater). The
calculation in the NIS-3 was based on the following formula
provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention:
BMI = weight (pounds) / [height (inches)]2 x 703.

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013

38

Screening for serious psychological distress (SPD) and
history of mental health problems

The NIS-3 included four items to measure the prevalence
of any problems with emotions, nerves, or mental health an
inmate may have had in the past:
R24. Have you ever been told by a mental health professional,
such as a psychiatrist or psychologist, that you had…
a.  manic depression, a bipolar disorder or mania?
b.  a depressive disorder?
c.  schizophrenia or another psychotic disorder?
d.  post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)?
e.  another anxiety disorder, such as panic disorder or
obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD)?
f.  a personality disorder, such as antisocial or
borderline personality?
g.  a mental or emotional condition other than those
listed above?
R27. During the 12 months before you were admitted to
[this facility / any facility to serve time on your current
sentence], did you stay overnight or longer in any type of
hospital or other facility to receive treatment or counseling
for problems you were having with your emotions, nerves,
or mental health?
R30. At the time of the offense for which you are currently
[being held / serving time], were you taking prescription
medicine for any problem you were having with your
emotions, nerves, or mental health?
R33. Have you ever received counseling or therapy from a
trained professional, such as a psychiatrist, psychologist,
social worker, or nurse, for any problem you were having
with your emotions, nerves, or mental health?
Development of the K6

The K6 is a six-item scale designed to provide rapid
assessment of the prevalence of serious psychological
distress (SPD) in population surveys. (See page 25 for
the six items and response categories.) Developed by
Kessler and colleagues, the K6 has become widely used
in epidemiological surveys throughout the world. It
is included in three general population surveys in the
U.S.—the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System
and the National Health Interview Survey (conducted

by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) and
the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (conducted
by the U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration).
The K6 has been recognized as a broad screener rather
than a specific screener for any one mental disorder.
Kessler and others have shown that the K6 outcomes are
consistent with blinded clinical diagnoses of SPD in general
population samples. Moreover, their statistical analyses of
alternative scoring rules for the sex items have shown the
unweighted sum (based on codes 0 to 4, with a total sum
ranging from 0 to 24) to be virtually identical to sums using
other weighting schemes. Although its use under PREA
is to determine risk related to SPD and the incidence of
sexual victimization, more specific screening scales could
have been used to determine if sexual victimization was
associated with particular kinds of mental disorder.
Prior to 2004, the K6 was used in the National Survey
on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) to estimate the
prevalence of serious mental illness. In 2008, following the
recommendation of a technical advisory group, convened
by the Center for Mental Health Services at the SAMHSA,
NSDUH supplemented the K6 scale with questions on
functional impairment. Functional impairment is defined
as difficulties that substantially interfere with or limit role
functioning in one or more major life activities, including
basic living skills; instrumental living skills; and functioning
in social, family, and vocational or educational contexts.7
However, the NIS-3 did not include any items related to
functional impairment, since past measures and scales are
not appropriate for inmates held in prisons or jails.
The use of K6 for predicting serious mental illness has
never been validated in a correctional setting. It may be
expected that some inmates feel nervous, hopeless, restless
or fidgety, sad or depressed, or worthless due to their
confinement rather than due to an underlying mental
health disorder. Consequently, the exact cut point for
serious psychological distress may be higher than 13 among
inmates than among persons in the general population.
However, the link between SPD and sexual victimization
rates remains strong, regardless of the exact cut point in
the K6 scale. For example, had the cut point for serious
psychological distress in the NIS been raised to 17 (from
13), inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization rates would
have increased to 7.6% among prison inmates and 4.4%
7Gfroerer, J., Hedden, S., Barker, P., Bose, J., & Aldworth, J. (2012).
“Estimating Mental Illness in an Ongoing National Survey,” Federal
Committee on Statistical Methodology, available at www.fcsm.
gov/12papers/Gfroerer_2012FCSM_VII-A.pdf

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013

39

among jail inmates, and staff sexual misconduct rates
would have increased to 7.2% among prison inmates and
4.4% among jail inmates.
Imputation of missing data

SPD status was determined by the sum of the responses to
the K6 items. Since some inmates did not respond to all six
items, inclusion and imputation criteria were developed.
Only respondents who answered at least four of the K6
items were included in the estimates of SPD status.
A missing K6 item was imputed in a nearest neighbor
approach (i.e., the donor value for the imputed value was
the nearest previous nonmissing K6 response). If the
nearest K6 item was missing, then the value from the first
nonmissing response preceding the missing item was used
as the donor. For example, if item 2 was not answered, but
item 1 was answered, then the value from the first K6 item
was used as the value for the selected K6 item. If the first
K6 item was missing, then the first nonmissing value that
followed was used as the donor. Since only respondents
who answered at least four of the K6 items were included in
the analysis, the donor response was never more than two
items away from the item with the missing response.

Abusive sexual contacts only—unwanted contacts with
another inmate or any contacts with staff that involved
touching of the inmate’s buttocks, thigh, 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 as willing by the
reporting inmates; however, all sexual contacts between
inmates and staff are legally nonconsensual.
Staff sexual misconduct—includes all incidents of willing
and unwilling sexual contact with facility staff and all
incidents of sexual activity that involved oral, anal, vaginal
penetration, hand jobs, blow jobs, and other sexual acts
with facility staff.
Related prior publications

Eight BJS reports on sexual victimization in prisons and
jails:
Sexual Violence Reported by Correctional Authorities, 2004
(NCJ 210333)

In prisons, among the 38,251 adult respondents, 555 (1.5%)
answered fewer than four items and thus were not included
in the estimates of SPD. Of the adult prison inmates who
responded to four or more items, 931 (2.4%) had one or
two items imputed.

Sexual Violence Reported by Correctional Authorities, 2005
(NCJ 214646)

In jails, among the 52,926 adult respondents, 1,106 (2.1%)
answered fewer than four items and therefore were not
included in the estimates of SPD status. Of the adult jail
inmates who responded to four or more items, 1,840 (3.5%)
had one or two items imputed.

Sexual Victimization Reported by Adult Correctional
Authorities, 2007-2008 (NCJ 231172)

Terms and definitions

Sexual Violence Reported by Correctional Authorities, 2006
(NCJ 218914)

Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported
by Inmates, 2007 (NCJ 219414)
Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates,
2007 (NCJ 221946)

Sexual victimization—all types of sexual activity, e.g.,
oral, anal, or vaginal penetration; hand jobs; touching of
the inmate’s buttocks, thighs, penis, breasts, or vagina in a
sexual way; abusive sexual contacts; and both willing and
unwilling sexual activity with staff.

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by
Inmates, 2008-09 (NCJ 231169)

Nonconsensual sexual acts—unwanted contacts with
another inmate or any contacts with staff that involved oral,
anal, vaginal penetration, hand jobs, and other sexual acts.

An overview of all of the BJS prison rape collections: PREA
Data Collection Activities, 2012 (NCJ 238640)

Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners,
2008 (NCJ 237363).

These reports are available on the BJS website at www.bjs.gov.

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013

40

Appendix 1. Survey items related to inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12
Males

E16. During the last 12 months, did
another inmate use physical force to
touch your butt, thighs, or penis 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?
E22. During the last 12 months, did
another inmate use physical force to
make you give or receive a hand job?
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 hand job?
E26. During the last 12 months, did
another inmate use physical force to
make you give or receive oral sex or a
blow job?
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, hand jobs, 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, hand jobs, oral sex or
blow jobs, or anal sex?
Females

E18. During the last 12 months, did
another inmate use physical force to
touch your butt, thighs, breasts, or
vagina 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?
E24. During the last 12 months, did
another inmate use physical force to
make you give or receive oral sex?

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?
E28. During the last 12 months, did
another inmate use physical force to
make you have vaginal 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 Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011–12 | May 2013

41

Appendix 2. Survey items related to staff sexual misconduct, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12
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?
G2. During the last 12 months,
have you willingly had sex or sexual
contact with any facility staff?
G11. [IF G2 OR G4 OR G5 OR G7 =
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 hand job.
G11c. You gave or received oral sex or
a blow job.
G11d. You had vaginal sex.
G11e. You had anal sex.

Appendix 3. Follow-up questions for inmates reporting no sexual activity, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12
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?
1. Within the past 7 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
4. More than 12 months ago
5. This has not happened to me at
this facility

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
2. More than 7 days ago but within
the past 30 days
3. More than 30 days ago but within
the past 12 months
4. More than 12 months ago
5. This has not happened to me at
this facility

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013

42

Appendix table 1
Characteristics of state and federal prisons and prevalence of sexual victimization, by facility, National Inmate Survey,
2011–12

Facility name
Total
Alabama
Bibb Corr. Fac.
G.K. Fountain Corr. Fac./J.O. Davis Corr. Fac.
Julia Tutwiler Prisong
St. Clair Corr. Fac.
Alaska
Anchorage Corr. Complex West
Hiland Mountain Corr. Ctr.g
Arizona
ASPC - Douglas
ASPC - Eyman
ASPC - Perryvilleg
ASPC - Tusconh
ASPC - Yuma
Florence Corr. Ctr.h,i
La Palma Corr. Ctr.i
Red Rock Corr. Ctr.i
Arkansas
Ouachita River Corr. Unit
California
Avenal State Prison
California Corr. Ctr.
California Corr. Inst.
California Inst. for Womeng
California Men’s Colony
California Rehabilitation Ctr.
Calipatria State Prison
Central California Women’s Fac.g
Chuckawalla Valley State Prison
Corcoran State Prison
Corr. Training Fac.
Sacramento State Prison
Salinas Valley State Prison
San Quentin State Prison
Sierra Conservation Ctr.
Solano State Prison
Valley State Prison for Womeng
Colorado
Buena Vista Corr. Ctr.
Denver Women’s Corr. Fac.g
Skyline Corr. Ctr.
Connecticut
Manson Youth Inst.
York Corr. Inst.g
Delaware
Central Violation of Probation Ctr.
Delores J. Baylor Women’s Corr. Inst.g
James T. Vaughn Corr. Ctr.

Number of inmates
in custodyc
386,307

Respondents to
sexual victimization Response
surveyd
ratee
38,778
60.4%

Inmates reporting sexual victimizationa
95%-confidence intervalb
Lower
Upper
Percentf
bound
bound
4.0%
3.6%
4.5%

1,928
1,233
964
1,331

219
194
181
178

72.9%
66.7
68.2
64.4

5.8%
5.7
14.1
5.5

3.6%
3.3
10.1
2.8

9.4%
9.6
19.3
10.7

472
412

119
139

57.0%
76.0

5.9%
12.9

3.1%
8.5

10.7%
19.1

2,512
4,919
3,417
5,092
4,190
2,809
3,023
1,525

163
200
208
273
158
188
163
62

55.6%
41.2
66.9
72.7
50.6
67.4
45.1
18.8

1.2%
4.1
9.1
3.7
1.9
1.0
0.0
2.9

0.3%
2.0
5.9
1.9
0.6
0.3
0.0
0.8

4.5%
8.2
13.9
7.2
5.6
3.5
2.3
10.0

2,558

136

80.2%

4.2%

2.1%

8.5%

5,619
3,527
4,939
1,952
6,273
4,173
4,408
3,745
3,169
4,812
6,635
2,827
3,589
3,495
3,451
4,649
3,513

183
120
161
146
168
137
92
196
158
155
214
93
143
156
187
202
178

61.3%
39.0
38.7
51.6
51.8
45.2
30.8
67.6
52.7
35.7
66.4
29.7
45.8
50.3
59.8
64.8
56.3

1.2%
2.1
5.4
6.7
1.5
2.5
2.3
10.1
2.7
6.4
3.2
3.3
3.8
3.8
1.4
2.0
11.5

0.3%
0.7
2.4
3.8
0.6
0.8
0.8
6.5
1.1
3.0
1.6
1.2
1.8
1.6
0.5
0.8
7.5

4.4%
6.0
11.5
11.3
4.2
7.3
6.4
15.3
6.7
12.9
6.3
8.7
7.6
8.6
3.9
5.0
17.2

929
777
248

128
160
95

55.3%
68.2
54.9

3.3%
19.3
3.7

1.5%
13.8
1.4

7.1%
26.3
8.9

446
1,087

242
206

84.3%
76.3

5.2%
12.0

3.4%
8.3

7.9%
17.2

216
360
2,538

138
165
167

88.3%
82.9
57.4

3.0%
13.6
5.3

1.7%
10.0
2.7

5.3%
18.3
10.0

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013

43

Appendix Table 1 (continued)
Characteristics of state and federal prisons and prevalence of sexual victimization, by facility, National Inmate Survey,
2011–12

Facility name
Florida
Apalachee Corr. Inst./West/East Unit/River Junction
Broward Corr. Inst.g
Calhoun Corr. Inst. and Work Camp
Central Florida Reception Ctr. East and South
Florida State Prison and Work Camp
Jackson Corr. Inst. and Work Camp
Lancaster Corr. Inst. and Work Camp
Lawtey Corr. Inst.
Levy Forestry Campg
Marion Corr. Inst. and Work Camp
Martin Corr. Inst. and Work Camp
Northwest Florida Reception Ctr.
Santa Rosa Corr. Inst.
Taylor Corr. Inst. and Annex
Zephyrhills Corr. Inst.
Georgia
Autry State Prison
Burruss Corr. Training Ctr.
D. Ray James Prisoni
Lee Arrendale State Prisong
Macon State Prison
Rogers State Prison
Valdosta State Prison
Ware State Prison
Washington State Prison
Hawaii
Waiawa Corr. Fac.
Idaho
Idaho Max. Security Inst.
St. Anthony Work Camp
Illinois
Danville Corr. Ctr.
Decatur Corr. Ctr.g
Dwight Corr. Ctr.g
Hill Corr. Ctr.
Menard Corr. Ctr.
Pittsfield Work Camp
Stateville Corr. Ctr.
Western Illinois Corr. Ctr.
Indiana
Miami Corr. Fac.
Reception-Diagnostic Ctr.
Rockville Corr. Fac.g
Wabash Valley Corr. Fac.
Iowa
Anamosa State Penitentiary
Kansas
Lansing Corr. Fac.
Norton Corr. Fac.

Number of inmates
in custodyc

Respondents to
sexual victimization Response
surveyd
ratee

Inmates reporting sexual victimizationa
95%-confidence intervalb
Lower
Upper
Percentf
bound
bound

2,230
699
1,615
2,057
2,082
1,522
908
806
159
1,455
1,489
2,073
2,686
2,996
656

161
154
185
115
133
129
184
198
91
238
189
135
185
206
156

56.9%
64.4
64.2
48.0
44.2
46.1
69.0
79.7
66.0
83.2
66.4
48.9
60.0
67.1
62.5

12.2%
12.0
4.1
0.0
5.2
4.0
5.5
0.0
6.1
2.2
5.8
13.7
14.0
2.7
7.9

8.0%
7.6
2.2
0.0
2.6
1.7
3.2
0.0
3.1
1.1
3.4
8.8
9.5
1.1
4.7

18.3%
18.6
7.7
3.4
10.2
9.1
9.3
1.9
11.9
4.6
9.7
20.7
20.3
6.0
13.0

1,662
763
2,066
1,664
1,706
1,479
1,457
1,521
1,537

132
228
195
211
215
235
139
231
216

46.2%
79.7
66.0
78.9
74.1
80.2
50.6
78.0
82.3

6.1%
0.6
0.5
5.9
5.8
2.2
10.5
4.6
2.2

3.3%
0.1
0.1
3.5
3.5
1.0
6.5
2.7
1.0

11.1%
2.6
2.7
9.7
9.5
4.8
16.7
7.8
4.7

280

155

92.0%

6.2%

4.2%

8.8%

388
230

78
72

39.3%
43.2

14.0%
2.3

7.0%
0.5

25.9%
9.4

1,833
683
1,029
1,843
3,660
401
3,670
1,932

206
157
203
248
162
79
229
156

69.7%
65.0
81.0
84.1
51.4
35.7
74.2
55.0

0.5%
1.1
10.7
4.9
2.6
0.0
1.0
3.7

0.2%
0.3
7.1
2.7
1.1
0.0
0.4
1.6

1.8%
3.3
15.6
8.7
6.0
4.6
3.0
8.1

3,168
645
1,140
2,080

203
148
224
169

65.5%
63.2
83.1
49.1

3.2%
2.4
7.6
3.2

1.5%
1.1
4.3
1.3

7.0%
5.5
12.9
7.7

1,166

166

59.0%

4.5%

2.3%

8.7%

2,241
808

191
128

66.3%
61.6

6.7%
5.1

4.0%
2.6

11.0%
9.9

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013

44

Appendix Table 1 (continued)
Characteristics of state and federal prisons and prevalence of sexual victimization, by facility, National Inmate Survey,
2011–12

Facility name
Kentucky
Eastern Kentucky Corr. Complex
Kentucky State Reformatory
Otter Creek Corr. Complexi
Louisiana
B.B. Rayburn Corr. Ctr.
Elayn Hunt Corr. Ctr.
Louisiana State Penitentiary
Maine
Maine Corr. Ctr.h
Maryland
Maryland Corr. Inst. - Hagerstown
Maryland Corr. Inst. for Womeng
Maryland Corr. Training Ctr.
Metropolitan Transition Ctr.
Massachusetts
Old Colony Corr. Ctr.
Michigan
Bellamy Creek Corr. Fac.
Central Michigan Corr. Fac.
Lakeland Corr. Fac.
Saginaw Corr. Fac.
Thumb Corr. Fac.
Minnesota
MCF - Moose Lake
MCF - Shakopeeg
Mississippi
Pike Co. Community Work Ctr.
Walnut Grove Youth Corr. Fac.i
Wilkinson Co. Corr. Fac.i
Missouri
Algoa Corr. Ctr.
Farmington Corr. Fac.
South Central Corr. Fac.
Tipton Corr. Ctr.
Western Missouri Corr. Ctr.
Western Reception, Diagnostic and Corr. Ctr.
Women’s Eastern Reception, Diagnostic and Corr. Ctr.g
Montana
Montana State Prison
Nebraska
Lincoln Corr. Ctr.
Nevada
Florence McClure Women’s Corr. Ctr.g
High Desert State Prison
Lovelock Corr. Ctr.
New Hampshire
New Hampshire State Prison for Men
New Hampshire State Prison for Womeng
New Jersey
Bayside State Prison
Mountainview Youth Corr. Fac.
South Woods State Prison

Number of inmates
in custodyc

Respondents to
sexual victimization Response
surveyd
ratee

Inmates reporting sexual victimizationa
95%-confidence intervalb
Lower
Upper
Percentf
bound
bound

1,704
2,039
640

154
156
117

50.3%
53.3
47.3

6.3%
6.4
7.0

3.6%
3.6
3.8

10.9%
11.3
12.3

1,157
2,158
5,351

187
184
220

70.1%
68.9
69.5

4.1%
6.5
8.5

2.1%
3.7
5.5

8.0%
11.0
12.8

617

192

80.5%

6.1%

3.6%

10.2%

2,021
827
2,653
635

180
151
203
106

61.4%
54.8
64.7
43.9

3.1%
12.7
3.4
3.2

1.5%
8.5
1.7
1.4

6.4%
18.4
6.8
7.6

856

181

69.3%

5.6%

3.4%

9.3%

1,822
2,455
1,368
1,459
955

186
226
222
215
181

58.1%
76.0
78.0
78.0
58.3

4.4%
2.7
5.6
2.9
3.2

2.2%
1.2
3.4
1.4
1.3

8.6%
6.0
9.3
6.0
7.4

1,019
564

191
156

70.0%
67.8

4.4%
13.0

2.5%
8.4

7.8%
19.6

46
976
881

29
281
173

79.5%
92.0
66.8

0.0%
9.9
7.5

0.0%
7.2
4.6

11.7%
13.6
11.8

1,485
2,602
1,576
1,155
1,910
1,876
1,535

152
240
182
152
161
187
198

53.3%
83.9
62.6
51.0
54.0
67.1
68.9

0.0%
7.9
7.2
1.3
3.4
1.5
8.7

0.0%
5.2
4.2
0.4
1.7
0.5
5.3

2.5%
11.8
12.1
4.5
6.9
4.1
13.7

1,443

191

65.3%

13.9%

8.8%

21.4%

491

141

64.2%

4.5%

2.4%

8.1%

705
2,713
1,609

142
192
191

61.0%
59.4
61.9

16.3%
2.5
3.8

10.8%
1.0
1.8

23.7%
6.4
7.6

1,370
111

193
78

69.2%
84.0

5.5%
8.2

2.9%
5.5

10.3%
12.1

2,241
1,060
3,398

119
151
131

39.6%
53.2
44.1

3.4%
3.1
5.2

1.3%
1.4
2.3

8.6%
6.7
11.3

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013

45

Appendix Table 1 (continued)
Characteristics of state and federal prisons and prevalence of sexual victimization, by facility, National Inmate Survey,
2011–12

Facility name
New Mexico
Lea Co. Corr. Fac.i
New Mexico Women’s Corr. Fac.g,i
New York
Auburn Corr. Fac.
Cayuga Corr. Fac.
Gowanda Corr. Fac.
Lakeview Shock Incarceration Corr. Fac.h
Otisville Corr. Fac.
Washington Corr. Fac.
Wyoming Corr. Fac.
North Carolina
Harnett Corr. Inst.
Lanesboro Corr. Inst.
Mary Frances Ctr.g,i
Maury Corr. Inst.
North Carolina Corr. Inst. for Womeng
Odom Corr. Inst.
Western Youth Inst.
North Dakota
North Dakota State Penitentiary
Ohio
Allen Corr. Inst.
Belmont Corr. Inst.
Chillicothe Corr. Inst.
Franklin Medical Ctr.h
Madison Corr. Inst.
Noble Corr. Inst.
Northeast Pre-Release Ctr.g
Pickaway Corr. Fac.
Oklahoma
Dr. Eddie Warrior Corr. Ctr.g
Jackie Brannon Corr. Ctr.
Mabel Bassett Corr. Ctr.g
North Fork Corr. Fac.i
Oregon
Coffee Creek Corr. Fac.g
Deer Ridge Corr. Inst.
Oregon State Penitentiary
Pennsylvania
Cambridge Springs State Corr. Inst.g
Chester State Corr. Inst.
Houtzdale State Corr. Inst.
Mahanoy State Corr. Inst.
Muncy State Corr. Inst.g
Pine Grove State Corr. Inst.
Somerset State Corr. Inst.
Waymart State Corr. Inst.
Rhode Island
Donald Price Med. Security Fac.

Number of inmates
in custodyc

Respondents to
sexual victimization Response
surveyd
ratee

Inmates reporting sexual victimizationa
95%-confidence intervalb
Lower
Upper
Percentf
bound
bound

1,137
599

135
157

51.4%
65.2

4.5%
14.3

2.2%
10.1

9.2%
19.9

1,710
979
1,503
950
407
705
1,576

195
165
239
233
128
180
217

67.4%
60.9
85.6
85.4
61.1
69.0
73.5

9.8%
2.7
3.4
1.9
8.3
3.9
3.1

6.3%
1.2
1.8
0.8
4.9
2.0
1.6

14.7%
5.7
6.1
4.3
13.7
7.3
6.0

987
982
93
961
1,138
531
668

160
161
68
102
150
129
227

58.9%
37.0
84.6
29.0
57.8
59.0
70.6

3.6%
3.3
0.0
5.6
13.0
3.3
1.1

1.8%
1.5
0.0
2.7
8.3
1.5
0.4

7.0%
7.1
5.3
11.3
19.6
7.4
3.2

517

146

61.5%

5.3%

2.9%

9.3%

1,340
2,648
2,944
577
2,333
2,561
553
2,185

116
167
197
129
172
186
157
188

41.2%
55.0
59.4
55.9
47.0
62.1
65.5
65.4

3.2%
2.4
5.1
0.0
7.2
4.5
7.6
5.3

1.1%
0.9
2.8
0.0
3.5
2.4
4.5
2.9

9.0%
5.8
9.0
2.9
14.3
8.1
12.3
9.5

717
709
1,054
2,326

187
179
193
46

75.3%
72.1
70.1
17.2

9.4%
0.5
17.5
1.7

6.3%
0.1
13.1
0.3

13.8%
2.3
22.9
8.7

1,107
754
1,989

207
165
203

69.1%
65.7
62.3

10.8%
3.2
2.9

7.5%
1.5
1.4

15.3%
6.6
6.1

856
1,237
2,268
2,323
1,443
798
2,237
1,426

199
195
175
202
216
196
183
189

76.6%
70.0
55.7
68.6
75.6
68.2
61.0
66.1

4.1%
1.5
1.8
0.9
11.4
7.1
4.5
1.4

2.3%
0.5
0.6
0.3
8.2
4.0
2.2
0.4

7.3%
4.1
5.4
3.2
15.8
12.2
9.1
5.1

290

151

81.9%

2.6%

1.4%

4.8%

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013

46

Appendix Table 1 (continued)
Characteristics of state and federal prisons and prevalence of sexual victimization, by facility, National Inmate Survey,
2011–12

Facility name
South Carolina
Camille Griffin Graham Corr. Inst.g
Kershaw Corr. Inst.
Kirkland Reception and Evaluation Ctr.
Turbeville Corr. Inst.
Tyger River Corr. Inst.
South Dakota
South Dakota Women’s Prisong
Tennessee
Riverbend Max. Security Inst.
Texas
Byrd Unit
Carole Young Medical Fac. Complexg
Clemens Unit
Clements Unit
Coffield Unit
Dawson State Jailh,i
Eastham Unit
Gist State Jail
Gurney Transfer Fac.
Henley State Jailg
Hodge Unit
Holliday Transfer Fac.
Huntsville Unit
McConnell Unit
Michael Unit
Montford Psychiatric Fac.
Murray Unitg
Plane State Jailg
Powledge Unit
Stiles Unit
Willacy Co. State Jaili
Woodman State Jailg
Utah
Central Utah Corr. Fac.
Utah State Prisonh
Vermont
Southeast State Corr. Fac.
Southern State Corr. Fac.
Virginia
Brunswick Women’s Reception and Pre-Release Ctr.g
Dillwyn Corr. Ctr.
Sussex II State Prison
Washington
Clallam Bay Corr. Ctr.
Monroe Corr. Complex
Washington State Penitentiary
West Virginia
Huttonsville Corr. Ctr.
Wisconsin
Green Bay Corr. Inst.
Oshkosh Corr. Ctr.

Number of inmates
in custodyc

Respondents to
sexual victimization Response
surveyd
ratee

Inmates reporting sexual victimizationa
95%-confidence intervalb
Lower
Upper
Percentf
bound
bound

495
1,473
1,672
1,163
1,287

129
232
233
214
206

67.5%
78.9
85.3
74.6
63.7

8.7%
5.6
2.8
3.2
1.9

5.2%
3.2
1.4
1.6
0.7

14.1%
9.7
5.8
6.2
4.8

220

118

74.7%

13.2%

9.5%

18.1%

698

87

16.5%

1.2%

0.3%

4.1%

1,095
402
1,168
3,631
4,113
2,202
2,439
1,997
1,834
423
928
2,077
1,530
2,905
3,257
819
1,315
2,175
1,119
2,935
1,069
796

183
162
173
141
210
188
207
213
179
138
154
161
171
172
179
166
168
175
170
151
151
140

60.9%
79.5
55.8
43.6
66.1
63.7
68.1
72.2
62.3
69.0
21.9
52.9
67.1
54.2
57.1
70.2
63.7
63.0
61.3
49.4
55.6
56.8

1.8%
1.7
6.4
11.9
7.9
2.4
4.7
1.5
1.5
2.4
2.1
2.8
0.9
5.3
6.0
10.2
15.3
4.4
2.9
11.9
1.1
1.3

0.8%
0.8
3.1
7.6
4.9
1.1
2.7
0.5
0.5
1.0
0.8
1.1
0.2
2.8
3.4
6.7
10.7
2.2
1.0
7.5
0.3
0.4

4.4%
3.6
12.7
18.0
12.4
5.1
8.2
4.1
4.2
5.8
5.3
7.1
2.9
10.0
10.3
15.2
21.4
8.9
8.0
18.6
3.8
4.3

1,105
3,746

193
233

69.9%
73.1

5.5%
6.4

3.2%
3.8

9.2%
10.5

92
359

58
109

71.1%
55.3

5.1%
9.9

2.3%
5.6

10.9%
16.9

131
1,061
1,276

95
163
204

85.8%
60.3
74.1

0.0%
4.5
5.4

0.0%
2.2
3.0

3.9%
9.0
9.5

894
2,229
2,017

146
183
119

53.2%
60.2
41.2

5.1%
2.9
5.2

2.6%
1.2
2.2

9.6%
7.0
11.9

1,147

128

46.6%

8.1%

4.4%

14.6%

1,076
2,020

208
223

72.2%
74.3

4.8%
4.7

2.8%
2.7

7.9%
8.1

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013

47

Appendix Table 1 (continued)
Characteristics of state and federal prisons and prevalence of sexual victimization, by facility, National Inmate Survey,
2011–12

Facility name
Wyoming
Wyoming Honor Farm
Federal Facilities (Bureau of Prisons)
CI Edeni
CI Reeves I and IIi
CI Reeves IIIi
CI Riversi
FCI Allenwood Low
FCI Big Spring Camp
FCI Butner Med. I Camp
FCI Butner Med. II
FCI Forrest City Med.
FCI Greenville Campg
FCI Jesup
FCI Lompoc
FCI Manchester Camp
FCI Marianna Campg
FCI Milan
FCI Seagoville
FCI Tallahasseeg
FCI Terre Haute
FDC Philadelphiah
FMC Carswellg
FMC Devens
FMC Lexington Campg
FPC Aldersong
Limestone Co. Det. Ctr.i
MCFP Springfield
USP Hazelton - Femaleg
USP Lee
USP Tucson

Number of inmates
in custodyc

Respondents to
sexual victimization Response
surveyd
ratee

Inmates reporting sexual victimizationa
95%-confidence intervalb
Lower
Upper
Percentf
bound
bound

153

97

69.9%

2.9%

1.5%

5.5%

1,556
2,395
1,345
1,416
1,398
209
328
1,722
1,725
353
1,127
1,413
495
296
1,525
1,562
1,250
1,182
1,093
1,413
1,027
285
1,130
1,021
1,163
487
1,479
1,521

185
180
188
159
149
70
99
180
152
130
132
164
110
172
163
194
157
92
162
193
155
148
237
157
80
111
101
140

67.5%
63.7
69.2
58.3
52.4
45.7
49.1
61.0
51.4
65.8
46.5
57.5
49.0
88.5
58.6
67.4
60.2
34.6
59.1
64.6
57.2
83.2
83.6
60.1
33.5
49.0
32.3
42.2

0.0%
0.0
0.4
0.9
1.9
1.2
0.0
2.2
0.6
4.1
0.0
0.6
0.9
0.6
2.4
1.1
5.8
2.2
1.8
4.2
2.6
0.8
2.7
0.6
1.8
5.2
1.7
7.3

0.0%
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.7
0.3
0.0
0.7
0.1
2.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.2
1.0
0.4
3.2
0.5
0.7
2.3
1.2
0.2
1.2
0.1
0.6
2.6
0.5
3.9

2.0%
2.1
2.0
4.7
5.2
5.0
3.7
7.1
2.9
8.0
2.8
2.8
4.1
2.1
6.0
3.1
10.3
8.2
4.8
7.5
5.8
2.7
5.9
3.1
5.2
10.2
5.7
13.4

aIncludes all types of sexual victimization, including oral, anal, or vaginal penetration, hand jobs, touching of the inmate’s butt, thighs, penis, breasts, or vagina in a sexual way, and other
sexual acts occurring in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if shorter.
bIndicates that different samples in the same facility would yield prevalence rates falling between the lower and upper bound estimates 95 out of 100 times.
cNumber of inmates in custody on day when the facility provided the sample roster.
dNumber of respondents completing the sexual victimization survey. (See Methodology.)
eResponse rate is equal to the number of respondents divided by the number of eligible sampled inmates times 100 percent.
fWeights were applied so that inmates who responded accurately reflected the entire population of each facility on select characteristics, including age, sex, race, sentence length, and
time served. (See Methodology.)
gFemale facility.
hFacility housed both males and females; both were sampled at this facility.
iPrivately operated facility.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12.

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013

48

Appendix table 2
Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimization, by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12

Facility name
Total
Alabama
Bibb Corr. Fac.
G.K. Fountain Corr. Fac./J.O. Davis Corr. Fac.
Julia Tutwiler Prisond
St. Clair Corr. Fac.
Alaska
Anchorage Corr. Complex West
Hiland Mountain Corr. Ctr.d
Arizona
ASPC - Douglas
ASPC - Eyman
ASPC - Perryvilled
ASPC - Tuscone
ASPC - Yuma
Florence Corr. Ctr.e,f
La Palma Corr. Ctr.f
Red Rock Corr. Ctr.f
Arkansas
Ouachita River Corr. Unit
California
Avenal State Prison
California Corr. Ctr.
California Corr. Inst.
California Inst. for Womend
California Men’s Colony
California Rehabilitation Ctr.
Calipatria State Prison
Central California Women’s Fac.d
Chuckawalla Valley State Prison
Corcoran State Prison
Corr. Training Fac.
Sacramento State Prison
Salinas Valley State Prison
San Quentin State Prison
Sierra Conservation Ctr.
Solano State Prison
Valley State Prison for Womend
Colorado
Buena Vista Corr. Ctr.
Denver Women’s Corr. Fac.d
Skyline Corr. Inst.
Connecticut
Manson Youth Inst.
York Corr. Fac.d
Delaware
Central Violation of Probation Ctr.
Delores J. Baylor Women’s Corr. Inst.d
James T. Vaughn Corr. Ctr.

Inmate-on-inmatea
95%-confidence intervalb
Percent
Lower
Upper
victimizedc
bound
bound
2.0%
1.8%
2.3%

Staff sexual misconducta
95%-confidence intervalb
Percent
Lower
Upper
victimizedc
bound
bound
2.4%
2.0%
2.8%

3.1%
4.4
10.0
3.2

1.5%
2.3
6.8
1.3

6.0%
8.2
14.6
7.6

3.6%
2.3
6.8
3.5

2.0%
1.0
4.1
1.4

6.5%
5.2
10.9
8.4

3.7%
9.9

1.8%
6.2

7.5%
15.5

2.2%
3.0

0.7%
1.2

6.5%
7.4

0.0%
1.8
7.5
1.3
0.5
0.5
0.0
0.0

0.0%
0.7
4.6
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0

2.3%
4.4
11.9
3.9
3.0
2.7
2.3
5.8

1.2%
3.2
2.1
2.4
1.4
0.5
0.0
2.9

0.3%
1.4
0.8
1.0
0.4
0.1
0.0
0.8

4.5%
7.2
5.4
5.4
5.0
2.7
2.3
10.0

3.0%

1.2%

7.2%

1.3%

0.5%

3.6%

1.2%
1.4
3.3
3.6
1.5
1.4
0.7
9.5
2.7
2.4
1.6
2.4
2.2
1.7
0.4
0.5
11.5

0.3%
0.4
1.1
1.7
0.6
0.3
0.1
6.1
1.1
0.9
0.6
0.8
0.8
0.4
0.1
0.1
7.5

4.4%
5.0
9.4
7.4
4.2
5.2
3.8
14.7
6.7
5.9
3.9
7.6
5.6
5.9
2.3
2.5
17.2

0.0%
0.7
2.0
4.2
0.0
1.1
1.6
2.1
0.0
4.3
2.8
2.2
3.0
2.7
1.0
2.0
3.9

0.0%
0.1
0.7
2.1
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.8
0.0
1.6
1.3
0.6
1.4
1.1
0.3
0.8
1.8

2.1%
3.9
6.0
8.3
2.2
5.9
5.5
5.1
2.4
11.0
5.7
7.9
6.3
6.8
3.4
5.0
8.0

1.5%
13.4
0.0

0.5%
8.8
0.0

4.9%
19.9
3.9

3.3%
10.7
3.6

1.5%
6.8
1.4

7.1%
16.3
8.9

1.3%
11.0

0.5%
7.4

3.1%
16.0

4.0%
2.5

2.5%
1.0

6.3%
6.3

0.7%
10.7
3.6

0.2%
7.4
1.7

2.0%
15.3
7.6

2.4%
7.0
1.7

1.2%
4.6
0.5

4.5%
10.3
5.7

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013

49

Appendix table 2 (continued)
Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimization, by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12

Facility name
Florida
Apalachee Corr. Inst./West/East Unit/River Junction
Broward Corr. Inst.d
Calhoun Corr. Inst. and Work Camp
Central Florida Reception Ctr. East and South
Florida State Prison and Work Camp
Jackson Corr. Inst. and Work Camp
Lancaster Corr. Inst. and Work Camp
Lawtey Corr. Inst.
Levy Forestry Campd
Marion Corr. Inst. and Work Camp
Martin Corr. Inst. and Work Camp
Northwest Florida Reception Ctr.
Santa Rosa Corr. Inst.
Taylor Corr. Inst. and Annex
Zephyrhills Corr. Inst.
Georgia
Autry State Prison
Burruss Corr. Training Ctr.
D. Ray James Prisonf
Lee Arrendale State Prisond
Macon State Prison
Rogers State Prison
Valdosta State Prison
Ware State Prison
Washington State Prison
Hawaii
Waiawa Corr. Fac.
Idaho
Idaho Max. Security Inst.
St. Anthony Work Camp
Illinois
Danville Corr. Ctr.
Decatur Corr. Ctr.d
Dwight Corr. Ctr.d
Hill Corr. Ctr.
Menard Corr. Ctr.
Pittsfield Work Camp
Stateville Corr. Ctr.
Western Illinois Corr. Ctr.
Indiana
Miami Corr. Fac.
Reception-Diagnostic Ctr.
Rockville Corr. Fac.d
Wabash Valley Corr. Fac.
Iowa
Anamosa State Penitentiary
Kansas
Lansing Corr. Fac.
Norton Corr. Fac.
Kentucky
Eastern Kentucky Corr. Complex
Kentucky State Reformatory
Otter Creek Corr. Complexf

Inmate-on-inmatea
95%-confidence intervalb
Percent
Lower
Upper
victimizedc
bound
bound

Staff sexual misconducta
95%-confidence intervalb
Percent
Lower
Upper
victimizedc
bound
bound

7.3%
5.4
1.7
0.0
2.8
1.8
2.7
0.0
4.7
1.0
4.3
9.8
4.6
0.4
2.9

4.3%
2.9
0.7
0.0
1.0
0.5
1.2
0.0
2.1
0.4
2.3
5.8
2.1
0.1
1.3

12.1%
9.9
4.3
3.4
7.2
6.1
5.7
1.9
10.4
2.6
7.8
16.1
9.4
2.2
6.1

6.8%
7.3
2.4
0.0
3.3
3.0
3.4
0.0
1.4
1.6
2.5
4.9
10.1
2.2
5.5

3.7%
3.9
1.0
0.0
1.5
1.2
1.7
0.0
0.4
0.7
1.1
2.3
6.5
0.9
2.9

12.2%
13.3
5.5
3.4
7.1
7.6
6.7
1.9
4.3
3.8
5.5
10.2
15.5
5.5
10.3

1.9%
0.0
0.5
5.9
1.3
0.0
5.0
0.4
0.0

0.7%
0.0
0.1
3.5
0.5
0.0
2.5
0.1
0.0

5.2%
1.9
2.7
9.7
3.6
1.6
9.8
1.8
1.7

4.2%
0.6
0.0
0.0
5.3
2.2
6.5
4.6
2.1

2.0%
0.1
0.0
0.0
3.1
1.0
3.4
2.7
1.0

8.8%
2.6
1.9
1.8
8.9
4.8
11.9
7.8
4.7

4.1%

2.6%

6.4%

2.1%

1.1%

3.9%

9.4%
0.0

3.9%
0.0

21.0%
5.1

8.2%
2.3

3.1%
0.5

19.7%
9.4

0.5%
1.1
9.2
0.8
0.4
0.0
0.0
2.2

0.2%
0.3
6.0
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.8

1.8%
3.3
14.0
2.5
2.4
4.6
1.7
6.1

0.3%
0.0
4.2
4.1
2.6
0.0
1.0
3.0

0.1%
0.0
2.2
2.1
1.1
0.0
0.4
1.2

1.4%
2.4
7.9
7.9
6.0
4.6
3.0
7.4

1.6%
1.3
5.8
1.7

0.5%
0.4
3.2
0.5

4.9%
3.9
10.4
5.7

2.7%
1.2
1.8
2.3

1.1%
0.4
0.5
0.8

6.4%
3.6
6.5
6.3

4.0%

2.0%

8.2%

0.5%

0.1%

2.4%

2.9%
1.6

1.4%
0.5

6.2%
5.2

5.1%
4.5

2.8%
2.2

9.1%
9.1

2.0%
3.4
4.7

0.7%
1.5
2.3

5.6%
7.7
9.6

5.7%
4.5
2.9

3.2%
2.2
1.2

10.1%
8.9
6.7

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011–12 | May 2013

50

Appendix table 2 (continued)
Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimization, by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12

Facility name
Louisiana
B.B. Rayburn Corr. Ctr.
Elayn Hunt Corr. Ctr.
Louisiana State Penitentiary
Maine
Maine Corr. Ctr.e
Maryland
Maryland Corr. Inst. - Hagerstown
Maryland Corr. Inst. for Womend
Maryland Corr. Training Ctr.
Metropolitan Transition Ctr.
Massachusetts
Old Colony Corr. Ctr.
Michigan
Bellamy Creek Corr. Fac.
Central Michigan Corr. Fac.
Lakeland Corr. Fac.
Saginaw Corr. Fac.
Thumb Corr. Fac.
Minnesota
MCF - Moose Lake
MCF - Shakopeed
Mississippi
Pike Co. Community Work Ctr.
Walnut Grove Youth Corr. Fac.f
Wilkinson Co. Corr. Fac.f
Missouri
Algoa Corr. Ctr.
Farmington Corr. Fac.
South Central Corr. Fac.
Tipton Corr. Ctr.
Western Missouri Corr. Ctr.
Western Reception, Diagnostic and Corr. Ctr.
Women’s Eastern Reception, Diagnostic and Corr. Ctr.d
Montana
Montana State Prison
Nebraska
Lincoln Corr. Ctr.
Nevada
Florence McClure Women’s Corr. Ctr.d
High Desert State Prison
Lovelock Corr. Ctr.
New Hampshire
New Hampshire State Prison for Men
New Hampshire State Prison for Womend
New Jersey
Bayside State Prison
Mountainview Youth Corr. Fac.
South Woods State Prison
New Mexico
Lea Co. Corr. Fac.f
New Mexico Women’s Corr. Fac. d,f

Inmate-on-inmatea
95%-confidence intervalb
Percent
Lower
Upper
victimizedc
bound
bound

Staff sexual misconducta
95%-confidence intervalb
Percent
Lower
Upper
victimizedc
bound
bound

2.7%
3.5
3.5

1.1%
1.6
1.7

6.3%
7.5
7.0

2.1%
4.6
6.3

0.9%
2.5
3.9

5.0%
8.4
10.1

6.1%

3.6%

10.2%

1.8%

0.6%

5.1%

1.5%
8.4
1.6
0.8

0.5%
5.2
0.6
0.2

4.1%
13.2
4.5
3.8

1.6%
5.6
2.4
3.2

0.6%
3.0
1.0
1.4

4.4%
10.3
5.3
7.6

3.1%

1.5%

6.1%

2.6%

1.2%

5.4%

0.7%
1.3
1.7
0.4
1.4

0.1%
0.5
0.7
0.1
0.4

3.4%
3.5
3.9
2.1
4.4

4.3%
1.8
4.0
2.9
2.5

2.2%
0.6
2.1
1.4
0.9

8.6%
5.1
7.4
6.0
6.5

2.8%
12.8

1.4%
8.2

5.6%
19.4

2.6%
0.5

1.2%
0.2

5.5%
1.5

0.0%
0.4
1.1

0.0%
0.1
0.3

11.7%
1.6
3.4

0.0%
9.6
6.4

0.0%
6.9
3.8

11.7%
13.2
10.6

0.0%
5.8
1.0
0.0
1.1
0.0
7.8

0.0%
3.6
0.3
0.0
0.3
0.0
4.6

2.5%
9.3
3.6
2.5
3.9
2.0
12.8

0.0%
3.7
6.1
1.3
2.3
1.5
1.3

0.0%
2.0
3.4
0.4
1.0
0.5
0.5

2.5%
6.7
10.9
4.5
5.3
4.1
3.6

9.0%

4.6%

16.8%

9.9%

5.3%

17.7%

0.5%

0.1%

2.1%

4.0%

2.1%

7.6%

16.3%
1.3
2.3

10.8%
0.4
0.9

23.7%
4.7
5.7

2.1%
1.2
1.5

0.8%
0.3
0.5

5.3%
4.5
4.4

2.2%
5.8

0.9%
3.5

5.3%
9.3

3.3%
2.4

1.3%
1.2

7.9%
4.8

2.0%
0.8
3.5

0.6%
0.2
1.3

7.1%
4.2
8.8

1.4%
3.1
4.0

0.4%
1.4
1.5

4.9%
6.7
10.2

1.3%
12.2

0.4%
8.3

4.4%
17.5

3.2%
6.0

1.3%
3.4

7.7%
10.5

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013

51

Appendix table 2 (continued)
Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimization, by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12

Facility name
New York
Auburn Corr. Fac.
Cayuga Corr. Fac.
Gowanda Corr. Fac.
Lakeview Shock Incarceration Corr. Fac.e
Otisville Corr. Fac.
Washington Corr. Fac.
Wyoming Corr. Fac.
North Carolina
Harnett Corr. Inst.
Lanesboro Corr. Inst.
Mary Frances Ctr.d,f
Maury Corr. Inst.
North Carolina Corr. Inst. for Womend
Odom Corr. Inst.
Western Youth Inst.
North Dakota
North Dakota State Penitentiary
Ohio
Allen Corr. Inst.
Belmont Corr. Inst.
Chillicothe Corr. Inst.
Franklin Medical Ctr.e
Madison Corr. Inst.
Noble Corr. Inst.
Northeast Pre-Release Ctr.d
Pickaway Corr. Fac.
Oklahoma
Dr. Eddie Warrior Corr. Ctr.d
Jackie Brannon Corr. Ctr.
Mabel Bassett Corr. Ctr.d
North Fork Corr. Fac.f
Oregon
Coffee Creek Corr. Fac.d
Deer Ridge Corr. Inst.
Oregon State Penitentiary
Pennsylvania
Cambridge Springs State Corr. Inst.d
Chester State Corr. Inst.
Houtzdale State Corr. Inst.
Mahanoy State Corr. Inst.
Muncy State Corr. Inst.d
Pine Grove State Corr. Inst.
Somerset State Corr. Inst.
Waymart State Corr. Inst.
Rhode Island
Donald Price Med. Security Fac.
South Carolina
Camille Griffin Graham Corr. Inst.d
Kershaw Corr. Inst.
Kirkland Reception and Evaluation Ctr.
Turbeville Corr. Inst.
Tyger River Corr. Inst.

Inmate-on-inmatea
95%-confidence intervalb
Percent
Lower
Upper
victimizedc
bound
bound

Staff sexual misconducta
95%-confidence intervalb
Percent
Lower
Upper
victimizedc
bound
bound

3.7%
0.0
1.1
0.5
3.7
1.0
1.4

1.9%
0.0
0.4
0.1
1.7
0.3
0.5

7.3%
2.3
3.2
2.4
8.1
3.1
3.8

6.0%
2.7
2.6
1.9
5.9
2.9
1.7

3.4%
1.2
1.3
0.8
3.2
1.4
0.7

10.4%
5.7
5.1
4.3
10.6
6.1
4.0

1.9%
0.0
0.0
1.9
11.4
0.9
0.6

0.8%
0.0
0.0
0.7
7.1
0.2
0.1

4.7%
2.3
5.3
5.0
17.8
3.9
2.5

1.9%
3.3
0.0
3.7
4.9
3.3
0.5

0.8%
1.5
0.0
1.4
2.3
1.5
0.1

4.7%
7.1
5.3
9.4
10.1
7.4
2.3

2.5%

1.1%

5.6%

3.3%

1.6%

6.9%

1.5%
1.6
4.5
0.0
3.0
0.8
5.2
3.2

0.3%
0.6
2.4
0.0
1.2
0.3
3.0
1.5

7.7%
4.6
8.1
2.9
7.3
2.3
8.8
6.7

1.7%
0.7
0.8
0.0
4.2
3.7
2.4
2.1

0.5%
0.1
0.2
0.0
1.5
1.8
0.8
0.8

5.7%
3.8
3.3
2.9
11.4
7.3
7.0
5.3

8.1%
0.5
15.3
0.0

5.3%
0.1
11.3
0.0

12.3%
2.3
20.6
7.7

2.4%
0.0
3.4
1.6

1.0%
0.0
1.8
0.3

5.5%
2.1
6.6
8.7

8.0%
2.3
2.1

5.2%
1.1
0.8

12.0%
5.0
5.0

4.7%
0.9
0.9

2.7%
0.2
0.3

8.1%
4.1
3.1

3.7%
0.5
0.0
0.0
8.9
2.0
2.9
1.0

1.9%
0.1
0.0
0.0
6.0
0.8
1.1
0.2

6.7%
2.3
2.1
1.9
12.9
4.6
7.4
5.0

0.9%
1.0
1.8
0.9
3.6
6.3
3.1
0.4

0.3%
0.3
0.6
0.3
2.0
3.4
1.3
0.1

2.7%
3.6
5.4
3.2
6.4
11.4
7.1
2.1

0.9%

0.4%

2.4%

1.7%

0.8%

3.6%

6.5%
3.0
1.5
1.5
0.9

3.6%
1.3
0.5
0.5
0.3

11.4%
6.8
3.9
3.9
2.9

3.0%
2.6
1.4
2.3
1.0

1.3%
1.3
0.5
1.0
0.3

6.7%
5.3
3.7
5.0
3.8

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013

52

Appendix table 2 (continued)
Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimization, by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12

Facility name
South Dakota
South Dakota Women’s Prisond
Tennessee
Riverbend Max. Security Inst.
Texas
Byrd Unit
Carole Young Medical Fac. Complexd
Clemens Unit
Clements Unit
Coffield Unit
Dawson State Jaile,f
Eastham Unit
Gist State Jail
Gurney Transfer Fac.
Henley State Jaild
Hodge Unit
Holliday Transfer Fac.
Huntsville Unit
McConnell Unit
Michael Unit
Montford Psychiatric Fac.
Murray Unitd
Plane State Jaild
Powledge Unit
Stiles Unit
Willacy Co. State Jailf
Woodman State Jaild
Utah
Central Utah Corr. Fac.
Utah State Prisone
Vermont
Southeast State Corr. Fac.
Southern State Corr. Fac.
Virginia
Brunswick Women’s Reception and Pre-Release Ctr.d
Dillwyn Corr. Ctr.
Sussex II State Prison
Washington
Clallam Bay Corr. Ctr.
Monroe Corr. Complex
Washington State Penitentiary
West Virginia
Huttonsville Corr. Ctr.
Wisconsin
Green Bay Corr. Inst.
Oshkosh Corr. Ctr.
Wyoming
Wyoming Honor Farm

Inmate-on-inmatea
95%-confidence intervalb
Percent
Lower
Upper
victimizedc
bound
bound

Staff sexual misconducta
95%-confidence intervalb
Percent
Lower
Upper
victimizedc
bound
bound

12.4%

8.8%

17.3%

2.6%

1.2%

5.4%

0.4%

0.1%

2.0%

1.2%

0.3%

4.1%

0.9%
1.2
2.9
6.8
1.1
1.4
2.3
0.6
1.5
1.7
1.9
1.0
0.5
3.4
4.4
8.4
11.3
2.1
1.8
7.8
1.1
1.3

0.3%
0.5
0.9
3.8
0.3
0.5
1.0
0.1
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.3
0.1
1.4
2.3
5.2
7.3
0.9
0.5
4.3
0.3
0.4

2.8%
3.0
8.8
11.7
3.8
3.9
5.1
2.9
4.2
4.9
5.2
3.7
2.6
8.0
8.4
13.1
17.0
5.2
6.5
13.8
3.8
4.3

1.0%
1.3
3.5
9.5
6.8
1.6
2.9
0.9
0.6
0.8
0.7
1.8
0.3
2.3
2.1
5.0
4.4
2.3
1.1
6.2
0.6
0.0

0.3%
0.5
1.5
5.7
4.1
0.6
1.4
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.5
0.1
1.1
0.8
2.7
2.3
0.8
0.2
3.2
0.1
0.0

3.3%
3.1
8.2
15.3
11.1
4.1
5.9
3.1
2.9
3.2
2.6
6.1
1.7
4.9
5.2
9.2
8.2
6.5
5.2
11.4
2.8
2.7

3.7%
5.6

2.0%
3.2

6.9%
9.5

2.7%
1.2

1.2%
0.4

5.7%
3.6

2.2%
7.7

0.7%
3.9

6.5%
14.6

5.1%
4.8

2.3%
2.2

10.9%
10.3

0.0%
0.8
1.3

0.0%
0.2
0.4

3.9%
3.9
4.6

0.0%
3.7
4.1

0.0%
1.7
2.2

3.9%
8.0
7.7

1.6%
0.3
3.3

0.5%
0.1
1.1

5.1%
1.6
9.4

3.5%
2.6
1.9

1.6%
1.0
0.5

7.5%
6.8
6.9

2.8%

1.0%

7.5%

6.5%

3.2%

12.8%

2.4%
3.9

1.2%
2.1

4.7%
7.2

2.4%
1.1

1.1%
0.4

5.1%
3.1

1.0%

0.3%

3.0%

2.9%

1.5%

5.5%

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013

53

Appendix table 2 (continued)
Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimization, by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12

Facility name
Federal Facilities (Bureau of Prisons)
CI Edenf
CI Reeves I and IIf
CI Reeves IIIf
CI Riversf
FCI Allenwood Low
FCI Big Spring Camp
FCI Butner Med. I Camp
FCI Butner Med. II
FCI Forrest City Med.
FCI Greenville Campd
FCI Jesup
FCI Lompoc
FCI Manchester Camp
FCI Marianna Campd
FCI Milan
FCI Seagoville
FCI Tallahasseed
FCI Terre Haute
FDC Philadelphiae
FMC Carswelld
FMC Devens
FMC Lexington Campd
FPC Aldersond
Limestone Co. Det. Ctr.f
MCFP Springfield
USP Hazelton - Femaled
USP Lee
USP Tucson

Inmate-on-inmatea
95%-confidence intervalb
Percent
Lower
Upper
victimizedc
bound
bound
0.0%
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.5
0.0
0.0
1.4
0.0
3.3
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.6
1.2
1.1
4.0
0.5
1.2
4.2
1.3
0.8
2.3
0.6
1.2
4.4
0.9
4.1

0.0%
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
1.5
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.4
2.1
0.1
0.4
2.3
0.4
0.2
1.0
0.1
0.3
2.0
0.2
1.7

2.0%
2.1
2.0
4.7
2.8
5.2
3.7
7.0
2.5
7.0
2.8
2.3
4.1
2.1
4.0
3.1
7.8
2.7
4.0
7.5
4.1
2.7
5.5
3.1
4.2
9.2
4.8
9.5

Staff sexual misconducta
95%-confidence intervalb
Percent
Lower
Upper
victimizedc
bound
bound
0.0%
0.0
0.4
0.0
1.4
1.2
0.0
0.8
0.6
0.8
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.0
1.3
0.0
2.3
1.6
0.6
0.4
1.4
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.6
0.8
0.7
3.2

0.0%
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.4
0.3
0.0
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.8
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.5
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.1
1.3

2.0%
2.1
2.0
2.4
4.5
5.0
3.7
2.7
2.9
3.2
2.8
2.8
3.4
2.2
4.4
1.9
6.1
8.3
3.0
2.2
3.8
2.5
1.8
2.4
3.4
3.7
3.9
7.9

Note: Detail may sum to more than total victimization rate because victims may have reported both inmate-on-inmate and staff-on-inmate sexual victimization.
aIncludes all types of sexual victimization, including oral, anal, or vaginal penetration, hand jobs, touching of the inmate’s butt, thighs, penis, breasts, or vagina in a sexual way, and other
sexual acts occurring in the past 12 months, or since admission to the facility, if shorter.
bIndicates that different samples in the same facility would yield prevalence rates falling between the lower and upper bound estimates 95 out of 100 times.
cWeights were applied so that inmates who responded accurately reflected the entire population of each facility on select characteristics, including age, sex, race, time served, and
sentence length. (See Methodology.)
dFemale facility.
eFacility housed both males and females; both were sampled at this facility.
fPrivately operated facility.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12.

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013

54

Appendix table 3
Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimization by level of coercion, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12
Facility name
Total
Alabama
Bibb Corr. Fac.
G.K. Fountain Corr. Fac./J.O. Davis Corr. Fac.
Julia Tutwiler Prisone
St. Clair Corr. Fac.
Alaska
Anchorage Corr. Complex West
Hiland Mountain Corr. Ctr.e
Arizona
ASPC - Douglas
ASPC - Eyman
ASPC - Perryvillee
ASPC - Tusconf
ASPC - Yuma
Florence Corr. Ctr.f,g
La Palma Corr. Ctr.g
Red Rock Corr. Ctr.g
Arkansas
Ouachita River Corr. Unit
California
Avenal State Prison
California Corr. Ctr.
California Corr. Inst.
California Inst. for Womene
California Men’s Colony
California Rehabilitation Ctr.
Calipatria State Prison
Central California Women’s Fac.e
Chuckawalla Valley State Prison
Corcoran State Prison
Corr. Training Fac.
Sacramento State Prison
Salinas Valley State Prison
San Quentin State Prison
Sierra Conservation Ctr.
Solano State Prison
Valley State Prison for Womene
Colorado
Buena Vista Corr. Ctr.
Denver Women’s Corr. Fac.e
Skyline Corr. Inst.
Connecticut
Manson Youth Inst.
York Corr. Fac.e
Delaware
Central Violation of Probation Ctr.
Delores J. Baylor Women’s Corr. Inst.e
James T. Vaughn Corr. Ctr.
Florida
Apalachee Corr. Inst./West/East Unit/River Junction
Broward Corr. Inst.e
Calhoun Corr. Inst. and Work Camp
Central Florida Reception Ctr. East and South
Florida State Prison and Work Camp

Inmate-on-inmatea
Physically
forcedb
Pressuredc
1.3%
1.6%

Staff sexual misconducta
Physically
forcedb
Pressuredc
0.8%
1.4%

Without force
or pressured
1.4%

2.0%
3.5
5.0
2.5

1.8%
3.1
7.8
3.2

0.3%
1.0
4.0
1.1

1.5%
1.7
5.5
2.9

2.9%
1.3
2.4
1.7

3.7%
5.9

2.3%
8.3

1.2%
0.7

1.2%
3.0

1.0%
1.6

0.0%
1.3
4.3
0.6
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0%
1.8
6.5
0.7
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0

1.2%
1.8
1.3
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.0
0.0

0.4%
1.7
1.8
1.6
1.4
0.5
0.0
0.0

0.4%
1.7
1.7
1.2
0.0
0.5
0.0
2.9

2.2%

3.0%

0.4%

0.4%

0.9%

1.2%
0.8
0.9
1.9
1.1
0.4
0.7
7.5
1.5
2.0
1.2
1.4
2.2
1.7
0.0
0.0
8.8

0.5%
1.4
2.9
3.0
1.5
1.0
0.7
5.4
1.8
2.0
0.8
2.4
2.2
1.7
0.4
0.5
10.7

0.0%
0.0
0.3
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.7
1.5
0.0
0.0
1.8
0.0
1.4
1.4
0.0
0.4
3.1

0.0%
0.0
2.0
3.7
0.0
1.1
0.7
2.1
0.0
1.7
1.1
2.2
2.0
1.9
0.4
0.9
3.6

0.0%
0.7
0.0
1.2
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.0
0.0
2.6
2.2
0.0
1.0
1.9
0.5
1.1
0.7

1.5%
9.7
0.0

1.5%
11.8
0.0

1.2%
7.3
0.6

2.8%
8.8
1.8

0.8%
3.2
1.9

0.5%
7.2

0.8%
9.1

1.6%
0.4

2.2%
2.4

2.7%
0.3

0.7%
6.0
3.2

0.7%
5.8
2.5

0.8%
0.6
0.0

1.5%
5.2
0.8

1.6%
3.2
0.9

5.0%
2.3
1.4
0.0
2.3

6.9%
3.6
1.0
0.0
1.6

1.3%
4.7
0.7
0.0
0.9

2.4%
3.5
1.1
0.0
1.4

5.7%
1.3
2.4
0.0
2.9

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011–12 | May 2013

55

Appendix table 3 (continued)
Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimization by level of coercion, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12
Facility name
Jackson Corr. Inst. and Work Camp
Lancaster Corr. Inst. and Work Camp
Lawtey Corr. Inst.
Levy Forestry Campe
Marion Corr. Inst. and Work Camp
Martin Corr. Inst. and Work Camp
Northwest Florida Reception Ctr.
Santa Rosa Corr. Inst.
Taylor Corr. Inst. and Annex
Zephyrhills Corr. Inst.
Georgia
Autry State Prison
Burruss Corr. Training Ctr.
D. Ray James Prisong
Lee Arrendale State Prisone
Macon State Prison
Rogers State Prison
Valdosta State Prison
Ware State Prison
Washington State Prison
Hawaii
Waiawa Corr. Fac.
Idaho
Idaho Max. Security Inst.
St. Anthony Work Camp
Illinois
Danville Corr. Ctr.
Decatur Corr. Ctr.e
Dwight Corr. Ctr.e
Hill Corr. Ctr.
Menard Corr. Ctr.
Pittsfield Work Camp
Stateville Corr. Ctr.
Western Illinois Corr. Ctr.
Indiana
Miami Corr. Fac.
Reception-Diagnostic Ctr.
Rockville Corr. Fac.e
Wabash Valley Corr. Fac.
Iowa
Anamosa State Penitentiary
Kansas
Lansing Corr. Fac.
Norton Corr. Fac.
Kentucky
Eastern Kentucky Corr. Complex
Kentucky State Reformatory
Otter Creek Corr. Complexg
Louisiana
B.B. Rayburn Corr. Ctr.
Elayn Hunt Corr. Ctr.
Louisiana State Penitentiary
Maine
Maine Corr. Ctr.f

Inmate-on-inmatea
Physically
forcedb
Pressuredc
0.8%
1.8%
1.6
2.0
0.0
0.0
4.7
3.6
0.6
1.0
1.3
4.3
6.9
6.9
2.5
3.5
0.4
0.4
1.9
2.5

Staff sexual misconducta
Physically
forcedb
Pressuredc
1.8%
1.9%
1.1
2.2
0.0
0.0
1.4
1.4
0.7
1.2
1.5
1.5
1.8
2.9
2.4
6.4
1.2
1.2
1.9
2.0

Without force
or pressured
0.3%
2.8
0.0
0.0
1.6
1.0
3.4
3.5
1.0
3.4

0.7%
0.0
0.0
2.5
1.3
0.0
4.2
0.0
0.0

1.9%
0.0
0.5
4.4
1.3
0.0
4.0
0.4
0.0

0.8%
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.5
0.0
2.2
1.7
0.9

0.8%
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.9
0.4
3.0
2.2
0.5

4.2%
0.6
0.0
0.0
3.8
1.8
2.6
3.4
1.7

2.6%

3.3%

0.7%

1.4%

1.4%

8.3%
0.0

4.8%
0.0

6.0%
0.0

6.0%
2.3

5.9%
0.0

0.5%
1.1
6.8
0.3
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.8

0.3%
0.0
6.9
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.2

0.0%
0.0
2.6
1.2
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.8

0.3%
0.0
3.7
3.3
1.3
0.0
0.3
2.3

0.0%
0.0
0.5
2.2
1.3
0.0
0.8
0.9

0.9%
1.0
2.6
0.0

1.6%
0.3
4.0
1.7

0.0%
0.0
0.3
0.8

1.5%
0.0
0.0
0.8

1.2%
1.2
1.4
1.5

1.3%

4.0%

0.5%

0.0%

0.5%

2.4%
1.6

1.9%
1.0

2.8%
2.6

3.2%
2.6

3.1%
2.8

1.2%
2.1
1.4

2.0%
2.6
3.9

1.6%
0.5
0.7

2.9%
3.1
0.7

5.0%
3.6
2.2

1.2%
2.7
1.6

2.7%
1.3
3.5

1.7%
1.6
2.2

1.1%
3.8
3.3

0.9%
1.2
4.6

3.1%

4.4%

0.0%

1.8%

1.0%

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013

56

Appendix table 3 (continued)
Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimization by level of coercion, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12
Facility name
Maryland
Maryland Corr. Inst. - Hagerstown
Maryland Corr. Inst. for Womene
Maryland Corr. Training Ctr.
Metropolitan Transition Ctr.
Massachusetts
Old Colony Corr. Ctr.
Michigan
Bellamy Creek Corr. Fac.
Central Michigan Corr. Fac.
Lakeland Corr. Fac.
Saginaw Corr. Fac.
Thumb Corr. Fac.
Minnesota
MCF - Moose Lake
MCF - Shakopeef
Mississippi
Pike Co. Community Work Ctr.
Walnut Grove Youth Corr. Fac.g
Wilkinson Co. Corr. Fac.g
Missouri
Algoa Corr. Ctr.
Farmington Corr. Fac.
South Central Corr. Fac.
Tipton Corr. Ctr.
Western Missouri Corr. Ctr.
Western Reception, Diagnostic and Corr. Ctr.
Women’s Eastern Reception, Diagnostic and Corr. Ctr.e
Montana
Montana State Prison
Nebraska
Lincoln Corr. Ctr.
Nevada
Florence McClure Women’s Corr. Ctr.e
High Desert State Prison
Lovelock Corr. Ctr.
New Hampshire
New Hampshire State Prison for Men
New Hampshire State Prison for Womene
New Jersey
Bayside State Prison
Mountainview Youth Corr. Fac.
South Woods State Prison
New Mexico
Lea Co. Corr. Fac.g
New Mexico Women’s Corr. Fac.e,g
New York
Auburn Corr. Fac.
Cayuga Corr. Fac.
Gowanda Corr. Fac.
Lakeview Shock Incarceration Corr. Fac.f
Otisville Corr. Fac.
Washington Corr. Fac.
Wyoming Corr. Fac.

Inmate-on-inmatea
Physically
forcedb
Pressuredc

Staff sexual misconducta
Physically
forcedb
Pressuredc

Without force
or pressured

1.0%
4.8
1.6
0.8

1.5%
5.1
1.0
0.8

0.6%
0.9
0.6
1.8

0.6%
5.6
1.4
1.8

1.6%
1.4
1.4
2.2

2.5%

1.6%

1.5%

2.0%

1.1%

0.7%
0.4
0.8
0.4
1.4

0.7%
1.3
0.9
0.4
0.7

1.1%
0.7
2.4
1.5
1.5

2.0%
0.7
3.5
1.1
2.5

2.7%
1.8
2.7
1.6
1.0

0.4%
7.3

2.4%
10.2

1.5%
0.2

1.6%
0.5

2.1%
0.0

0.0%
0.4
1.1

0.0%
0.0
0.6

0.0%
1.5
0.5

0.0%
2.7
1.9

0.0%
8.8
5.7

0.0%
4.7
1.0
0.0
0.7
0.0
6.2

0.0%
4.2
1.0
0.0
0.4
0.0
4.1

0.0%
2.4
2.2
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.4

0.0%
3.2
1.8
0.8
0.6
0.5
1.3

0.0%
1.7
3.0
1.3
2.3
1.0
0.4

7.1%

5.0%

3.5%

8.0%

2.3%

0.5%

0.0%

0.7%

1.1%

2.8%

12.0%
0.0
1.5

11.3%
1.3
1.5

0.4%
0.8
1.2

2.1%
0.8
0.2

0.0%
1.2
1.0

1.7%
4.3

1.2%
3.3

2.4%
2.4

2.4%
2.4

0.9%
1.2

1.2%
0.8
2.9

2.0%
0.8
3.5

0.0%
0.8
1.0

1.4%
2.6
2.3

0.0%
1.8
2.8

0.6%
6.8

1.3%
8.9

0.0%
4.5

2.4%
5.3

2.4%
2.4

3.1%
0.0
0.4
0.5
0.8
0.6
0.4

2.8%
0.0
1.1
0.5
3.7
0.4
1.4

3.0%
1.6
1.8
0.9
3.3
1.8
0.4

2.9%
2.1
1.9
1.4
0.8
2.5
1.2

1.8%
1.6
0.3
1.3
3.5
0.4
0.5

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013

57

Appendix table 3 (continued)
Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimization by level of coercion, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12
Facility name
North Carolina
Harnett Corr. Inst.
Lanesboro Corr. Inst.
Mary Frances Ctr.e,g
Maury Corr. Inst.
North Carolina Corr. Inst. for Womene
Odom Corr. Inst.
Western Youth Inst.
North Dakota
North Dakota State Penitentiary
Ohio
Allen Corr. Inst.
Belmont Corr. Inst.
Chillicothe Corr. Inst.
Franklin Medical Ctr.f
Madison Corr. Inst.
Noble Corr. Inst.
Northeast Pre-Release Ctr.e
Pickaway Corr. Fac.
Oklahoma
Dr. Eddie Warrior Corr. Ctr.e
Jackie Brannon Corr. Ctr.
Mabel Bassett Corr. Ctr.e
North Fork Corr. Fac.g
Oregon
Coffee Creek Corr. Fac.e
Deer Ridge Corr. Inst.
Oregon State Penitentiary
Pennsylvania
Cambridge Springs State Corr. Inst.e
Chester State Corr. Inst.
Houtzdale State Corr. Inst.
Mahanoy State Corr. Inst.
Muncy State Corr. Inst.e
Pine Grove State Corr. Inst.
Somerset State Corr. Inst.
Waymart State Corr. Inst.
Rhode Island
Donald Price Med. Security Fac.
South Carolina
Camille Griffin Graham Corr. Inst.e
Kershaw Corr. Inst.
Kirkland Reception and Evaluation Ctr.
Turbeville Corr. Inst.
Tyger River Corr. Inst.
South Dakota
South Dakota Women’s Prisone
Tennessee
Riverbend Max. Security Inst.

Inmate-on-inmatea
Physically
forcedb
Pressuredc

Staff sexual misconducta
Physically
forcedb
Pressuredc

Without force
or pressured

0.8%
0.0
0.0
1.6
7.1
0.9
0.0

1.4%
0.0
0.0
1.0
9.1
0.9
0.6

1.0%
1.2
0.0
1.1
2.5
0.9
0.0

1.5%
1.2
0.0
0.0
2.5
0.9
0.0

1.0%
3.3
0.0
3.7
4.0
1.6
0.5

1.6%

1.4%

1.6%

1.1%

2.8%

1.5%
1.0
3.0
0.0
2.3
0.5
2.4
1.9

1.5%
1.2
2.3
0.0
3.0
0.6
4.7
2.3

0.9%
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.7
0.0
0.3

0.9%
0.7
0.6
0.0
4.2
2.1
2.4
1.6

1.7%
0.7
0.2
0.0
0.0
3.2
0.0
0.5

6.7%
0.0
9.5
0.0

6.5%
0.5
13.2
0.0

1.7%
0.0
1.4
0.0

2.4%
0.0
2.5
0.0

1.2%
0.0
1.5
1.6

5.5%
1.2
1.1

5.5%
1.7
2.1

1.1%
0.0
0.9

3.9%
0.9
0.5

1.3%
0.0
0.0

2.8%
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.7
1.5
1.9
0.0

3.0%
0.5
0.0
0.0
6.0
2.0
1.4
1.0

0.0%
0.7
0.0
0.0
1.0
1.8
1.5
0.4

0.4%
1.0
1.1
0.5
3.2
1.8
2.0
0.4

0.5%
0.0
0.7
0.5
0.3
5.6
2.1
0.0

0.9%

0.5%

0.4%

1.7%

0.8%

3.3%
1.9
0.5
0.5
0.5

4.4%
2.6
1.5
1.0
0.9

0.7%
0.4
0.5
1.6
0.3

1.1%
1.3
1.0
1.9
0.3

1.2%
2.2
1.4
1.9
1.0

7.9%

9.9%

0.0%

1.9%

0.7%

0.4%

0.4%

0.4%

0.4%

1.2%

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013

58

Appendix table 3 (continued)
Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimization by level of coercion, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12
Facility name
Texas
Byrd Unit
Carole Young Medical Fac. Complexe
Clemens Unit
Clements Unit
Coffield Unit
Dawson State Jailf,g
Eastham Unit
Gist State Jail
Gurney Transfer Fac.
Henley State Jaile
Hodge Unit
Holliday Transfer Fac.
Huntsville Unit
McConnell Unit
Michael Unit
Montford Psychiatric Fac.
Murray Unite
Plane State Jaile
Powledge Unit
Stiles Unit
Willacy Co. State Jailg
Woodman State Jaile
Utah
Central Utah Corr. Fac.
Utah State Prisonf
Vermont
Southeast State Corr. Fac.
Southern State Corr. Fac.
Virginia
Brunswick Women’s Reception and Pre-Release Ctr.e
Dillwyn Corr. Ctr.
Sussex II State Prison
Washington
Clallam Bay Corr. Ctr.
Monroe Corr. Complex
Washington State Penitentiary
West Virginia
Huttonsville Corr. Ctr.
Wisconsin
Green Bay Corr. Inst.
Oshkosh Corr. Ctr.
Wyoming
Wyoming Honor Farm

Inmate-on-inmatea
Physically
forcedb
Pressuredc

Staff sexual misconducta
Physically
forcedb
Pressuredc

Without force
or pressured

0.9%
0.4
2.0
4.9
0.7
1.4
1.4
0.6
1.5
1.7
1.9
1.0
0.0
3.0
3.8
5.2
6.9
1.7
1.3
4.5
0.0
0.8

0.4%
1.2
2.6
5.7
0.4
1.4
2.3
0.6
0.5
0.0
1.9
0.7
0.5
2.9
2.3
7.3
7.4
1.1
0.5
6.3
1.1
1.3

0.4%
0.8
0.3
8.1
2.0
1.6
1.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.7
0.3
1.0
1.1
2.9
1.0
1.0
1.1
0.9
0.0
0.0

0.4%
1.3
1.5
8.7
3.5
1.0
1.9
0.6
0.6
0.8
0.5
1.8
0.3
1.6
1.1
4.5
3.6
2.3
1.1
2.5
0.0
0.0

1.0%
0.5
2.0
2.5
3.8
0.6
1.8
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.7
0.0
1.1
1.0
2.0
1.1
0.0
1.1
4.9
0.6
0.0

3.7%
2.4

2.8%
4.7

2.2%
0.0

1.5%
1.2

1.8%
0.0

2.2%
3.3

2.2%
7.7

2.2%
2.2

2.2%
4.1

5.1%
1.3

0.0%
0.0
1.3

0.0%
0.8
1.3

0.0%
0.6
0.8

0.0%
0.0
2.1

0.0%
3.2
2.8

0.8%
0.3
3.3

0.7%
0.3
3.3

1.4%
0.4
0.0

1.4%
0.4
1.3

2.6%
2.2
0.7

2.0%

1.6%

0.9%

2.8%

4.7%

1.6%
1.6

0.8%
3.1

0.9%
0.4

1.5%
0.7

1.9%
0.4

1.0%

1.0%

0.0%

2.0%

0.8%

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013

59

Appendix table 3 (continued)
Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimization by level of coercion, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12
Facility name
Federal Facilities (Bureau of Prisons)
CI Edeng
CI Reeves I and IIg
CI Reeves IIIg
CI Riversg
FCI Allenwood Low
FCI Big Spring Camp
FCI Butner Med. I Camp
FCI Butner Med. II
FCI Forrest City Med.
FCI Greenville Campe
FCI Jesup
FCI Lompoc
FCI Manchester Camp
FCI Marianna Campe
FCI Milan
FCI Seagoville
FCI Tallahasseee
FCI Terre Haute
FDC Philadelphiaf
FMC Carswelle
FMC Devens
FMC Lexington Campe
FPC Aldersone
Limestone Co. Det. Ctr.g
MCFP Springfield
USP Hazelton - Femalee
USP Lee
USP Tucson

Inmate-on-inmatea
Physically
forcedb
Pressuredc
0.0%
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.6
0.5
0.4
1.7
0.0
0.6
1.5
0.7
0.8
1.3
0.6
1.2
3.3
0.9
1.2

0.0%
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.2
1.1
3.5
0.5
1.2
4.2
1.3
0.0
2.3
0.6
0.6
3.6
0.9
4.1

Staff sexual misconducta
Physically
forcedb
Pressuredc
0.0%
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
1.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
1.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.6
0.8
0.0
0.6

0.0%
0.0
0.4
0.0
1.4
1.2
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.8
1.6
0.6
0.4
1.0
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.8
0.7
3.2

Without force
or pressured
0.0%
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.8
0.6
0.8
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.8
0.0
1.5
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.5

Note: Detail may sum to more than total victimization rate because victims may report on more than one incident involving different levels of coercion.
aIncludes all types of sexual victimization, including oral, anal, or vaginal penetration, hand jobs, touching of the inmate’s butt, thighs, penis, breasts, or vagina in a sexual way, and other
sexual acts occurring in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if shorter.
bPhysical force or threat of physical force reported.
cIncludes incidents in which the perpetrator, without using force, pressured the inmate or made the inmate feel that they had to participate. (See Methodology.)
dIncludes 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.
eFemale facility.
fFacility housed both males and females; both were sampled at this facility.
gPrivately operated facility.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12.

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013

60

Appendix table 4
Percent of prison inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual contacts, by facility, National Inmate
Survey, 2011–12

Facility name
Total
Alabama
Bibb Corr. Fac.
G.K. Fountain Corr. Fac./J.O. Davis Corr. Fac.
Julia Tutwiler Prisone
St. Clair Corr. Fac.
Alaska
Anchorage Corr. Complex West
Hiland Mountain Corr. Ctr.e
Arizona
ASPC - Douglas
ASPC - Eyman
ASPC - Perryvillee
ASPC - Tusconf
ASPC - Yuma
Florence Corr. Ctr.f,g
La Palma Corr. Ctr.g
Red Rock Corr. Ctr.g
Arkansas
Ouachita River Corr. Unit
California
Avenal State Prison
California Corr. Ctr.
California Corr. Inst.
California Inst. for Womene
California Men’s Colony
California Rehabilitation Ctr.
Calipatria State Prison
Central California Women’s Fac.e
Chuckawalla Valley State Prison
Corcoran State Prison
Corr. Training Fac.
Sacramento State Prison
Salinas Valley State Prison
San Quentin State Prison
Sierra Conservation Ctr.
Solano State Prison
Valley State Prison for Womene
Colorado
Buena Vista Corr. Ctr.
Denver Women’s Corr. Fac.e
Skyline Corr. Inst.
Connecticut
Manson Youth Inst.
York Corr. Fac.e
Delaware
Central Violation of Probation Ctr.
Delores J. Baylor Women’s Corr. Inst.e
James T. Vaughn Corr. Ctr.

Nonconsensual sexual actsa
95%-confidence intervalc
Percent
Lower
Upper
victimizedd
bound
bound
1.3%
1.1%
1.6%

Abusive sexual contacts onlyb
95%-confidence intervalc
Percent
Lower
Upper
victimizedd
bound
bound
2.7%
2.4%
3.0%

0.8%
2.3
6.1
0.0

0.2%
0.9
3.6
0.0

2.5%
5.5
10.1
2.1

5.1%
3.4
8.0
5.5

3.0%
1.7
5.1
2.8

8.5%
6.7
12.2
10.7

2.6%
6.2

1.0%
3.8

6.7%
9.9

3.2%
6.7

1.4%
3.4

7.1%
12.8

0.0%
0.0
4.7
1.6
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0%
0.0
2.6
0.6
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0

2.3%
1.9
8.3
4.6
3.0
2.0
2.3
5.8

1.2%
4.1
4.5
2.1
1.4
1.0
0.0
2.9

0.3%
2.0
2.3
0.9
0.4
0.3
0.0
0.8

4.5%
8.2
8.5
4.8
5.0
3.5
2.3
10.0

0.8%

0.1%

4.0%

3.5%

1.6%

7.4%

1.2%
1.4
4.5
1.4
0.0
1.5
1.4
4.8
2.2
1.6
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
6.1

0.3%
0.4
1.8
0.4
0.0
0.4
0.4
2.6
0.8
0.5
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.1
3.4

4.4%
5.0
10.4
4.6
2.2
5.9
4.9
8.6
6.2
5.3
3.0
4.7
3.6
2.4
2.0
2.5
10.7

0.0%
0.7
0.9
5.3
1.5
1.0
0.9
5.3
0.5
4.7
2.4
2.4
2.7
3.8
1.4
1.5
5.4

0.0%
0.1
0.2
2.9
0.6
0.2
0.2
2.8
0.1
1.9
1.1
0.8
1.2
1.6
0.5
0.5
2.8

2.1%
3.9
4.8
9.5
4.2
5.1
4.7
9.8
2.5
11.3
5.2
7.6
6.3
8.6
3.9
4.4
10.0

1.2%
7.0
2.4

0.4%
3.8
0.8

4.1%
12.6
7.5

2.1%
12.2
1.2

0.7%
8.0
0.3

5.5%
18.3
4.8

1.7%
6.5

0.8%
4.1

3.6%
10.3

3.5%
5.5

2.1%
3.0

5.8%
10.0

0.0%
6.2
1.5

0.0%
3.8
0.4

2.7%
10.0
5.1

3.0%
7.4
3.8

1.7%
4.9
1.8

5.3%
11.0
8.0

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013

61

Appendix table 4 (continued)
Percent of prison inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual contacts, by facility, National Inmate
Survey, 2011–12

Facility name
Florida
Apalachee Corr. Inst./West/East Unit/River Junction
Broward Corr. Inst.e
Calhoun Corr. Inst. and Work Camp
Central Florida Reception Ctr. East and South
Florida State Prison and Work Camp
Jackson Corr. Inst. and Work Camp
Lancaster Corr. Inst. and Work Camp
Lawtey Corr. Inst.
Levy Forestry Campe
Marion Corr. Inst. and Work Camp
Martin Corr. Inst. and Work Camp
Northwest Florida Reception Ctr.
Santa Rosa Corr. Inst.
Taylor Corr. Inst. and Annex
Zephyrhills Corr. Inst.
Georgia
Autry State Prison
Burruss Corr. Training Ctr.
D. Ray James Prisong
Lee Arrendale State Prisone
Macon State Prison
Rogers State Prison
Valdosta State Prison
Ware State Prison
Washington State Prison
Hawaii
Waiawa Corr. Fac.
Idaho
Idaho Max. Security Inst.
St. Anthony Work Camp
Illinois
Danville Corr. Ctr.
Decatur Corr. Ctr.e
Dwight Corr. Ctr.e
Hill Corr. Ctr.
Menard Corr. Ctr.
Pittsfield Work Camp
Stateville Corr. Ctr.
Western Illinois Corr. Ctr.
Indiana
Miami Corr. Fac.
Reception-Diagnostic Ctr.
Rockville Corr. Fac.e
Wabash Valley Corr. Fac.
Iowa
Anamosa State Penitentiary
Kansas
Lansing Corr. Fac.
Norton Corr. Fac.

Nonconsensual sexual actsa
95%-confidence intervalc
Percent
Lower
Upper
victimizedd
bound
bound

Abusive sexual contacts onlyb
95%-confidence intervalc
Percent
Lower
Upper
victimizedd
bound
bound

4.5%
5.0
1.2
0.0
1.9
2.5
2.2
0.0
1.6
0.3
1.2
3.3
4.4
1.1
0.5

2.3%
2.5
0.4
0.0
0.5
0.9
0.9
0.0
0.7
0.1
0.3
1.5
2.2
0.3
0.1

8.6%
9.5
3.7
3.4
6.7
7.0
5.0
1.9
4.0
1.6
3.9
7.4
8.7
3.7
2.5

7.7%
7.1
2.9
0.0
3.3
1.5
3.3
0.0
4.5
1.9
4.7
10.4
9.6
1.6
7.4

4.4%
3.7
1.4
0.0
1.5
0.4
1.6
0.0
1.9
0.9
2.6
6.1
5.9
0.5
4.3

13.3%
13.1
6.1
3.4
7.1
5.7
6.6
1.9
10.4
4.2
8.2
17.0
15.2
4.5
12.4

0.0%
0.0
0.0
3.5
0.0
0.0
4.0
0.0
0.0

0.0%
0.0
0.0
1.7
0.0
0.0
1.9
0.0
0.0

2.8%
1.9
1.9
6.8
1.8
1.6
8.4
1.7
1.7

6.1%
0.6
0.5
2.4
5.8
2.2
6.5
4.6
2.1

3.3%
0.1
0.1
1.1
3.5
1.0
3.4
2.7
1.0

11.1%
2.6
2.7
5.3
9.5
4.8
12.0
7.8
4.7

2.1%

1.1%

4.0%

4.0%

2.5%

6.3%

6.9%
2.3

2.6%
0.5

17.1%
9.4

7.0%
0.0

2.5%
0.0

18.0%
5.1

0.5%
1.1
4.0
1.9
1.0
0.0
0.3
0.0

0.2%
0.3
2.1
0.8
0.3
0.0
0.1
0.0

1.8%
3.3
7.4
4.5
3.5
4.6
1.5
2.4

0.0%
0.0
6.7
3.0
1.6
0.0
0.8
3.7

0.0%
0.0
3.9
1.4
0.5
0.0
0.2
1.6

1.8%
2.4
11.0
6.5
4.6
4.6
2.7
8.1

0.0%
1.2
4.1
0.8

0.0%
0.3
2.0
0.1

1.9%
3.9
8.3
4.0

3.2%
1.3
3.5
2.4

1.5%
0.4
1.5
0.9

7.0%
3.6
8.1
6.7

2.1%

0.7%

5.5%

2.5%

1.0%

5.9%

2.1%
2.2

0.8%
0.8

5.2%
5.8

4.5%
2.9

2.4%
1.2

8.4%
7.1

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013

62

Appendix table 4 (continued)
Percent of prison inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual contacts, by facility, National Inmate
Survey, 2011–12

Facility name
Kentucky
Eastern Kentucky Corr. Complex
Kentucky State Reformatory
Otter Creek Corr. Complexg
Louisiana
B.B. Rayburn Corr. Ctr.
Elayn Hunt Corr. Ctr.
Louisiana State Penitentiary
Maine
Maine Corr. Ctr.f
Maryland
Maryland Corr. Inst. - Hagerstown
Maryland Corr. Inst. for Womene
Maryland Corr. Training Ctr.
Metropolitan Transition Ctr.
Massachusetts
Old Colony Corr. Ctr.
Michigan
Bellamy Creek Corr. Fac.
Central Michigan Corr. Fac.
Lakeland Corr. Fac.
Saginaw Corr. Fac.
Thumb Corr. Fac.
Minnesota
MCF - Moose Lake
MCF - Shakopeee
Mississippi
Pike Co. Community Work Ctr.
Walnut Grove Youth Corr. Fac.g
Wilkinson Co. Corr. Fac.g
Missouri
Algoa Corr. Ctr.
Farmington Corr. Fac.
South Central Corr. Fac.
Tipton Corr. Ctr.
Western Missouri Corr. Ctr.
Western Reception, Diagnostic and Corr. Ctr.
Women’s Eastern Reception, Diagnostic and Corr. Ctr.e
Montana
Montana State Prison
Nebraska
Lincoln Corr. Ctr.
Nevada
Florence McClure Women’s Corr. Ctr.e
High Desert State Prison
Lovelock Corr. Ctr.
New Hampshire
New Hampshire State Prison for Men
New Hampshire State Prison for Womene
New Jersey
Bayside State Prison
Mountainview Youth Corr. Fac.
South Woods State Prison

Nonconsensual sexual actsa
95%-confidence intervalc
Percent
Lower
Upper
victimizedd
bound
bound

Abusive sexual contacts onlyb
95%-confidence intervalc
Percent
Lower
Upper
victimizedd
bound
bound

1.0%
2.0
1.3

0.3%
0.7
0.4

3.4%
5.6
4.2

5.4%
4.4
5.7

2.9%
2.2
2.9

9.7%
8.8
10.9

1.0%
2.5
1.1

0.3%
0.9
0.3

3.1%
6.3
3.7

3.2%
4.0
7.4

1.4%
2.1
4.7

6.9%
7.6
11.5

2.6%

1.3%

5.4%

3.5%

1.6%

7.2%

0.0%
5.8
1.5
0.0

0.0%
3.1
0.5
0.0

2.1%
10.6
4.1
3.5

3.1%
6.9
2.0
3.2

1.5%
4.1
0.8
1.4

6.4%
11.4
4.8
7.6

3.2%

1.6%

6.4%

2.4%

1.1%

5.1%

0.7%
0.0
0.8
0.8
1.5

0.1%
0.0
0.2
0.2
0.5

3.4%
1.7
2.7
3.1
4.9

3.7%
2.7
4.8
2.1
1.7

1.7%
1.2
2.7
0.9
0.5

7.7%
6.0
8.4
4.9
5.4

2.5%
7.6

1.2%
4.5

5.4%
12.6

1.9%
5.4

0.8%
2.5

4.5%
11.4

0.0%
1.2
1.8

0.0%
0.5
0.7

11.7%
3.1
4.6

0.0%
8.7
5.7

0.0%
6.1
3.3

11.7%
12.2
9.7

0.0%
3.0
2.0
0.6
0.7
0.0
6.0

0.0%
1.5
0.7
0.1
0.1
0.0
3.4

2.5%
5.7
5.7
2.8
3.7
2.0
10.5

0.0%
4.9
5.1
0.8
2.7
1.5
2.6

0.0%
2.9
2.7
0.2
1.3
0.5
1.1

2.5%
8.3
9.5
3.9
5.8
4.1
6.4

5.6%

3.2%

9.6%

8.3%

4.1%

16.1%

1.3%

0.5%

3.5%

3.2%

1.5%

6.6%

10.9%
0.5
1.6

6.3%
0.1
0.6

18.3%
2.5
4.7

5.4%
2.1
2.1

2.9%
0.7
0.8

9.6%
5.9
5.4

1.7%
4.3

0.6%
2.4

4.7%
7.6

3.8%
3.9

1.7%
2.2

8.4%
6.7

0.0%
0.6
1.3

0.0%
0.1
0.2

3.1%
3.2
6.6

3.4%
2.4
4.0

1.3%
1.0
1.6

8.6%
5.9
9.3

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013

63

Appendix table 4 (continued)
Percent of prison inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual contacts, by facility, National Inmate
Survey, 2011–12

Facility name
New Mexico
Lea Co. Corr. Fac.g
New Mexico Women’s Corr. Fac.e,g
New York
Auburn Corr. Fac.
Cayuga Corr. Fac.
Gowanda Corr. Fac.
Lakeview Shock Incarceration Corr. Fac.f
Otisville Corr. Fac.
Washington Corr. Fac.
Wyoming Corr. Fac.
North Carolina
Harnett Corr. Inst.
Lanesboro Corr. Inst.
Mary Frances Ctr.e,g
Maury Corr. Inst.
North Carolina Corr. Inst. for Womene
Odom Corr. Inst.
Western Youth Inst.
North Dakota
North Dakota State Penitentiary
Ohio
Allen Corr. Inst.
Belmont Corr. Inst.
Chillicothe Corr. Inst.
Franklin Medical Ctr.f
Madison Corr. Inst.
Noble Corr. Inst.
Northeast Pre-Release Ctr.e
Pickaway Corr. Fac.
Oklahoma
Dr. Eddie Warrior Corr. Ctr.e
Jackie Brannon Corr. Ctr.
Mabel Bassett Corr. Ctr.e
North Fork Corr. Fac.g
Oregon
Coffee Creek Corr. Fac.e
Deer Ridge Corr. Inst.
Oregon State Penitentiary
Pennsylvania
Cambridge Springs State Corr. Inst.e
Chester State Corr. Inst.
Houtzdale State Corr. Inst.
Mahanoy State Corr. Inst.
Muncy State Corr. Inst.e
Pine Grove State Corr. Inst.
Somerset State Corr. Inst.
Waymart State Corr. Inst.
Rhode Island
Donald Price Med. Security Fac.

Nonconsensual sexual actsa
95%-confidence intervalc
Percent
Lower
Upper
victimizedd
bound
bound

Abusive sexual contacts onlyb
95%-confidence intervalc
Percent
Lower
Upper
victimizedd
bound
bound

0.9%
5.2

0.2%
2.9

4.4%
9.2

3.7%
9.1

1.6%
5.8

8.0%
14.0

4.0%
0.5
0.2
0.0
0.6
0.6
1.3

2.1%
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.5

7.6%
2.6
1.2
1.8
2.4
2.7
3.5

5.8%
2.1
3.1
1.9
7.7
3.3
1.8

3.2%
0.9
1.7
0.8
4.4
1.6
0.7

10.0%
5.0
5.9
4.3
13.2
6.5
4.3

0.9%
0.0
0.0
2.1
4.9
0.0
0.0

0.3%
0.0
0.0
0.8
2.4
0.0
0.0

3.1%
2.3
5.3
5.4
9.6
2.9
2.3

2.7%
3.3
0.0
3.5
8.0
3.3
1.1

1.2%
1.5
0.0
1.3
4.5
1.5
0.4

5.9%
7.1
5.3
9.2
14.1
7.4
3.2

1.6%

0.6%

4.1%

3.6%

1.7%

7.5%

1.5%
0.5
2.6
0.0
0.0
0.5
4.7
2.9

0.3%
0.1
1.2
0.0
0.0
0.2
2.7
1.2

7.7%
2.5
5.7
2.9
2.7
1.9
8.3
6.5

1.7%
1.9
2.5
0.0
7.2
3.9
2.8
2.5

0.5%
0.7
1.0
0.0
3.5
2.0
1.1
1.1

5.7%
5.3
5.8
2.9
14.3
7.6
7.3
5.5

5.4%
0.0
8.5
0.0

3.2%
0.0
5.6
0.0

9.1%
2.1
12.8
7.7

4.0%
0.5
8.9
1.6

2.1%
0.1
5.8
0.3

7.3%
2.3
13.4
8.7

6.5%
0.9
0.0

4.1%
0.3
0.0

10.2%
2.9
1.9

4.3%
2.3
2.9

2.4%
1.0
1.4

7.6%
5.6
6.1

2.0%
1.2
0.8
0.5
5.7
1.7
1.4
0.4

0.9%
0.3
0.2
0.1
3.5
0.7
0.4
0.1

4.2%
3.8
4.2
2.4
9.2
4.5
5.2
2.1

2.2%
0.4
1.0
0.5
5.7
5.4
3.1
1.0

0.9%
0.1
0.3
0.1
3.5
2.7
1.3
0.2

5.1%
1.8
3.8
2.5
9.1
10.4
7.1
5.0

1.2%

0.5%

3.0%

1.4%

0.7%

3.0%

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013

64

Appendix table 4 (continued)
Percent of prison inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual contacts, by facility, National Inmate
Survey, 2011–12

Facility name
South Carolina
Camille Griffin Graham Corr. Inst.e
Kershaw Corr. Inst.
Kirkland Reception and Evaluation Ctr.
Turbeville Corr. Inst.
Tyger River Corr. Inst.
South Dakota
South Dakota Women’s Prisone
Tennessee
Riverbend Max. Security Inst.
Texas
Byrd Unit
Carole Young Medical Fac. Complexe
Clemens Unit
Clements Unit
Coffield Unit
Dawson State Jailf,g
Eastham Unit
Gist State Jail
Gurney Transfer Fac.
Henley State Jaile
Hodge Unit
Holliday Transfer Fac.
Huntsville Unit
McConnell Unit
Michael Unit
Montford Psychiatric Fac.
Murray Unite
Plane State Jaile
Powledge Unit
Stiles Unit
Willacy Co. State Jailg
Woodman State Jaile
Utah
Central Utah Corr. Fac.
Utah State Prisonf
Vermont
Southeast State Corr. Fac.
Southern State Corr. Fac.
Virginia
Brunswick Women’s Reception and Pre-Release Ctr.e
Dillwyn Corr. Ctr.
Sussex II State Prison
Washington
Clallam Bay Corr. Ctr.
Monroe Corr. Complex
Washington State Penitentiary
West Virginia
Huttonsville Corr. Ctr.
Wisconsin
Green Bay Corr. Inst.
Oshkosh Corr. Ctr.

Nonconsensual sexual actsa
95%-confidence intervalc
Percent
Lower
Upper
victimizedd
bound
bound

Abusive sexual contacts onlyb
95%-confidence intervalc
Percent
Lower
Upper
victimizedd
bound
bound

4.4%
1.3
0.4
0.9
0.3

2.1%
0.5
0.1
0.3
0.1

9.1%
3.6
2.2
2.8
1.3

4.3%
4.3
2.4
2.3
1.6

2.2%
2.2
1.1
1.0
0.6

8.4%
8.2
5.2
5.2
4.5

8.6%

5.6%

13.1%

4.6%

2.7%

7.7%

0.8%

0.2%

3.9%

0.4%

0.1%

2.0%

1.0%
1.3
1.5
2.4
2.7
1.2
0.7
0.6
0.4
1.7
0.5
1.0
0.0
2.2
3.2
3.4
7.0
3.5
1.8
5.8
0.0
1.3

0.3%
0.5
0.5
1.0
1.2
0.4
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.6
0.1
0.3
0.0
0.9
1.5
1.7
4.0
1.5
0.5
2.8
0.0
0.4

3.3%
3.1
4.6
6.1
6.0
3.2
2.5
2.9
2.1
4.9
2.6
3.7
2.2
4.9
6.8
6.8
11.9
7.8
6.5
11.8
2.5
4.3

0.8%
0.4
4.9
9.4
5.2
1.3
4.0
0.9
1.1
0.8
1.6
1.8
0.9
3.2
2.7
6.8
8.3
1.0
1.1
6.1
1.1
0.0

0.3%
0.1
2.1
5.7
3.0
0.4
2.1
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.5
0.5
0.2
1.3
1.2
4.0
5.0
0.3
0.2
3.4
0.3
0.0

2.7%
1.5
11.2
15.2
9.1
3.7
7.4
3.1
3.7
3.2
4.7
6.1
2.9
7.7
6.1
11.3
13.4
3.3
5.2
11.0
3.8
2.7

1.8%
2.8

0.7%
1.3

4.3%
5.8

3.7%
3.6

1.9%
1.8

7.1%
7.2

0.0%
3.2

0.0%
1.1

6.2%
9.4

5.1%
6.7

2.3%
3.5

10.9%
12.4

0.0%
1.5
1.3

0.0%
0.5
0.4

3.9%
5.0
4.3

0.0%
3.0
4.1

0.0%
1.3
2.1

3.9%
7.0
7.8

2.3%
1.9
1.7

0.9%
0.6
0.5

6.1%
6.0
6.2

2.8%
1.0
3.5

1.2%
0.3
1.2

6.5%
3.5
9.9

2.2%

0.8%

6.1%

5.9%

2.8%

12.1%

1.8%
1.7

0.8%
0.7

4.2%
4.0

2.9%
3.1

1.5%
1.5

5.6%
6.1

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013

65

Appendix table 4 (continued)
Percent of prison inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual contacts, by facility, National Inmate
Survey, 2011–12

Facility name
Wyoming
Wyoming Honor Farm
Federal facilities (Bureau of Prisons)
CI Edeng
CI Reeves I and IIg
CI Reeves IIIg
CI Riversg
FCI Allenwood Low
FCI Big Spring Camp
FCI Butner Med. I Camp
FCI Butner Med. II
FCI Forrest City Med.
FCI Greenville Campe
FCI Jesup
FCI Lompoc
FCI Manchester Camp
FCI Marianna Campe
FCI Milan
FCI Seagoville
FCI Tallahasseee
FCI Terre Haute
FDC Philadelphiaf
FMC Carswelle
FMC Devens
FMC Lexington Campe
FPC Aldersone
Limestone Co. Det. Ctr.g
MCFP Springfield
USP Hazelton - Femalee
USP Lee
USP Tucson

Nonconsensual sexual actsa
95%-confidence intervalc
Percent
Lower
Upper
victimizedd
bound
bound

Abusive sexual contacts onlyb
95%-confidence intervalc
Percent
Lower
Upper
victimizedd
bound
bound

0.0%

0.0%

3.8%

2.9%

1.5%

5.5%

0.0%
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
1.4
0.0
3.3
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.6
1.0
0.0
1.7
0.0
0.6
2.3
1.3
0.8
2.2
0.0
1.8
2.0
0.0
2.6

0.0%
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
1.5
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.1
1.1
0.4
0.2
0.9
0.0
0.6
0.6
0.0
0.9

2.0%
2.1
2.0
2.4
2.8
5.2
3.7
7.0
2.5
7.0
2.8
2.3
4.1
2.1
3.2
1.9
4.5
4.0
3.0
5.1
4.1
2.7
5.3
2.4
5.2
6.2
3.7
7.8

0.0%
0.0
0.0
0.9
1.4
1.2
0.0
0.8
0.6
0.8
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.0
1.5
1.1
4.1
2.1
1.2
1.8
1.4
0.0
0.5
0.6
0.0
3.2
1.7
4.7

0.0%
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.3
0.0
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.4
2.0
0.5
0.4
0.8
0.5
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
1.4
0.5
2.2

2.0%
2.1
2.0
4.7
4.5
5.0
3.7
2.7
2.9
3.2
2.8
2.8
3.4
2.2
4.9
3.1
8.3
8.2
4.0
4.4
3.8
2.5
2.4
3.1
4.6
7.3
5.7
9.8

Note: Detail may not sum to total 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, hand jobs, and other sexual acts
occurring in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if shorter.
bIncludes 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 occurring in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if shorter.
cIndicates that different samples in the same facility would yield prevalence rates falling between the lower and upper bound estimates 95 out of 100 times.
dWeights were applied so that inmates who responded accurately reflected the entire population of each facility on select characteristics, including age, sex, race, sentence length, and
time served. (See Methodology.)
eFemale facility.
fFacility housed both males and females; both were sampled at this facility.
gPrivately operated facility.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12.

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013

66

Appendix table 5
Characteristics of jails and prevalence of sexual victimization, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12

Facility name
Total
Alabama
Barbour Co. Jail
Dallas Co. Jail
Lee Co. W.S. Buck Jones Det. Ctr.
Marshall Co. Jail
Tuscaloosa Co. Jail
Arizona
Maricopa Co. Estrella Jailg
Maricopa Co. Fourth Avenue Jail
Maricopa Co. Towers Jail
Mariopa Co. Lower Buckeye Jail
Santa Cruz Co. Jail
Yuma Co. Det. Ctr.
Arkansas
Crittenden Co. Jail
Mississippi Co. Det. Ctr.
Pope Co. Det. Ctr.
Pulaski Co. Regional Det. Ctr.
Sebastian Co. Adult Det. Ctr.
California
Alameda Co. Santa Rita Jail
Contra Costa Co. Martinez Det. Fac.
Fresno Co. Downtown Det. Fac. - Main, North and South
Imperial Co. Jail
Kern Co. Lerdo Pre-Trial Fac.
Los Angeles Co. - Twin Towers Corr. Fac.
Los Angeles Co. Men’s Central Jail
Los Angeles Co. North County Corr. Fac.
Napa Co. Jail
Orange Co. Central Jail Complex
Orange Co. Theo Lacy Fac.
Riverside Co. Indio Jail
Riverside Co. Larry D. Smith Corr. Ctr.
Riverside Co. Southwest Det. Ctr.h
Sacramento Co. Rio Cosumnes Corr. Ctr.
San Diego Co. East Mesa Med. Fac.
San Diego Co. George F. Bailey Det. Fac.
San Diego Co. Vista Det. Fac.
San Francisco Co. Jail Number 3
Santa Clara Co. Elmwood Fac. - Min. and Med.
Santa Clara Co. Main Jail
Santa Clara Co. Women’s Corr. Ctr.g
Solano Co. Justice Ctr. Det. Fac.
Tulare Co. Jail
Ventura Co. Jail
Yolo Co. Leinberger Ctr.
Yuba Co. Jail
Colorado
Chaffee Co. Jail
Denver Co. Jail
Denver Co. Van Cise-Simonet Det. Ctr.
Douglas Co. Jail
Fremont Co. Jail
Jefferson Co. Jail
Park Co. Jail

Inmates reporting sexual victimizationa
95%-confidence intervalb
Number of inmates Respondents to sexual Response
Lower
Upper
in custodyc
victimization surveyd ratee
Percentf
bound
bound
279,129
54,118
60.6%
3.2%
2.9%
3.5%
95
197
384
206
626

47
114
165
122
216

65.9%
72.6
79.9
70.8
77.1

2.4%
1.5
2.9
5.0
3.5

0.7%
0.7
1.6
3.1
2.0

7.5%
3.5
5.2
8.0
5.9

925
1,927
167
1,989
228
620

205
193
85
234
52
162

63.5%
52.0
63.9
52.8
34.7
57.5

3.7%
1.5
5.4
4.3
0.0
2.1

2.0%
0.5
3.0
2.4
0.0
0.8

6.8%
4.3
9.5
7.7
6.9
5.1

268
177
179
1,235
394

114
86
48
198
153

73.6%
67.1
36.6
63.3
54.3

6.3%
0.9
5.9
6.0
1.1

4.0%
0.3
2.4
3.1
0.4

9.9%
2.8
14.0
11.4
2.8

3,506
766
1,883
708
1,287
3,406
5,246
3,980
325
2,525
2,999
387
1,454
888
2,049
350
1,742
876
363
1,920
1,356
518
660
1,487
722
77
375

281
143
190
202
163
199
188
190
112
169
241
133
204
149
258
138
175
153
73
219
130
141
195
187
199
44
138

60.9%
42.5
51.9
63.5
46.7
44.1
42.0
47.5
46.5
53.6
58.4
56.3
57.5
46.8
73.3
58.4
49.5
47.8
34.3
54.4
37.4
50.3
71.6
51.6
65.0
73.1
62.4

3.0%
7.0
3.5
1.0
3.8
8.0
6.9
2.8
3.8
1.4
4.7
2.8
5.1
0.6
4.9
2.4
5.2
3.8
4.0
2.4
9.2
2.1
5.2
1.0
2.8
2.1
2.0

1.6%
4.1
1.8
0.4
1.8
4.8
4.1
1.2
2.0
0.4
2.5
1.3
2.9
0.1
3.0
1.0
2.7
2.1
1.5
1.1
5.2
0.9
3.1
0.3
1.4
0.7
0.9

5.5%
11.7
6.7
2.8
8.0
13.0
11.2
6.4
7.3
4.7
8.7
5.8
8.8
3.0
8.0
5.6
9.8
7.0
9.9
5.4
15.8
5.2
8.4
3.8
5.3
6.0
4.5

70
751
1,211
352
205
1,165
95

33
205
158
128
105
205
56

61.5%
68.8
44.0
61.7
63.8
62.0
67.4

0.0%
3.7
2.1
2.8
3.0
0.0
0.0

0.0%
2.1
0.8
1.4
1.6
0.0
0.0

10.4%
6.3
5.6
5.8
5.7
1.8
6.4

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013

67

Appendix table 5 (continued)
Characteristics of jails and prevalence of sexual victimization, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12

Facility name
Florida
Collier Co. Jail
Dixie Co. Jail
Escambia Co. Jail
Jacksonville City Montgomery Corr. Ctr.
Lake Co. Jail
Lee Co. Community Programs Unit
Leon Co. Det. Fac.
Manatee Co. Jail
Martin Co. Jail
Miami-Dade Co. Boot Camp
Miami-Dade Co. Metro West Det. Ctr.
Miami-Dade Co. Training and Treatment Ctr.
Miami-Dade Co. Turner Guilford Knight Corr. Ctr.
Okeechobee Co. Jail
Orange Co. 33rd Street Corr. Ctr.
Orange Co. Booking and Release Ctr.
Osceola Co. Jail
Palm Beach Co. Stockade
Pinellas Co. Central Division Fac.
Pinellas Co. South Division
Polk Co. - South Co. Jail
Sarasota North Co. Jail
Suwanee Co. Jail
Taylor Co. Jail
Georgia
Candler Co. Jail
Carroll Co. Prison
Clayton Co. Jail
Dekalb Co. Jail
Douglas Co. Jail
Floyd Co. Jail
Floyd Co. Prison
Fulton Co. Jail
Gwinnett Co. Det. Ctr.
Hall Co. Det. Ctr.
Houston Co. Jail
Irwin Co. Jail
Murray County Jail
Newton Co. Jail
Screven Co. Jail
South Fulton Municipal Regional Jail
Spalding Co. Jail
Troup Co. Jail
Upson Co. Jail
Ware Co. Jail
Wilkinson Co. Jail
Idaho
Bannock Co. Jail
Illinois
Champaign Co. Satellite Jailh
Cook Co. - Division 1
Cook Co. - Division 11

Inmates reporting sexual victimizationa
95%-confidence intervalb
Number of inmates Respondents to sexual Response
Lower
Upper
in custodyc
victimization surveyd ratee
Percentf
bound
bound
939
72
1,562
488
920
266
1,049
1,141
569
65
2,091
1,117
885
232
2,896
711
1,032
824
938
1,294
1,268
952
155
78

154
39
222
179
172
134
252
226
165
56
218
174
208
105
278
43
238
155
155
181
216
207
83
25

45.9%
73.0
54.3
68.8
54.8
65.4
67.6
64.5
60.2
98.4
58.4
53.4
58.8
57.7
66.2
42.7
71.0
54.8
48.4
48.3
62.0
65.0
64.7
40.8

5.1%
8.2
2.5
2.4
2.8
3.1
4.9
5.2
3.1
0.0
2.6
1.0
1.0
1.1
3.5
2.9
0.9
2.4
2.4
3.2
5.1
0.0
0.9
0.0

2.6%
4.1
1.2
1.1
0.8
1.6
3.0
3.1
1.5
0.0
1.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
1.7
1.2
0.3
1.0
0.9
1.5
3.0
0.0
0.3
0.0

9.5%
15.5
5.2
4.9
9.4
5.8
8.0
8.5
6.3
7.4
5.1
3.2
3.0
3.9
6.9
6.8
3.1
5.6
6.4
7.0
8.5
1.9
3.0
13.3

40
203
1,924
3,825
908
724
351
3,288
2,811
1,350
524
876
148
679
114
151
507
440
160
429
35

27
150
265
300
272
234
180
169
267
193
176
189
83
199
64
43
138
174
108
201
19

84.2%
82.7
67.8
61.6
66.1
80.0
75.7
41.6
50.8
57.3
71.2
62.6
75.4
65.5
82.1
37.5
50.6
68.7
82.3
84.3
57.1

0.0%
2.7
4.7
3.2
2.8
3.6
2.8
4.9
0.8
3.0
7.1
1.1
3.3
3.7
3.9
4.7
5.1
2.2
2.6
2.2
6.5

0.0%
1.6
2.8
1.7
1.5
2.1
1.5
2.5
0.2
1.5
4.6
0.4
1.7
2.0
2.2
1.6
2.7
1.0
1.5
1.2
1.9

12.5%
4.3
7.7
5.9
5.1
6.0
5.0
9.3
2.6
6.0
10.8
2.9
6.2
6.6
6.6
12.8
9.2
4.4
4.6
3.9
20.0

298

114

55.8%

3.0%

1.3%

6.8%

313
1,206
1,552

58
284
289

42.5%
82.5
75.6

2.0%
4.3
7.7

0.5%
2.7
5.3

8.4%
6.9
11.0

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013

68

Appendix table 5 (continued)
Characteristics of jails and prevalence of sexual victimization, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12

Facility name
Cook Co. - Division 2
Cook Co. - Division 5
Cook Co. - Division 6
Kane Co. Adult Justice Ctr.
Kankakee Co. Jerome Combs Det. Ctr.
Kendall Co. Jail
McHenry Co. Jail
Sangamon Co. Jail
Indiana
Bartholomew Co. Jail
Clinton Co. Jail
Dearborn Co. Jail
Delaware Co. Justice Ctr.
Elkhart Co. Corr. Ctr.
Hamilton Co. Jail
Jackson Co. Jail
Marion Co. Jail IIi
Marion Co. Jail Intake Fac.
Noble Co. Jail
Ripley Co. Jail
Tippecanoe Co. Jail
Iowa
Des Moines Co. Jail
Scott Co. Jail and Annex
Kansas
Finney Co. Jail
Wilson Co. Jail
Kentucky
Big Sandy Regional Det. Ctr.
Boyle Co. Det. Ctr.
Daviess Co. Det. Ctr.
Grayson Co. Det. Ctr.
Kenton Co. Det. Ctr.
Lexington-Fayette Co. Jail Det. Division
Madison Co. Det. Ctr.
McCracken Co. Jail
Meade Co. Jail
Pulaski Co. Det. Ctr.
Woodford Co. Det. Ctr.
Louisiana
Assumption Parish Det. Ctr.
Bossier Parish Max. Security Fac.
Bossier Parish Med. Security Fac.
Caddo Parish Corr. Ctr.
East Baton Rouge Parish Prison
Iberia Parish Jail
Lafayette Parish Jail
Livingston Parish Det. Ctr.
Rapides Parish Det. Ctr. III
St. Landry Parish Jail
St. Martin Parish Corr. Ctr. 1
Webster Parish Bayou Dorcheat Corr. Fac.
Maine
Penobscot Co. Jail

Inmates reporting sexual victimizationa
95%-confidence intervalb
Number of inmates Respondents to sexual Response
Lower
Upper
in custodyc
victimization surveyd ratee
Percentf
bound
bound
1,579
213
52.7%
5.8%
3.5%
9.4%
1,177
247
72.9
3.5
2.0
6.2
995
273
83.3
2.2
1.2
4.2
590
167
58.6
2.9
1.4
6.0
510
206
75.7
3.4
1.9
5.9
111
61
68.4
5.1
2.8
9.2
558
150
60.2
1.1
0.4
3.3
342
174
74.1
3.9
2.5
6.0
183
169
235
292
941
301
169
1,223
225
156
84
271

120
97
125
100
275
137
91
197
62
105
52
119

79.9%
73.9
64.4
47.1
79.2
67.4
63.5
58.8
43.3
82.3
89.2
55.7

3.2%
2.4
1.8
1.8
3.6
1.5
1.0
3.4
7.7
0.9
7.9
2.5

1.9%
1.1
0.8
0.7
2.1
0.6
0.3
1.4
3.4
0.3
5.1
1.1

5.2%
5.2
4.3
4.6
6.1
3.8
3.4
8.1
16.3
2.3
11.9
5.7

75
301

30
141

58.9%
66.7

2.1%
3.2

0.6%
1.6

7.1%
6.1

124
85

73
36

78.4%
73.8

4.0%
5.6

2.3%
1.7

6.9%
16.5

262
308
628
497
524
1,113
263
448
137
269
100

144
150
202
213
137
191
139
183
83
97
34

74.3%
84.5
69.3
76.8
53.9
53.5
67.2
79.4
80.5
57.2
50.7

1.3%
1.9
3.6
2.2
1.1
4.3
3.8
3.1
1.3
1.6
0.1

0.6%
0.6
2.1
1.2
0.4
2.2
2.3
1.8
0.5
0.6
0.0

3.2%
5.7
6.2
4.1
3.0
7.9
6.2
5.4
3.6
4.2
0.6

91
349
441
1,285
1,779
546
972
560
414
273
179
464

65
177
190
273
220
198
213
219
207
114
78
192

82.8%
74.8
73.5
80.5
60.4
67.5
63.6
78.7
85.7
59.7
60.1
78.1

4.6%
0.9
2.3
2.0
2.3
3.9
3.2
1.4
1.9
0.7
3.8
3.3

2.7%
0.4
1.2
0.9
1.0
2.3
1.7
0.6
1.0
0.2
1.8
1.9

7.9%
2.3
4.4
4.2
5.1
6.6
6.0
3.2
3.6
2.5
8.1
5.8

178

61

51.0%

4.3%

1.6%

11.4%

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013

69

Appendix table 5 (continued)
Characteristics of jails and prevalence of sexual victimization, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12

Facility name
Maryland
Allegany Co. Det. Ctr.
Anne Arundel Co. Jennifer Road Det. Ctr.
Baltimore City Det. Ctr.
Montgomery Co. Corr. Fac.
Wicomico Co. Det. Ctr.
Massachusetts
Hampden Co. Corr. Ctr.
Middlesex Co. Jail and House of Corr.
Plymouth Co. Corr. Fac.
Suffolk Co. House of Corr.
Suffolk Co. Nashua Street Jail
Worcester Co. Jail and House of Corr.
Michigan
Berrien Co. Jail
Calhoun Co. Jail
Huron Co. Jail
Kalamazoo Co. Jail
Macomb Co. Jail
Oakland Co. East Annex
Oakland Co. Law Enforcement Complex
Ottawa Co. Jail
Wayne Co. Andrew C. Baird Det. Fac.
Wayne Co. William Dickerson Det. - Division III
Minnesota
Anoka Co. Jail
Hennepin Co. Adult Det. Ctr.
Mille Lacs Co. Jail
Ramsey Co. Corr. Fac.
Mississippi
Covington Co. Jail
Harrison Co. Adult Det. Ctr.
Hinds Co. Jackson Det. Ctr.
Hinds Co. Raymond Det. Ctr.
Holmes-Humphreys Co. Regional Corr. Fac.
Madison Co. Jail
Marshall Co. Jail
Pike Co. Jail
Missouri
Boone Co. Jail
LaClede Co. Jail
St. Charles Co. Jail
St. Louis Co. Jail
St. Louis Med. Security Inst.
Washington Co. Jail
Montana
Cascade Co. Regional Jail
Hill Co. Jail
Missoula Co. Jail
Nebraska
Douglas Co. Dept. of Corr.
Saline Co. Jail

Inmates reporting sexual victimizationa
95%-confidence intervalb
Number of inmates Respondents to sexual Response
Lower
Upper
in custodyc
victimization surveyd ratee
Percentf
bound
bound
170
553
2,574
649
325

46
106
268
186
147

36.1%
38.0
65.9
62.8
73.5

2.3%
0.9
6.7
2.7
0.6

0.5%
0.2
4.3
1.3
0.2

9.6%
4.4
10.2
5.5
2.1

1,095
1,204
1,365
1,510
775
1,172

236
232
182
228
150
266

68.9%
70.1
49.8
65.5
48.7
77.0

1.9%
2.1
2.0
6.2
1.9
4.4

0.7%
0.9
0.8
3.8
0.7
2.7

5.0%
4.7
4.7
9.9
4.9
7.3

503
547
52
355
1,154
443
779
344
1,354
996

213
167
29
164
157
177
151
120
127
175

79.7%
46.8
70.2
71.9
40.6
71.9
48.7
53.3
32.4
54.2

4.3%
5.1
0.0
5.7
1.9
2.5
7.3
0.6
4.1
0.4

2.9%
2.7
0.0
3.7
0.8
1.3
4.1
0.2
2.0
0.1

6.5%
9.6
12.1
8.7
4.5
5.0
12.6
2.5
8.3
2.1

220
793
70
383

95
156
35
167

58.7%
51.7
64.9
71.6

2.0%
1.5
1.8
0.9

0.9%
0.6
0.6
0.3

4.5%
3.8
5.5
2.2

35
909
161
684
359
325
87
144

11
258
92
209
147
146
47
92

44.4%
73.7
79.5
69.8
64.6
65.7
64.2
75.2

0.0%
5.1
3.0
5.2
2.5
3.2
0.0
0.0

0.0%
3.0
1.6
3.1
1.1
1.7
0.0
0.0

25.9%
8.7
5.6
8.6
5.6
5.9
7.6
4.1

219
133
448
1,424
837
41

71
90
150
212
224
20

47.1%
90.3
60.1
61.8
57.6
59.0

4.0%
7.6
6.0
3.5
6.7
3.3

1.6%
5.2
3.5
1.7
4.2
0.9

9.9%
10.8
10.1
7.0
10.4
11.3

377
53
350

167
27
155

62.8%
60.9
67.7

5.2%
0.0
2.5

3.3%
0.0
1.3

8.3%
12.5
4.9

1,517
93

207
63

55.5%
73.0

4.0%
4.0

1.9%
1.9

8.3%
8.1

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013

70

Appendix table 5 (continued)
Characteristics of jails and prevalence of sexual victimization, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12

Facility name
Nevada
Clark Co. Det. Ctr.
Nye Co. Jail - Pahrump
Washoe Co. Det. Ctr.
New Hampshire
Coos Co. Jail
Hillsborough Co. House of Corr.
New Jersey
Bergen Co. Jail
Burlington Co. Min. Security Jail/Corr. and Work Release Ctr.
Essex Co. Corr. Fac.
Hudson Co. Corr. Fac.
Mercer Co. Corr. Ctr.
Middlesex Co. Adult Corr. Ctr.
Ocean Co. Justice Complex
Passaic Co. Jail
Salem Co. Corr. Fac.
New Mexico
Dona Ana Co. Det. Ctr.
San Juan Co. Adult Det. Ctr.
Santa Fe Co. Adult Det. Fac.i
New York
Albany Co. Corr. Fac.
Allegany Co. Jail
Broome Co. Jail
Dutchess Co. Jail
Erie Co. Corr. Fac.
Erie Co. Holding Fac.
Jefferson Co. Jail
New York City Anna M. Kross Ctr.
New York City George Motchan Det. Ctr.
New York City Otis Bantum Corr. Ctr.
New York City Robert N Davoren Complex
New York City Rose M. Singer Ctr.g
Niagara Co. Jail
Oneida Co. Corr. Fac.
Orange Co. Corr. Fac.
Putnam Co. Corr. Fac.
Rockland Co. Corr. Ctr.
Schenectady Co. Jail
Seneca Co. Law Enforcement Ctr.
Ulster Co. Law Enforcement Ctr.
Washington Co. Corr. Fac.
Westchester Co. Jail
Westchester Co. Penitentiary - Dept. of Corr.

Inmates reporting sexual victimizationa
95%-confidence intervalb
Number of inmates Respondents to sexual Response
Lower
Upper
in custodyc
victimization surveyd ratee
Percentf
bound
bound
3,967
44
1,100

240
14
210

55.6%
43.9
62.1

1.0%
0.0
3.2

0.3%
0.0
1.6

2.8%
21.5
6.4

36
618

19
132

63.9%
38.3

4.4%
6.0

1.2%
3.3

14.3%
10.6

785
203
2,620
2,068
910
1,111
643
1,020
359

238
61
174
279
145
256
149
197
115

79.1%
48.6
34.1
57.4
55.6
75.5
67.5
61.1
51.4

2.7%
0.0
2.2
2.0
7.3
1.3
2.0
2.6
2.5

1.5%
0.0
0.9
0.9
4.3
0.5
0.8
1.3
1.0

4.8%
5.9
4.9
4.1
12.0
2.9
5.1
5.0
5.7

849
693
496

212
140
136

66.4%
45.1
47.0

4.8%
3.0
3.5

2.9%
1.3
1.6

7.9%
6.9
7.5

702
138
536
305
892
850
186
2,739
1,424
1,780
2,166
1,004
490
510
611
129
253
353
79
332
102
938
569

193
69
167
129
205
71
78
161
220
175
273
215
170
158
199
68
146
173
56
159
63
150
167

60.6%
56.8
54.7
60.3
61.3
38.5
52.9
42.1
57.0
43.6
50.2
63.4
61.2
59.6
62.6
63.4
68.0
67.6
81.3
67.9
72.9
43.0
59.9

4.2%
4.6
5.3
1.5
4.3
4.5
5.2
5.6
5.3
6.2
3.4
8.6
1.8
3.1
1.9
1.1
4.1
4.8
4.9
6.9
0.0
2.9
2.2

2.4%
2.1
2.8
0.5
2.3
0.9
2.5
3.1
3.2
3.3
1.8
5.8
0.7
1.4
0.9
0.3
2.1
3.1
2.8
4.3
0.0
1.3
1.0

7.2%
9.6
9.7
3.8
7.7
19.6
10.5
10.0
8.8
11.1
6.3
12.6
4.1
6.5
4.2
3.7
7.9
7.6
8.5
11.0
5.8
6.4
4.4

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013

71

Appendix table 5 (continued)
Characteristics of jails and prevalence of sexual victimization, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12

Facility name
North Carolina
Buncombe Co. Det. Fac.
Cherokee Co. Jail
Durham Co. Jail
Edgecombe Co. Det. Ctr.
Forsyth Co. Adult Det. Ctr.
Granville Co. Det. Ctr.
Guilford Co. High Point Det. Fac.
Guilford Co. Prison Farm
Mecklenburg Co. Jail North
New Hanover Det. Fac.
Robeson Co. Jail
Scotland Co. Jail
Wake Co. John H. Baker, Jr. Public Safety Ctr.
North Dakota
Burleigh Co. Det. Ctr.
Ohio
Bedford Heights City Jail
Cuyahoga Co. Corr. Ctr.
Delaware Co. Jail
Franklin Co. Jail
Hamilton Co. Justice Ctr.
Hamilton Co. Reading Road Fac.
Lorain Co. Jail
Miami Co. Jail
Montgomery Co. Jail
Richland Co. Jail
Oklahoma
Dewey Co. Jail
Kay Co. Jail
Nowata Co. Jail
Oregon
Lane Co. Jail
Marion Co. Corr. Fac.
Washington Co. Jail
Yamhill Co. Corr. Fac.
Pennsylvania
Allegheny Co. Jail
Blair Co. Prison
Fayette Co. Prison
Indiana Co. Jail
Luzerne Co. Corr. Fac.
Montgomery Co. Prison Corr. Fac.
Philadelphia City Alternative and Special Det. Fac.
Philadelphia City Curran/Fromhold Corr. Fac.
Philadelphia City Industrial Corr. Ctr.
Philadelphia City Riverside Corr. Fac.g
Schuykill Co. Prison
Westmoreland Co. Prison
York Co. Prison

Inmates reporting sexual victimizationa
95%-confidence intervalb
Number of inmates Respondents to sexual Response
Lower
Upper
in custodyc
victimization surveyd ratee
Percentf
bound
bound
433
81
538
249
705
83
329
60
510
415
488
187
1,380

154
45
180
138
153
35
162
36
146
155
147
93
200

63.6%
65.8
76.4
67.2
40.5
52.1
57.8
66.1
45.5
60.1
52.4
58.2
57.1

1.9%
2.5
2.3
6.3
3.2
6.5
1.1
0.0
2.0
1.9
7.5
5.4
4.2

0.8%
0.8
1.1
4.2
1.5
2.3
0.4
0.0
0.8
0.8
4.8
3.1
1.9

4.3%
7.8
4.8
9.5
6.8
17.1
2.7
9.6
4.9
4.3
11.5
9.3
8.8

151

82

75.2%

3.5%

1.9%

6.5%

143
2,321
214
628
1,245
183
432
125
942
226

35
315
108
155
219
105
174
68
202
130

34.7%
72.3
61.1
53.4
64.9
70.7
66.4
73.8
59.2
75.8

0.0%
2.4
0.0
4.1
1.8
2.4
2.2
0.0
1.3
2.9

0.0%
1.3
0.0
2.1
0.8
1.3
1.1
0.0
0.5
1.7

9.9%
4.4
3.4
7.9
4.3
4.3
4.3
5.3
3.3
4.7

14
182
53

13
110
24

100.0%
75.6
63.8

0.0%
2.6
2.4

0.0%
1.4
0.7

22.8%
4.9
8.3

489
597
604
235

171
212
153
127

72.9%
77.3
49.4
77.8

0.8%
1.9
0.5
4.7

0.3%
0.9
0.1
2.8

2.1%
3.8
2.4
7.7

2,792
335
310
229
727
1,838
768
3,217
1,052
801
292
566
2,559

233
100
97
70
181
236
173
221
241
195
136
145
237

50.1%
45.3
39.3
44.8
52.2
66.4
55.0
54.8
68.7
58.4
74.3
51.3
59.6

3.0%
5.3
4.9
3.9
3.0
3.7
0.8
4.5
9.5
8.6
2.7
3.3
5.4

1.6%
2.3
2.6
1.5
1.6
2.0
0.3
2.5
6.4
5.7
1.4
1.5
3.1

5.6%
11.5
9.1
9.4
5.7
6.6
2.5
7.9
13.7
12.9
5.0
7.0
9.1

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013

72

Appendix table 5 (continued)
Characteristics of jails and prevalence of sexual victimization, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12

Facility name
South Carolina
Charleston Co. Det. Ctr.
Florence Co. Det. Ctr.
Lexington Co. Jail
Spartanburg Co. Det. Fac.
Sumter-Lee Regional Det. Ctr.
York Co. Det. Ctr.
South Dakota
Pennington Co. Jail
Tennessee
Lincoln Co. Jail
Madison Co. Jail
McMinn Co. Jail
Montgomery Co. Jail
Obion Co. Jail
Robertson Co. Det. Ctr.
Shelby Co. Corr. Ctr.
Shelby Co. Jail
Sumner Co. Jail
Tipton Co. Jail
Van Buren Co. Jail
Washington Co. Det. Ctr.
Texas
Bexar Co. Adult Det. Ctr.
Bowie Co. Corr. Ctr.
Brazoria Co. Jail and Det. Ctr.
Brown Co. Jail
Cameron Co. Carrizales-Rucker Det. Ctr.
Dallas Co. Kays Det. Fac.
Denton Co. Det. Ctr.
Eastland Co. Jail
El Paso Co. Det. Fac. Annex
El Paso Co. Downtown Det. Fac.
Ellis Co. Wayne McCollum Det. Ctr.
Gregg Co. Jail
Harris Co. Jail - 1200 Baker Street Jail
Harris Co. Jail - 1307 Baker Street Jail
Harris Co. Jail - 701 North San Jacinto Street Jailh
Harris Co. Jail - 711 North San Jacinto Jail
Hays Co. Jail
Jefferson Co. Corr. Fac.
Johnson Co. Jail
Tarrant Co. Corr. Ctr.
Taylor Co. Jail
Titus Co. Jail
Travis Co. Corr. Fac.
Travis Co. Jail
Uvalde Co. Jail
Victoria Co. Jail
Washington Co. Jail
Webb Co. Jail
Utah
Box Elder Co. Jail
Davis Co. Jail
Weber Co. Corr. Fac.

Inmates reporting sexual victimizationa
95%-confidence intervalb
Number of inmates Respondents to sexual Response
Lower
Upper
in custodyc
victimization surveyd ratee
Percentf
bound
bound
1,450
389
781
908
364
397

213
165
193
212
149
133

55.7%
74.9
59.9
66.7
67.3
48.7

1.9%
1.2
1.6
1.1
5.1
2.1

0.9%
0.5
0.6
0.4
3.0
0.8

4.3%
3.1
4.0
3.5
8.4
5.3

399

154

68.0%

2.5%

1.2%

5.1%

117
404
248
542
154
398
2,564
2,715
730
137
30
592

78
186
161
122
98
171
276
286
220
74
15
243

80.0%
80.7
78.4
45.8
75.0
71.7
76.1
72.6
73.0
64.6
77.8
77.9

3.0%
5.3
3.4
0.7
0.0
2.8
3.4
1.8
6.1
1.5
0.0
2.9

1.4%
2.8
2.2
0.2
0.0
1.5
1.9
0.8
3.9
0.5
0.0
1.6

6.1%
10.0
5.2
3.3
3.8
5.3
5.9
3.7
9.4
5.0
20.4
5.0

3,557
643
761
147
1,518
2,120
1,176
58
1,354
1,014
428
679
4,602
454
4,441
127
318
1,026
361
1,933
513
162
2,346
345
50
473
109
475

201
174
222
78
286
212
274
36
195
173
186
238
276
194
296
64
93
241
178
182
169
64
121
25
17
41
77
110

42.3%
55.9
69.6
70.3
72.1
57.0
76.1
90.2
52.0
55.4
75.3
80.9
58.3
65.5
61.7
58.8
43.5
70.3
83.5
60.6
63.9
52.7
22.8
19.0
42.6
43.8
84.3
38.8

5.1%
2.5
0.9
0.0
0.3
2.1
2.4
0.0
2.9
3.0
3.6
1.5
7.6
1.4
3.2
1.5
3.9
2.1
5.2
2.9
3.0
0.0
2.7
0.0
3.6
1.6
2.7
0.6

2.6%
1.2
0.3
0.0
0.1
0.9
1.2
0.0
1.4
1.2
2.2
0.7
4.5
0.6
1.7
0.4
1.6
1.1
3.4
1.3
1.5
0.0
0.9
0.0
0.9
0.4
1.4
0.1

9.5%
5.5
2.6
4.7
1.6
4.6
4.8
9.9
5.9
7.6
5.9
3.2
12.5
3.1
6.0
4.9
9.4
4.2
7.9
6.3
5.9
5.7
7.6
13.3
14.1
6.6
5.1
2.7

51
652
830

40
170
193

87.8%
54.4
60.3

0.0%
4.8
3.7

0.0%
2.7
1.9

8.8%
8.4
6.9

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013

73

Appendix table 5 (continued)
Characteristics of jails and prevalence of sexual victimization, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12

Facility name
Virginia
Alexandria Det. Ctr.
Arlington Co. Det. Fac.
Bristol City Jail
Hampton Corr. Fac.
Henrico Co. Regional Jail West
Mecklenburg Co. Jail
Montgomery Co. Jail
Newport News City Jail
Piedmont Regional Jail
Rappahannock Regional Jail
Richmond City Jail
Riverside Regional Jail
Virginia Beach Municipal Corr. Ctr.
Washington
Benton Co. Jail
Cowlitz Co. Jail
King Co. Regional Justice Ctr.
Snohomish Co. Jail
Sunnyside City Jail
Whatcom Co. Jail
Yakima City Jail
West Virginia
Eastern Regional Jail
South Central Regional Jail
Western Regional Jail
Wisconsin
Brown Co. Jail
Columbia Co. Jail
Milwaukee Co. Corr. Fac. South
Oconto Co. Jail
Rock Co. Jail
Walworth Co. Jail
Washington Co. Jail
Wood Co. Jail
Wyoming
Lincoln Co. Jail

Inmates reporting sexual victimizationa
95%-confidence intervalb
Number of inmates Respondents to sexual Response
Lower
Upper
in custodyc
victimization surveyd ratee
Percentf
bound
bound
470
472
157
423
593
123
108
525
611
1,878
1,429
1,391
1,518

119
161
101
189
177
67
60
197
188
266
230
256
268

47.8%
65.3
79.2
76.3
64.1
77.2
84.6
73.7
64.9
75.6
68.8
75.2
73.6

0.6%
0.8
0.8
1.0
2.7
0.0
0.0
3.5
2.3
4.5
3.4
4.9
2.4

0.1%
0.2
0.3
0.4
1.4
0.0
0.0
2.0
1.1
2.7
1.9
3.0
1.3

2.6%
3.2
2.3
2.7
5.2
5.4
6.0
6.0
4.7
7.3
6.3
8.0
4.6

820
359
791
1,385
55
364
76

153
173
179
230
17
154
39

54.7%
79.3
53.7
64.3
51.4
65.1
65.2

2.3%
1.7
1.3
1.0
0.0
2.9
1.8

0.9%
0.8
0.5
0.3
0.0
1.5
0.5

6.0%
3.6
3.5
3.1
18.4
5.6
5.9

470
622
658

130
102
215

50.7%
37.8
68.0

6.5%
5.9
4.8

3.7%
3.0
3.0

11.2%
11.2
7.7

470
101
1,701
50
661
188
110
69

167
40
207
18
164
100
67
26

62.4%
50.0
55.8
45.0
60.9
73.3
68.3
69.0

4.1%
4.1
4.2
0.0
3.3
2.5
4.5
0.0

2.2%
1.6
2.3
0.0
1.7
1.3
2.4
0.0

7.8%
10.4
7.5
18.4
6.4
5.0
8.6
12.9

23

11

81.3%

0.0%

0.0%

25.9%

aIncludes all types of sexual victimization, including oral, anal, or vaginal penetration, hand jobs, touching of the inmate’s butt, thighs, penis, breasts, or vagina in a sexual way, and other

sexual acts occurring in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if shorter.
bIndicates that different samples in the same facility would yield prevalence rates falling between the lower and upper bound estimates 95 out of 100 times.
cNumber of inmates in the facility on the day of the roster plus any new inmates admitted prior to the first day of data collection.
dNumber of respondents consenting to the sexual victimization survey on NIS. (See Methodology.)
eResponse rate is equal to the number of respondents divided by the number of eligible inmates sampled times 100 percent.
fWeights were applied so that inmates who responded accurately reflected the entire population of each facility on select characteristics, including age, sex, race, sentence length, and
time served. (See Methodology.)
gFemale facility.
hFacility housed both males and females; only males were sampled at this facility.
iPrivately operated facility.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12.

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013

74

Appendix table 6
Percent of jail inmates reporting victimization, by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12

Facility name
Total
Alabama
Barbour Co. Jail
Dallas Co. Jail
Lee Co. W.S. Buck Jones Det. Ctr.
Marshall Co. Jail
Tuscaloosa Co. Jail
Arizona
Maricopa Co. Estrella Jaild
Maricopa Co. Fourth Avenue Jail
Maricopa Co. Towers Jail
Mariopa Co. Lower Buckeye Jail
Santa Cruz Co. Jail
Yuma Co. Det. Ctr.
Arkansas
Crittenden Co. Jail
Mississippi Co. Det. Ctr.
Pope Co. Det. Ctr.
Pulaski Co. Regional Det. Ctr.
Sebastian Co. Adult Det. Ctr.
California
Alameda Co. Santa Rita Jail
Contra Costa Co. Martinez Det. Fac.
Fresno Co. Downtown Det. Fac. - Main, North and South
Imperial Co. Jail
Kern Co. Lerdo Pre-Trial Fac.
Los Angeles Co. - Twin Towers Corr. Fac.
Los Angeles Co. Men’s Central Jail
Los Angeles Co. North County Corr. Fac.
Napa Co. Jail
Orange Co. Central Jail Complex
Orange Co. Theo Lacy Fac.
Riverside Co. Indio Jail
Riverside Co. Larry D. Smith Corr. Ctr.
Riverside Co. Southwest Det. Ctr.e
Sacramento Co. Rio Cosumnes Corr. Ctr.
San Diego Co. East Mesa Med. Fac.
San Diego Co. George F. Bailey Det. Fac.
San Diego Co. Vista Det. Fac.
San Francisco Co. Jail Number 3
Santa Clara Co. Elmwood Fac. - Min. and Med.
Santa Clara Co. Main Jail
Santa Clara Co. Women’s Corr. Ctr.d
Solano Co. Justice Ctr. Det. Fac.
Tulare Co. Jail
Ventura Co. Jail
Yolo Co. Leinberger Ctr.
Yuba Co. Jail
Colorado
Chaffee Co. Jail
Denver Co. Jail
Denver Co. Van Cise-Simonet Det. Ctr.
Douglas Co. Jail
Fremont Co. Jail
Jefferson Co. Jail
Park Co. Jail

Inmate-on-inmatea
95%-confidence intervalb
Percent
Lower
Upper
victimizedc
bound
bound
1.6%
1.4%
1.9%

Staff sexual misconducta
95%-confidence intervalb
Percent
Lower
Upper
victimizedc
bound
bound
1.8%
1.7%
2.0%

2.3%
1.5
2.4
2.5
0.8

0.7%
0.7
1.3
1.3
0.3

7.5%
3.5
4.6
4.9
2.3

0.0%
0.0
1.0
3.4
2.7

0.0%
0.0
0.4
1.9
1.4

7.6%
3.3
2.5
6.0
4.9

3.7%
0.6
1.1
2.4
0.0
0.6

2.0%
0.1
0.3
1.1
0.0
0.1

6.8%
3.2
3.7
4.9
6.9
2.9

0.3%
0.9
4.3
2.8
0.0
1.4

0.1%
0.3
2.2
1.3
0.0
0.5

1.5%
3.2
8.1
5.9
6.9
4.2

3.5%
0.0
3.6
3.5
0.5

1.9%
0.0
1.2
1.3
0.1

6.4%
4.3
10.3
9.1
2.0

2.8%
0.8
2.3
2.5
0.6

1.4%
0.3
0.5
1.1
0.1

5.7%
2.8
9.6
5.4
2.0

1.2%
2.0
1.6
0.4
2.5
4.9
4.2
1.8
2.3
1.4
3.2
2.8
4.0
0.0
2.6
1.2
4.1
1.6
2.4
1.3
3.5
1.4
2.4
0.0
0.9
2.1
1.5

0.5%
0.8
0.7
0.1
1.0
2.6
2.1
0.6
1.0
0.4
1.4
1.3
2.1
0.0
1.3
0.3
1.9
0.6
0.8
0.5
1.5
0.5
1.2
0.0
0.3
0.7
0.5

3.0%
5.1
4.0
1.2
6.1
9.1
8.0
5.2
5.4
4.7
6.8
5.8
7.5
2.5
5.1
4.7
8.4
4.3
7.3
3.6
7.9
4.2
4.9
2.0
2.7
6.0
3.9

2.0%
5.9
1.9
0.6
1.7
4.4
3.3
2.4
2.5
0.7
1.5
0.6
2.0
0.6
2.6
1.1
1.7
2.6
1.6
1.1
6.2
0.7
3.7
1.0
1.9
0.0
1.2

1.0%
3.2
0.8
0.1
0.6
2.3
1.6
0.9
1.1
0.1
0.5
0.2
0.8
0.1
1.3
0.4
0.6
1.3
0.3
0.3
3.0
0.2
2.1
0.3
0.8
0.0
0.4

4.3%
10.4
4.6
2.6
5.1
8.5
6.6
6.0
5.7
3.8
4.4
2.5
4.8
3.0
5.1
3.1
4.6
5.2
7.0
3.7
12.5
3.1
6.7
3.8
4.2
8.0
3.2

0.0%
2.9
0.5
0.0
3.0
0.0
0.0

0.0%
1.6
0.1
0.0
1.6
0.0
0.0

10.4%
5.4
2.5
2.9
5.7
1.8
6.4

0.0%
1.1
1.6
2.8
0.8
0.0
0.0

0.0%
0.5
0.5
1.4
0.2
0.0
0.0

10.4%
2.8
5.1
5.8
2.5
1.8
6.4

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013

75

Appendix table 6 (continued)
Percent of jail inmates reporting victimization, by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12

Facility name
Florida
Collier Co. Jail
Dixie Co. Jail
Escambia Co. Jail
Jacksonville City Montgomery Corr. Ctr.
Lake Co. Jail
Lee Co. Community Programs Unit
Leon Co. Det. Fac.
Manatee Co. Jail
Martin Co. Jail
Miami-Dade Co. Boot Camp
Miami-Dade Co. Metro West Det. Ctr.
Miami-Dade Co. Training and Treatment Ctr.
Miami-Dade Co. Turner Guilford Knight Corr. Ctr.
Okeechobee Co. Jail
Orange Co. 33rd Street Corr. Ctr.
Orange Co. Booking and Release Ctr.
Osceola Co. Jail
Palm Beach Co. Stockade
Pinellas Co. Central Division Fac.
Pinellas Co. South Division
Polk Co. - South Co. Jail
Sarasota North Co. Jail
Suwanee Co. Jail
Taylor Co. Jail
Georgia
Candler Co. Jail
Carroll Co. Prison
Clayton Co. Jail
Dekalb Co. Jail
Douglas Co. Jail
Floyd Co. Jail
Floyd Co. Prison
Fulton Co. Jail
Gwinnett Co. Det. Ctr.
Hall Co. Det. Ctr.
Houston Co. Jail
Irwin Co. Jail
Murray County Jail
Newton Co. Jail
Screven Co. Jail
South Fulton Municipal Regional Jail
Spalding Co. Jail
Troup Co. Jail
Upson Co. Jail
Ware Co. Jail
Wilkinson Co. Jail
Idaho
Bannock Co. Jail

Inmate-on-inmatea
95%-confidence intervalb
Percent
Lower
Upper
victimizedc
bound
bound

Staff sexual misconducta
95%-confidence intervalb
Percent
Lower
Upper
victimizedc
bound
bound

2.4%
4.9
2.0
1.3
0.3
2.4
2.0
3.4
1.1
0.0
1.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
1.3
1.0
0.9
1.3
2.4
2.0
2.3
0.0
0.9
0.0

1.1%
2.1
0.9
0.4
0.1
1.1
1.0
1.8
0.4
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.4
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.9
0.7
1.1
0.0
0.3
0.0

5.5%
10.8
4.5
3.6
1.7
5.0
4.3
6.4
3.4
7.4
3.4
2.2
3.0
3.7
3.7
3.9
3.1
4.3
6.4
5.4
5.0
1.9
3.0
13.3

2.6%
5.7
0.5
1.6
2.5
1.6
3.7
2.3
2.6
0.0
1.6
1.0
0.0
1.1
2.2
2.9
0.7
1.6
1.0
1.3
3.7
0.0
0.0
0.0

1.0%
2.5
0.1
0.7
0.6
0.7
2.0
1.1
1.2
0.0
0.7
0.3
0.0
0.3
0.9
1.2
0.1
0.6
0.2
0.4
2.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

6.8%
12.6
2.3
3.6
9.4
4.1
6.5
4.8
5.8
7.4
3.5
3.2
2.3
3.9
5.3
6.8
3.0
4.2
4.8
4.1
6.8
1.9
4.5
13.3

0.0%
0.0
2.3
2.0
2.3
2.4
0.6
3.3
0.8
3.0
2.2
0.0
2.4
2.2
1.4
0.0
1.8
2.2
1.7
1.7
6.5

0.0%
0.0
1.1
0.9
1.2
1.3
0.2
1.5
0.2
1.5
1.1
0.0
1.1
1.1
0.6
0.0
0.7
1.0
0.8
0.9
1.9

12.5%
2.5
4.7
4.5
4.3
4.6
2.0
7.4
2.6
6.0
4.7
2.0
5.3
4.4
3.5
8.2
4.5
4.4
3.4
3.4
20.0

0.0%
2.7
3.3
1.9
0.5
1.2
2.2
1.6
0.0
0.0
6.0
1.1
0.8
1.5
2.4
4.7
3.3
0.0
1.9
0.8
0.0

0.0%
1.6
1.7
0.9
0.1
0.5
1.2
0.5
0.0
0.0
3.7
0.4
0.3
0.6
1.3
1.6
1.4
0.0
0.9
0.3
0.0

12.5%
4.3
6.1
4.0
2.2
2.8
4.3
4.5
1.5
2.0
9.6
2.9
2.5
4.0
4.7
12.8
7.2
2.2
3.7
2.0
16.8

0.0%

0.0%

3.3%

3.0%

1.3%

6.8%

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013

76

Appendix table 6 (continued)
Percent of jail inmates reporting victimization, by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12

Facility name
Illinois
Champaign Co. Satellite Jaile
Cook Co. - Division 1
Cook Co. - Division 11
Cook Co. - Division 2
Cook Co. - Division 5
Cook Co. - Division 6
Kane Co. Adult Justice Ctr.
Kankakee Co. Jerome Combs Det. Ctr.
Kendall Co. Jail
McHenry Co. Jail
Sangamon Co. Jail
Indiana
Bartholomew Co. Jail
Clinton Co. Jail
Dearborn Co. Jail
Delaware Co. Justice Ctr.
Elkhart Co. Corr. Ctr.
Hamilton Co. Jail
Jackson Co. Jail
Marion Co. Jail IIf
Marion Co. Jail Intake Fac.
Noble Co. Jail
Ripley Co. Jail
Tippecanoe Co. Jail
Iowa
Des Moines Co. Jail
Scott Co. Jail and Annex
Kansas
Finney Co. Jail
Wilson Co. Jail
Kentucky
Big Sandy Regional Det. Ctr.
Boyle Co. Det. Ctr.
Daviess Co. Det. Ctr.
Grayson Co. Det. Ctr.
Kenton Co. Det. Ctr.
Lexington-Fayette Co. Jail Det. Division
Madison Co. Det. Ctr.
McCracken Co. Jail
Meade Co. Jail
Pulaski Co. Det. Ctr.
Woodford Co. Det. Ctr.
Louisiana
Assumption Parish Det. Ctr.
Bossier Parish Max. Security Fac.
Bossier Parish Med. Security Fac.
Caddo Parish Corr. Ctr.
East Baton Rouge Parish Prison
Iberia Parish Jail
Lafayette Parish Jail
Livingston Parish Det. Ctr.
Rapides Parish Det. Ctr. III
St. Landry Parish Jail
St. Martin Parish Corr. Ctr. 1
Webster Parish Bayou Dorcheat Corr. Fac.

Inmate-on-inmatea
95%-confidence intervalb
Percent
Lower
Upper
victimizedc
bound
bound

Staff sexual misconducta
95%-confidence intervalb
Percent
Lower
Upper
victimizedc
bound
bound

0.0%
0.7
5.5
2.5
0.9
1.1
1.5
1.6
2.6
0.5
2.4

0.0%
0.2
3.5
1.1
0.3
0.4
0.6
0.7
1.1
0.1
1.3

6.4%
2.1
8.4
5.4
2.7
2.7
3.8
3.8
5.9
2.2
4.2

2.0%
4.0
3.3
4.2
2.6
1.5
2.1
2.6
2.5
0.6
2.0

0.5%
2.4
1.8
2.3
1.3
0.7
0.8
1.5
1.1
0.1
1.1

8.4%
6.5
5.7
7.5
5.1
3.3
5.1
4.7
5.8
2.6
3.5

3.2%
1.6
0.7
0.2
1.7
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
7.9
2.5

1.9%
0.5
0.2
0.0
0.7
0.6
0.3
0.1
0.0
0.0
5.1
1.1

5.2%
4.4
2.4
0.7
3.8
3.8
3.4
2.5
5.8
3.5
11.9
5.7

0.8%
0.8
1.1
1.7
1.9
0.9
0.0
2.9
7.7
0.9
2.0
0.0

0.3%
0.3
0.3
0.6
1.0
0.3
0.0
1.0
3.4
0.3
0.8
0.0

2.0%
2.4
3.5
4.5
3.7
3.3
4.1
7.7
16.3
2.3
4.5
3.2

0.0%
0.0

0.0%
0.0

11.4%
2.7

2.1%
3.2

0.6%
1.6

7.1%
6.1

1.0%
0.0

0.3%
0.0

2.9%
9.6

3.0%
5.6

1.6%
1.7

5.7%
16.5

1.3%
1.9
2.1
0.9
1.1
3.1
2.1
1.5
1.3
1.6
0.1

0.6%
0.6
1.1
0.3
0.4
1.4
1.1
0.7
0.5
0.6
0.0

3.2%
5.7
4.2
2.4
3.0
6.6
4.2
3.2
3.6
4.2
0.6

0.0%
0.0
1.9
1.3
0.1
3.3
1.7
1.6
1.3
0.8
0.0

0.0%
0.0
0.9
0.6
0.0
1.6
0.8
0.8
0.5
0.2
0.0

2.6%
2.5
4.1
2.9
0.6
6.7
3.5
3.5
3.6
2.9
10.2

3.1%
0.9
1.4
1.1
2.3
2.4
1.8
1.0
1.4
0.7
1.3
1.8

1.6%
0.4
0.6
0.4
1.0
1.2
0.8
0.4
0.7
0.2
0.4
0.9

6.0%
2.3
3.1
3.0
5.1
4.7
4.1
2.7
3.0
2.5
4.6
3.6

1.5%
0.0
1.5
1.1
0.6
2.5
2.4
0.4
0.5
0.7
2.6
2.1

0.6%
0.0
0.7
0.4
0.1
1.3
1.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
1.0
1.0

3.9%
2.2
3.4
3.0
3.1
4.9
4.9
1.5
1.6
2.5
6.4
4.5

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013

77

Appendix table 6 (continued)
Percent of jail inmates reporting victimization, by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12

Facility name
Maine
Penobscot Co. Jail
Maryland
Allegany Co. Det. Ctr.
Anne Arundel Co. Jennifer Road Det. Ctr.
Baltimore City Det. Ctr.
Montgomery Co. Corr. Fac.
Wicomico Co. Det. Ctr.
Massachusetts
Hampden Co. Corr. Ctr.
Middlesex Co. Jail and House of Corr.
Plymouth Co. Corr. Fac.
Suffolk Co. House of Corr.
Suffolk Co. Nashua Street Jail
Worcester Co. Jail and House of Corr.
Michigan
Berrien Co. Jail
Calhoun Co. Jail
Huron Co. Jail
Kalamazoo Co. Jail
Macomb Co. Jail
Oakland Co. East Annex
Oakland Co. Law Enforcement Complex
Ottawa Co. Jail
Wayne Co. Andrew C. Baird Det. Fac.
Wayne Co. William Dickerson Det. - Division III
Minnesota
Anoka Co. Jail
Hennepin Co. Adult Det. Ctr.
Mille Lacs Co. Jail
Ramsey Co. Corr. Fac.
Mississippi
Covington Co. Jail
Harrison Co. Adult Det. Ctr.
Hinds Co. Jackson Det. Ctr.
Hinds Co. Raymond Det. Ctr.
Holmes-Humphreys Co. Regional Corr. Fac.
Madison Co. Jail
Marshall Co. Jail
Pike Co. Jail
Missouri
Boone Co. Jail
LaClede Co. Jail
St. Charles Co. Jail
St. Louis Co. Jail
St. Louis Med. Security Inst.
Washington Co. Jail
Montana
Cascade Co. Regional Jail
Hill Co. Jail
Missoula Co. Jail
Nebraska
Douglas Co. Dept. of Corr.
Saline Co. Jail

Inmate-on-inmatea
95%-confidence intervalb
Percent
Lower
Upper
victimizedc
bound
bound

Staff sexual misconducta
95%-confidence intervalb
Percent
Lower
Upper
victimizedc
bound
bound

0.0%

0.0%

5.9%

4.3%

1.6%

11.4%

2.3%
0.0
0.7
1.8
0.6

0.5%
0.0
0.2
0.7
0.2

9.6%
3.6
2.4
4.5
2.1

0.0%
0.9
6.7
1.6
0.0

0.0%
0.2
4.3
0.6
0.0

7.7%
4.4
10.2
4.1
2.5

0.0%
1.5
0.6
4.1
0.6
1.9

0.0%
0.5
0.1
2.2
0.1
0.9

1.7%
4.0
2.9
7.6
2.7
4.0

1.9%
0.6
2.0
3.5
1.3
2.9

0.7%
0.2
0.8
1.9
0.4
1.5

5.0%
2.1
4.7
6.6
4.2
5.5

0.9%
2.7
0.0
3.6
1.1
1.9
3.0
0.0
4.1
0.0

0.4%
1.1
0.0
2.0
0.3
0.9
1.4
0.0
2.0
0.0

2.3%
6.5
12.1
6.5
3.6
4.2
6.5
3.1
8.3
2.2

3.4%
3.5
0.0
3.5
1.2
1.2
5.9
0.6
0.5
0.4

2.1%
1.7
0.0
2.0
0.4
0.5
3.0
0.2
0.1
0.1

5.3%
7.3
12.1
5.8
3.3
3.2
11.1
2.5
2.5
2.1

1.5%
0.9
0.0
0.0

0.6%
0.3
0.0
0.0

3.9%
2.8
9.9
2.2

1.1%
0.6
1.8
0.9

0.4%
0.1
0.6
0.3

2.8%
2.7
5.5
2.2

0.0%
0.7
0.5
2.5
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0%
0.2
0.2
1.1
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0

25.9%
1.9
1.5
5.5
3.6
2.7
7.6
4.1

0.0%
4.4
2.4
3.6
1.5
3.2
0.0
0.0

0.0%
2.4
1.2
1.9
0.6
1.7
0.0
0.0

25.9%
8.0
5.0
6.8
4.1
5.9
7.6
4.1

3.1%
3.1
2.0
1.2
0.8
3.3

1.0%
1.8
0.8
0.4
0.3
0.9

9.2%
5.3
4.7
3.2
2.3
11.3

0.9%
4.5
4.5
2.4
6.3
0.0

0.2%
2.7
2.4
0.9
3.9
0.0

3.5%
7.3
8.3
5.7
10.0
16.1

3.3%
0.0
1.8

1.9%
0.0
0.8

5.8%
12.5
4.0

3.6%
0.0
1.4

2.0%
0.0
0.5

6.3%
12.5
3.5

0.7%
1.6

0.1%
0.6

3.6%
4.5

3.3%
2.3

1.4%
0.9

7.4%
6.2

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013

78

Appendix table 6 (continued)
Percent of jail inmates reporting victimization, by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12

Facility name
Nevada
Clark Co. Det. Ctr.
Nye Co. Jail - Pahrump
Washoe Co. Det. Ctr.
New Hampshire
Coos Co. Jail
Hillsborough Co. House of Corr.
New Jersey
Bergen Co. Jail
Burlington Co. Min. Security Jail/Corr. and Work Release Ctr.
Essex Co. Corr. Fac.
Hudson Co. Corr. Fac.
Mercer Co. Corr. Ctr.
Middlesex Co. Adult Corr. Ctr.
Ocean Co. Justice Complex
Passaic Co. Jail
Salem Co. Corr. Fac.
New Mexico
Dona Ana Co. Det. Ctr.
San Juan Co. Adult Det. Ctr.
Santa Fe Co. Adult Det. Fac.f
New York
Albany Co. Corr. Fac.
Allegany Co. Jail
Broome Co. Jail
Dutchess Co. Jail
Erie Co. Corr. Fac.
Erie Co. Holding Fac.
Jefferson Co. Jail
New York City Anna M. Kross Ctr.
New York City George Motchan Det. Ctr.
New York City Otis Bantum Corr. Ctr.
New York City Robert N Davoren Complex
New York City Rose M. Singer Ctr.d
Niagara Co. Jail
Oneida Co. Corr. Fac.
Orange Co. Corr. Fac.
Putnam Co. Corr. Fac.
Rockland Co. Corr. Ctr.
Schenectady Co. Jail
Seneca Co. Law Enforcement Ctr.
Ulster Co. Law Enforcement Ctr.
Washington Co. Corr. Fac.
Westchester Co. Jail
Westchester Co. Penitentiary - Dept. of Corr.
North Carolina
Buncombe Co. Det. Fac.
Cherokee Co. Jail
Durham Co. Jail
Edgecombe Co. Det. Ctr.
Forsyth Co. Adult Det. Ctr.
Granville Co. Det. Ctr.
Guilford Co. High Point Det. Fac.
Guilford Co. Prison Farm

Inmate-on-inmatea
95%-confidence intervalb
Percent
Lower
Upper
victimizedc
bound
bound

Staff sexual misconducta
95%-confidence intervalb
Percent
Lower
Upper
victimizedc
bound
bound

0.6%
0.0
1.1

0.2%
0.0
0.3

1.9%
21.5
3.5

0.4%
0.0
2.1

0.1%
0.0
0.9

2.2%
21.5
4.9

0.0%
4.1

0.0%
1.9

16.8%
8.5

4.4%
3.3

1.2%
1.6

14.3%
6.6

1.6%
0.0
0.8
1.0
4.1
1.0
1.2
1.6
0.7

0.7%
0.0
0.2
0.4
2.0
0.4
0.4
0.7
0.2

3.3%
5.9
2.8
2.7
8.2
2.5
3.7
3.8
3.0

1.5%
0.0
1.7
1.7
5.1
0.7
0.8
2.6
1.7

0.7%
0.0
0.7
0.8
2.8
0.2
0.2
1.3
0.6

3.2%
5.9
4.2
3.8
9.2
2.2
3.6
5.0
4.8

3.0%
3.0
2.3

1.7%
1.3
1.0

5.4%
6.9
5.3

2.5%
1.8
1.8

1.2%
0.6
0.6

5.3%
5.5
5.5

2.7%
3.0
2.9
0.7
0.4
0.0
1.0
2.4
1.4
0.6
0.3
5.0
0.7
0.0
1.4
0.0
2.1
4.4
3.6
1.5
0.0
0.5
0.9

1.4%
1.2
1.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.3
1.0
0.5
0.1
0.1
2.9
0.2
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.7
2.7
1.8
0.7
0.0
0.1
0.3

5.2%
7.5
6.5
2.7
2.0
5.3
3.9
6.0
3.6
3.0
1.8
8.4
2.8
2.5
3.5
5.4
6.5
7.0
7.0
3.5
5.8
2.3
2.5

2.4%
1.5
3.4
1.4
3.9
4.5
4.2
3.7
4.0
5.6
3.1
5.9
1.1
3.0
1.4
1.1
2.0
2.9
3.3
6.1
0.0
2.5
1.3

1.2%
0.4
1.5
0.5
2.0
0.9
1.8
1.8
2.2
2.9
1.6
3.7
0.4
1.4
0.6
0.3
1.1
1.7
1.6
3.6
0.0
1.0
0.5

5.0%
5.3
7.6
3.8
7.2
19.6
9.4
7.4
7.1
10.5
5.8
9.4
3.0
6.5
3.4
3.7
3.6
5.0
6.6
10.2
5.8
5.9
3.3

0.7%
0.0
0.7
2.6
1.2
0.4
0.0
0.0

0.2%
0.0
0.2
1.4
0.3
0.1
0.0
0.0

2.5%
7.9
2.7
4.8
3.8
1.7
2.4
9.6

1.3%
2.5
1.6
3.8
2.9
6.0
1.1
0.0

0.5%
0.8
0.7
2.2
1.2
2.0
0.4
0.0

3.4%
7.8
3.7
6.5
6.5
16.9
2.7
9.6

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013

79

Appendix table 6 (continued)
Percent of jail inmates reporting victimization, by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12

Facility name
Mecklenburg Co. Jail North
New Hanover Det. Fac.
Robeson Co. Jail
Scotland Co. Jail
Wake Co. John H. Baker, Jr. Public Safety Ctr.
North Dakota
Burleigh Co. Det. Ctr.
Ohio
Bedford Heights City Jail
Cuyahoga Co. Corr. Ctr.
Delaware Co. Jail
Franklin Co. Jail
Hamilton Co. Justice Ctr.
Hamilton Co. Reading Road Fac.
Lorain Co. Jail
Miami Co. Jail
Montgomery Co. Jail
Richland Co. Jail
Oklahoma
Dewey Co. Jail
Kay Co. Jail
Nowata Co. Jail
Oregon
Lane Co. Jail
Marion Co. Corr. Fac.
Washington Co. Jail
Yamhill Co. Corr. Fac.
Pennsylvania
Allegheny Co. Jail
Blair Co. Prison
Fayette Co. Prison
Indiana Co. Jail
Luzerne Co. Corr. Fac.
Montgomery Co. Prison Corr. Fac.
Philadelphia City Alternative and Special Det. Fac.
Philadelphia City Curran/Fromhold Corr. Fac.
Philadelphia City Industrial Corr. Ctr.
Philadelphia City Riverside Corr. Fac.d
Schuykill Co. Prison
Westmoreland Co. Prison
York Co. Prison
South Carolina
Charleston Co. Det. Ctr.
Florence Co. Det. Ctr.
Lexington Co. Jail
Spartanburg Co. Det. Fac.
Sumter-Lee Regional Det. Ctr.
York Co. Det. Ctr.
South Dakota
Pennington Co. Jail

Inmate-on-inmatea
95%-confidence intervalb
Percent
Lower
Upper
victimizedc
bound
bound
0.6%
0.1%
2.4%
0.6
0.2
2.6
2.4
1.1
5.0
1.0
0.3
3.5
3.4
1.4
8.1

Staff sexual misconducta
95%-confidence intervalb
Percent
Lower
Upper
victimizedc
bound
bound
2.0%
0.8%
4.9%
1.2
0.4
3.4
5.2
3.0
8.7
4.4
2.4
8.1
1.4
0.5
3.7

0.0%

0.0%

4.5%

3.5%

1.9%

6.5%

0.0%
1.2
0.0
3.1
0.0
2.1
1.1
0.0
0.4
1.4

0.0%
0.5
0.0
1.5
0.0
1.1
0.4
0.0
0.1
0.7

9.9%
2.8
3.4
6.4
1.8
4.0
2.9
5.3
2.0
2.9

0.0%
1.2
0.0
1.0
1.8
0.3
1.1
0.0
0.9
1.4

0.0%
0.5
0.0
0.2
0.8
0.1
0.4
0.0
0.3
0.7

9.9%
2.9
3.4
4.3
4.3
0.9
2.8
5.3
2.7
2.9

0.0%
1.7
0.0

0.0%
0.8
0.0

22.8%
3.7
13.8

0.0%
0.9
2.4

0.0%
0.3
0.7

22.8%
2.5
8.3

0.5%
0.5
0.0
4.3

0.1%
0.1
0.0
2.5

1.9%
1.8
2.5
7.4

0.8%
1.4
0.5
0.4

0.3%
0.6
0.1
0.1

2.1%
3.2
2.4
1.0

2.0%
3.5
2.6
3.9
2.4
1.4
0.0
1.2
3.5
6.7
1.0
2.1
3.5

0.9%
1.2
1.0
1.5
1.2
0.6
0.0
0.4
1.8
4.2
0.3
0.8
1.8

4.3%
10.1
6.1
9.4
4.9
3.4
2.2
3.9
6.6
10.7
3.2
5.1
6.8

1.5%
1.7
3.9
0.0
0.6
2.6
0.8
3.4
6.3
3.7
2.7
2.2
1.8

0.6%
0.6
1.9
0.0
0.1
1.3
0.3
1.8
3.9
2.0
1.4
0.8
0.8

3.7%
4.9
7.7
5.2
2.5
5.3
2.5
6.5
10.0
6.8
5.0
6.1
4.4

0.7%
0.0
1.1
0.0
0.4
0.0

0.2%
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.1
0.0

2.3%
2.3
3.2
1.8
1.5
2.9

1.7%
1.2
0.6
1.1
4.7
2.1

0.7%
0.5
0.1
0.4
2.7
0.8

4.0%
3.1
2.5
3.5
8.0
5.3

2.0%

0.9%

4.6%

0.9%

0.3%

2.4%

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013

80

Appendix table 6 (continued)
Percent of jail inmates reporting victimization, by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12

Facility name
Tennessee
Lincoln Co. Jail
Madison Co. Jail
McMinn Co. Jail
Montgomery Co. Jail
Obion Co. Jail
Robertson Co. Det. Ctr.
Shelby Co. Corr. Ctr.
Shelby Co. Jail
Sumner Co. Jail
Tipton Co. Jail
Van Buren Co. Jail
Washington Co. Det. Ctr.
Texas
Bexar Co. Adult Det. Ctr.
Bowie Co. Corr. Ctr.
Brazoria Co. Jail and Det. Ctr.
Brown Co. Jail
Cameron Co. Carrizales-Rucker Det. Ctr.
Dallas Co. Kays Det. Fac.
Denton Co. Det. Ctr.
Eastland Co. Jail
El Paso Co. Det. Fac. Annex
El Paso Co. Downtown Det. Fac.
Ellis Co. Wayne McCollum Det. Ctr.
Gregg Co. Jail
Harris Co. Jail - 1200 Baker Street Jail
Harris Co. Jail - 1307 Baker Street Jail
Harris Co. Jail - 701 North San Jacinto Street Jaile
Harris Co. Jail - 711 North San Jacinto Jail
Hays Co. Jail
Jefferson Co. Corr. Fac.
Johnson Co. Jail
Tarrant Co. Corr. Ctr.
Taylor Co. Jail
Titus Co. Jail
Travis Co. Corr. Fac.
Travis Co. Jail
Uvalde Co. Jail
Victoria Co. Jail
Washington Co. Jail
Webb Co. Jail
Utah
Box Elder Co. Jail
Davis Co. Jail
Weber Co. Corr. Fac.

Inmate-on-inmatea
95%-confidence intervalb
Percent
Lower
Upper
victimizedc
bound
bound

Staff sexual misconducta
95%-confidence intervalb
Percent
Lower
Upper
victimizedc
bound
bound

3.0%
1.5
2.8
0.0
0.0
1.1
1.1
0.6
4.2
1.5
0.0
2.8

1.4%
0.7
1.8
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.4
0.2
2.5
0.5
0.0
1.5

6.1%
3.3
4.5
3.1
3.8
2.9
3.1
2.2
7.1
5.0
20.4
4.9

1.3%
4.4
1.0
0.7
0.0
1.7
3.1
1.1
3.0
0.0
0.0
0.7

0.5%
2.1
0.5
0.2
0.0
0.8
1.7
0.5
1.5
0.0
0.0
0.2

3.6%
9.3
2.1
3.3
3.8
3.9
5.5
2.8
5.6
4.9
20.4
2.1

1.6%
0.6
0.4
0.0
0.3
0.4
0.7
0.0
2.2
1.0
1.8
0.3
6.3
1.0
0.9
0.0
0.8
1.0
2.7
1.0
1.7
0.0
1.7
0.0
0.0
1.6
2.6
0.0

0.6%
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.0
1.0
0.3
0.9
0.1
3.4
0.4
0.3
0.0
0.2
0.4
1.5
0.3
0.7
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.4
1.4
0.0

4.0%
2.7
2.0
4.7
1.6
2.2
2.1
9.9
4.9
3.4
3.6
1.4
11.2
2.5
2.5
5.7
3.3
2.5
4.8
3.4
4.2
5.7
5.9
13.3
18.4
6.6
5.1
3.4

4.3%
1.9
0.4
0.0
0.0
2.1
1.7
0.0
1.0
2.7
1.8
1.2
1.5
0.5
2.9
1.5
3.1
1.8
3.0
2.3
1.3
0.0
1.0
0.0
3.6
0.0
0.0
0.6

2.1%
0.8
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.8
0.0
0.3
1.0
0.9
0.5
0.7
0.1
1.5
0.4
1.1
0.8
1.7
0.9
0.4
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.1

8.6%
4.7
2.0
4.7
1.4
4.6
3.9
9.9
3.3
7.4
3.5
2.8
3.2
1.7
5.6
4.9
8.7
3.7
5.3
5.5
3.6
5.7
5.3
13.3
14.1
8.6
4.8
2.7

0.0%
4.0
2.4

0.0%
2.1
1.1

8.8%
7.6
5.1

0.0%
0.8
1.8

0.0%
0.3
0.7

8.8%
2.4
4.4

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013

81

Appendix table 6 (continued)
Percent of jail inmates reporting victimization, by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12

Facility name
Virginia
Alexandria Det. Ctr.
Arlington Co. Det. Fac.
Bristol City Jail
Hampton Corr. Fac.
Henrico Co. Regional Jail West
Mecklenburg Co. Jail
Montgomery Co. Jail
Newport News City Jail
Piedmont Regional Jail
Rappahannock Regional Jail
Richmond City Jail
Riverside Regional Jail
Virginia Beach Municipal Corr. Ctr.
Washington
Benton Co. Jail
Cowlitz Co. Jail
King Co. Regional Justice Ctr.
Snohomish Co. Jail
Sunnyside City Jail
Whatcom Co. Jail
Yakima City Jail
West Virginia
Eastern Regional Jail
South Central Regional Jail
Western Regional Jail
Wisconsin
Brown Co. Jail
Columbia Co. Jail
Milwaukee Co. Corr. Fac. South
Oconto Co. Jail
Rock Co. Jail
Walworth Co. Jail
Washington Co. Jail
Wood Co. Jail
Wyoming
Lincoln Co. Jail

Inmate-on-inmatea
95%-confidence intervalb
Percent
Lower
Upper
victimizedc
bound
bound

Staff sexual misconducta
95%-confidence intervalb
Percent
Lower
Upper
victimizedc
bound
bound

0.6%
0.0
0.8
0.5
0.7
0.0
0.0
1.0
1.4
1.2
2.1
1.6
1.0

0.1%
0.0
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.5
0.4
1.0
0.7
0.4

2.6%
2.3
2.3
1.8
2.0
5.4
6.0
2.8
3.5
3.2
4.5
3.7
2.6

0.6%
0.8
0.0
0.5
2.0
0.0
0.0
2.5
0.9
3.3
1.8
3.7
1.4

0.1%
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.9
0.0
0.0
1.3
0.3
1.8
0.8
2.1
0.6

2.6%
3.2
3.7
2.0
4.4
5.4
6.0
4.8
2.7
5.8
4.2
6.5
3.4

1.2%
0.7
0.0
0.5
0.0
2.9
0.0

0.3%
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.0
1.5
0.0

5.0%
2.3
2.2
2.3
18.4
5.6
9.0

1.1%
1.0
1.3
0.5
0.0
0.3
1.8

0.4%
0.4
0.5
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.5

3.6%
2.5
3.5
2.3
18.4
1.0
5.9

6.0%
3.6
4.8

3.3%
1.6
3.0

10.6%
8.1
7.7

1.5%
2.3
1.6

0.6%
0.8
0.6

3.6%
6.4
3.8

1.7%
2.1
1.3
0.0
2.6
0.8
3.1
0.0

0.7%
0.6
0.5
0.0
1.2
0.3
1.4
0.0

4.4%
7.5
3.7
18.4
5.5
2.6
6.9
12.9

3.9%
2.1
2.9
0.0
2.0
2.5
3.0
0.0

2.0%
0.6
1.4
0.0
0.9
1.3
1.3
0.0

7.6%
7.5
5.9
18.4
4.7
5.0
6.5
12.9

0.0%

0.0%

25.9%

0.0%

0.0%

25.9%

Note: Detail may sum to more than total victimization rate because victims may have reported both inmate-on-inmate and staff-on-inmate sexual victimization.
aIncludes all types of sexual victimization, including oral, anal, or vaginal penetration, hand jobs, touching of the inmate’s butt, thighs, penis, breasts, or vagina in a sexual way, and other
sexual acts occurring in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if shorter.
bIndicates that different samples in the same facility would yield prevalence rates falling between the lower and upper bound estimates 95 out of 100 times.
cWeights were applied so that inmates who responded accurately reflected the entire population of each facility on select characteristics, including age, sex, race, sentence length, and
time served. (See Methodology.)
dFemale facility.
eFacility housed both males and females; only males were sampled at this facility.
fPrivately operated facility.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12.

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013

82

Appendix table 7
Percent of jail inmates reporting sexual victimization, by level of coercion and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12
Facility name
Total
Alabama
Barbour Co. Jail
Dallas Co. Jail
Lee Co. W.S. Buck Jones Det. Ctr.
Marshall Co. Jail
Tuscaloosa Co. Jail
Arizona
Maricopa Co. Estrella Jaile
Maricopa Co. Fourth Avenue Jail
Maricopa Co. Towers Jail
Mariopa Co. Lower Buckeye Jail
Santa Cruz Co. Jail
Yuma Co. Det. Ctr.
Arkansas
Crittenden Co. Jail
Mississippi Co. Det. Ctr.
Pope Co. Det. Ctr.
Pulaski Co. Regional Det. Ctr.
Sebastian Co. Adult Det. Ctr.
California
Alameda Co. Santa Rita Jail
Contra Costa Co. Martinez Det. Fac.
Fresno Co. Downtown Det. Fac. - Main, North and South
Imperial Co. Jail
Kern Co. Lerdo Pre-Trial Fac.
Los Angeles Co. - Twin Towers Corr. Fac.
Los Angeles Co. Men’s Central Jail
Los Angeles Co. North County Corr. Fac.
Napa Co. Jail
Orange Co. Central Jail Complex
Orange Co. Theo Lacy Fac.
Riverside Co. Indio Jail
Riverside Co. Larry D. Smith Corr. Ctr.
Riverside Co. Southwest Det. Ctr.f
Sacramento Co. Rio Cosumnes Corr. Ctr.
San Diego Co. East Mesa Med. Fac.
San Diego Co. George F. Bailey Det. Fac.
San Diego Co. Vista Det. Fac.
San Francisco Co. Jail Number 3
Santa Clara Co. Elmwood Fac. - Min. and Med.
Santa Clara Co. Main Jail
Santa Clara Co. Women’s Corr. Ctr.e
Solano Co. Justice Ctr. Det. Fac.
Tulare Co. Jail
Ventura Co. Jail
Yolo Co. Leinberger Ctr.
Yuba Co. Jail
Colorado
Chaffee Co. Jail
Denver Co. Jail
Denver Co. Van Cise-Simonet Det. Ctr.
Douglas Co. Jail
Fremont Co. Jail
Jefferson Co. Jail
Park Co. Jail

Inmate-on-inmatea
Physically
forcedb
Pressuredc
1.2%
1.1%

Staff sexual misconducta
Physically
forcedb
0.8%

Pressuredc
1.2%

Without force
or pressured
0.9%

2.3%
1.5
2.4
2.5
0.8

0.0%
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0%
0.0
0.0
1.7
1.0

0.0%
0.0
0.5
3.4
0.8

0.0%
0.0
0.5
0.0
1.9

2.3%
0.6
1.1
0.7
0.0
0.0

2.1%
0.0
0.0
2.0
0.0
0.6

0.3%
0.9
1.8
1.1
0.0
0.6

0.3%
0.9
1.8
2.1
0.0
0.6

0.3%
0.9
2.5
1.8
0.0
1.4

2.7%
0.0
3.6
3.1
0.0

0.8%
0.0
1.8
3.0
0.5

1.9%
0.8
0.0
0.4
0.0

1.1%
0.0
0.0
1.5
0.0

1.0%
0.0
2.3
1.5
0.6

0.9%
1.4
1.2
0.4
2.5
4.9
1.5
1.4
1.6
0.0
1.7
2.8
4.0
0.0
1.4
1.2
3.1
0.7
1.0
1.3
2.1
0.7
1.5
0.0
0.4
2.1
0.7

1.0%
2.0
0.5
0.2
1.5
2.0
3.6
1.8
1.3
1.4
1.9
2.1
2.7
0.0
1.7
0.0
3.5
1.2
2.4
0.9
2.5
1.4
2.4
0.0
0.9
0.0
1.5

1.3%
3.2
1.5
0.6
0.4
2.9
2.1
1.8
1.8
0.7
1.1
0.6
1.5
0.6
0.6
1.1
1.1
1.2
0.0
0.4
4.8
0.7
2.6
0.0
0.9
0.0
0.5

1.7%
5.2
1.4
0.6
1.4
2.6
2.9
2.4
2.5
0.7
1.1
0.6
2.0
0.6
1.7
1.1
1.7
2.1
1.6
1.1
3.6
0.7
2.6
0.8
1.9
0.0
0.7

0.6%
3.7
0.4
0.6
1.3
0.3
2.1
1.8
1.8
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.6
0.6
1.2
0.0
0.0
1.6
0.0
0.0
1.6
0.0
2.3
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0%
2.9
0.0
0.0
3.0
0.0
0.0

0.0%
0.8
0.5
0.0
1.4
0.0
0.0

0.0%
0.7
0.8
1.7
0.8
0.0
0.0

0.0%
0.3
0.0
2.8
0.8
0.0
0.0

0.0%
0.8
0.8
1.2
0.0
0.0
0.0

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013

83

Appendix table 7 (continued)
Percent of jail inmates reporting sexual victimization, by level of coercion and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12
Facility name
Florida
Collier Co. Jail
Dixie Co. Jail
Escambia Co. Jail
Jacksonville City Montgomery Corr. Ctr.
Lake Co. Jail
Lee Co. Community Programs Unit
Leon Co. Det. Fac.
Manatee Co. Jail
Martin Co. Jail
Miami-Dade Co. Boot Camp
Miami-Dade Co. Metro West Det. Ctr.
Miami-Dade Co. Training and Treatment Ctr.
Miami-Dade Co. Turner Guilford Knight Corr. Ctr.
Okeechobee Co. Jail
Orange Co. 33rd Street Corr. Ctr.
Orange Co. Booking and Release Ctr.
Osceola Co. Jail
Palm Beach Co. Stockade
Pinellas Co. Central Division Fac.
Pinellas Co. South Division
Polk Co. - South Co. Jail
Sarasota North Co. Jail
Suwanee Co. Jail
Taylor Co. Jail
Georgia
Candler Co. Jail
Carroll Co. Prison
Clayton Co. Jail
Dekalb Co. Jail
Douglas Co. Jail
Floyd Co. Jail
Floyd Co. Prison
Fulton Co. Jail
Gwinnett Co. Det. Ctr.
Hall Co. Det. Ctr.
Houston Co. Jail
Irwin Co. Jail
Murray County Jail
Newton Co. Jail
Screven Co. Jail
South Fulton Municipal Regional Jail
Spalding Co. Jail
Troup Co. Jail
Upson Co. Jail
Ware Co. Jail
Wilkinson Co. Jail
Idaho
Bannock Co. Jail
Illinois
Champaign Co. Satellite Jailf
Cook Co. - Division 1
Cook Co. - Division 11
Cook Co. - Division 2
Cook Co. - Division 5

Inmate-on-inmatea
Physically
forcedb
Pressuredc

Staff sexual misconducta
Physically
forcedb

Pressuredc

Without force
or pressured

1.6%
2.4
1.6
1.3
0.3
2.4
1.7
2.4
0.7
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.7
1.0
0.9
1.3
2.4
2.0
2.3
0.0
0.9
0.0

1.2%
4.9
1.5
0.5
0.3
2.4
1.1
2.0
1.1
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.5
0.0
1.3
0.0
0.9
1.3
1.6
2.0
1.8
0.0
0.0
0.0

2.6%
0.0
0.5
1.1
0.0
1.6
0.8
2.3
2.6
0.0
0.6
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.6
1.0
0.0
1.1
0.0
1.3
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.0

2.2%
2.4
0.5
1.1
2.1
1.6
1.4
1.9
2.2
0.0
1.2
0.5
0.0
1.1
1.9
1.0
0.0
1.6
1.0
1.3
2.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.4%
3.3
0.0
0.9
0.4
0.9
2.3
1.4
1.4
0.0
0.6
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.3
1.9
0.7
0.0
0.0
1.3
2.3
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0%
0.0
1.8
2.0
1.1
2.4
0.6
2.5
0.4
2.6
2.2
0.0
1.1
1.7
1.4
0.0
0.6
0.9
0.7
1.0
0.0

0.0%
0.0
1.4
1.4
1.9
0.4
0.6
2.0
0.4
2.0
1.0
0.0
1.3
1.8
1.4
0.0
1.2
2.2
1.7
1.7
6.5

0.0%
1.3
2.6
0.3
0.5
0.4
1.1
0.6
0.0
0.0
1.1
0.8
0.0
0.3
2.4
2.3
1.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0%
2.0
1.4
1.2
0.5
0.8
1.7
0.6
0.0
0.0
3.1
0.8
0.8
1.5
2.4
4.7
1.0
0.0
1.0
0.8
0.0

0.0%
2.0
1.2
1.3
0.0
0.4
1.1
1.0
0.0
0.0
5.4
0.7
0.0
0.9
1.2
4.7
1.8
0.0
0.9
0.0
0.0

0.0%

0.0%

1.8%

1.2%

0.0%

0.0%
0.7
4.0
2.5
0.4

0.0%
0.7
3.3
2.0
0.5

0.0%
1.5
2.6
1.8
1.4

2.0%
2.2
2.9
2.9
1.6

2.0%
2.5
1.4
2.3
1.8

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013

84

Appendix table 7 (continued)
Percent of jail inmates reporting sexual victimization, by level of coercion and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12
Facility name
Cook Co. - Division 6
Kane Co. Adult Justice Ctr.
Kankakee Co. Jerome Combs Det. Ctr.
Kendall Co. Jail
McHenry Co. Jail
Sangamon Co. Jail
Indiana
Bartholomew Co. Jail
Clinton Co. Jail
Dearborn Co. Jail
Delaware Co. Justice Ctr.
Elkhart Co. Corr. Ctr.
Hamilton Co. Jail
Jackson Co. Jail
Marion Co. Jail IIg
Marion Co. Jail Intake Fac.
Noble Co. Jail
Ripley Co. Jail
Tippecanoe Co. Jail
Iowa
Des Moines Co. Jail
Scott Co. Jail and Annex
Kansas
Finney Co. Jail
Wilson Co. Jail
Kentucky
Big Sandy Regional Det. Ctr.
Boyle Co. Det. Ctr.
Daviess Co. Det. Ctr.
Grayson Co. Det. Ctr.
Kenton Co. Det. Ctr.
Lexington-Fayette Co. Jail Det. Division
Madison Co. Det. Ctr.
McCracken Co. Jail
Meade Co. Jail
Pulaski Co. Det. Ctr.
Woodford Co. Det. Ctr.
Louisiana
Assumption Parish Det. Ctr.
Bossier Parish Max. Security Fac.
Bossier Parish Med. Security Fac.
Caddo Parish Corr. Ctr.
East Baton Rouge Parish Prison
Iberia Parish Jail
Lafayette Parish Jail
Livingston Parish Det. Ctr.
Rapides Parish Det. Ctr. III
St. Landry Parish Jail
St. Martin Parish Corr. Ctr. 1
Webster Parish Bayou Dorcheat Corr. Fac.
Maine
Penobscot Co. Jail

Inmate-on-inmatea
Physically
forcedb
Pressuredc
1.1%
1.1%
1.1
1.0
0.9
1.2
1.7
2.6
0.0
0.5
1.9
2.4

Staff sexual misconducta
Physically
forcedb
0.7%
1.3
1.3
0.9
0.0
0.5

Pressuredc
1.1%
2.1
1.4
0.9
0.6
1.6

Without force
or pressured
1.1%
0.6
0.8
1.7
0.0
0.9

1.4%
1.6
0.7
0.2
1.3
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
5.9
2.5

2.4%
1.6
0.7
0.2
1.0
1.5
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
7.9
0.0

0.8%
0.0
1.1
0.0
1.3
0.0
0.0
2.1
3.7
0.0
2.0
0.0

0.8%
0.0
1.1
0.5
1.6
0.0
0.0
1.3
4.9
0.9
2.0
0.0

0.8%
0.8
0.0
1.2
0.7
0.9
0.0
1.7
2.7
0.0
2.0
0.0

0.0%
0.0

0.0%
0.0

0.0%
0.6

0.0%
1.3

2.1%
1.9

0.0%
0.0

1.0%
0.0

3.0%
5.6

2.0%
0.0

0.0%
0.0

1.3%
1.9
1.3
0.4
1.0
2.1
2.1
1.0
1.3
1.6
0.1

0.9%
1.9
2.1
0.5
0.5
2.4
0.7
0.9
1.3
0.0
0.0

0.0%
0.0
0.9
0.5
0.0
1.7
0.7
1.1
0.0
0.8
0.0

0.0%
0.0
1.5
1.3
0.0
2.7
0.9
1.1
1.3
0.8
0.0

0.0%
0.0
0.9
0.0
0.1
1.3
1.0
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0

3.1%
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.4
2.0
1.0
0.5
1.4
0.7
1.3
1.8

0.0%
0.0
0.8
1.1
1.3
0.9
1.8
1.0
0.5
0.7
0.0
1.4

0.0%
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.7
1.3
0.6

0.0%
0.0
1.0
0.8
0.0
1.5
0.5
0.0
0.5
0.7
1.3
0.6

1.5%
0.0
0.5
0.4
0.6
1.5
1.9
0.4
0.0
0.7
2.6
1.5

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

1.8%

2.6%

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013

85

Appendix table 7 (continued)
Percent of jail inmates reporting sexual victimization, by level of coercion and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12
Facility name
Maryland
Allegany Co. Det. Ctr.
Anne Arundel Co. Jennifer Road Det. Ctr.
Baltimore City Det. Ctr.
Montgomery Co. Corr. Fac.
Wicomico Co. Det. Ctr.
Massachusetts
Hampden Co. Corr. Ctr.
Middlesex Co. Jail and House of Corr.
Plymouth Co. Corr. Fac.
Suffolk Co. House of Corr.
Suffolk Co. Nashua Street Jail
Worcester Co. Jail and House of Corr.
Michigan
Berrien Co. Jail
Calhoun Co. Jail
Huron Co. Jail
Kalamazoo Co. Jail
Macomb Co. Jail
Oakland Co. East Annex
Oakland Co. Law Enforcement Complex
Ottawa Co. Jail
Wayne Co. Andrew C. Baird Det. Fac.
Wayne Co. William Dickerson Det. - Division III
Minnesota
Anoka Co. Jail
Hennepin Co. Adult Det. Ctr.
Mille Lacs Co. Jail
Ramsey Co. Corr. Fac.
Mississippi
Covington Co. Jail
Harrison Co. Adult Det. Ctr.
Hinds Co. Jackson Det. Ctr.
Hinds Co. Raymond Det. Ctr.
Holmes-Humphreys Co. Regional Corr. Fac.
Madison Co. Jail
Marshall Co. Jail
Pike Co. Jail
Missouri
Boone Co. Jail
LaClede Co. Jail
St. Charles Co. Jail
St. Louis Co. Jail
St. Louis Med. Security Inst.
Washington Co. Jail
Montana
Cascade Co. Regional Jail
Hill Co. Jail
Missoula Co. Jail
Nebraska
Douglas Co. Dept. of Corr.
Saline Co. Jail
Nevada
Clark Co. Det. Ctr.
Nye Co. Jail - Pahrump
Washoe Co. Det. Ctr.

Inmate-on-inmatea
Physically
forcedb
Pressuredc

Staff sexual misconducta
Physically
forcedb

Pressuredc

Without force
or pressured

2.3%
0.0
0.4
1.8
0.6

2.3%
0.0
0.7
0.6
0.0

0.0%
0.0
2.8
0.5
0.0

0.0%
0.0
3.1
1.2
0.0

0.0%
0.9
5.2
0.4
0.0

0.0%
1.5
0.6
1.8
0.6
1.2

0.0%
0.7
0.0
3.8
0.0
1.2

0.0%
0.4
0.5
1.9
0.0
0.4

0.5%
0.4
1.5
2.0
0.6
2.3

1.4%
0.6
0.5
2.3
1.3
1.2

0.9%
1.3
0.0
3.6
1.1
1.3
3.0
0.0
4.1
0.0

0.9%
2.7
0.0
3.1
1.1
1.9
1.9
0.0
0.8
0.0

1.3%
3.1
0.0
3.5
0.9
1.2
5.2
0.0
0.0
0.4

3.0%
3.5
0.0
1.5
0.0
1.2
2.9
0.6
0.0
0.4

0.9%
0.7
0.0
1.0
0.3
0.0
2.2
0.0
0.5
0.0

1.5%
0.9
0.0
0.0

0.5%
0.4
0.0
0.0

1.1%
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.5%
0.6
0.0
0.4

0.6%
0.6
1.8
0.5

0.0%
0.7
0.5
1.9
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0%
0.7
0.0
2.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0%
0.9
0.0
0.5
0.8
1.2
0.0
0.0

0.0%
3.4
1.3
1.5
0.8
1.8
0.0
0.0

0.0%
0.7
1.1
2.6
0.8
1.4
0.0
0.0

0.0%
1.8
2.0
0.9
0.4
0.0

3.1%
1.3
0.5
0.3
0.8
3.3

0.0%
3.0
3.0
0.3
3.6
0.0

0.9%
4.5
4.0
1.9
4.0
0.0

0.0%
0.0
1.4
0.8
4.1
0.0

2.2%
0.0
1.2

2.2%
0.0
1.8

1.9%
0.0
0.7

3.6%
0.0
0.7

2.4%
0.0
0.7

0.7%
0.0

0.7%
1.6

1.4%
0.0

2.8%
0.0

1.9%
2.3

0.6%
0.0
1.1

0.3%
0.0
1.1

0.4%
0.0
1.5

0.4%
0.0
1.7

0.4%
0.0
0.0

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013

86

Appendix table 7 (continued)
Percent of jail inmates reporting sexual victimization, by level of coercion and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12
Facility name
New Hampshire
Coos Co. Jail
Hillsborough Co. House of Corr.
New Jersey
Bergen Co. Jail
Burlington Co. Min. Security Jail/Corr. and Work Release Ctr.
Essex Co. Corr. Fac.
Hudson Co. Corr. Fac.
Mercer Co. Corr. Ctr.
Middlesex Co. Adult Corr. Ctr.
Ocean Co. Justice Complex
Passaic Co. Jail
Salem Co. Corr. Fac.
New Mexico
Dona Ana Co. Det. Ctr.
San Juan Co. Adult Det. Ctr.
Santa Fe Co. Adult Det. Fac.g
New York
Albany Co. Corr. Fac.
Allegany Co. Jail
Broome Co. Jail
Dutchess Co. Jail
Erie Co. Corr. Fac.
Erie Co. Holding Fac.
Jefferson Co. Jail
New York City Anna M. Kross Ctr.
New York City George Motchan Det. Ctr.
New York City Otis Bantum Corr. Ctr.
New York City Robert N Davoren Complex
New York City Rose M. Singer Ctr.e
Niagara Co. Jail
Oneida Co. Corr. Fac.
Orange Co. Corr. Fac.
Putnam Co. Corr. Fac.
Rockland Co. Corr. Ctr.
Schenectady Co. Jail
Seneca Co. Law Enforcement Ctr.
Ulster Co. Law Enforcement Ctr.
Washington Co. Corr. Fac.
Westchester Co. Jail
Westchester Co. Penitentiary - Dept. of Corr.
North Carolina
Buncombe Co. Det. Fac.
Cherokee Co. Jail
Durham Co. Jail
Edgecombe Co. Det. Ctr.
Forsyth Co. Adult Det. Ctr.
Granville Co. Det. Ctr.
Guilford Co. High Point Det. Fac.
Guilford Co. Prison Farm
Mecklenburg Co. Jail North
New Hanover Det. Fac.
Robeson Co. Jail
Scotland Co. Jail
Wake Co. John H. Baker, Jr. Public Safety Ctr.

Inmate-on-inmatea
Physically
forcedb
Pressuredc

Staff sexual misconducta
Physically
forcedb

Pressuredc

Without force
or pressured

0.0%
3.2

0.0%
2.3

0.0%
3.3

4.4%
2.0

0.0%
1.0

1.6%
0.0
0.8
1.0
4.1
1.0
0.0
1.2
0.0

1.1%
0.0
0.4
0.7
1.3
0.7
1.2
1.3
0.7

1.2%
0.0
1.2
1.0
2.0
0.4
0.0
2.6
0.0

1.5%
0.0
1.2
1.3
3.1
0.4
0.8
2.3
1.7

0.0%
0.0
0.8
0.8
3.7
0.3
0.0
1.2
0.0

1.6%
3.0
1.2

2.5%
2.5
2.3

1.4%
0.7
0.0

1.9%
0.7
0.6

0.8%
1.8
1.2

2.7%
3.0
1.4
0.7
0.4
0.0
1.0
2.4
0.9
0.0
0.3
4.1
0.7
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.0
2.2
3.6
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.4

1.3%
3.0
2.9
0.7
0.4
0.0
1.0
0.5
0.8
0.6
0.3
2.3
0.7
0.0
1.0
0.0
2.1
3.1
0.0
1.5
0.0
0.5
0.9

1.2%
1.5
1.5
0.7
2.8
4.5
4.2
1.2
0.4
2.7
0.6
2.3
0.0
2.1
0.0
1.1
1.6
0.5
1.3
3.8
0.0
1.0
0.5

1.2%
1.5
2.8
1.4
2.8
4.5
1.0
2.1
1.8
3.1
1.3
5.6
1.1
3.0
0.9
1.1
1.6
2.5
1.3
3.5
0.0
1.6
1.3

2.0%
0.0
1.9
0.0
2.7
0.0
1.6
1.5
2.1
4.6
2.3
2.9
0.0
1.6
0.9
1.1
0.9
1.4
2.0
3.0
0.0
0.9
0.3

0.7%
0.0
0.7
1.1
0.8
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.6
2.4
0.0
2.9

0.0%
0.0
0.7
1.5
0.4
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.6
1.3
1.0
2.2

0.6%
2.5
0.0
0.9
2.2
1.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
1.2
1.9
0.4

1.3%
2.5
0.5
1.7
1.4
1.2
0.0
0.0
1.3
1.2
3.3
3.0
0.9

0.0%
2.5
1.1
2.9
2.0
4.8
1.1
0.0
1.4
0.0
2.6
2.5
0.4

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013

87

Appendix table 7 (continued)
Percent of jail inmates reporting sexual victimization, by level of coercion and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12
Facility name
North Dakota
Burleigh Co. Det. Ctr.
Ohio
Bedford Heights City Jail
Cuyahoga Co. Corr. Ctr.
Delaware Co. Jail
Franklin Co. Jail
Hamilton Co. Justice Ctr.
Hamilton Co. Reading Road Fac.
Lorain Co. Jail
Miami Co. Jail
Montgomery Co. Jail
Richland Co. Jail
Oklahoma
Dewey Co. Jail
Kay Co. Jail
Nowata Co. Jail
Oregon
Lane Co. Jail
Marion Co. Corr. Fac.
Washington Co. Jail
Yamhill Co. Corr. Fac.
Pennsylvania
Allegheny Co. Jail
Blair Co. Prison
Fayette Co. Prison
Indiana Co. Jail
Luzerne Co. Corr. Fac.
Montgomery Co. Prison Corr. Fac.
Philadelphia City Alternative and Special Det. Fac.
Philadelphia City Curran/Fromhold Corr. Fac.
Philadelphia City Industrial Corr. Ctr.
Philadelphia City Riverside Corr. Fac.e
Schuykill Co. Prison
Westmoreland Co. Prison
York Co. Prison
South Carolina
Charleston Co. Det. Ctr.
Florence Co. Det. Ctr.
Lexington Co. Jail
Spartanburg Co. Det. Fac.
Sumter-Lee Regional Det. Ctr.
York Co. Det. Ctr.
South Dakota
Pennington Co. Jail
Tennessee
Lincoln Co. Jail
Madison Co. Jail
McMinn Co. Jail
Montgomery Co. Jail
Obion Co. Jail
Robertson Co. Det. Ctr.
Shelby Co. Corr. Ctr.
Shelby Co. Jail
Sumner Co. Jail

Inmate-on-inmatea
Physically
forcedb
Pressuredc

Staff sexual misconducta
Physically
forcedb

Pressuredc

Without force
or pressured

0.0%

0.0%

2.5%

3.5%

0.0%

0.0%
0.9
0.0
2.6
0.0
0.8
0.6
0.0
0.4
1.4

0.0%
1.2
0.0
1.2
0.0
1.3
1.1
0.0
0.0
1.4

0.0%
0.7
0.0
0.0
1.1
0.0
1.1
0.0
0.9
0.0

0.0%
0.7
0.0
1.0
1.8
0.0
1.1
0.0
0.9
0.7

0.0%
1.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.7

0.0%
1.7
0.0

0.0%
0.9
0.0

0.0%
0.0
0.0

0.0%
0.0
2.4

0.0%
0.9
0.0

0.5%
0.5
0.0
3.2

0.5%
0.5
0.0
4.3

0.5%
0.9
0.0
0.0

0.8%
0.5
0.0
0.4

0.0%
0.9
0.5
0.4

1.5%
0.0
1.6
1.7
1.5
0.7
0.0
1.2
3.5
6.7
1.0
0.7
2.4

1.0%
3.5
2.6
2.1
2.4
1.4
0.0
0.5
1.9
4.5
1.0
1.8
2.2

0.2%
0.0
2.1
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.4
1.3
2.3
3.1
1.0
1.0
0.0

1.0%
1.7
2.9
0.0
0.6
2.2
0.8
2.0
3.4
3.2
1.6
2.2
1.8

1.0%
0.0
2.3
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
1.7
3.4
0.0
1.1
0.0
0.0

0.4%
0.0
1.1
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.7%
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.4
0.0

0.9%
0.5
0.6
0.0
2.4
1.8

0.8%
0.0
0.6
1.1
3.2
2.1

0.4%
0.7
0.0
0.5
3.0
0.0

2.0%

0.7%

0.4%

0.9%

0.0%

3.0%
1.0
1.9
0.0
0.0
0.6
1.1
0.6
3.4

3.0%
0.5
2.8
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.4
0.3
1.9

1.3%
1.7
0.6
0.7
0.0
0.0
1.1
0.6
1.7

1.3%
3.0
0.6
0.7
0.0
1.2
1.1
1.1
2.0

0.0%
1.0
1.0
0.7
0.0
0.6
2.8
0.8
1.0

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013

88

Appendix table 7 (continued)
Percent of jail inmates reporting sexual victimization, by level of coercion and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12
Facility name
Tipton Co. Jail
Van Buren Co. Jail
Washington Co. Det. Ctr.
Texas
Bexar Co. Adult Det. Ctr.
Bowie Co. Corr. Ctr.
Brazoria Co. Jail and Det. Ctr.
Brown Co. Jail
Cameron Co. Carrizales-Rucker Det. Ctr.
Dallas Co. Kays Det. Fac.
Denton Co. Det. Ctr.
Eastland Co. Jail
El Paso Co. Det. Fac. Annex
El Paso Co. Downtown Det. Fac.
Ellis Co. Wayne McCollum Det. Ctr.
Gregg Co. Jail
Harris Co. Jail - 1200 Baker Street Jail
Harris Co. Jail - 1307 Baker Street Jail
Harris Co. Jail - 701 North San Jacinto Street Jailf
Harris Co. Jail - 711 North San Jacinto Jail
Hays Co. Jail
Jefferson Co. Corr. Fac.
Johnson Co. Jail
Tarrant Co. Corr. Ctr.
Taylor Co. Jail
Titus Co. Jail
Travis Co. Corr. Fac.
Travis Co. Jail
Uvalde Co. Jail
Victoria Co. Jail
Washington Co. Jail
Webb Co. Jail
Utah
Box Elder Co. Jail
Davis Co. Jail
Weber Co. Corr. Fac.
Virginia
Alexandria Det. Ctr.
Arlington Co. Det. Fac.
Bristol City Jail
Hampton Corr. Fac.
Henrico Co. Regional Jail West
Mecklenburg Co. Jail
Montgomery Co. Jail
Newport News City Jail
Piedmont Regional Jail
Rappahannock Regional Jail
Richmond City Jail
Riverside Regional Jail
Virginia Beach Municipal Corr. Ctr.

Inmate-on-inmatea
Physically
forcedb
Pressuredc
0.0%
1.5%
0.0
0.0
1.9
2.2

Staff sexual misconducta
Physically
forcedb
0.0%
0.0
0.5

Pressuredc
0.0%
0.0
0.7

Without force
or pressured
0.0%
0.0
0.0

0.8%
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.2
1.0
1.8
0.3
5.0
1.0
0.6
0.0
0.8
1.0
2.3
0.6
1.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.6
0.0

1.1%
0.6
0.4
0.0
0.3
0.4
0.7
0.0
1.5
1.0
0.9
0.3
2.6
0.5
0.6
0.0
0.8
0.2
1.6
1.0
1.1
0.0
0.8
0.0
0.0
1.6
2.6
0.0

1.8%
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.4
0.0
0.3
1.4
0.5
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.3
0.0
1.8
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

3.1%
1.1
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.9
1.4
0.0
0.3
1.4
1.8
0.3
1.1
0.5
1.4
0.0
3.1
1.4
2.5
1.0
1.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.6
0.0
0.0
0.6

1.2%
1.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.2
1.3
0.0
0.6
1.3
0.4
0.8
0.2
0.0
1.4
1.5
1.8
0.7
1.1
1.2
0.7
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0%
2.2
1.2

0.0%
2.8
1.6

0.0%
0.0
0.7

0.0%
0.8
1.8

0.0%
0.5
0.5

0.0%
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.0
1.2
1.7
0.8
1.0

0.6%
0.0
0.8
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.6
1.4
0.0
0.8
1.6
0.4

0.0%
0.8
0.0
0.5
0.9
0.0
0.0
1.9
0.5
2.3
0.4
1.4
1.1

0.6%
0.8
0.0
0.5
1.5
0.0
0.0
2.5
0.9
1.9
0.8
3.2
0.7

0.0%
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.0
1.5
0.5
0.6
1.0
0.9
0.7

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013

89

Appendix table 7 (continued)
Percent of jail inmates reporting sexual victimization, by level of coercion and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12
Facility name
Washington
Benton Co. Jail
Cowlitz Co. Jail
King Co. Regional Justice Ctr.
Snohomish Co. Jail
Sunnyside City Jail
Whatcom Co. Jail
Yakima City Jail
West Virginia
Eastern Regional Jail
South Central Regional Jail
Western Regional Jail
Wisconsin
Brown Co. Jail
Columbia Co. Jail
Milwaukee Co. Corr. Fac. South
Oconto Co. Jail
Rock Co. Jail
Walworth Co. Jail
Washington Co. Jail
Wood Co. Jail
Wyoming
Lincoln Co. Jail

Inmate-on-inmatea
Physically
forcedb
Pressuredc

Staff sexual misconducta
Physically
forcedb

Pressuredc

Without force
or pressured

0.1%
0.7
0.0
0.5
0.0
2.7
0.0

1.1%
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.9
0.0

0.0%
0.6
0.9
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0

1.1%
1.0
0.6
0.5
0.0
0.0
1.8

1.1%
0.0
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0

4.7%
2.9
4.4

4.0%
3.0
3.6

0.9%
1.7
0.9

1.5%
1.1
1.6

0.4%
0.5
0.4

1.7%
0.0
1.3
0.0
1.3
0.8
3.1
0.0

0.5%
2.1
1.3
0.0
2.1
0.8
3.1
0.0

2.1%
2.1
1.4
0.0
0.8
1.7
1.4
0.0

2.1%
2.1
2.4
0.0
1.3
1.7
3.0
0.0

1.4%
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.7
2.5
3.0
0.0

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

aIncludes all types of sexual victimization, including oral, anal, or vaginal penetration, hand jobs, touching of the inmate’s butt, thighs, penis, breasts, or vagina in a sexual way, and other

sexual acts occurring in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if shorter.
bPhysical force or threat of physical force reported.
cIncludes incidents in which the perpetrator, without using force, pressured the inmate or made the inmate feel that they had to participate. (See Methodology.)
dIncludes 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.
eFemale facility.
fFacility housed both males and females; only males were sampled at this facility.
gPrivately operated facility.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12.

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013

90

Appendix table 8
Percent of jail inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual contacts, by facility, National Inmate Survey,
2011–12

Facility name
Total
Alabama
Barbour Co. Jail
Dallas Co. Jail
Lee Co. W.S. Buck Jones Det. Ctr.
Marshall Co. Jail
Tuscaloosa Co. Jail
Arizona
Maricopa Co. Estrella Jaile
Maricopa Co. Fourth Avenue Jail
Maricopa Co. Towers Jail
Mariopa Co. Lower Buckeye Jail
Santa Cruz Co. Jail
Yuma Co. Det. Ctr.
Arkansas
Crittenden Co. Jail
Mississippi Co. Det. Ctr.
Pope Co. Det. Ctr.
Pulaski Co. Regional Det. Ctr.
Sebastian Co. Adult Det. Ctr.
California
Alameda Co. Santa Rita Jail
Contra Costa Co. Martinez Det. Fac.
Fresno Co. Downtown Det. Fac. - Main, North and South
Imperial Co. Jail
Kern Co. Lerdo Pre-Trial Fac.
Los Angeles Co. - Twin Towers Corr. Fac.
Los Angeles Co. Men’s Central Jail
Los Angeles Co. North County Corr. Fac.
Napa Co. Jail
Orange Co. Central Jail Complex
Orange Co. Theo Lacy Fac.
Riverside Co. Indio Jail
Riverside Co. Larry D. Smith Corr. Ctr.
Riverside Co. Southwest Det. Ctr.f
Sacramento Co. Rio Cosumnes Corr. Ctr.
San Diego Co. East Mesa Med. Fac.
San Diego Co. George F. Bailey Det. Fac.
San Diego Co. Vista Det. Fac.
San Francisco Co. Jail Number 3
Santa Clara Co. Elmwood Fac. - Min. and Med.
Santa Clara Co. Main Jail
Santa Clara Co. Women’s Corr. Ctr.e
Solano Co. Justice Ctr. Det. Fac.
Tulare Co. Jail
Ventura Co. Jail
Yolo Co. Leinberger Ctr.
Yuba Co. Jail

Nonconsensual sexual actsa
95%-confidence intervalc
Percent
Lower
Upper
victimizedd
bound
bound
1.2%
1.0%
1.4%

Abusive sexual contacts onlyb
95%-confidence intervalc
Percent
Lower
Upper
victimizedd
bound
bound
1.9%
1.7%
2.2%

2.3%
0.7
1.4
1.7
1.7

0.7%
0.2
0.5
0.7
0.8

7.5%
2.1
3.3
3.8
3.6

0.0%
0.9
1.6
3.4
1.8

0.0%
0.3
0.8
1.9
0.8

7.6%
2.7
3.3
6.0
3.8

2.9%
0.6
2.0
0.9
0.0
0.0

1.4%
0.1
0.8
0.3
0.0
0.0

5.8%
3.2
4.9
2.9
6.9
2.4

0.8%
0.9
3.4
3.4
0.0
2.1

0.3%
0.3
1.6
1.8
0.0
0.8

2.6%
3.2
7.1
6.6
6.9
5.1

4.5%
0.0
4.1
5.0
0.0

2.6%
0.0
1.4
2.4
0.0

7.6%
4.3
11.7
10.5
2.5

1.9%
0.8
1.8
1.0
1.1

0.8%
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.4

4.4%
2.8
7.7
3.2
2.8

0.3%
0.6
2.7
0.2
1.0
3.3
1.3
0.8
0.0
0.6
1.7
2.1
2.3
0.0
1.8
0.0
3.1
0.4
0.0
1.3
6.0
1.4
1.5
0.8
1.9
2.1
0.8

0.0%
0.1
1.3
0.0
0.2
1.5
0.5
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.6
0.9
1.1
0.0
0.8
0.0
1.4
0.1
0.0
0.5
2.8
0.5
0.6
0.1
0.8
0.7
0.2

1.3%
2.8
5.7
0.8
4.9
7.2
3.8
2.9
3.3
3.4
4.8
5.0
5.0
2.5
3.9
2.7
7.0
1.7
5.0
3.6
12.4
4.2
3.5
3.8
4.2
6.0
2.9

2.7%
6.4
0.8
0.8
2.8
4.6
5.6
1.9
3.8
0.7
3.0
0.7
2.7
0.6
3.1
2.4
2.1
3.5
4.0
1.1
3.2
0.7
3.7
0.3
0.9
0.0
1.2

1.4%
3.7
0.2
0.3
1.2
2.4
3.1
0.7
2.0
0.1
1.4
0.2
1.2
0.1
1.6
1.0
0.7
1.8
1.5
0.3
1.4
0.2
2.0
0.1
0.3
0.0
0.4

5.2%
11.0
2.7
2.7
6.3
8.9
9.7
5.5
7.3
3.8
6.4
2.6
6.0
3.0
5.8
5.6
5.8
6.6
9.9
3.7
7.2
3.1
6.6
1.4
2.7
8.0
3.2

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013

91

Appendix table 8 (continued)
Percent of jail inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual contacts, by facility, National Inmate Survey,
2011–12

Facility name
Colorado
Chaffee Co. Jail
Denver Co. Jail
Denver Co. Van Cise-Simonet Det. Ctr.
Douglas Co. Jail
Fremont Co. Jail
Jefferson Co. Jail
Park Co. Jail
Florida
Collier Co. Jail
Dixie Co. Jail
Escambia Co. Jail
Jacksonville City Montgomery Corr. Ctr.
Lake Co. Jail
Lee Co. Community Programs Unit
Leon Co. Det. Fac.
Manatee Co. Jail
Martin Co. Jail
Miami-Dade Co. Boot Camp
Miami-Dade Co. Metro West Det. Ctr.
Miami-Dade Co. Training and Treatment Ctr.
Miami-Dade Co. Turner Guilford Knight Corr. Ctr.
Okeechobee Co. Jail
Orange Co. 33rd Street Corr. Ctr.
Orange Co. Booking and Release Ctr.
Osceola Co. Jail
Palm Beach Co. Stockade
Pinellas Co. Central Division Fac.
Pinellas Co. South Division
Polk Co. - South Co. Jail
Sarasota North Co. Jail
Suwanee Co. Jail
Taylor Co. Jail
Georgia
Candler Co. Jail
Carroll Co. Prison
Clayton Co. Jail
Dekalb Co. Jail
Douglas Co. Jail
Floyd Co. Jail
Floyd Co. Prison
Fulton Co. Jail
Gwinnett Co. Det. Ctr.
Hall Co. Det. Ctr.
Houston Co. Jail
Irwin Co. Jail
Murray County Jail
Newton Co. Jail
Screven Co. Jail
South Fulton Municipal Regional Jail
Spalding Co. Jail
Troup Co. Jail
Upson Co. Jail
Ware Co. Jail
Wilkinson Co. Jail

Nonconsensual sexual actsa
95%-confidence intervalc
Percent
Lower
Upper
victimizedd
bound
bound

Abusive sexual contacts onlyb
95%-confidence intervalc
Percent
Lower
Upper
victimizedd
bound
bound

0.0%
2.1
1.3
0.7
2.3
0.0
0.0

0.0%
1.0
0.4
0.2
1.1
0.0
0.0

10.4%
4.4
4.4
2.6
4.7
1.8
6.4

0.0%
1.5
0.8
2.2
0.8
0.0
0.0

0.0%
0.7
0.1
0.9
0.2
0.0
0.0

10.4%
3.4
3.8
5.0
2.5
1.8
6.4

2.0%
2.4
1.4
0.8
0.3
0.7
2.3
2.0
1.3
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.5
1.1
0.5
1.0
0.3
0.5
0.0
0.8
1.2
0.0
0.9
0.0

0.9%
0.8
0.6
0.2
0.1
0.2
1.1
0.8
0.4
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.0
0.3
0.0

4.2%
7.4
3.4
3.1
1.7
2.4
4.8
4.6
3.8
7.4
2.6
2.2
2.4
3.9
2.6
3.9
1.2
2.3
2.4
3.9
3.2
1.9
3.0
13.3

3.1%
5.7
1.1
1.6
2.5
2.4
2.6
3.2
1.9
0.0
2.1
1.0
0.5
0.0
3.0
1.9
0.7
1.9
2.4
2.4
3.9
0.0
0.0
0.0

1.2%
2.5
0.3
0.7
0.6
1.1
1.3
1.7
0.7
0.0
1.0
0.3
0.1
0.0
1.4
0.7
0.1
0.7
0.9
1.0
2.1
0.0
0.0
0.0

7.6%
12.6
3.6
3.6
9.4
5.0
5.1
5.9
4.6
7.4
4.4
3.2
2.2
3.7
6.3
5.4
3.0
5.0
6.4
5.8
7.1
1.9
4.5
13.3

0.0%
0.7
2.1
0.9
2.2
2.1
0.0
2.9
0.8
1.4
2.2
0.0
1.1
1.7
2.7
2.3
1.1
1.1
0.0
0.8
6.5

0.0%
0.3
1.0
0.3
1.1
1.0
0.0
1.2
0.2
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.4
0.8
1.4
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.0
0.3
1.9

12.5%
1.7
4.4
2.4
4.3
4.2
2.1
6.5
2.6
3.8
4.6
2.0
3.3
3.7
5.1
9.5
3.3
2.9
3.4
2.1
20.0

0.0%
2.0
2.5
2.4
0.7
1.5
2.8
2.0
0.0
1.6
4.9
1.1
2.2
2.0
1.2
2.3
4.0
1.1
2.6
1.4
0.0

0.0%
1.1
1.2
1.1
0.2
0.7
1.5
0.7
0.0
0.6
2.8
0.4
1.0
0.9
0.5
0.5
1.9
0.4
1.5
0.6
0.0

12.5%
3.5
5.1
4.8
1.9
3.2
5.0
5.6
1.5
4.2
8.3
2.9
4.7
4.6
3.0
9.5
8.0
2.9
4.6
2.9
16.8

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013

92

Appendix table 8 (continued)
Percent of jail inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual contacts, by facility, National Inmate Survey,
2011–12

Facility name
Idaho
Bannock Co. Jail
Illinois
Champaign Co. Satellite Jailf
Cook Co. - Division 1
Cook Co. - Division 11
Cook Co. - Division 2
Cook Co. - Division 5
Cook Co. - Division 6
Kane Co. Adult Justice Ctr.
Kankakee Co. Jerome Combs Det. Ctr.
Kendall Co. Jail
McHenry Co. Jail
Sangamon Co. Jail
Indiana
Bartholomew Co. Jail
Clinton Co. Jail
Dearborn Co. Jail
Delaware Co. Justice Ctr.
Elkhart Co. Corr. Ctr.
Hamilton Co. Jail
Jackson Co. Jail
Marion Co. Jail IIg
Marion Co. Jail Intake Fac.
Noble Co. Jail
Ripley Co. Jail
Tippecanoe Co. Jail
Iowa
Des Moines Co. Jail
Scott Co. Jail and Annex
Kansas
Finney Co. Jail
Wilson Co. Jail
Kentucky
Big Sandy Regional Det. Ctr.
Boyle Co. Det. Ctr.
Daviess Co. Det. Ctr.
Grayson Co. Det. Ctr.
Kenton Co. Det. Ctr.
Lexington-Fayette Co. Jail Det. Division
Madison Co. Det. Ctr.
McCracken Co. Jail
Meade Co. Jail
Pulaski Co. Det. Ctr.
Woodford Co. Det. Ctr.
Louisiana
Assumption Parish Det. Ctr.
Bossier Parish Max. Security Fac.
Bossier Parish Med. Security Fac.
Caddo Parish Corr. Ctr.
East Baton Rouge Parish Prison
Iberia Parish Jail
Lafayette Parish Jail

Nonconsensual sexual actsa
95%-confidence intervalc
Percent
Lower
Upper
victimizedd
bound
bound

Abusive sexual contacts onlyb
95%-confidence intervalc
Percent
Lower
Upper
victimizedd
bound
bound

0.0%

0.0%

3.3%

3.0%

1.3%

6.8%

2.0%
1.1
3.3
0.6
1.2
0.4
0.8
1.7
3.4
0.6
1.6

0.5%
0.4
1.9
0.1
0.5
0.1
0.3
0.7
1.7
0.1
0.8

8.4%
2.7
5.8
3.0
3.1
1.6
2.6
3.9
6.8
2.6
3.0

0.0%
3.3
4.4
5.1
2.3
1.9
2.1
1.7
1.7
0.5
2.3

0.0%
1.9
2.7
3.0
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.5
0.1
1.3

6.4%
5.6
7.1
8.6
4.7
3.7
5.1
3.4
5.1
2.2
4.1

0.5%
1.6
0.0
1.6
1.2
0.5
1.0
1.2
2.7
0.0
0.0
2.5

0.2%
0.5
0.0
0.6
0.5
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.7
0.0
0.0
1.1

1.3%
4.4
3.0
4.4
3.2
1.9
3.4
3.3
10.7
3.5
7.0
5.7

2.6%
0.8
1.8
0.2
2.4
0.9
0.0
2.2
4.9
0.9
7.9
0.0

1.5%
0.3
0.8
0.1
1.3
0.3
0.0
0.6
1.9
0.3
5.1
0.0

4.7%
2.4
4.3
0.9
4.4
3.3
4.1
7.3
12.2
2.3
11.9
3.2

0.0%
2.4

0.0%
1.1

11.4%
5.1

2.1%
0.8

0.6%
0.2

7.1%
2.8

3.0%
0.0

1.6%
0.0

5.6%
9.6

1.0%
5.6

0.3%
1.7

2.9%
16.5

0.0%
0.0
0.7
0.8
0.4
0.6
2.1
1.1
0.0
0.9
0.1

0.0%
0.0
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.2
1.1
0.4
0.0
0.2
0.0

2.6%
2.5
2.1
2.2
1.8
2.0
4.2
2.8
4.4
3.1
0.6

1.3%
1.9
2.9
1.4
0.7
3.6
1.7
2.0
1.3
0.8
0.0

0.6%
0.6
1.5
0.6
0.2
1.8
0.8
1.0
0.5
0.2
0.0

3.2%
5.7
5.4
3.1
2.5
7.3
3.4
3.9
3.6
2.9
10.2

1.5%
0.9
0.4
0.4
1.4
1.4
0.5

0.6%
0.4
0.1
0.1
0.5
0.6
0.1

3.9%
2.3
1.5
1.8
3.8
3.2
2.2

3.1%
0.0
2.0
1.6
0.9
2.5
2.8

1.6%
0.0
1.0
0.7
0.3
1.3
1.4

6.0%
2.2
4.0
3.7
3.2
4.9
5.4

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013

93

Appendix table 8 (continued)
Percent of jail inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual contacts, by facility, National Inmate Survey,
2011–12

Facility name
Livingston Parish Det. Ctr.
Rapides Parish Det. Ctr. III
St. Landry Parish Jail
St. Martin Parish Corr. Ctr. 1
Webster Parish Bayou Dorcheat Corr. Fac.
Maine
Penobscot Co. Jail
Maryland
Allegany Co. Det. Ctr.
Anne Arundel Co. Jennifer Road Det. Ctr.
Baltimore City Det. Ctr.
Montgomery Co. Corr. Fac.
Wicomico Co. Det. Ctr.
Massachusetts
Hampden Co. Corr. Ctr.
Middlesex Co. Jail and House of Corr.
Plymouth Co. Corr. Fac.
Suffolk Co. House of Corr.
Suffolk Co. Nashua Street Jail
Worcester Co. Jail and House of Corr.
Michigan
Berrien Co. Jail
Calhoun Co. Jail
Huron Co. Jail
Kalamazoo Co. Jail
Macomb Co. Jail
Oakland Co. East Annex
Oakland Co. Law Enforcement Complex
Ottawa Co. Jail
Wayne Co. Andrew C. Baird Det. Fac.
Wayne Co. William Dickerson Det. - Division III
Minnesota
Anoka Co. Jail
Hennepin Co. Adult Det. Ctr.
Mille Lacs Co. Jail
Ramsey Co. Corr. Fac.
Mississippi
Covington Co. Jail
Harrison Co. Adult Det. Ctr.
Hinds Co. Jackson Det. Ctr.
Hinds Co. Raymond Det. Ctr.
Holmes-Humphreys Co. Regional Corr. Fac.
Madison Co. Jail
Marshall Co. Jail
Pike Co. Jail
Missouri
Boone Co. Jail
LaClede Co. Jail
St. Charles Co. Jail
St. Louis Co. Jail
St. Louis Med. Security Inst.
Washington Co. Jail

Nonconsensual sexual actsa
95%-confidence intervalc
Percent
Lower
Upper
victimizedd
bound
bound
0.0%
0.0%
1.7%
1.4
0.7
3.0
0.0
0.0
3.3
2.6
1.0
6.4
1.2
0.6
2.6

Abusive sexual contacts onlyb
95%-confidence intervalc
Percent
Lower
Upper
victimizedd
bound
bound
1.4%
0.6%
3.2%
0.5
0.1
1.6
0.7
0.2
2.5
1.3
0.4
4.6
2.1
1.0
4.5

1.8%

0.4%

6.7%

2.6%

0.7%

9.6%

2.3%
0.0
1.2
1.6
0.6

0.5%
0.0
0.4
0.6
0.2

9.6%
3.6
3.3
3.9
2.1

0.0%
0.9
5.5
1.1
0.0

0.0%
0.2
3.4
0.4
0.0

7.7%
4.4
8.8
3.5
2.5

0.0%
0.7
0.0
1.5
0.0
0.7

0.0%
0.2
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.2

1.7%
3.5
2.1
3.5
2.5
2.2

1.9%
1.4
2.0
4.7
1.9
3.7

0.7%
0.6
0.8
2.6
0.7
2.1

5.0%
3.2
4.7
8.3
4.9
6.5

0.8%
0.3
0.0
1.6
0.0
1.2
3.7
0.0
2.8
0.0

0.3%
0.1
0.0
0.8
0.0
0.5
1.8
0.0
1.2
0.0

1.9%
1.2
12.1
3.2
2.5
3.2
7.5
3.1
6.4
2.2

3.5%
4.8
0.0
4.1
1.9
1.3
3.6
0.6
1.3
0.4

2.2%
2.4
0.0
2.4
0.8
0.5
1.5
0.2
0.4
0.1

5.6%
9.4
12.1
7.0
4.5
3.5
8.5
2.5
4.6
2.1

0.9%
0.6
0.0
0.0

0.3%
0.1
0.0
0.0

3.3%
2.7
9.9
2.2

1.1%
0.9
1.8
0.9

0.4%
0.3
0.6
0.3

2.8%
2.8
5.5
2.2

0.0%
1.0
1.8
1.6
1.7
1.8
0.0
0.0

0.0%
0.4
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.8
0.0
0.0

25.9%
2.5
4.0
3.9
4.6
3.9
7.6
4.1

0.0%
4.1
1.1
3.5
0.8
1.4
0.0
0.0

0.0%
2.2
0.4
1.8
0.2
0.5
0.0
0.0

25.9%
7.6
3.1
6.6
3.0
3.6
7.6
4.1

1.7%
3.1
2.4
1.8
3.5
3.3

0.6%
1.8
1.0
0.7
1.7
0.9

4.6%
5.3
5.6
4.8
6.8
11.3

2.3%
4.5
3.6
1.7
3.2
0.0

0.6%
2.7
1.8
0.6
1.7
0.0

8.8%
7.3
7.0
4.4
5.9
16.1

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013

94

Appendix table 8 (continued)
Percent of jail inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual contacts, by facility, National Inmate Survey,
2011–12

Facility name
Montana
Cascade Co. Regional Jail
Hill Co. Jail
Missoula Co. Jail
Nebraska
Douglas Co. Dept. of Corr.
Saline Co. Jail
Nevada
Clark Co. Det. Ctr.
Nye Co. Jail - Pahrump
Washoe Co. Det. Ctr.
New Hampshire
Coos Co. Jail
Hillsborough Co. House of Corr.
New Jersey
Bergen Co. Jail
Burlington Co. Min. Security Jail/Corr. and Work Release Ctr.
Essex Co. Corr. Fac.
Hudson Co. Corr. Fac.
Mercer Co. Corr. Ctr.
Middlesex Co. Adult Corr. Ctr.
Ocean Co. Justice Complex
Passaic Co. Jail
Salem Co. Corr. Fac.
New Mexico
Dona Ana Co. Det. Ctr.
San Juan Co. Adult Det. Ctr.
Santa Fe Co. Adult Det. Fac.g
New York
Albany Co. Corr. Fac.
Allegany Co. Jail
Broome Co. Jail
Dutchess Co. Jail
Erie Co. Corr. Fac.
Erie Co. Holding Fac.
Jefferson Co. Jail
New York City Anna M. Kross Ctr.
New York City George Motchan Det. Ctr.
New York City Otis Bantum Corr. Ctr.
New York City Robert N Davoren Complex
New York City Rose M. Singer Ctr.e
Niagara Co. Jail
Oneida Co. Corr. Fac.
Orange Co. Corr. Fac.
Putnam Co. Corr. Fac.
Rockland Co. Corr. Ctr.
Schenectady Co. Jail
Seneca Co. Law Enforcement Ctr.
Ulster Co. Law Enforcement Ctr.
Washington Co. Corr. Fac.
Westchester Co. Jail
Westchester Co. Penitentiary - Dept. of Corr.

Nonconsensual sexual actsa
95%-confidence intervalc
Percent
Lower
Upper
victimizedd
bound
bound

Abusive sexual contacts onlyb
95%-confidence intervalc
Percent
Lower
Upper
victimizedd
bound
bound

1.7%
0.0
1.2

0.7%
0.0
0.4

3.7%
12.5
3.0

3.6%
0.0
1.4

2.0%
0.0
0.5

6.3%
12.5
3.5

1.4%
2.3

0.4%
0.9

4.9%
6.2

2.6%
1.6

1.1%
0.6

6.4%
4.5

0.6%
0.0
2.8

0.2%
0.0
1.3

1.9%
21.5
5.9

0.4%
0.0
0.4

0.1%
0.0
0.1

2.2%
21.5
2.1

0.0%
2.9

0.0%
1.2

16.8%
6.8

4.4%
3.1

1.2%
1.4

14.3%
6.7

0.8%
0.0
0.5
1.3
2.8
0.3
2.0
0.7
1.8

0.3%
0.0
0.1
0.5
1.2
0.1
0.8
0.2
0.6

2.3%
5.9
2.4
3.1
6.5
1.4
5.1
2.1
4.9

1.9%
0.0
1.7
0.7
4.4
1.0
0.0
1.9
0.7

0.9%
0.0
0.7
0.2
2.3
0.4
0.0
0.9
0.2

3.7%
5.9
4.2
2.4
8.4
2.5
2.5
4.2
2.8

2.3%
1.7
3.5

1.2%
0.5
1.6

4.4%
5.3
7.5

2.5%
1.4
0.0

1.2%
0.4
0.0

5.3%
4.1
2.7

1.8%
1.5
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.6
1.9
1.8
0.0
0.4
2.4
0.0
0.9
0.5
0.0
0.6
1.9
1.6
0.9
0.0
0.9
0.4

0.8%
0.4
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.7
0.7
0.0
0.1
1.1
0.0
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.2
0.9
0.6
0.3
0.0
0.3
0.1

4.1%
5.3
2.7
3.0
2.1
5.3
6.0
5.4
4.1
2.2
1.9
5.1
2.3
3.8
2.3
5.4
1.8
4.1
4.0
2.2
5.8
2.8
1.9

2.4%
3.0
4.3
1.4
4.3
4.5
3.6
3.7
3.6
6.2
3.0
6.2
1.8
2.1
1.4
1.1
3.5
2.9
3.3
6.1
0.0
2.1
1.7

1.1%
1.2
2.1
0.5
2.3
0.9
1.6
1.8
1.9
3.3
1.6
3.9
0.7
0.9
0.6
0.3
1.7
1.7
1.6
3.6
0.0
0.8
0.8

4.9%
7.5
8.8
3.8
7.7
19.6
8.2
7.4
6.6
11.1
5.8
9.7
4.1
5.1
3.4
3.7
7.4
5.0
6.6
10.1
5.8
5.5
3.8

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013

95

Appendix table 8 (continued)
Percent of jail inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual contacts, by facility, National Inmate Survey,
2011–12

Facility name
North Carolina
Buncombe Co. Det. Fac.
Cherokee Co. Jail
Durham Co. Jail
Edgecombe Co. Det. Ctr.
Forsyth Co. Adult Det. Ctr.
Granville Co. Det. Ctr.
Guilford Co. High Point Det. Fac.
Guilford Co. Prison Farm
Mecklenburg Co. Jail North
New Hanover Det. Fac.
Robeson Co. Jail
Scotland Co. Jail
Wake Co. John H. Baker, Jr. Public Safety Ctr.
North Dakota
Burleigh Co. Det. Ctr.
Ohio
Bedford Heights City Jail
Cuyahoga Co. Corr. Ctr.
Delaware Co. Jail
Franklin Co. Jail
Hamilton Co. Justice Ctr.
Hamilton Co. Reading Road Fac.
Lorain Co. Jail
Miami Co. Jail
Montgomery Co. Jail
Richland Co. Jail
Oklahoma
Dewey Co. Jail
Kay Co. Jail
Nowata Co. Jail
Oregon
Lane Co. Jail
Marion Co. Corr. Fac.
Washington Co. Jail
Yamhill Co. Corr. Fac.
Pennsylvania
Allegheny Co. Jail
Blair Co. Prison
Fayette Co. Prison
Indiana Co. Jail
Luzerne Co. Corr. Fac.
Montgomery Co. Prison Corr. Fac.
Philadelphia City Alternative and Special Det. Fac.
Philadelphia City Curran/Fromhold Corr. Fac.
Philadelphia City Industrial Corr. Ctr.
Philadelphia City Riverside Corr. Fac.e
Schuykill Co. Prison
Westmoreland Co. Prison
York Co. Prison

Nonconsensual sexual actsa
95%-confidence intervalc
Percent
Lower
Upper
victimizedd
bound
bound

Abusive sexual contacts onlyb
95%-confidence intervalc
Percent
Lower
Upper
victimizedd
bound
bound

0.7%
0.0
0.7
3.1
1.2
5.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.4
4.0
2.3

0.2%
0.0
0.2
1.8
0.4
1.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.1
2.0
0.7

2.5%
7.9
2.7
5.4
4.0
16.5
2.4
9.6
3.1
2.4
5.1
7.7
7.3

1.3%
2.5
1.6
3.2
2.0
1.2
1.1
0.0
2.0
1.9
5.1
1.4
1.8

0.5%
0.8
0.7
1.7
0.8
0.3
0.4
0.0
0.8
0.8
3.0
0.5
0.8

3.4%
7.8
3.7
5.9
5.1
4.4
2.7
9.6
4.9
4.3
8.6
3.6
4.3

0.0%

0.0%

4.5%

3.5%

1.9%

6.5%

0.0%
0.7
0.0
2.6
0.0
0.9
0.6
0.0
0.9
1.4

0.0%
0.3
0.0
1.2
0.0
0.4
0.1
0.0
0.3
0.7

9.9%
2.0
3.4
5.8
1.8
2.1
2.1
5.3
2.7
2.9

0.0%
1.6
0.0
1.5
1.8
1.6
1.6
0.0
0.4
1.4

0.0%
0.7
0.0
0.5
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.0
0.1
0.7

9.9%
3.6
3.4
4.6
4.3
3.3
3.6
5.3
2.0
2.9

0.0%
0.8
0.0

0.0%
0.3
0.0

22.8%
2.4
13.8

0.0%
1.8
2.4

0.0%
0.8
0.7

22.8%
3.8
8.3

0.0%
0.0
0.0
2.8

0.0%
0.0
0.0
1.4

2.2%
1.8
2.5
5.8

0.8%
1.8
0.5
1.8

0.3%
0.9
0.1
0.9

2.1%
3.8
2.4
3.5

0.5%
3.5
1.0
1.7
2.4
1.9
0.0
1.5
2.7
4.1
0.0
2.1
1.5

0.1%
1.2
0.2
0.6
1.2
0.8
0.0
0.5
1.2
2.3
0.0
0.8
0.6

1.7%
10.1
4.1
4.8
4.9
4.1
2.2
4.3
5.6
7.3
2.7
5.2
4.2

2.5%
1.7
3.9
2.1
0.6
1.8
0.8
3.0
6.8
4.5
2.7
1.2
3.8

1.2%
0.6
1.9
0.5
0.1
0.8
0.3
1.5
4.3
2.5
1.4
0.3
2.0

5.1%
4.9
7.7
8.2
2.7
4.3
2.5
5.9
10.6
8.1
5.0
4.4
7.1

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013

96

Appendix table 8 (continued)
Percent of jail inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual contacts, by facility, National Inmate Survey,
2011–12

Facility name
South Carolina
Charleston Co. Det. Ctr.
Florence Co. Det. Ctr.
Lexington Co. Jail
Spartanburg Co. Det. Fac.
Sumter-Lee Regional Det. Ctr.
York Co. Det. Ctr.
South Dakota
Pennington Co. Jail
Tennessee
Lincoln Co. Jail
Madison Co. Jail
McMinn Co. Jail
Montgomery Co. Jail
Obion Co. Jail
Robertson Co. Det. Ctr.
Shelby Co. Corr. Ctr.
Shelby Co. Jail
Sumner Co. Jail
Tipton Co. Jail
Van Buren Co. Jail
Washington Co. Det. Ctr.
Texas
Bexar Co. Adult Det. Ctr.
Bowie Co. Corr. Ctr.
Brazoria Co. Jail and Det. Ctr.
Brown Co. Jail
Cameron Co. Carrizales-Rucker Det. Ctr.
Dallas Co. Kays Det. Fac.
Denton Co. Det. Ctr.
Eastland Co. Jail
El Paso Co. Det. Fac. Annex
El Paso Co. Downtown Det. Fac.
Ellis Co. Wayne McCollum Det. Ctr.
Gregg Co. Jail
Harris Co. Jail - 1200 Baker Street Jail
Harris Co. Jail - 1307 Baker Street Jail
Harris Co. Jail - 701 North San Jacinto Street Jailf
Harris Co. Jail - 711 North San Jacinto Jail
Hays Co. Jail
Jefferson Co. Corr. Fac.
Johnson Co. Jail
Tarrant Co. Corr. Ctr.
Taylor Co. Jail
Titus Co. Jail
Travis Co. Corr. Fac.
Travis Co. Jail
Uvalde Co. Jail
Victoria Co. Jail
Washington Co. Jail
Webb Co. Jail

Nonconsensual sexual actsa
95%-confidence intervalc
Percent
Lower
Upper
victimizedd
bound
bound

Abusive sexual contacts onlyb
95%-confidence intervalc
Percent
Lower
Upper
victimizedd
bound
bound

0.3%
0.0
1.1
0.0
1.0
0.7

0.1%
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.4
0.2

1.3%
2.3
3.2
1.8
2.7
2.7

1.7%
1.2
0.6
1.1
4.1
1.4

0.7%
0.5
0.1
0.4
2.2
0.4

4.0%
3.1
2.5
3.5
7.3
4.6

1.6%

0.6%

4.2%

0.9%

0.3%

2.4%

3.0%
0.4
1.0
0.0
0.0
1.1
0.3
0.2
3.1
0.0
0.0
1.5

1.4%
0.1
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.1
0.0
1.7
0.0
0.0
0.7

6.1%
1.4
2.0
3.1
3.8
2.9
1.6
0.9
5.7
4.9
20.4
3.4

0.0%
4.9
2.4
0.7
0.0
1.7
3.1
1.6
2.9
1.5
0.0
1.4

0.0%
2.4
1.4
0.2
0.0
0.8
1.7
0.7
1.5
0.5
0.0
0.6

4.7%
9.7
4.1
3.3
3.8
3.9
5.5
3.5
5.6
5.0
20.4
2.9

4.6%
1.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
1.3
0.0
1.4
0.0
1.3
1.0
5.1
0.4
0.3
1.5
0.8
0.3
2.4
0.9
0.6
0.0
2.7
0.0
0.0
1.6
1.3
0.0

2.3%
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.5
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.6
0.4
2.6
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.2
0.1
1.2
0.3
0.1
0.0
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.5
0.0

9.0%
3.6
1.7
4.7
1.4
2.6
3.3
9.9
3.9
2.2
2.9
2.4
9.8
1.7
1.5
4.9
3.3
1.6
4.5
3.1
2.7
5.7
7.6
13.3
18.4
6.6
3.2
3.4

0.4%
1.3
0.9
0.0
0.3
1.3
1.1
0.0
1.5
3.0
2.3
0.5
2.5
1.0
2.9
0.0
3.1
1.8
2.8
1.9
2.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.6
0.0
1.4
0.6

0.1%
0.4
0.3
0.0
0.1
0.5
0.4
0.0
0.5
1.2
1.2
0.1
1.2
0.4
1.5
0.0
1.1
0.8
1.6
0.7
1.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.0
0.5
0.1

2.4%
3.8
2.6
4.7
1.6
3.7
2.9
9.9
4.0
7.6
4.3
2.0
5.2
2.5
5.6
5.7
8.7
3.7
5.0
5.2
5.1
5.7
3.5
13.3
14.1
8.6
3.5
2.7

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013

97

Appendix table 8 (continued)
Percent of jail inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual contacts, by facility, National Inmate Survey,
2011–12

Facility name
Utah
Box Elder Co. Jail
Davis Co. Jail
Weber Co. Corr. Fac.
Virginia
Alexandria Det. Ctr.
Arlington Co. Det. Fac.
Bristol City Jail
Hampton Corr. Fac.
Henrico Co. Regional Jail West
Mecklenburg Co. Jail
Montgomery Co. Jail
Newport News City Jail
Piedmont Regional Jail
Rappahannock Regional Jail
Richmond City Jail
Riverside Regional Jail
Virginia Beach Municipal Corr. Ctr.
Washington
Benton Co. Jail
Cowlitz Co. Jail
King Co. Regional Justice Ctr.
Snohomish Co. Jail
Sunnyside City Jail
Whatcom Co. Jail
Yakima City Jail
West Virginia
Eastern Regional Jail
South Central Regional Jail
Western Regional Jail
Wisconsin
Brown Co. Jail
Columbia Co. Jail
Milwaukee Co. Corr. Fac. South
Oconto Co. Jail
Rock Co. Jail
Walworth Co. Jail
Washington Co. Jail
Wood Co. Jail
Wyoming
Lincoln Co. Jail

Nonconsensual sexual actsa
95%-confidence intervalc
Percent
Lower
Upper
victimizedd
bound
bound

Abusive sexual contacts onlyb
95%-confidence intervalc
Percent
Lower
Upper
victimizedd
bound
bound

0.0%
3.2
1.2

0.0%
1.5
0.5

8.8%
6.7
3.1

0.0%
1.6
2.5

0.0%
0.7
1.1

8.8%
3.6
5.5

0.0%
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.8
0.0
0.0
2.0
0.0
2.4
0.9
1.8
1.0

0.0%
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.0
1.2
0.3
0.8
0.4

3.1%
2.3
3.7
2.0
3.9
5.4
6.0
4.2
2.0
4.8
2.8
4.3
2.6

0.6%
0.8
0.8
0.5
0.9
0.0
0.0
1.5
2.3
2.1
2.6
3.1
1.4

0.1%
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.6
1.1
1.0
1.3
1.7
0.6

2.6%
3.2
2.3
1.8
2.8
5.4
6.0
3.4
4.7
4.2
5.2
5.6
3.3

0.1%
1.1
0.6
1.0
0.0
0.5
0.0

0.0%
0.5
0.1
0.3
0.0
0.1
0.0

0.4%
2.8
2.7
3.1
18.4
1.8
9.0

2.3%
0.6
0.8
0.0
0.0
2.5
1.8

0.8%
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.0
1.2
0.5

6.0%
2.0
2.4
1.6
18.4
5.1
5.9

3.3%
1.8
2.9

1.4%
0.6
1.6

7.5%
4.8
5.3

3.2%
4.2
1.9

1.6%
1.8
0.9

6.6%
9.2
4.2

1.2%
2.1
1.0
0.0
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.4%
0.6
0.3
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0

3.9%
7.5
3.2
18.4
3.0
3.7
5.4
12.9

2.9%
2.1
3.2
0.0
2.5
2.5
4.5
0.0

1.4%
0.6
1.6
0.0
1.2
1.3
2.4
0.0

6.1%
7.5
6.3
18.4
5.3
5.0
8.6
12.9

0.0%

0.0%

25.9%

0.0%

0.0%

25.9%

aIncludes all inmates who reported unwanted contacts with another inmate or any contacts with staff that involved oral, anal, or vaginal penetration, hand jobs, and other sexual acts

occurring in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if shorter.
bIncludes all inmates who reported unwanted contacts with another inmate or any contacts with staff that involved touching of the inmate’s buttocks, thigh, penis, breasts, or vagina in a
sexual way occurring in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if shorter.
cIndicates that different samples in the same facility would yield prevalence rates falling between the lower and upper bound estimates 95 out of 100 times.
dWeights were applied so that inmates who responded accurately reflected the entire population of each facility on select characteristics, including age, sex, race, sentence length, and
time served. (See Methodology.)
eFemale facility.
fFacility housed both males and females; only males were sampled at this facility.
gPrivately operated facility.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12.

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013

98

Appendix table 9
Characteristics of special correctional facilities and prevalence of sexual victimization, by facility, National Inmate Survey,
2011–12

Number of inmates Respondents to sexual
Special correctional facilities
in custodyc
victimization surveyd
Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities
El Centro SPC (CA)
386
115
Jena/LaSalle Det. Fac. (LA)g
767
97
Krome North SPC (FL)
584
60
Otero Co. Processing Ctr. (NM)
618
140
Port Isabel Processing Ctr. (TX)
1173
161
Military facilities
Midwest Joint Regional Corr. Fac., Fort Leavenworth (KS)
188
82
Naval Consolidated Brig, Charleston (SC)
138
94
Naval Consolidated Brig, Miramar (CA)h
312
121
Northwest Joint Regional Corr. Fac. (WA)
140
85
United States Disciplinary Barracks, Fort Leavenworth (KS)
464
157
Indian country jails
15
7
Hualapai Adult Det. Ctr. (AZ)g
Laguna Det. Ctr. (NM)g
38
26
Oglala Sioux Tribal Offenders Fac. (SD)g
115
56
San Carlos Dept. of Corr. and Rehabilitation - Adult and
Juvenile Det. (AZ)g
133
79
Standing Rock Law Enforcement and Adult Det. Ctr. (ND)g
35
7

Response
ratee

Inmates reporting sexual
victimizationa
95%-confidence intervalb
Lower
Upper
Percentf
bound
bound

47.8%
39.6
22.9
59.0
39.3

0.8%
1.1
3.8
1.7
2.3

0.2%
0.2
1.2
0.6
1.0

3.4%
5.4
11.9
4.4
5.6

56.2%
80.7
64.1
71.0
69.5

3.9%
4.4
6.6
6.6
2.6

1.9%
2.6
3.8
2.9
1.2

7.9%
7.4
11.2
14.1
5.6

60.0%
73.7
51.8

:
0.0%
10.8

:
0.0%
6.2

:
12.9%
17.9

83.8
72.7

1.6
:

0.6
:

4.2
:

: Not calculated.
aIncludes all types of sexual victimization, including oral, anal, or vaginal penetration, hand jobs, touching of the inmate’s butt, thighs, penis, breasts, or vagina in a sexual way, and other
sexual acts occurring in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if shorter.
bIndicates that different samples in the same facility would yield prevalence rates falling between the lower and upper bound estimates 95 out of 100 times.
cNumber of inmates in custody on day when the facility provided the sample roster.
dNumber of respondents completing to the sexual victimization survey. (See Methodology.)
eResponse rate is equal to the number of respondents divided by the number of eligible inmates sampled times 100 percent.
fWeights were applied so that inmates who responded accurately reflected the entire population of each facility on select characteristics, including age, sex, race, time served, and
sentence length. (See Methodology.)
gFacility housed both males and females; both were sampled at this facility.
hFacility housed both males and females; only males were sampled at this facility.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12.

Appendix table 10
Standard errors for table 2: Prevalence of sexual victimization across inmate surveys, by type of incident, National Inmate
Survey, 2007, 2008–09, and 2011–12
Type of incidentc
Total
Inmate-on-inmate
Nonconsensual sexual acts
Abusive sexual contacts only
Staff sexual misconduct
Unwilling activity
Excluding touching
Touching only
Willing activity
Excluding touching
Touching only

NIS-1
2007
0.3%
0.1%
0.1
0.1
0.2%
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1%
0.1
--

Percent of prison inmates
NIS-2
NIS-3
2008–09
2011–12
0.3%
0.2%
0.2%
0.1%
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2%
0.2%
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1%
0.1%
0.1
0.1
---

NIS-1
2007
0.1%
0.1%
0.1
0.1
0.1%
0.1
0.1
-0.1%
0.1
--

Percent of jail inmates
NIS-2
2008–09
0.1%
0.1%
0.1
0.1
0.1%
0.1
0.1
-0.1%
0.1
--

NIS-3
2011–12
0.2%
0.1%
0.1
0.1
0.1%
0.1
0.1
-0.1%
0.1
--

--Less than 0.05%.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2007, 2008–09, and 2011–12.

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013

99

Appendix table 11
Standard errors for table 7: Prevalence of sexual victimization, by type of incident and inmate characteristics, National
Inmate Survey, 2011–12
Characteristic
Sex
Male
Female
Race/Hispanic origin
White
Black
Hispanic
Other
Two or more races
Age
18–19
20–24
25–34
35–44
45–54
55 or older
Education
Less than high school
High school graduate
Some college
College degree or more
Marital status
Married
Widowed, divorced, or separated
Never married
Body Mass Index
Underweight
Normal
Overweight
Obese
Morbidly Obese

Prison inmates reporting sexual victimization
Number of
Staff sexual
inmates
Inmate-on-inmate
misconduct

Jail inmates reporting sexual victimization
Number of
Staff sexual
inmates
Inmate-on-inmate
misconduct

85,500
8,900

0.1%
0.7

0.2%
0.3

31,500
6,800

0.1%
0.3

0.1%
0.2

29,400
38,500
30,900
3,500
8,500

0.3%
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.5

0.2%
0.2
0.4
0.7
0.6

11,700
16,400
13,500
1,800
2,800

0.2%
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.4

0.1%
0.2
0.1
0.4
0.4

2,300
12,100
26,800
27,900
18,900
9,900

0.7%
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.2

0.6%
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.2

1,900
7,300
11,900
7,800
6,500
2,000

0.3%
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.4

0.4%
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1

48,900
19,700
15,900
6,000

0.2%
0.3
0.3
0.4

0.2%
0.4
0.2
0.4

17,900
8,600
7,100
3,200

0.2%
0.1
0.2
0.4

0.1%
0.2
0.2
0.4

16,100
23,700
47,400

0.2%
0.2
0.2

0.3%
0.2
0.2

7,900
8,600
19,500

0.1%
0.3
0.2

0.2%
0.2
0.1

1,200
21,600
37,500
22,700
2,700

1.1%
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.6

1.3%
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.9

600
12,400
14,300
6,900
900

0.9%
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.6

0.5%
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.7

--Less than 0.05%.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12.

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013

100

Appendix table 12
Standard errors for table 8: Prevalence of sexual victimization, by type of incident and inmate sexual characteristics,
National Inmate Survey, 2011–12
Sexual characteristic
Sexual orientation
Heterosexual
Non-heterosexual
Number of sexual partners
0–1
2–4
5–10
11–20
21 or more
Prior sexual victimization
Yes
No

Prison inmates reporting sexual victimization
Number of
Staff sexual
inmates
Inmate-on-inmate
misconduct

Jail inmates reporting sexual victimization
Number of
Staff sexual
inmates
Inmate-on-inmate
misconduct

78,900
7,400

0.1%
0.8

0.2%
0.7

31,700
3,300

0.1%
0.9

0.1%
0.5

17,000
9,700
15,300
12,500
29,600

0.2%
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.2

0.2%
0.3
0.2
0.4
0.3

6,300
5,400
5,800
6,000
12,100

0.3%
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.2

0.2%
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.2

12,900
75,600

0.7%
0.1

0.5%
0.2

5,700
30,300

0.8%
--

0.4%
0.1

--Less than 0.05%.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12.

Appendix table 13
Standard errors for table 9: Prevalence of sexual victimization, by type of incident and inmate criminal justice status and
history, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12

Criminal justice status and history
Most serious offense
Violent sexual offense
Other violent
Property
Drug
Other
Sentence length
Less than 1 year
1–4 years
5–9 years
10–19 years
20 years or more
Life/death
Time in a correctional facility prior to current facility
Less than 1 month
1–5 months
6–11 months
1–4 years
5 years or more
Number of times arrested
1 time
2–3 times
4–10 times
11 or more times
Time since admission
Less than 1 month
1–5 months
6–11 months
1–4 years
5 years or more

Prison inmates reporting
sexual victimization
Number of prison
Staff sexual
inmates
Inmate-on-inmate misconduct

Jail inmates reporting
sexual victimization
Number of jail
Staff sexual
inmates
Inmate-on-inmate misconduct

25,500
34,200
16,000
22,000
11,600

0.4%
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.4

0.3%
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.5

1,900
7,500
8,300
7,400
10,500

0.6%
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.1

0.4%
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.2

6,100
23,400
16,500
23,700
30,000
14,300

0.4%
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.4

0.4%
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.4
0.4

:
:
:
:
:
:

:
:
:
:
:
:

:
:
:
:
:
:

17,300
9,700
6,900
22,700
30,100

0.2%
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2

0.2%
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.2

10,500
6,300
3,400
7,800
8,300

0.2%
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.3

0.1%
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.3

13,800
28,500
34,700
13,400

0.3%
0.2
0.2
0.2

0.2%
0.2
0.2
0.3

4,700
9,800
13,600
8,300

0.4%
0.2
0.1
0.2

0.2%
0.2
0.1
0.2

6,500
22,100
21,100
35,300
24,400

0.4%
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.5

0.2%
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.4

12,300
16,100
5,300
4,800
200

0.1%
0.1
0.5
0.3
1.3

0.1%
0.1
0.3
0.4
1.6

: Not calculated.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12.

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013

101

Appendix table 14
Standard errors for table 10: Juvenile inmates reporting
sexual victimization, by type of incident, National Inmate
Survey, 2011–12
Type of incident
Total
Inmate-on-inmate
Nonconsensual sexual acts
Abusive sexual contacts only
Staff sexual misconduct
Unwilling activity
Excluding touching
Touching only
Willing activity
Excluding touching
Touching only
Number of inmates

All facilities
0.7%
0.5%
0.2
0.4
0.6%
0.4
0.4
0.1
0.5
0.5
0.0
:

Standard errors
Prisons
1.2%
0.8%
0.8
0.2
1.0%
0.3
0.3
0.0
1.0
1.0
0.0

Jails
0.9%
0.6%
0.1
0.5
0.7%
0.5
0.5
0.2
0.6
0.6
0.0

:

:

: Not calculated.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12.

Appendix table 15
Standard errors for table 11: Prevalence of sexual victimization, by type of incident and age of inmate, National Inmate
Survey, 2011–12
Age
16–17
18–19
20–24
25–34
35–44
45–54
55 or older

Number
360
2,280
12,070
26,820
27,890
18,890
9,910

Prison inmates
Inmate-on-inmate Staff sexual misconduct
0.8%
1.0%
0.7
0.6
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2

Number
950
6,080
22,240
38,050
23,090
16,170
4,750

Jail inmates
Inmate-on-inmate Staff sexual misconduct
0.6%
0.7%
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.4
0.1

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12.

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013

102

Appendix table 16
Standard errors for table 12: Prevalence of sexual victimization among juveniles ages 16–17 and inmates ages 18–19 and
20–24, by type of incident and inmate characteristics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12
Characteristic
All inmates
Sex
Male
Female
Race/Hispanic origin
White
Black
Hispanic
Other
Two or more races
Body Mass Index
Underweight
Normal
Overweight
Obese
Morbidly obese
Sexual orientation
Heterosexual
Non-heterosexual
Most serious offense
Violent sexual
Other violent
Property
Drug
Other

Prison and jail inmates reporting sexual victimization
Number of inmates
Inmate-on-inmate
Staff sexual misconduct
Ages 16–17 18–19
20–24
Ages 16–17 18–19
20–24
Ages 16–17 18–19
20–24
790
5,020
25,500
0.5%
0.3%
0.2%
0.6%
0.3%
0.2%
740
110

4,750
510

23,760
2,790

0.5%
1.7

0.3%
1.5

0.2%
0.8

0.6%
0.6

0.3%
0.5

0.3%
0.4

150
450
350
20
110

1,210
2,410
1,560
230
610

6,410
10,650
8,030
1,120
2,650

3.2%
0.5
0.4
0.0
0.8

1.1%
0.3
0.5
1.5
0.8

0.4%
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.9

1.8%
0.8
1.5
0.0
0.8

0.7%
0.5
0.6
1.3
1.1

0.3%
0.3
0.7
1.9
0.8

80
470
180
100
30

190
3,070
1,570
480
80

470
11,840
9,500
3,360
480

5.7%
0.3
1.0
3.8
0.0

1.7%
0.4
0.5
0.9
3.4

1.1%
0.2
0.3
0.6
1.8

5.7%
0.7
0.7
2.8
0.0

1.0%
0.5
0.6
0.5
4.3

1.9%
0.2
0.5
0.7
1.9

740
50

4,680
410

23,100
2,300

0.5%
3.1

0.2%
4.1

0.1%
1.4

0.6%
0.8

0.3%
1.5

0.2%
2.0

30
360
280
110
120

320
1,790
1,870
770
820

2,480
8,710
6,100
4,830
4,410

4.3%
0.5
0.5
4.2
2.2

5.0%
0.4
0.4
0.6
0.7

1.4%
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.2

4.7%
1.2
0.6
2.9
1.0

1.5%
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.5

0.6%
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.4

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12.

Appendix table 17
Standard errors for table 13: Circumstances surrounding incidents among juveniles ages 16–17 and inmates ages 18–19 and
20–24, by type of victimization, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12
Victims in prisons and jails
Circumstance
Number of victims
Number of incidents
1
2 or more
Type of coercion or force
Without pressure or force
Pressured
Force/threat of force
Ever injured
Ever report an incident

Ages 16–17
40

Inmate-on-inmate
18–19
190

20–24
710

Ages 16–17
50

Staff sexual misconduct
18–19
220

20–24
1,110

17.6%
17.6

9.4%
9.4

5.4%
5.4

8.0%
8.0

4.4%
4.4

5.4%
5.4

~
11.7%
9.4
12.8%
6.8%

~
7.8%
9.1
7.4%
6.9%

~
3.0%
3.7
2.2%
2.5%

7.7%
9.8
9.9
4.2%
3.4%

5.9%
6.4
5.5
3.8%
3.6%

3.9%
4.9
4.0
3.5%
3.5%

~Not applicable.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12.

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013

103

Appendix table 18
Standard errors for table 14: Prevalence of victimization by current mental health status and history of mental health
problems among inmates, by type of facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12
Number
Current mental health status
No mental illness
Anxiety-mood disorder
Serious psychological distress
History of mental health problems
Ever told by mental health
professional had disorder
Yes
No
Had overnight stay in hospital in
year before current admission
Yes
No
Used prescription medications at
time of current offense
Yes
No
Ever received professional mental
health therapy
Yes
No

Adult prison inmates
Inmate-on- Staff sexual
Percent
inmate
misconduct

Number

Adult jail inmates
Inmate-onPercent
inmate

Staff sexual
misconduct

57,200
13,600
12,400

0.8%
0.4
0.5

0.1%
0.3
0.6

0.1%
0.4
0.4

17,000
7,700
10,400

0.6%
0.3
0.5

0.1%
0.2
0.3

0.1%
0.1
0.2

27,600
57,900

1.2%
1.2

0.3%
0.1

0.2%
0.1

16,300
19,100

0.8%
0.8

0.3%
0.1

0.2%
0.1

8,000
74,100

0.4%
0.4

0.6%
0.1

0.6%
0.1

5,900
28,700

0.4%
0.4

0.5%
0.1

0.3%
0.1

11,600
72,900

0.8%
0.8

0.4%
0.1

0.3%
0.1

8,600
26,200

0.6%
0.6

0.3%
0.1

0.2%
0.1

27,600
55,900

1.0%
1.0

0.3%
0.1

0.3%
0.1

14,100
20,800

0.6%
0.6

0.3%
0.1

0.2%
0.1

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12.

Appendix table 19
Standard errors for table 15: Prevalence of serious
psychological distress among adults in prisons, jails, and
the U.S. civilian noninstitutional population, 2011–12

Demographic characteristic
Total
Sex
Male
Female
Race/Hispanic origin
White
Black
Hispanic
Age
18–44
45–64
65 or older

Percent with serious psychological distress
Inmates age
18 or older
U.S. noninstitutional
adult population
Prison
Jail
0.2%
0.5%
0.5%
0.2%
0.2

0.5%
1.1

0.5%
0.9

0.2%
0.3
0.4

0.6%
0.6
0.8

0.7%
0.8
0.8

0.2%
0.3
0.3

0.6%
0.8
1.4

0.5%
0.8
3.5

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12; and Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, National Health Interview Survey, 2012.

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013

104

Appendix table 20
Standard errors for table 16: Prevalence of inmate-on-inmate victimization, by current mental health status and inmate
characteristics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12

Characteristic
Sex
Male
Female
Race/Hispanic origin
White
Black
Hispanic
Age
18–24
25–34
35–44
45 or older
Sexual orientation
Heterosexual
Non-heterosexual
Most serious offense
Violent sexual offense
Other violent
Property
Drug
Other

Prison inmates reporting sexual victimization
Serious
Anxiety-mood
psychological
No mental illness
disorder
distress

Jail inmates reporting sexual victimization
Serious
Anxiety-mood
psychological
No mental illness
disorder
distress

0.1%
0.4

0.3%
1.1

0.6%
1.3

0.1%
0.4

0.2%
0.4

0.4%
0.7

0.2%
0.1
0.1

0.6%
0.3
0.5

0.8%
0.9
1.1

0.2%
0.1
0.2

0.3%
0.2
0.3

0.4%
0.4
0.7

0.1%
0.1
0.1
0.2

0.8%
0.5
0.4
0.5

1.1%
0.7
1.0
0.9

0.1%
0.2
0.1
0.2

0.4%
0.2
0.2
0.3

0.4%
0.4
0.7
0.8

-0.8%

0.2%
1.5

0.4%
2.2

0.1%
0.8

0.1%
0.8

0.2%
2.0

0.3%
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2

0.7%
0.4
0.6
0.4
0.5

1.4%
0.9
1.1
0.7
0.9

0.6%
0.4
0.1
0.1
0.1

1.5%
0.5
0.3
0.2
0.2

1.2%
0.5
0.6
0.4
0.4

--Less than 0.05%.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12.

Appendix table 21
Standard errors for table 17: Prevalence of staff sexual misconduct, by current mental health status and inmate
characteristics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12

Characteristic
Sex
Male
Female
Race/Hispanic origin
White
Black
Hispanic
Age
18–24
25–34
35–44
45 or older
Sexual orientation
Heterosexual
Non-heterosexual
Most serious offense
Violent sexual offense
Other violent
Property
Drug
Other

Prison inmates reporting sexual victimization
Serious
Anxiety-mood
psychological
No mental illness
disorder
distress

Jail inmates reporting sexual victimization
Serious
Anxiety-mood
psychological
No mental illness
disorder
distress

0.1%
0.2

0.5%
0.4

0.5%
0.7

0.1%
0.2

0.1%
0.3

0.3%
0.3

0.1%
0.2
0.2

0.3%
1.2
0.4

0.6%
0.8
1.5

0.1%
0.1
0.1

0.1%
0.3
0.2

0.3%
0.5
0.5

0.3%
0.2
0.2
0.1

0.7%
0.5
1.1
0.4

1.5%
0.8
0.8
0.7

0.1%
0.2
0.1
0.1

0.3%
0.2
0.2
0.3

0.5%
0.4
0.4
0.3

0.1%
0.6

0.5%
0.9

0.4%
2.0

0.1%
0.7

0.1%
0.6

0.2%
0.8

0.3%
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.3

0.7%
0.6
0.6
1.3
0.5

0.8%
0.9
1.2
0.6
1.2

0.5%
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.2

0.4%
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.2

1.1%
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.5

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12.

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013

105

Appendix table 22
Standard errors for table 18: Circumstances surrounding incidents among adult inmates, by current mental health status
and type of victimization, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12
Victims in prisons and jails
Inmate-on-inmate
Circumstance
Number of victims
Number of incidents
1
2 or more
Type of coercion or force
Without pressure or force
Pressured
Force/threat of force
Ever injured
Ever report an incident

Staff sexual misconduct

No mental
illness
860

Anxiety-mood
disorder
790

Serious
psychological
distress
1,450

No mental
illness
1,250

Anxiety-mood
disorder
1,260

Serious
psychological
distress
1,200

4.5%
4.5

6.0%
6.0

2.5%
2.5

2.6%
2.6

2.7%
2.7

2.3%
2.3

~
3.4%
3.4
2.0%
3.0%

~
2.5%
3.5
2.3%
2.4%

~
2.5%
2.2
2.2%
2.3%

3.2%
3.0
2.7
1.4%
2.2%

3.5%
4.4
4.7
1.6%
2.8%

2.9%
2.7
2.9
2.4%
2.6%

~Not applicable.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12.

Appendix table 23
Standard errors for table 19: Prevalence of sexual victimization, by type of incident and inmate sexual orientation, National
Inmate Survey, 2011–12
Characteristic
Sex
Male
Female
Race/Hispanic origin
White
Black
Hispanic
Age
18–24
25–44
45 or older
Education
Less than high school
High school graduate
Some college or more
Mental health problems
None
Anxiety-mood disorder
Serious psychological distress

Inmate-on-inmate
Heterosexual
Non-heterosexual

Staff sexual misconduct
Heterosexual
Non-heterosexual

0.1%
0.3

0.9%
0.7

0.2%
0.2

0.7%
0.4

0.1%
0.1
0.1

1.1%
1.2
1.2

0.1%
0.2
0.3

0.5%
0.9
1.6

0.1%
0.1
0.1

1.5%
0.8
1.1

0.2%
0.2
0.1

1.8%
0.5
0.7

0.1%
0.2
0.1

0.9%
1.4
1.0

0.2%
0.3
0.2

0.5%
1.5
0.6

-0.1%
0.2

0.6%
1.1
1.5

0.1%
0.3
0.2

0.5%
0.6
1.3

--Less than 0.05%.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12.

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013

106

Appendix table 24
Standard errors for table 20: Circumstances surrounding incidents of sexual victimization among heterosexual and nonheterosexual inmates, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12
Circumstance
Number of victims
Number of incidents
1
2 or more
Type of coercion or force
Without pressure or force
Pressured
Force or threat of force
Ever injured
Ever report an incident

Victims in prisons and jails
Inmate-on-inmate
Staff sexual misconduct
Heterosexual
Non-heterosexual
Heterosexual
Non-heterosexual
1,530
1,490
3,680
1,000
3.5%
3.5

3.2%
3.2

1.8%
1.8

2.5%
2.5

~
2.4%
2.5
2.0%
2.2%

~
1.9%
2.3
2.2%
2.2%

1.9%
1.7
1.9
1.4%
1.7%

5.0%
6.7
5.0
3.3%
4.3%

~Not applicable.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12.

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013

107

NCJ241399

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

 

 

Prison Profiteers - Side
Advertise Here 2nd Ad
PLN Subscribe Now Ad