Skip navigation

Preliminary Report on Progress to Reduce Incidents of Sexual Misconduct (Prison Rape) in the Clark County Jails, Clark County Sheriff’s Office, 2008

Download original document:
Brief thumbnail
This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.
Clark County
Sheriff’s Office
Preliminary Report on Progress
to Reduce Incidents of Sexual
Misconduct (Prison Rape) in the
Clark County Jails

OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ......................................................................................... Page 1
Background ...................................................................................................... Page 2
Updated Progress ............................................................................................ Page 3
Remaining Tasks ............................................................................................. Page 4
Appendix A - Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 ......................................... Page 6
Appendix B - US Dept of Justice: Office of Justice Programs:
Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report: Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 - Sexual
Vicitimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007 .................................. Page 25
Appendix C - Comparison of National Jail Survey and Clark County Jail Survey
....................................................................................................................... Page 68
Appendix D - Current Clark County Sheriff’s Office Sexual Misconduct
General Order 1.41 ......................................................................................... Page 72
Appendix E - Examples of Visitor PREA Notification.........................................Page 77
Appendix F - Example of Inmate PREA Notification and Reporting.................. Page 78
Appendix G - Employee Training Power Point.................................................. Page 79
Appendix H - Task Group.................................................................................. Page 100

Executive Summary
In 2003, the Congress of the United States passed the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA). PREA was
to: establish a zero tolerance standard for the incidence of prison rape in the United States; develop and
implement national standards for the detection, prevention, reduction, and punishment of prison rape;
increase the efficiency and effectiveness of Federal expenditures through grant programs. This was to
focus on funds for: health care, (mental health care, disease prevention), crime prevention (investigation,
and prosecution); facilities (prison construction, maintenance, and operation), race relations, poverty,
unemployment; and homelessness.
In July of 2007, the Bureau of Justice (BOJ) requested and received permission to conduct a PREA
survey of inmates housed in the Clark County Jail. On June 25, 2008, the BOJ released the findings in
their report titled Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 – Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by
Inmates, 2007. In that report, the Clark County Jail, Washington, was listed as among those having the
highest rates of inmate reported sexual abuse in the nation.
Upon receipt of the report, Clark County Sheriff Garry Lucas commissioned a task group of members
from the professional standards division and jail administrators, to look at regional and national “best
practices” and make recommendations for improvements to jail management in regards to the PREA
legislation and mandates. This report is a preliminary update of the group’s progress from the first 45
days.
To date, the following improvements have been recommended and implemented:
• Consulted with federal, state and local agencies regarding best practices in responding to PREA
reports;
• Reviewed current Clark County Jail Sexual Abuse policy and implemented updates;
• Conducted staff training on the PREA responsibilities of employees (including those people with
facility access who are not county employees) [the volunteers and visitors to the facilities];
• Increased education of inmates on how to avoid victimization in correctional facilities;
• Streamlined method of reporting sexual abuse inside the facility;
• Reviewed and recommended improvements to investigative procedures and training for Custody
and law enforcement employees regarding reports of PREA violations;
• Reviewed and recommended methods of tracking reports of inmate sexual misconduct in the
Clark County Jail facilities
The task group is continuing its work on long range strategies to reduce sexual misconduct. A final
report is due on December 1, 2008.

PREA Report Summer 2008
Page 1

BACKGROUND
In 2003 the Congress of the United States passed the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA). The purposes of the act are to:
(1) establish a zero-tolerance standard for the incidence of prison rape in prisons in the United States;
(2) make the prevention of prison rape a top priority in each prison system;
(3) develop and implement national standards for the detection, prevention, reduction, and punishment of prison rape;
(4) increase the available data and information on the incidence of prison rape, consequently improving the management
and administration of correctional facilities;
(5) standardize the definitions used for collecting data on the incidence of prison rape;
(6) increase the accountability of prison officials who fail to detect, prevent, reduce, and punish prison rape;
(7) protect the Eighth Amendment rights of Federal, State, and local prisoners;
(8) increase the efficiency and effectiveness of Federal expenditures through grant programs such as those dealing with
health care; mental health care; disease prevention; crime prevention, investigation, and prosecution; prison construction,
maintenance, and operation; race relations; poverty; unemployment; and homelessness; and
(9) reduce the costs that prison rape imposes on interstate commerce.

(See appendix A)

As part of the legislation, Congress directed that a survey be conducted by the Bureau of Justice to conduct and provide an
annual statistical analysis to determine the extent of prison rape in the United States. As a follow up to each annual survey,
a national panel shall carry out public hearings concerning the operation of the three prisons with the highest incidence of
prison rape and the two prisons with the lowest incidence of prison rape, in each category of facilities as identified in PREA.
The panel shall hold a separate hearing regarding the three Federal or State prisons with the highest incidence of prison
rape. The purpose of these hearings shall be to collect evidence to aid in the identification of common characteristics of
both victims and perpetrators of prison rape, and the identification of common characteristics of prisons and prison systems
with a high incidence of prison rape, and the identification of common characteristics of prisons and prison systems that
appear to have been successful in deterring prison rape. (See appendix A)
PREA is not intended to place an additional or substantial financial burden on state and local facilities to make
improvements. However, a list of recommendations can be issued by the Attorney General for the institution’s
consideration. In additional to the list of recommendations, the potential litigation, and public attention; facilities that do not
address sexual assaults in correctional facilities run the risk of reduced federal grants.
In July of 2007 the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), a section of the US Department of Justice (DOJ) requested and
received permission to conduct a PREA survey of inmates housed in the Clark County Jail. On June 25, 2008, the BJS
released their findings in their report titled Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 – Sexual Victimization in Local Jails
Reported by Inmates, 2007 (See Appendix B). In the report, the Clark County Jail, Washington, was listed as having the
second highest rate of inmate reported sexual abuse in the nation.
The magnitude of the results, compared to other facilities in the country astonished employees, administrators, and the
Sheriff of Clark County. In an effort to immediately and specifically address the seriousness of the report, Sheriff Lucas
requested additional information from the United States Department of Justice. His request was denied.
PREA Report Summer 2008
Page 2

• Sheriff Lucas’ subsequent first step to address the problems outlined in the report, was to direct an internal review and
report of summary data, specific to the Clark County Jail.
On June 30, 2008 Darin Rouhier, Finance Manger for the Clark County Sheriff’s Office, presented his review of the PREA
data, specific to the Clark County Jail (see Appendix C). In his presentation, Mr. Rouhier explained the method used by the
Department of Justice, with the specific points:
• The report overstates the Population of the Clark County Jail because the methodology included 122 inmates that
were either transferred or released before interviews could occur, or otherwise were unable to be interviewed
• The estimated number of victims in the facility was determined by multiplying the weighted percentage of victims in the
facility by the population
• The estimates of victims put the Clark County Jail in a statistical tie with 80 other facilities, surveyed in the country

After the presentation of the review, Sheriff Lucas ordered the Clark County Sheriff’s Office, Professional Standards
Division, in partnership with the Clark County Jail Administration, to review the policies, procedures and practices of
how allegations of sex abuse are handled by jail and law enforcement employees. The task group was directed to file a
preliminary report 45 days into the review and publish a final report by December 1, 2008.
The task group comprised a core group of employees with a variety of experience in Corrections and Law Enforcement.
Task group members are
•	 Custody Officer Jeff Young
•	 Custody Sergeant Ken Clark
•	 Custody Sergeant Dan Schuab
•	 Custody Sergeant Dan Kaiser
•	 Enforcement Sergeant Dave Trimble
•	 Risk Analyst Jim Hansen
•	 Custody Commander Mike Anderson
•	 Enforcement Commander Keith Kilian
The task group has been supported in specific areas and questions by the Clark County Sheriff’s Office: Human Resources
Division, Finance Division, Jail Administration and Clark County Prosecutors Office, Civil Division and is under the direction
of Chief Administrative Deputy Ric Bishop(Task Group Information in Appexdix H).

PREA Report Summer 2008
Page 3

UPDATED PROGRESS
To date, the following improvements have been recommended and implemented:
•

•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Partnered with federal, state and local agencies regarding best practices in responding to PREA reports
National Institute of Corrections (Department of Justice, Bureau of Prisons) - The National Institute of Corrections
(NIC) was contacted and technical assistance requested for the review and recommendations of changes in polices,
procedures and practices regarding sexual abuse and response in the Clark Count Jails. Regrettably, NIC had no
funds available for technical assistance. The training classes offered by NIC were closed for this year (but available
next year). Grant money allocated under PREA was exhausted.
Washington Department of Corrections (WA DOC) - The Washington Department of Corrections was contacted. They
have a PREA coordinator and are available to teach classes and provide assistance to the Clark County Sheriff’s
Office.
Multnomah County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) - The Multnomah County Sheriff’s Office was contacted and provided
materials, examples of policies, procedures, protocols and an overview of how their PREA response was
implemented and currently operating.
Lewis County Sheriff’s Office (LCSO) – The Lewis County Sheriff’s Office was contacted and provided materials,
examples of policies, procedures, protocols of how their PREA response was implemented and currently operating.
Research was conducted accessing the work product of various federal, state and local agencies regarding best
practices in developing PREA protocols, incorporating such practices into the task group’s recommendations.
Urban Institute’s “Justice Policy Center” published a 2006 study, “Addressing Sexual Violence in Prisons: A National
Snapshot of Approaches and Highlights of Innovative Strategies”.
The National Institute of Justice published a 2004 report, “Prison Rape: A Critical Review of the Literature”.
The U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division published online numerous civil rights investigations from county
and state facilities throughout the United States.
The U. S. Department of Justice’s National Institute of Corrections published a 2007 report, “Investigating Sexual
Assaults in Correctional Facilities”.

•	
Review of current Clark County Jail Sexual Abuse policy and recommendation of updates – The current policy
was reviewed and updated to reflect the updated reporting and response protocols to PREA complaints, based on the
information gained from PREA legislation, consultations, input from the Clark County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office and Risk
Management. (Policy Pending Approval in Appendix D)
•	
Increased education of PREA responsibilities for employees (including employees outside the CCSO, volunteers
and visitors to the facilities) information flyers were posted at the Clark County Sheriff’s Office. (Appendix E)
•	
Increased education of inmates on how to avoid victimization in correctional facilities – Informational flyers have
been posted in the Booking area and all housing units of the Clark County Jail(s). These educate inmates on how to avoid
being a victim of sexual assault and how to make reports under PREA. (Appendix F)
•	
Streamlined method of reporting sexual abuse inside the facility – A dedicated phone line was implemented,
providing inmates immediate means of reporting PREA violations to on duty jail supervisors and administration.
•	
Reviewed and recommend improved investigative procedures and training for Custody and law enforcement
employees regarding reports of PREA violations – Protocols have been reviewed and training provided to all staff on the
updated protocols and responsibilities for investigating allegations of sexual misconduct under PREA. Also, a dedicated
point of contact for PREA prosecutions was established in the Clark County Prosecutors Office. (Appendix G)
PREA Report Summer 2008
Page 4

•	
Reviewed and recommend improvements to methods of tracking reports of inmate sexual misconduct in the
Clark County Jail – Recommendations have been made by the Risk Analyst on how to improve tracking of reports of
sexual misconduct on PREA, and separating data on threats of sexual assault, inmate sexual misconduct and staff sexual
misconduct, for reporting to DOJ and consideration for ongoing review and improvements to jail(s) operations.

REMAINING TASKS

•

Expand and continue employee training regarding PREA responsibilities

•

Expand and continue inmate education on avoiding victimization and reporting of complaints

•

Development of a system to document allegations of PREA and other criminal activities in and outside the Clark County
Jails

•

Improve methods of collecting, analyzing and sharing the reported activities with local law enforcement and for the
improvement of operations in the Clark County Jails

•

Study how current facility design may have contributed to the high level of PREA violations as reported by DOJ. Make
recommendations to mitigate findings (indirect supervision model; need for more staff for more direct contact with
inmate population, facility design changes, improved surveillance)

•

Study of the number of inmates held in the main facility of the Clark County Jail that may contribute to the high level of
PREA violations as reported by DOJ. Make recommendations to mitigate findings (impact of tier lockdown system; best
practices for the supervision of high security inmates; impacts of best practices)

•

Estimate financial impacts of recommendations

FINAL REPORT DUE: December 1, 2008

PREA Report Summer 2008
Page 5

Appendixes
A. Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 – Full Legislation
B. U.S. Department of Justice: Office of Justice Programs: Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report: Prison Rape
Elimination Act of 2003 – Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007 - Full Report
C. Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007 (Comparison of National Jail Survey and Clark County
Jail Survey – Prepared by Darin Rouhier)
D. Current Clark County Sheriff’s Office Sexual Misconduct General Order – Revision Pending Approval
E. Example of Visitor Notification Regarding PREA
F. Example of Inmate Notification Regarding PREA and Reporting of Violations
G. Example of Employee Training PowerPoint Tool
H. Task Group Bio’s

PREA Report Summer 2008
Page 6

Appendix A.
117 STAT. 972

PUBLIC LAW 108-79-SEPT. 4, 2003

Public Law 108-79
108th Congress
Sept. 4, 2003
[So 1435]
Prison Rape
Elimination Act
of 2003.
45 use
15601 note.

42 use 15601.

An Act

To provide for the analysis of the incidence and effects of prison rape in Federal, State, and
local institutions and to provide information, resources,· recommendations, and funding to
protect individuals from prison rape.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION l.SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) SHORT TITLE.-This Act may be cited as the "Prison Rape
Elimination Act of 2003".
(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.-The table of contents of this Act is
as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings.
Sec. 3. Purposes.
Sec. 4. National prison rape statistics, data, and research. Sec. 5.
Prison rape prevention and prosecution.
Sec. 6. Grants to protect inmates and safeguard communities. Sec.
7. National Prison Rape Reduction Commission.
Sec. 8. Adoption and effect of national standards.
Sec. 9. Requirement that accreditation organizations adopt accreditation standards. Sec. 10.
Definitions.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress makes the following findings:
(1) 2,100,146 persons were incarcerated in the United States
at the end of 2001: 1,324,465 in Federal and State prisons and
631,240 in county and local jails. In 1999, there were more than
10,000,000 separate admissions to and discharges from prisons
and jails.
(2) Insufficient research has been conducted and insufficient
data reported on the extent of prison rape. However, experts have
conservatively estimated that at least 13 percent of the inmates in
the United States have been sexually assaulted in prison. Many
inmates have suffered repeated assaults. Under this estimate,
nearly 200,000 inmates now incarcerated have been or will be the
victims of prison rape. The total number of inmates who have
been sexually assaulted in the past 20 years likely exceeds
1,000,000.
(3) Inmates with mental illness are at increased risk of sexual
victimization. America's jails and prisons house more mentally ill
individuals than all of the Nation's psychiatric hospitals combined.
As many as 16 percent of inmates in State prisons and jails, and 7
percent of Federal inmates, suffer from mental illness.
( 4) Young first-time offenders are at increased risk of sexual
victimization. Juveniles are 5 times more likely to be sexually

PREA Report Summer 2008
Page 7

Appendix A.
PUBLI C LAW 108-79-S E P T . 4, 2003

117 STAT.
973

assaulted in adult r ather than juvenile facilities -often within the first 48 hour s of
incar cer ation.
( 5) Most prison staff ar e not adequately tr ained or prepared to pr event,
r eport, or treat inmate sexual assaults.
( 6) Prison rape often goes unr eported, and inmate victims often r eceive
inadequate tr eatment for the severe physical and psychological effects of sexual
assault -if they r eceive tr eatment at all.
( 7) HIV and AIDS are major public health problems within America's
correctional facilities. In 2 000, 25,088 inmates in Feder al and State prisons were
known to be infected with HIV/AIDS. In 2000, HIV/AIDS accounted for more
than 6 percent of all deaths in Feder al and State prisons. Infection r ates for other
sexually tr ansmitted diseases, tuber culosis , and hepa titis Band C ar e also far
greater for prisoner s than for the American population as a whole. Prison rape
undermines the public health by contributing to the spr ead of these diseases, and
often giving a potential death sentence to its victims.
( 8) Prison rape endanger s the public safety by making br utalized inmates
more likely to commit crimes when they ar e released -as 600,000 inmates ar e
each year. '
( 9) T he frequently interr acial char acter of prison sexual assaults
significantly exacer bates interracial' tensions, both within prison and, upon
r elease of perpetrators and victims from prison, in the community at large.
( 10) Prison rape incr eases the level of homicides and other violence against
inmates and staff, and the risk of insurrections and riots.
( 11) Victims of prison rape suffer sever e physical and psychological effects
that hinder their ability to integrate into the community and maintain stable
employment upon their r elease from prison. T hey ar e thus more likely to
become home less and/or r equir e government assistance.
( 12) Member s of the public and government officials ar e largely unawar e of
the epidemic char acter of prison r ape and
the day-to-day horror experienced by victimized inmates.
'
( 13) T he high incidence of sexua l assault within prisons involves actual and
potential violations of the United States Constitution. In Farmer v. Br ennan, 511
U.S. 825 (1994), the Supreme Court ruled that deliberate indiffer ence to the
substantial risk of sexual assault violates prisoner s' rights under the Cruel and
Unusual Punishments Clause of the Eighth Amendment. The E ighth
Amendment rights of State and local prisoner s are protected through the Due
Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pur suant to the power of
Congress under Sec tion Five of the Fourteenth Amendment, Congr ess may take
action to enfor ce those rights in States wher e officials have demonstrated such
indiffer ence. States that do not take basic steps to abate prison rape by adopting
stand ards that do not gener ate sign ificant additional expenditur es demonstrate
such indiffer ence. Therefore, such States are not entitled to the same level of
Feder al benefits as other States.
( 14) T he high incidence of prison r ape undermines the effectiveness and
efficiency of United States Government expenditur es through grant progr ams
such as those dealing with health care; mental health car e; disease pr evention;
crime prevention, investigat ion, and prosecution; prison construction,

PREA Report Summer 2008
Page 8

Appendix A.
117 STAT.
974

PUBL I C LAW 108-79-SEPT. 4, 2003
maintenance, and oper ation; race relations; poverty; unemploy ment and homelessness. T he effectiveness and efficiency of these
feder ally funded gr ant pr ograms ar e compr omised by the failure of
State officials to adopt policies and pr ocedur es that reduce the
incidence of prison rape in that the high incidence of prison rape: (A) increases the costs incur r ed by Feder al, State, and
local ju risdictions to administer their prison systems;
( B) incr eases the levels of violence, directed at inmates
and at staff, within prisons;
( C) increases health car e expenditures, both inside and
outside of prison systems, and r educes the effectiveness of
disease pr evention pr ogr ams by substantially incr easing the
incidence and spr ead of HN, AIDS, tuberculosis, hepa titis
Band C, and other diseases;
(D) increases mental health care expenditur es, both
inside and outside of prison systems, by substantially
incr easing the r ate of post -traumatic stress disor der,
depr ession, suicide, and the exacer bation of existing mental
illnesses among current and former inmates;
( E ) incr eases the risks of r ecidivism, civil strife, and
violent crime by individuals who have been brutalized by
prison rape; and
(F) incr eases the level of inter r acial tensions and strife
within prisons and, upon r elease of perpetrators and vic tims,
in the community at large.
(15) The high incidence of prison r ape has a significant effect
on inter state. commer ce because it incr eases substantially (A) the costs incur r ed by Feder al, State, and local
jurisdictions to administer their prison systems;
( B) the incidence and spr ead of HIV, AIDS, tuber culosis,
hepatitis Band C, and other diseas es, contributing to
incr eased health and medical expenditur es throughout the
Nation;
( C) the r ate of post-traumatic stress disor der, depres sion,
suicide, and the exacerbation of existing mental ill nesses
among cur r ent and former inmates, contributing to increased
health and medical expenditures throughout the Nation; and
(D) the risk of r ecidivism, civil strife, and violent crime
by individuals who have been brutalized by prison rape.
S E C. 3. PURPOSES.

42 use 15602.

T he purposes of this Act are to (1) establish a zer o -toler ance standard for the incidence of
prison rape in prisons in the United States;
(2) make the prevention of prison rape a top priority in each
prison system;
(3) develop and implement national standards for the detec tion,
pr evention, r eduction, and punishment of prison rape; ( 4) incr ease
the available data and information on the incidence of prison
r ape, consequently improving the manage ment and administration
of cor r ectional facilities;
(5) standar dize the definitions used for collec ting data on the
incidence of prison rape;

PREA Report Summer 2008
Page 9

Appendix A.
PUBL I C LAW 108-79-S E P T . 4, 2003

117 STAT. 975

(6) increase the accountability of prison officials who fail to
detect, pr event, reduce, and punish prison rape;
(7) protect the Eighth Amendment rightsof Feder al, State, and
local prisoners;
(8) incr ease the efficiency and effectiveness of Federal
expenditures through grant programs such as those dealing with
health car e; mental health care; disease prevention; crime prevention,
investigation, and pr os ecution; prison construction, maintenance, and
oper ation; race relations; poverty; unemploy ment; and homelessness;
and .
(9) reduce the costs that prison r ape imposes on inter state
commerce.
S E C. 4. NAT I ONAL P RISON RAPE STATISTICS, DAT A,
AND RE S E ARCH. 42 USC 15603.

ANNuAL COMPREHENSIVE STATISTICAL RE VI E W.
(1) IN GENERAL.-T he Bur eau of Justice Statistics of the
Department of Justice (in this section r efer r ed to as the "Bur eau")
shall car r y out, for each calendar year , a comprehen sive statistical
review and analysis of the incidence and effects of prison rape. T he
statistical review and analysis shall include, but not be limited to the
identification of the common char acter istics of .
(A ) both victims and per petr ators of prison rape; and ( B) prisons
and prison systems with a high incidence of prison rape ...
(2) CONSIDERAT I ONS . .,.-In car r ying out par agraph ( 1), the
Bureau shall consider -·
.
(A ) how rape should be defined for the purposes of the
statistical review and analysis; .
(B) how the Bureau should collect information about
staff -on-inmate sexual assault;
.
(C) how the Bureau should collect information beyond
inmate self -report s of prison rape;
.
(D) how the Bureau should adjust the data in order to
account for differ ences among prisons as required by subsection
(c) ( 3);
(E) t he categorization of prisons as required by sub section
(c) ( 4); and
(F) whether a preliminar y study of prison rape should be
conducted to inform the methodology of the comprehensive
sta tistical review.
(3) SOLICI T AT I ON OF VI E WS.
-The Bureau of Justice Statis tics shall solicit views from repr esentatives of the following:
State departments of cor r ection; county and municipal jails; juvenile
correctional facilities; former inmates; vict im advo cates; resear cher s;
and other expert s in the area of sexual assault.
(4) SAMP LI NG T E CHNIQUES.
-T he review and analysis under
paragraph (1) shall be based on a random sample, or other
scientifically appropriate sample, of not less than 10 percent o f all
Feder al, State, and county prisons, and a representative sample of
municipal prisons. T he selection shall include at least one prison
from each State. T he selection of facilities for sampling shall be
made at the latest practicable date prior to cond ucting the surveys
and shall not be disclosed to any facility or prison system official
prior to the time period studied in the survey. Selection of a facility
for sampling during any

PREA Report Summer 2008
Page 10

(a)

Appendix A.
117 STAT.
976

Confidentiality.

PUBLIC LAW 108-79-SEPT. 4, 2003
year shaH not preclude its selection for sampling in any subsequent
year.
(5) SURVEYS.-In carrying out the review and analysis under
paragraph (1), the Bureau shaH, in addition to such other methods as
the Bureau considers appropriate, use surveys and other statistical
studies of current and former inmates from a sample of Federal,
State, county, and municipal prisons. The Bureau shaH ensure the
confidentiality of each survey participant.
(6) PARTICIPATION IN SURVEY.-Federal, State, or local
officials or facility administrators that receive a request from the
Bureau under subsection (a)(4) or (5) will be required to participate
in the national survey and provide access to any inmates under their
legal custody.
(b) REVIEW PANEL ON PRISON RAPE.0) ESTABLlSHMENT._To assist the Bureau in carrying out
the review and analysis under subsection (a), there is established,
within the Department of Justice, the Review Panel on Prison Rape
(in this section referred to as the "Panel").
(2) MEMBERSHIP._
(A ) COMPOSITION.-The Panel shall be composed of 3
members, each of whom shaH be appointed by the Attorney
General, in consultation with the Secretary of Health and
Human Services.
(B) QUALIFICATIONS.-Members of the Panel shall be
selected from among individuals with knowledge or expertise
in matters to be studied by the Panel.
(3) PUBLIC HEARINGS.(A ) IN GENERAL.--:-The duty of the Panel shaH be to carry
out, for each calendar year, public hearings concerning the
operation of the three prisons with the highest incidence of
prison rape and the two prisons with the lowest incidence of
prison rape in each category of facilities identified under
subsection (c)(4). The Panel shall hold a separate hearing
regarding the three Federal or State prisons with the highest
incidence of prison rape. The purpose of these hearings shaH be
to coHect evidence to aid in the identification of common
characteristics of both victims and perpetrators of prison rape,
and the identification of common characteristics of prisons and
prison systems with a high incidence of prison rape, and the
identification of common characteristics of prisons and prison
systems that appear to have been successful in deterring prison
rape.
(B) TESTIMONY AT HEARINGS.(i) PuBLIC OFFICIALS.-In carrying out the hearings
required under subparagraph (A ), the Panel shaH request
the public testimony of Federal, State, and local officials
(and organizations that represent such officials), including
the warden or director of each prison, who bears
responsibility for the prevention, detection, and
punishment of prison rape at each entity, and the head of
the prison system encompassing such prison.
(ii) VICTIMS.-The Panel may request the testimony
of prison rape victims, organizations representing

PREA Report Summer 2008
Page 11

Appendix A.
PUBL I C LAW lOB -79-SEPT. 4,2003

117 STAT. 977

such victims, and other appropriate individuals and
organizations.
( C) SUBPOENAS.(i) ISSUANCE -.T he Panel may issue subpoenas for the
attendance of witnesses and the pr oduction of writ ten or other
matter.
(ii) ENFORCEMENT.-In the case of contumacy or r efusal
to obey a subpoena, the Attorney General may in a Feder al
court of appr opriate jurisdiction obtain an appropriate order to
enfor ce the subpoena.
( c) RE PORTS.(1) IN GE NE RAL.-Not later than June 30 of each year, Deadline. the
Attorney Gener al shall submit a r eport on the activities
of the Bureau and the Review Panel, with r espect to prison
r ape, for the pr eceding calendar year to ( A ) Congr ess; and
( B) the Secr etary of Health and Human Services.
(2). CONT E NTS.-T he r eport requir ed under par agr aph (1) shall
include (A ) with respect to the effects of prison r ape, statistical,
sociological, and psychological data;
( B) with respect to the incidence of prison r ape (i) statistical data aggr egated at the Federal, State, prison
system, and prison levels;
(ii) a listing of those institutions in the r epr esenta tive
sample, separ ated into each category identified under
subsection ( c)(4) and r anked according to the incidence of
prison r ape in each institution; and
(iii) an identification of those institutions in the
r epr esentative sample that appear to have been successful in
deterring prison r ape; and
( C) a listing of any prisons in the representative sample that
did not cooper ate with the survey conducted pur suant to section 4.
(3) DATA ADJUSTMENTS.-In preparing the information specified in
par agr aph (2), the Attorney Gener al shall use estab lished statistical
methods to adjust the data as necessar y to . account for differ ences
among institutions in the r epr esentative
sample, which ar e not r elated to the detection, pr evention, r eduction
and punishment of prison r ape, or which are outside the control of the
State, prison, or prison system, in order to provide an accurate
comparison among prisons. Such dif fer ences may include the mission,
security level, size, and juris diction under which the prison oper ates.
For each such adjust ment made, the Attorney Gener al shall identif y
and explain such adjustment in the r eport.
(4) CAT E GORI ZAT I ON OF PRISONS.
-The r eport shall divide
the prisons surveyed into thr ee categories. One category shall be
composed of all Feder al and State prisons. The other two categories
shall be defined by the Attor ney Gener al in order to compar e simil ar
institutions.
(d) CONT RACT S AND GRANTS.-In carrying out its duties under
this section, the Attorney Gener al may (1) provide gr ants for research through the National Institute of
Justice; and
(2) contr act with or pr ovide gr ants to any other entitythe Attorney
Gener al deems appr opriate.

PREA Report Summer 2008
Page 12

Appendix A.
117 STAT.
978

42

use 15604.

Establishment.

Deadline.

42

use 15605.

PUBLIC LAW 108-79-SEPT. 4, 2003
(e) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.-There are
authorized to be appropriated $15,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2004
through 2010 to carry out this section.
SEC. 5. PRISON RAPE PREVENTION AND
PROSECUTION. (a) INFORMATION AND
ASSISTANCE.(1) NATIONAL CLEARINGHOUSE.-There is established
within the National Institute of Corrections a national clearinghouse
for the provision of information and assistance to Federal, State, and
local authorities responsible for the prevention, investigation, and
punishment of instances of prison rape.
(2) TRAINING AND EDUCATION.-The National Institute of
Corrections shall conduct periodic training and education programs
for Federal, State, and local authorities responsible for the prevention,
investigation, and punishment of instances of prison rape.
(b) REPORTS.(1) IN GENERAL.-Not later than September 30 of each year, the
National Institute of Corrections shall submit a report to Congress and
the Secretary of Health and Human Services. This report shall be
available to the Director of the Bureau of Justice Statistics.
(2) CONTENTS.-The report required under paragraph (1) shall
summarize the activities of the Department of Justice regarding prison
rape abatement for the preceding calendar year ..
(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.-There are
authorized to be appropriated $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2004
through 2010 to carry out this section ..
SEC. 6. GRANTS TO PROTECT INMATES AND SAFEGUARD
COMMUNITIES.
(a) GRANTS AUTHORIZED.-From amounts made available for
grants under this section, the Attorney General shall make grants to States
to assist those States in ensuring that budgetary circumstances (such as
reduced State and local spending on prisons) do not compromise efforts to
protect inmates (particularly from prison rape) and to safeguard the
communities to which inmates return. The purpose of grants under this
section shall be to provide funds for personnel, training, technical
assistance, data collection, and equipment to prevent and prosecute
prisoner rape.
(b) USE OF GRANT AMOUNTS.-Amounts received by a grantee
under this section may be used by the grantee, directly or through
subgrants, only for one or more of the following activities:
(1) PROTECTING INMATES.-Protecting inmates by(A) undertaking efforts to more effectively prevent prison
rape;
(B) investigating incidents of prison rape; or
(C) prosecuting incidents of prison rape.
(2) SAFEGUARDING COMMUNITIES.-Safeguarding
communities by(A) making available, to officials of State and local
governments who are considering reductions to prison budgets,
training and technical assistance in successful methods for
moderating the growth of prison populations without
compromising public safety, including successful methods used
by other jurisdictions;

PREA Report Summer 2008
Page 13

Appendix A.
PUBL I C LAW 108-79-S E P T . 4,2003

117 ST AT . 979

( B) developing and utilizing analyses of prison popu lations and risk
assessment instruments that will improve State and local governments'
under standing of risks to the community r egarding release of inmates in the
prison population;
( C) preparing maps demonstr ating the concentr ation, on a community by-community basis, of inmates who have been r eleased, to facilitate the
efficient and effective (i) deployment of law enforcement r esour ces (includin g probation
and parole resources); and
(ii) delivery of services ( such as job tr aining and substance abuse treatment)
to those released inmates; (D )promoting collaborative efforts, among
officials of State and local gover nments and leader s of appropriat e
communities, to under stand and addr ess the effects on a community of the
presence of a disproportionate number of released inmates in that
community; or
(E) developing policies and programs that r educe spending on prisons
by effectively r educing rates of parole and probation revocation without
compromising public safety.
( c) GRANT REQUIREMENTS.( 1) PERIOD.-A grant under this .section shall be made for a period of not
more than 2 year s.
( 2) MAXI MUM. - T he amount of a gr ant under this section may no t exceed
$1,000,000.
( 3) MAT CHING.-The Feder al shar e of a gr ant under this section may not
exceed 50 per cent of the total costs of the project described in the application
submitted under subsection (d) for the fiscal year for which the gr ant was made
under this section.
( d) APPLICAT I ONS.
( 1) I N GENERAL-To
.
request a gr ant under this section, the chief executive
of a State shall submit an application to the Attor ney General at such time, in
such manner , and accom panied by such information as the Att orney Gener al
may r equir e.
( 2) CONT E NTS.-E ach application r equired by par agraph
( 1) shall.
(A ) include the certification of the chief executive that
the State r eceiving such grant ..
(i) has adopted all national prison r ape standards that, as of the date
on which the application was submitted, have been pr omulgated under
this Act; and
(ij) will consider adopting all national prison rape standards that are
promulgated under this Act after such date; .. ( B) specify with
particularity the preventative, prosecu torial, or administrative activities to be undertaken by the State with the
amounts r eceived under the grant; and (C) in the case of an application for a
grant for one or more activities specified in par agr aph ( 2) of subsection (b )(1 ) r eview the extent of the budgetary cir cumstances affecting the
State generally and describe how those circumstances r elate to the
State's prisons;

PREA Report Summer 2008
Page 14

Appendix A.
117 STAT. 980

Deadline.

42 use 15606.

President.

PUBLIC LAW 108-79-SEPT. 4, 2003

(ii) describe the rate of growth of the State's prison
population over the preceding 10 years and explain why
the State may have difficulty sustaining that rate of
growth; and
(iii) explain the extent to which officials (including
law enforcement officials) of State and local governments
and victims of crime will be consulted regarding decisions
whether, or how, to moderate the growth of the State's
prison population.
(e) REPORTS BY GRANTEE.(1) IN GENERAL.-The Attorney General shall require each
grantee to submit, not later than 90 days after the end of the period
for which the grant was made under this section, a report on the
activities carried out under the grant. The report shall identify and
describe those activities and shall contain an evaluation of the
effect of those activities on(A) the number of incidents of prison rape, and the
grantee's response to such incidents; and
(B )the safety of the prisons, and the safety of the
communities in which released inmates are present.
(2) DISSEMINATION.-The Attorney General shall ensure that
each report submitted under paragraph (1) is made available under
the national clearinghouse established under section 5.
(f) STATE DEFINED.-In this section, the term "State" includes the
District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any other
territory or possession of the United States.
(g) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.(1) IN GENERAL.-There are authorized to be appropriated for
grants under this section $40,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2004
through 2010.
(2) LIMITATION.-Of amounts made available for grants
under this section, not less than 50 percent shall be available only
for activities specified in paragraph (1) of subsection (b).
SEC. 7. NATIONAL PRISON RAPE REDUCTION COMMISSION.
(a) ESTABLISHMENT.-There is established a commission to be
known as the National Prison Rape Reduction Commission (in this
section referred to as the "Commission").
(b) MEMBERS.(1) IN GENERAL.-The Commission shall be composed of 9
members, of whom(A) 3 shall be appointed by the President;
(B ) 2 shall be appointed by the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, unless the Speaker is of the same party as the
President, in which case 1 shall be appointed by the Speaker of
the House of Representatives and 1 shall be appointed by the
minority leader of the House of Representatives;
(C) 1 shall be appointed by the minority leader of the
House of Representatives (in addition to any appointment
made under subparagraph ( B ) ) ;
(D) 2 shall be appointed by the majority leader of the
Senate, unless the majority leader is of the same party as the
President, in which case 1 shall be appointed by the majority
leader of the Senate and 1 shall be appointed by the minority
leader of the Senate; and

PREA Report Summer 2008
Page 15

Appendix A.
PUBL I C L AW 108-79-S E P T . 4, 2003

117 STAT . 981

( E ) 1 member appointed by the minority leader of the Senate
(in addition to any appointment made under subpar agraph (D».
( 2) PERSONS ELIGIBL E
-E. ach member of the Commission shall
be an individual who has knowledge or expertise in mat ter s to be
studied by the Commission.
( 3) CONSUL T AT I ON RE QUIRED.
-The Pr esident, the Speaker
and minority leader of the House of Representatives, and the majority
leader and minority leader of the Senate shall consult with one another
prior to the appointment ofthe member s of the Commission to achieve,
to the maximum extent possible, fair and equitable r epresentation of
various points of view' with respect to the matter s to be studied by the
Commission.
( 4) T E RM.-E ach member shall be appointed for the life of the
Commission.
( 5) T I ME FOR INITIAL APPOINTMENTs.
-T he appointment of Deadline.
the member s shall be made not later than 60 days after the
date of enactment of this Act.
( 6) VACANCIES.-A vacancy in the Commission shall be Deadline. filled in
the mann er in which the original appointment was
made, and shall be made not later than 60 days after the
date on which the vacancy occurred.
( c) OPERAT I ON.( 1) CHAI RPERSON.-Not later than 15 days after appoint - Deadline. ments
of all the member s ar e made , the Pr~sident shall appoint Pr esident. a chairper son
for the Commission from among its member s.
( 2) ME E T I NGS.
-T he Commission shall meet at the call
of the chair per son. T he initial meeting of the Cl;>mmission shall Deadline. take
place not later than 30 days after the initial appointment
of the member s is completed.
( 3) QUORUM.-A majority of the member s of the Commis sion
shall constitute a quorum to conduct business, but the Commission may
establish a lesser quorum for conducting hearings schedule d by the
Commission.
( 4) RULES.-T he Commission may establish by majority vote any
other rules for the conduct of Commission business, if such rules ar e
not inconsistent with this Act or other applicable law.
( d) COMPREHENSIVE STUDY OF THE IMPACTS OF PR
ISON RAPE .( 1) I N GENERAL.-T he Commission shall carry out a com prehensive legal and factual study of the penalogical, physical, mental,
medical, social, and economic impacts of prison rape in the United
States on(A) Federal, State, and local governments; and
( B ) communities and social institutions gener ally, including
individuals, families, and businesses within such communities and
social institutions.
( 2) MAT T E RS INCL UDE D.
-T he study under paragraph (1) shall
include (A ) a r eview of existing Feder al, State, and local gover nment
policies and practices with respect to the pr evention, detection, and
punishment of prison r ape;
( B )an assessment of the relationship between prison r ape and
prison conditions, and of existing monitoring, regulatory, and
enforcement pr actices that ar e intended to addr ess any such
r elationship;

PREA Report Summer 2008
Page 16

Appendix A.
117 STAT.
982

Deadline.

PUBLIC LAW 108-79-SEPT. 4,2003
(C) an assessment of pathological or social causes of
prison rape;
(D) an assessment of the extent to which the incidence of
prison rape contributes to the spread of sexually transmitted
diseases and to the transmission of HI V;
(E ) an assessment of the characteristics of inmates most
likely to commit prison rape and the effectiveness of various
types of treatment or programs to reduce such likelihood;
(F) an assessment of the characteristics of inmates most
likely to be victims of prison rape and the effectiveness of
various types of treatment or programs to reduce such
likelihood;
(G) an assessment of the impacts of prison rape on
individuals, families, social institutions and the economy
generally, including an assessment of the extent to which the
incidence of prison rape contributes to recidivism and to
increased incidence of sexual assault;
(H) an examination of the feasibility and cost of conducting surveillance, undercover activities, or both, to reduce
the incidence of prison rape;
(I) an assessment of the safety and security of prison
facilities and the relationship of prison facility construction
and design to the incidence of prison rape;
( J )an assessment of the feasibility and cost of any
particular proposals for prison reform;
(K ) an identification of the need for additional scientific
and social science research on the prevalence of prison rape in
Federal, State, and'local prisons;
(L) an assessment of the general relationship between
prison rape and prison violence;
(M) an assessment of the relationship between prison
rape and levels of training, supervision, and discipline of
prison staff; and
(N) an assessment of existing Federal and State systems
for reporting incidents of prison rape, including an assessment
of whether existing systems provide an adequate assurance of
confidentiality, impartiality and the absence of reprisal.
(3) REPORT.(A) DISTRIBUTION.-Not later than 2 years after the
date of the initial meeting of the Commission, the Commission shall submit a report on the study carried out under this
subsection to,0 ) the President;
(ii) the Congress;
(iii) the Attorney General;
(iv) the Secretary of Health and Human Services; (v)
the Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons; (vi)
the chief executive of each State; and
(vii) the head of the department of corrections of
each State.
(B) CONTENTs.-The report under subparagraph (A)
shall include(i) the findings and conclusions of the Commission; (ii)
recommended national standards for reducing prison
rape;

PREA Report Summer 2008
Page 17

Appendix A.
PUBLI C LAW 108-79-S E P T . 4, 2003

117 STAT. 983

(iii) recommended protocols for preserving evidence
and treating victims of prison r ape; and
(iv) a summary of the materials r elied on by the
Commission in the pr eparation of the report.
(e) RE COMMENDATIONS.( 1) I N GENERAL.-I n conjunction with the r eport submitted
under subsection (d)(3), the Commission shall provide the
Attorney General and the Secretary of Health and Human
Services with recommended national standards for enhancing the
detection, pr evention, reduction, and punishment of prison r ape.
( 2) MATTERS INCLUDED.-T he information provided
under par agr aph ( 1) shall include r ecommended national
standards relating to - (A) the classification and assignment of prisoner s, using
proven standardized instruments and protocols, in a manner
that limits the occur r ence of prison rape;
(B) the investigation and r esolution of r ape complaints
by r esponsible prison authorities, local and State police, and
Feder al and State prosecution authorities;
(C) the preservation of physical and testimonial evi dence for use in an investigation of the ci rcumstances
relating to the rape;
(D )acute -term trauma care for rape victims, including
standards relating to - (i) the manner and extent of physical examination
and treatment to be provided to any r ape victim; and
(ii) the manner. and extent· of any psychological
examination, psychiatric car e, medication, and mental
health counseling to be provided to any r ape victim; (E )
refer r als for long-term continuity of car e for r ape
victims;
( F) educational and medical testing measures fo r
reducing the in cidence of HIV transmission due to prison
rape;
(G) post-rape prophylactic medical measur es for r educing the
incidence of transmission of sexual diseases; (H) the tr aining
of correctional staff sufficient to ensure that they under stand
and appr eciate the significance of prison r ape and the
necessity of its·er adication;
( 1) the timely and comprehensive investigation of staff
sexual misconduct involving r ape or other sexual assault on
inmates;
(J ) ensuring the confidentiality of prison r ape com plaints
and protecting inmates who make complaints of prison rape;
(K) creating a system for reporting incidents of prison
rape that will ensure the confidentiality of prison rape
complaints, pr otect inmates who make prison r ape com plaints fr om retaliation, and assur e the impartial resolution of
prison r ape complaints;
(L ) data collection and reporting of.
(i) prison rape;
(ii) prison staff sexual misconduct; and
(ill) the resolution of prison rape complaints by
prison officials and Feder al, State, and lo cal investiga tion and prosecution authorities; and

.-......./.

PREA Report Summer 2008
Page 18

Appendix A.
117 ST AT .
984

PUBL I C LAW 108-79-SEPT. 4, 2003

( M) such other matters as may r easonably be related to the detection,
prevention, reduction, and punishment
of prison rape.
( 3) L I MI T AT I ON.
-T he Commission shall not propose a r ec ommended standard that would impose substantial additional costs compar ed to the
costs pr esently expended by Federal, State, and local prison authorities.
( D CONSULTATION WITH ACCREDITATION ORGANIZAT I ONs.-I n
developing recommended national standar ds for enhancing the detection, pr evention,
reduction, and punishment of prison rape, the Commission shall consider any standar ds
that have alr eady been developed, or ar e being developed simultaneously to
the delib er ations of the Commission. T he Commission shall consult with accr editation
organizations responsible for the accr editation of Fed er al, State, local or private prisons,
that have developed or ar e cur r ently developing standar ds r elated to prison r ape. T he
Commis sion will also consult with national associations representing the corr ections
profession that have developed or are cur r ently devel oping standards related to prison
rape.
( g) HEARINGS.( 1) IN GE NE RAL-T
. he Commission shall hold publi c
hearings. T he Commission may hold such hearings, sit and act at such times and
places, take such testimony, and r eceive such evidence as the Commission considers
advisable to carry
out its duties under this section.
( 2) WITNESS EXPENSEs.
-Witnesses requested to appear
before the Commission shall be paid the same fees as ar e paid to witnesses under
section 1821 of title 28, United States Code. T he per diem and mileage allowances fo r
witnesses shall be paid from funds appropriated to the Commission.
( h) INFORMAT I ON FROM F E DE RAL OR S T AT E AGENCI E s.-The Commission
may secur e directly from any Federal department or agency such information as the
Commission considers necessar y to carr y out its duties under this section. T he
Commission may request the hea d of any State or local department or agency to furnish
such information to the Commission.
(i) PERSONNE L MAT T E RS.
( 1) T RAVE L E XP E NS E-T
s. he members of the Commission
shall be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, at r at
es
authorized for employees of agencies under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5,
United States Code, while away from their homes or regular places of business in the
per formance of ser vice for the Commission.
( 2) DE T AI L OF FEDERAL E MP LOYE E-With
S.
the affirmative vote of 2/3 of
the Commission, any Feder al· Government employee, with the approval of the head
of the appropriate Federal agency, may be detailed to the Commission without
reimbursement, and such detail shall be without interruption or loss of civil ser vice
status, benefits, or privileges.
( 3) PROCURE MENT OF TEMPORARY AND I NT E RMI T T E NT S E RV
I CE s.Upon the r equest of the Commission, the Attorney Gen eral shall provide reasonable
and appropriate office space, sup plies, and administr ative assist ance.
(j) CONT RACTS FOR RE S E ARCH. ( 1) NAT I ONAL INSTITUTE OF JUS T I CE
-With
.
a o/s affirmative
vote, the Commission may select nongovernmental researchers and experts to assist
the Commission in car r ying out its duties

PREA Report Summer 2008
Page 19

Appendix A.
PUBLIC LAW 108-79-SEPT. 4, 2003

117 STAT. 985

under this Act. The National Institute of Justice shall contract with
the researchers and experts selected by the Commission to provide
funding in exchange for their services.
(2) OTHER ORGANIZATIONS.-Nothing in this subsection
shall be construed to limit the ability of the Commission to enter
into contracts with other entities or organizations for research
necessary to carry out the duties of the Commission under this
section.
(k) SUBPOENAS.(1) ISSUANCE.-The Commission may issue subpoenas for
the attendance of witnesses and the production of written or other
matter.
(2) ENFORCEMENT.-In the case of contumacy or refusal to
obey a subpoena, the Attorney General may in a Federal court of
appropriate jurisdiction obtain an appropriate order to enforce the
subpoena.
(3)
CONFIDENTIALITY
OF
DOCUMENTARY
EVIDENCE.-Documents provided to the Commission pursuant to
a subpoena issued under this subsection shall not be released
publicly without the affirmative vote of% of the Commission.
(l) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.-There are
authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry
out this section ..
(m) TERMINATION. ~The Commission shall terminate on the date
that is 60 days after the date on which the Commission
submits the reports required by this section.'
.
( n ) EXEMPTIoN.-The Commission shall be exempt from the
Federal Advisory Committee Act.
SEC. 8. ADOPTION AND EFFECT OF NATIONAL
STANDARDS. (a) PuBLICATION OF PROPOSED
STANDARDS.(1) FINAL RULE.-Not later than 1 year after receiving the
report specified in section 7(d)(3), the Attorney General shall
publish a final rule adopting national standards for the detection,
prevention, reduction, and punishment of prison rape.
(2) INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT.-The standards· referred to
in paragraph (1) shall be based upon the independent judgment of
the Attorney General, after giving due consideration to the
recommended national standards provided by the Commission
under section 7(e), and being informed by such data, opinions, and
proposals that the Attorney General determines to be appropriate to
consider.
(3) LIMITATION.-The Attorney General shall not establish a
national standard under this section that would impose substantial
additional costs compared to the costs presently expended by
Federal, State, and local prison authorities. The Attorney General
may, however, provide a list of improvements for consideration by
correctional facilities.
(4) TRANSMISSION TO STATES.-Within 90 days of
publishing the final rule under paragraph (1), the Attorney General
shall transmit the national standards adopted under such paragraph
to the chief executive of each State, the head of the department of
corrections of each State, and to the appropriate authorities in those
units of local government who oversee operations in one or more
prisons.
(b) APPLICABILITY TO FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONs.The national standards referred to in subsection (a) shall apply to the

PREA Report Summer 2008
Page 20

Deadlines.
42 USC
15607.

Appendix A.
117 STAT. 986

Deadline.

Procedures.

PUBLIC LAW 108-79-SEPT. 4, 2003

Federal Bureau of Prisons immediately upon adoption of the final rule
under subsection (a)(4).
(c) ELIGIBILITY FOR FEDERAL
FUNDS.(1) COVERED
PROGRAMS.(A) IN GENERAL.-For purposes of this subsection, a
grant program is covered by this subsection if, and only if (i) the program is carried out by or under the authority
of the Attorney General; and
(ii) the program may provide amounts to States for
prison purposes.
(B) LIsT.-For each fiscal year, the Attorney General shall
prepare a list identifying each program that meets the criteria of
subparagraph (A) and provide that list to each State.
(2) ADOPTION OF NATIONAL STANDARDs.-For each
fiscal year, any amount that a State would otherwise receive for
prison purposes for that fiscal year under a grant program covered
by this subsection shall be reduced by 5 percent, unless the chief
executive of the State submits to the Attorney General(A) a certification that the State has adopted, and is in full
compliance with, the national standards described in section
8(a); or
(B) an assurance that not less than 5 percent of such
amount shall. be used only for the purpose of enabling the State
to adopt, and achieve full compliance with, those national
standards, so as to ensure that a certification under
subparagraph (A) may be submitted in future years. (3)
REPORT ON NONCOMPLIANCE.-Not later than September
30 of each year, the Attorney General shall publish a report listing
each grantee that is not in compliance with the national standards
adopted pursuant to section 8(a).
(4) COOPERATION WITH SURVEY.-For each fiscal year,
any amount that a State receives for that fiscal year under a grant
program covered by this subsection shall not be used for prison
purposes (and shall be returned to the grant program if no other
authorized use is available), unless the chief executive of the State
submits to the Attorney General a certification that neither the State,
nor any political subdivision or unit of local government within the
State, is listed in a report issued by the Attorney General pursuant to
section 4(c)(2)(C).
(5) REDISTRIBUTION OF AMOUNTS.-Amounts under a
grant program not granted by reason of a reduction under paragraph
(2), or returned by reason of the prohibition in paragraph (4), shall
be granted to one or more entities not subject to such reduction or
such prohibition, subject to the other laws governing that program.
(6) IMPLEMENTATION.-The Attorney General shall establish
procedures to implement this subsection, including procedures for
effectively applying this subsection to discretionary grant programs.
(7) EFFECTIVE DATE.(A)
REQUIREMENT
OF
ADOPTION
OF
STANDARDS.-The first grants to which paragraph (2) applies
are grants for the second fiscal year beginning after the date on
which the national standards under section 8(a) are finalized.

PREA Report Summer 2008
Page 21

Appendix A.
PUBLIC LAW 108-79-SEPT. 4, 2003

117 STAT.
987

(B)
REQUIREMENT FOR COOPERATION.-The first
grants to which paragraph (4) applies are grants for the fiscal
year beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 9. REQUIREMENT THAT ACCREDITATION ORGANIZATIONS 42 use 15608.
ADOPT ACCREDITATION STANDARDS.
(a) ELIGIBILITY FOR FEDERAL GRANTS.-Notwithstanding any
other provision of law, an organization responsible for the accreditation
of Federal, State, local, or private prisons, jails, or other penal facilities
may not receive any new Federal grants during any period in which such
organization fails to meet any of the requirements of subsection (b).
(b) REQUIREMENTS.-To be eligible to receive Federal grant ~, Deadlines. an
accreditation organization referred to in subsection (a) must
meet the following requirements:
(1) At all times after 90 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, the organization shall have in effect, for each facility that it is
responsible for accrediting, accreditation standards for' the
detection, prevention, reduction, and punishment of prison rape ..
(2) At all times. after 1 year after the date of the adoption of the
final rule under section 8(a)(4), the organization shall, in addition to
any other such standards that it may promulgate relevant to the
detection, prevention, reduction, and punishment of prison rape,
adopt accreditation standards consistent with the national standards
adopted pursuant to such final rule.
SEC. 10. DEFINITIONS.
42 USC 15609.
In this Act, the following definitions shall apply:
(1) CARNAL KNOWLEDGE.-The term "carnal knowledge"
means contact between the penis and the vulva or the penis and the
anus, including penetration of any sort, however slight .
.
(2) INMATE.-The term "inmate" means any person incarcerated or detained in any facility who is accused of, convicted of,
sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent for, violations of criminal law
or the terms and conditions of parole, probation, pretrial release, or
diversionary program.
(3) JAIL.-The term "jail" means a confinement facility of a Federal,
State, or local law enforcement agency to hold(A) persons pending adjudication of crimiJ:!.al charges;

j

(B)

persons committed to confinement after adjudication of criminal

or

charges for sentences of 1 year or less. (4) HIV.-The term "HIV"
means the human immunodeficiency virus.
(5) ORAL SODoMY.-The term "oral sodomy" means contact
between the mouth and the penis, the mouth and the· vulva, or the
mouth and the anus.
(6) POLICE LOCKUP.-The term "police lockup" means a
temporary holding facility of a Federal, State, or local law
enforcement agency to hold(A) inmates pending bail or transport to jail;
(B) inebriates until ready for release; or
(C) juveniles pending parental custody or shelter placement.

PREA Report Summer 2008
Page 22

Appendix A.
117 STAT. 988

PUBPULIC LAW 108-79-SEPT. 4, 2003
(7) PRISON.-The term "prison" means any confinement
facilitY., of a Federal, State, or local government, whether
administered by such government or by a private organization on
behalf of such government, and includes(A) any local jailor police lockup; and
(B) any juvenile facility used for the custody or care of
juvenile inmates.
(8) PRISON RAPE.-The term "prison rape" includes the rape
of an inmate in the actual or constructive control of prison
officials.
(9) RAPE.-The term "rape" means(A) the carnal knowledge, oral sodomy, sexual assault
with an object, or sexual fondling of a person, forcibly or
against that person's will;
(B) the carnal knowledge, oral sodomy, sexual assault
with an object, or sexual fondling of a person not forcibly or
against the person's will, where the victim is incapable of
giving consent because of his or her youth or his or her
temporary or permanent mental or physical incapacity; or
(C) the carnal knowledge, oral sodomy, sexual assault
with an object, or sexual fondling of a person achieved
through the exploitation of the fear or threat of physical
violence or bodily injury.
(10) SEXUAL ASSAULT WITH AN OBJEcT.-The term
"sexual assault with an object" means the use of any hand, finger,
object, or other instrument to penetrate, however slightly, the
genital or anal opening ofthe body of another person.
(11)
SEXUAL FONDLING.-The term "sexual fondling"
means the touching of the private body parts of another person
(including the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or
buttocks) for the purpose of sexual gratification.
(12) EXCLUSIONs:-The terms and conditions described in
paragraphs (9) and (10) shall not apply to-.
(A) custodial or medical personnel gathering physical
evidence, or engaged in other legitimate medical treatment, in
the course of investigating prison rape;
(B) the use of a health care provider's hands or fingers or the use of
medical devices in the course of appropriate medical treatment
unrelated to prison rape; or

PREA Report Summer 2008
Page 23

Appendix A.
PUBLIC LAW 108-79-SEPT. 4, 2003

117 STAT. 989

(C) the use of a health care provider's hands or fingers and the use of
instruments to perform body cavity searches in order to maintain security and
safety within the prison or detention facility, provided that the search is
conducted in a manner consistent with constitutional requirements.
Approved September 4, 2003.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY-S. 1435:
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 149 (2003):

July 21, considered and passed Senate. July 25, considered and
passed House.

WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, Vol. 39 (2003):
Sept. 4, Presidential statement.

o

PREA Report Summer 2008
Page 24

Appendix B.

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs

Embargoed for release to the public until
Wednesday, June 25, 2008, at 9:00 a.m. EDT.

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Special Report

June 2008, NCJ 221946

Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003

Sexual Victimization in Local Jails
Reported by Inmates, 2007
By Allen J. Beck, Ph.D.
and Paige M. Harrison,
BJS Statisticians
The Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-79)
requires the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) to carry out
a comprehensive statistical review and analysis of the incidence and effects of prison rape for each calendar year.
This report fulfills the requirement under Sec. 4(c)(2)(B)(ii)
of the Act to provide a list of local jails according to the
prevalence of sexual victimization.
In December 2007, BJS published Sexual Victimization in
State and Federal Prison Reported by Inmates, 2007 (NCJ
219414), which details the findings from 23,398 inmates
held in 146 sampled prisons in the National Inmate Survey
(NIS). This report presents the findings for the 282 local
jails in the NIS sample. The survey on sexual victimization,
conducted by RTI International (Research Triangle Park,
NC), was administered to 40,419 jail inmates between April
and December 2007. (See Methodology for sample
description.)
The NIS is part of the National Prison Rape Statistical Program, which collects administrative records of reported
sexual violence as well as collecting allegations of sexual
violence directly from victims through surveys of current
and former inmates. Administrative records have been collected annually since 2004. Data collections from former
inmates under active supervision and youth held in state
and locally operated juvenile facilities are underway.
The 2007 NIS survey consisted of an audio computerassisted self interview (ACASI) in which inmates, using a
touch-screen, interacted with a computer-assisted questionnaire and followed audio instructions delivered via

headphones. A small number of jail inmates (223) completed a short paper form. These were primarily inmates
housed in administrative or disciplinary segregation or considered too violent to be interviewed.
The NIS is a self-administered survey designed to encourage reporting by providing anonymity to respondents. Computer-assisted technologies provide uniform conditions
under which inmates complete the survey. In each facility,
respondents are randomly selected. Before the interview,
inmates are informed verbally and in writing that participation is voluntary and that all information will be held in confidence. Overall, two-thirds (67%) of eligible sampled jail
inmates participated in the survey.
To provide reliable facility-level estimates of sexual violence, the NIS limited reporting of sexual victimization to
incidents that occurred at the sampled jail facilities during
the 6 months prior to the date of the interview. Inmates who
had served less than 6 months were asked about their
experiences since admission to the facility.
The NIS collects only allegations of sexual victimization.
Because participation in the survey is anonymous and
reports are confidential, the NIS does not permit any followup investigation or substantiation through review of official
records. Some allegations in the NIS may be untrue. At the
same time, some inmates may remain silent about sexual
victimization experienced in the facility, despite efforts of
survey staff to assure inmates that their survey responses
would be kept confidential. Although the effects may be offsetting, the relative extent of underreporting and false
reporting in the NIS is unknown.
Detailed information is available in appendix tables in the online version of this report on the BJS Website at
<http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/svljri07.pdf>.

PREA Report Summer 2008
Page 25

Appendix B.

3.2% of jail inmates reported experiencing one or more
incidents of sexual victimization
Among the 40,419 jail inmates participating in the 2007 survey, 1,330 reported experiencing one or more incidents of
sexual victimization. Because the NIS is a sample survey,
weights were applied for sampled facilities and inmates
within facilities to produce national-level and facility-level
estimates. The estimated number of local jail inmates
experiencing sexual violence totaled 24,700 (or 3.2% of all
jail inmates, nationwide).
About 1.6% of inmates (12,100, nationwide) reported an
incident involving another inmate, and 2.0% (15,200)
reported an incident involving staff. Some inmates (0.4%)
said they had been sexually victimized by both other
inmates and staff (table 1).
The NIS screened for specific sexual
activities, then asked respondents if
they were forced or pressured to
engage in these activities by another
inmate or staff. (See appendices 7
through 9 for specific survey questions.) Reports of inmate-on-inmate
sexual violence were classified as
either nonconsensual sexual acts or
abusive sexual contacts. Approximately 0.7% of jail inmates (5,200)
said they had nonconsensual sex
with another inmate, including giving
or receiving sexual gratification, and
oral, anal, or vaginal penetration. An
additional 0.9% of jail inmates
(6,900) said they had experienced
one or more abusive sexual contacts
only, that is, unwanted touching of
specific body parts in a sexual way
by another inmate.
An estimated 1.3% of all inmates
(10,400) 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 1.1% of
all inmates (8,400) reported they
willingly had sex or sexual contact
with staff. Regardless of whether an
inmate reported being willing or
unwilling, any sexual contact
between jail inmates and staff is illegal; however, the difference may be
informative when addressing issues
of staff training, prevention, and
follow-up.

Table 1. Local jail inmates reporting sexual
victimization, National Inmate Survey, 2007
National estimate
Number
Percent

Type
Total

24,700

3.2%

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

12,100
5,200
6,900

1.6%
0.7
0.9

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

15,200
10,400
8,300
2,100
8,400
7,100
1,200

2.0%
1.3
1.1
0.3
1.1
0.9
0.2

Note: Detail may not sum to total because inmates may
report more than one type of victimization. They may also
report victimization by other inmates and by staff.

Table 2. Local jails with high rates of inmate sexual victimization, National Inmate
Survey, 2007
Percent of inmates reporting sexual victimizationa
Number of
Number of Response Weighted Standard
percentc errord
similar facilitiese
respondentsb rate

Facility name
U.S. total

40,419

Torrance Co. Det. Fac. (NM)f
Clark Co. Jail (WA)
Bernalillo Co. Metro. Det. Ctr.
(NM)
Brevard Co. Det. Ctr. (FL)
Southeastern Ohio Reg. Jail (OH)
Wayne Co. Jail (IN)
Franklin Co. Jail (NY)
New York City Rose M. Singer
Ctr. (NY)g
Atlanta City Jail (GA)
Fulton Co. Jail (GA)
Caldwell Parish Jails (LA)
Philadelphia City Industrial Corr.
Ctr. (PA)
Will Co. Adult Det. Fac. (IL)
Androscoggin Co. Jail (ME)
La Fourche Parish Jail (LA)
Dixie Co Jail (FL)
Los Angeles Co. - Twin Towers
Corr. Fac. (CA)
Riverside Co. Robert Presley Det.
Ctr. (CA)

67%

3.2%

0.1%

67
163

40
71

13.4
9.1

4.1
2.2

53
80

117
228
85
131
81

42
83
57
75
86

8.9
8.5
8.1
7.5
7.3

2.9
1.9
2.1
1.9
1.4

151
86
116
133
110

178
145
187
210

68
41
67
93

7.2
7.1
7.1
6.9

1.7
3.0
1.8
1.6

129
239
137
149

180
172
55
151
56

71
73
67
76
67

6.9
6.8
6.7
6.6
6.5

1.8
2.0
2.2
1.2
2.5

150
168
192
122
231

95

43

6.4

2.6

239

141

66

6.4

2.2

210

Note: Includes all facilities with a prevalence rate of at least twice the national average (3.2%).
Excludes Chowan Co. Det. Fac. (NC), 8.6%, and Pulaski Co. Tri-Co. Justice & Det. Ctr. (IL), 6.7%, with
rates that were not statistically different from zero 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 6 months or since admission to the facility, if less than 6 months.
b
c

Number of respondents selected for the NIS on sexual victimization.

Weights were applied so that inmates who responded accurately reflected the entire population of
each facility on selected characteristics, including age, gender, race, and time served since admission.
dStandard

errors may be used to construct confidence intervals around the weighted survey estimates.
For example, the 95% confidence interval around the total percent is 3.2% plus or minus 1.96 times
0.1% (or 3.0% to 3.4%).

eEstimates

for each facility are determined to be statistically similar if the 95% confidence interval
around the difference contains zero. (See Methodology for details.)

f

Private facility.

gFemale

only facility.

2 Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007
PREA Report Summer 2008
Page 26

Appendix B.

18 jails had prevalence rates of at least twice the
national average of 3.2%
Of the 282 jail facilities in the 2007 NIS, 18 had an overall
victimization rate of at least twice the national average of
3.2% (table 2). The overall victimization rate is a measure
of prevalence that includes all experiences, regardless of
the level of coercion and type of sexual activity.
Statistically, the NIS is unable to identify the facility with the
highest prevalence rate. Because the estimates are based
on a sample of inmates rather than a complete enumeration, the estimates are subject to sampling error. The precision of each facility estimate can be calculated based on
the estimated standard error. For example, the victimization
rate of 13.4% recorded for the Torrance County Detention
Facility (New Mexico) has a precision of plus or minus
8.0% with a 95% confidence level. This precision, based on
the standard error of 4.1% multiplied by 1.96, indicates a
95% confidence that the true prevalence rate in the Torrance County Detention Facility is between 5.4% and
21.4%.
Within each facility, the estimated standard error varies
by the size of the estimate, the number of completed interviews, and the size of the facility. Although the sampling
procedures are designed to produce the same level of
precision within all facilities (a standard error of 1.75%), the
actual standard errors varied depending on the response
rate and characteristics of the responding inmates. (See
Methodology for further discussion of standard errors.)
As a consequence of sampling error, the
NIS cannot provide an exact ranking for all
facilities as required under the Prison
Rape Elimination Act. However, detailed
tabulations of the survey results are presented by facility and state in appendix
tables 1 through 6.1 Facility prevalence
rates vary by level and type of victimization, and observed differences between
facilities will not always be statistically significant. Consequently, these measures
cannot be used to reliably rank facilities
from 1 (the highest) to 282 (the lowest).
Unlike the results of the 2007 NIS in state
and federal prisons, the NIS in local jails
does not provide a statistical basis for
identifying a small group of facilities with
the highest rates of sexual victimization.
Based on the large confidence interval
around the Torrance County Detention
Facility (13.4% plus or minus 8.0%), 38
1Facility

level information and estimates are provided for all sampled jails in appendix tables 1 and
2. Appendix tables 3 through 6 exclude those jails
with no reported incidents of sexual victimization
and rates not statistically different from zero.

other facilities would be included in the interval, but these
facilities also have estimated rates and confidence intervals.
By constructing 95% confidence intervals around the differences between facility estimates, we can determine the
number of facilities with statistically similar rates of victimization. For example, the confidence interval around the
observed difference between the Torrance County Detention Facility and the Polk County Jail (Iowa) is 8.6% plus or
minus 9.5%. Since the interval includes zero, these facilities are considered to be statistically similar. Overall, 53 jail
facilities are statistically similar to the Torrance County
Detention Facility.
Facilities with rates lower than the 4.8% in the Polk County
Jail are statistically different from Torrance County. Terrebonne Parish Jail (Louisiana) had the next highest rate,
4.7%. Since the 95% confidence interval around the
observed difference with Torrance County (8.7% plus or
minus 8.4%) does not include zero, the Terrebonne Parish
Jail is considered statistically different. (See Methodology
for calculation of confidence intervals comparing facilities.)
Nearly a third of all facilities had rates
indistinguishable from zero
Eighteen jail facilities had no reported incidents of sexual
victimization (table 3). Cameron County Jail (Texas) was
the largest jail (1,368 inmates) with no reported incidents,
followed by Northwest Ohio Regional Correctional Center

Table 3. Local jails with no reported incidents of inmate sexual victimization,
National Inmate Survey, 2007
Number of
inmates in Number of
respondents
custodya

Facility name

Cameron Co. Jail (TX)
1,368
Northwest Ohio Reg. Corr. Ctr. (OH)
662
Orange Co. Work Rel. Ctr. (FL)
300
Hampden Co. Western Mass. Corr. Alcohol Ctr. (MA)
184
Jackson Co. Municipal Corr. Inst. (MO)
219
Coles Co. Jail (IL)
97
Culpeper Co. Jail (VA)
113
Atchison Co. Jail (KS)
77
Story Co. Jail (IA)
81
Knox Co. Work Rel. Center (TN)
64
Dinwiddie Co. Jail (VA)
59
Cecil Co. Com. Adult Rehab. Ctr. (MD)
49
Tippah Co. Jail (MS)
38
Bullock Co. Jail (AL)
33
Prowers Co. Jail (CO)
31
Koochiching Co. Law Enfor. Ctr. (MN)
20
Searcy Co. Jail (AR)
11
Wayne Co. Jail (MO)
16

100
154
104
117
55
70
58
39
38
35
39
32
26
9
19
9
8
6

Response
rateb
40%
70
59
84
43
83
69
57
63
72
76
75
83
41
91
100
73
86

Note: An additional 69 facilities had rates of sexual victimization that were not statistically different from zero at the 95% confidence level.
a

Number of inmates held in the facility on the day of the facility roster plus any new inmates
admitted prior to the first day of data collection. (See Methodology for details.)

b

Response rate equals the total number of respondents divided by the number of inmates
sampled minus the number of ineligible inmates times 100 percent. (See Methodology for
sampling description.)

Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007
PREA Report Summer 2008
Page 27

3

Appendix B.

(Ohio), with 662 inmates, and Orange County
Work Release Center (Florida), with 300 inmates.

Table 4. Local jails with the highest rates of inmate sexual
victimization, by type, National Inmate Survey, 2007

An additional 69 facilities had rates that were not
statistically different from zero at the 95% confidence level. Thirty-seven of these facilities had
rates below 1.5% (not shown), and 21 were large
facilities with more than 1,000 inmates in custody.
The Bexar County Adult Detention Center (Texas),
with 4,179 inmates in custody, was the largest
facility surveyed that had a rate of sexual victimization indistinguishable from zero (1.6% plus or
minus 1.8%).
Identification of the facilities with the highest
rates of sexual victimization depends on nonstatistical judgments
Of the 18 facilities that had the highest overall
prevalence rates of sexual victimization, 3 facilities
were consistently high on measures restricted to
the most serious forms of sexual victimization
(table 4). The Torrance County Detention Facility
(New Mexico) had the highest rate — 10.1% when
sexual victimization excluded willing activity with
staff and 8.9% when victimization excluded abusive sexual contacts (allegations of touching only).
The Southeastern Ohio Regional Jail and the Bernalillo County Metropolitan Detention Center (New
Mexico) were also among the top five facilities on
each of these more serious measures of sexual
victimization.

Percent of inmates reporting
sexual victimizationa
Percent
Standard error

Measure/facility
Facilities with the highest percent reporting
any form of sexual victimization
Torrance Co. Det. Fac. (NM)b
Clark Co. Jail (WA)
Bernalillo Co. Metro. Det. Ctr. (NM)
Brevard Co. Det. Ctr. (FL)
Southeastern Ohio Reg. Jail (OH)

13.4%
9.1
8.9
8.5
8.1

4.1%
2.2
2.9
1.9
2.1

Facilities with the highest percent reporting a nonconsensual sexual act or abusive sexual contactc
Torrance Co. Det. Fac. (NM)b
Clark Co. Jail (WA)
Southeastern Ohio Reg. Jail (OH)
Bernalillo Co. Metro. Det. Ctr. (NM)
Wayne Co. Jail (IN)

10.1%
8.5
8.1
7.8
7.5

3.8%
2.1
2.1
2.7
1.9

8.9%
7.8
6.7
5.8
5.5

3.3%
1.8
2.5
1.8
1.8

Facilities with the highest percent reporting
a nonconsensual sexual actd
Torrance Co. Det. Fac. (NM)b
Brevard Co. Det. Ctr. (FL)
Bernalillo Co. Metro. Det. Ctr. (NM)
Southeastern Ohio Reg. Jail (OH)
Lexington-Fayette Urban Co. D.C.C. (KY)

Note: All measures are based on facilities with estimates statistically different from
zero at the 95% confidence level.
a

Inmates reporting one or more incidents of sexual victimization involving another
inmate or facility staff in the past 6 months or since admission to the facility, if less
than 6 months.

b
c

Private facility.

Excludes allegations of willing sexual contacts with staff.

d

Includes allegations of unwanted contacts with another inmate and any contacts

with staff that involved oral, anal, and vaginal penetration, handjobs and other sexOf the 282 sampled facilities, 19 jails had statistiual acts.
cally significant rates of injury related to sexual victimization (table 5). Overall, 0.6% of all jail inmates
Table 5. Local jails with the highest rates of injury, National
reported an injury related to sexual victimization. The RivInmate Survey, 2007
erside County Robert Presley Detention Center (California)
Facility name
Percent injured Standard error
had the highest observed rate with 4.6% of inmates reportTotal
0.6%
< 0.0%
ing an injury, followed by Garfield County Jail (Colorado)
Riverside Co. Robert Presley Det.
with 4.0%, and San Diego County George F. Bailey DetenCtr. (CA)
4.6
2.0
tion Facility (California) with 3.6%.

The Brevard County Detention Center (Florida), with an
injury rate of 3.1%, and the Southeastern Ohio Regional
Jail (Ohio), with an injury rate of 2.5%, were also among
the 5 facilities recording the highest overall rates of sexual
victimization and the highest rates of nonconsensual sexual activity.
Most victims of sexual violence in jails did not report an
injury. Nationwide, approximately 20% of the estimated
24,700 victims said they had been injured as a result of the
sexual victimization. The majority of injured victims
reported minor injuries, such as bruises, cuts, or scratches
(16%). Most injured victims (85%) also reported at least
one more serious injury. Among all victims, 8% reported

Garfield Co. Jail (CO)
San Diego Co. George F. Bailey
Det. Fac.(CA)
Androscoggin Co. Jail (ME)
Kentucky River Reg. Jail (KY)
Erie Co. Holding Ctr. (NY)
Brevard Co. Det. Ctr. (FL)
Will Co. Adult Det. Fac. (IL)
Southeastern Ohio Reg. Jail (OH)
St. Tammany Parish Jail (LA)
Santa Barbara Co. Jail (CA)
Franklin Co. Jail (NY)
Harris Co. Jail - Baker Street (TX)
Richmond City Jail (VA)
St. Bernard Parish Prison (LA)
Western Reg. Jail (WV)
Jackson Co. Jail (AL)
La Fourche Parish Jail (LA)
Hamilton Co. Talbert House Drug
and Alcohol Trt. Ctr. (OH)

4.0

1.7

3.6
3.5
3.2
3.2
3.1
2.7
2.5
2.4
2.3
2.2
2.1
2.1
1.9
1.8
1.3
1.3

1.4
1.7
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.1
0.7
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.9
0.5
0.5

1.0

0.5

Note: All other facilities had injury rates not statistically different from
zero.

4 Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007

PREA Report Summer 2008
Page 28

Appendix B.

being knocked unconscious, 6% reported anal
or rectal tearing, 6% internal injuries, 3% broken bones, and 2% knife or stab wounds.
Type of injury
All inmates All victims
Any injury
0.6%
19.5%
Knife or stab wounds
0.1
2.1
Broken bones
0.1
3.3
Anal/rectal tearing
0.2
6.3
Teeth chipped/knocked out
0.3
8.9
Internal injuries
0.2
6.3
Knocked unconscious
0.2
7.8
Bruises, cuts, scratches
0.5
15.8
Number of inmates
772,800 24,700

Rates of sexual victimization were unrelated
to basic facility characteristics
Data collected in the 2005 Census of Jail
Inmates and the 2006 Census of Jail Facilities
were analyzed in conjunction with the NIS data
to determine whether any facility characteristics
were associated with higher rates of sexual victimization (table 6). An initial examination of
selected facility characteristics revealed few
measurable differences at the 95% level of statistical confidence.
• Inmates in long-term facilities (those with
the authority to house inmates convicted of
felonies with sentences of more than a year)
had an overall sexual victimization rate
(3.4%) that was similar to the rates reported
by inmates in short-term facilities (3.5%) and
in detention-only facilities (3.0%).
• Victimization rates in female-only facilities
were the highest (5.0%), largely due to incidents of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization (3.9%). Women in coed facilities had
similar rates (5.0%). Therefore, the rate
appears to reflect higher overall rates
reported by women, regardless of the type of
facility (not shown in a table).
• Sexual victimization was reported at slightly
lower levels (2.1%) in small facilities (those
holding fewer than 100 inmates). Because of
the small number of inmates in these facilities, comparisons with other facilities were
not statistically significant.

Table 6. Prevalence of inmate sexual victimization, by selected
characteristics of jail facilities, National Inmate Survey, 2007

Facility characteristic

Percent of inmates reporting sexual victimizationa
NonconsenNumber of
InmateStaffsual sexual
b
inmates
Total on-inmate on-inmate acts onlyc

Type of facilityd
Detention only
Detention/short-term
Long-term

36,358
159,634
77,407

3.0%
3.5
3.4

1.3%
1.9
1.7

2.2%
1.9
2.0

2.2%
2.2
2.1

Gender housed
Males only
Females only
Both males and females

62,093
2,487
208,762

3.3%
5.0
3.4

1.5%
3.9
1.9

2.1%
1.9
1.9

2.2%
2.0
2.2

Size of facilitye
Less than 100
100-249
250-499
500-999
1,000-1,999
2,000 or more

1,351
6,495
14,348
50,943
99,197
101,065

2.1%
3.6
2.8
3.3
3.1
3.9

1.4%
1.7
1.5
1.7
1.6
2.1

0.9%
2.4
1.6
2.1
1.8
2.1

1.1%
2.4
1.7
2.2
2.0
2.4

Percent of capacity occupiedf
Less than 90%
90-100
101-110
111% or greater

70,517
87,678
53,660
61,544

3.7%
3.2
3.3
3.4

2.0%
1.6
1.8
1.7

2.0%
1.9
1.8
2.1

2.2%
2.1
2.2
2.2

Time since last renovationg
5 years or less
6-10
11-20
21 years or more

85,585
53,004
89,831
44,979

3.2%
3.5
3.6
3.3

1.6%
1.7
1.9
1.9

2.0%
2.1
1.9
1.9

2.2%
2.3
2.2
2.0

Note: Characteristics of jail facilities were drawn from the 2005 Census of Jail Inmates
and the 2006 Census of Jail Facilities, conducted by BJS. Missing data from the BJS censuses were obtained from the 2005 - 2007 National Jail and Adult Detention Directory,
published by the American Correctional Association.

aPercent

of inmates reporting one or more incidents of sexual victimization involving
another inmate or facility staff in the past 6 months or since admission to the facility, if
less than 6 months.

bNumber

of inmates held in each type of facility on the day of the roster plus any new
inmates admitted prior to the first day of data collection.

c

Includes allegations of unwanted oral, anal, and vaginal penetration, handjobs, and
other sexual acts with other inmates and staff.
d

Detention facilities have authority to hold persons facing charges beyond 72 hours;
short-term facilities hold persons convicted of offenses with sentences usually of a year
or less; long-term facilities hold persons convicted of felonies with sentences of more
than 1 year.

eFacility

size is based on the rated capacity (i.e., the maximum number of beds or
inmates assigned by a rating official).

fBased on the number of persons held on March 31, 2006, divided by the rated capacity
times 100%.
g

Based on the year of most recent major renovation or the year of original construction, if
never renovated.

• Though crowding is often assumed to be linked to
prison violence, the highest rates of sexual victimization
(3.7%) were reported in facilities that were the least
crowded (operating at less than 90% of capacity). As with
other comparisons, these differences were not statistically significant.

• Inmates in facilities that had opened or been renovated
in the last 5 years reported lower rates of sexual victimization (3.2%) than inmates in other facilities. Again, differences in these rates were not statistically significant.

Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007
PREA Report Summer 2008
Page 29

5

Appendix B.

Rates of sexual victimization were
more strongly related to inmate
characteristics than to facility
characteristics
Rates of sexual assault among inmates
varied across demographic categories:
• Female inmates were more likely than
male inmates to report a sexual victimization (table 7). An estimated 5.1% of
female inmates, compared to 2.9% of
male inmates, said they had experienced one or more incidents of sexual
victimization.
• Persons of two or more races reported
higher rates of sexual assault in jails
(4.2%), compared to white (2.9%), black
(3.2%), and Hispanic inmates (3.2%).
• About 4.6% of inmates ages 18 to 24
reported being sexually assaulted, compared to 2.4% of inmates age 25 and
older.
• Inmates with a college education
reported higher rates of sexual assault
(4.6%) than inmates with less than a
high school degree (2.8%).
The largest differences in sexual victimization rates were found among inmates
based on their sexual preference and past
sexual experiences:
• Inmates with a sexual orientation other
than heterosexual reported significantly
higher rates of sexual victimization. An
estimated 2.7% of heterosexual inmates
alleged an incident, compared to 18.5%
of homosexual inmates, and 9.8% of
bisexual inmates or inmates indicating
“other” as an orientation.
• Inmates with 21 or more sexual partners prior to admission reported the
highest rates of victimization (4.1%);
inmates with 1 or no prior sexual
partners reported the lowest rates
(2.4%).

Table 7. Prevalence of inmate sexual victimization, by selected characteristics
of jail inmates, National Inmate Survey, 2007

Inmate characteristic
Gender
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
Sexual orientation
Heterosexual
Bi-sexual
Homosexual
Other
Number of prior sexual partners
0-1
2-4
5-10
11-20
21 or more
Prior sexual assault
Yes
No
Sexually assaulted at another
facility
Yes
No

Percent of inmates reporting sexual victimizationa
NonconsenNumber of
Inmate-on- Staff-on- sual sexual
acts only
inmatesb
Total
inmate
inmate
678,500
94,300

2.9%
5.1

1.3%
3.7

2.0%
2.0

2.0%
2.4

273,900
282,400
141,400
18,200
51,500

2.9%
3.2
3.2
4.1
4.2

1.8%
1.3
1.5
1.6
2.1

1.5%
2.1
2.0
2.9
2.6

1.7%
2.1
2.2
2.4
2.8

52,600
156,500
245,600
186,100
107,100
24,900

4.7%
4.5
3.1
2.7
1.8
2.2

1.8%
2.3
1.6
1.3
0.9
1.6

3.4%
2.8
1.9
1.7
1.1
0.7

3.6%
2.9
2.0
1.7
1.2
1.6

287,800
282,500
175,100
22,500

2.8%
3.1
3.7
4.6

1.5%
1.3
2.0
2.4

1.6%
2.2
2.0
2.9

1.8%
2.2
2.1
2.9

702,800
28,700
9,900
10,300

2.7%
9.8
18.5
9.8

1.1%
6.4
13.7
5.8

1.7%
5.3
7.1
6.5

1.7%
6.6
13.2
7.6

127,100
121,600
145,000
118,200
230,600

2.4%
2.7
3.0
3.2
4.1

1.2%
1.4
1.7
1.6
1.8

1.3%
1.7
1.7
1.8
2.8

1.6%
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.9

102,600
666,100

11.8%
1.9

8.0%
0.6

5.5%
1.4

6.9%
1.3

11,800
756,900

33.0%
2.7

25.9%
1.2

13.9%
1.8

21.1%
1.8

a

Inmates reporting one or more incidents of sexual victimization involving another inmate or facility staff in the past 6 months or since admission to the facility, if less than 6 months.
b

Estimated number of jail inmates at midyear 2007, excluding inmates under age 18 and inmates
held in jails with an average daily population of five inmates or fewer.
c

Excludes persons of Hispanic or Latino origin.

d

Includes American Indians, Alaska Natives, Asians, Native Hawaiians, and other Pacific Islanders.
fIncludes

persons with associate degrees.

• Inmates who had experienced a prior sexual assault
were about 6 times more likely to report a sexual victimization in jail (11.8%), compared to those with no sexual
assault history (1.9%).
• Among inmates who reported having been sexually
assaulted at another prison or jail in the past, a third
reported having been sexually victimized at the current
facility.
6 Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007
PREA Report Summer 2008
Page 30

Appendix B.

Inmate-on-inmate victimization occurred most often in
the victim’s cell; staff-on-inmate victimization occurred
in a closet, office, or other locked room
Circumstances varied between inmate-on-inmate and staffon-inmate incidents. An estimated 48% of inmate-oninmate incidents occurred between 6 p.m. and midnight,
while 47% of staff-on-inmate incidents occurred from midnight to 6 a.m. (table 8). Over half of inmate-on-inmate victimizations took place in the victim’s cell or room (56%),
while a closet, office, or other locked room was the most
common location for staff-on-inmate victimizations (47%).
Inmate-on-inmate sexual assault victims most often
reported being threatened with harm or a weapon (44%) or
“persuaded or talked into it” (41%). Staff-on-inmate sexual
assault victims were most often “given a bribe or blackmailed” (52%). Two-thirds (67%) of inmate-on-inmate incidents involved one perpetrator, compared to 80% of staffon-inmate incidents.
About half of the victims of inmate-on-inmate sexual
assault said the most serious incidents (nonconsensual
sexual acts) had occurred only once. One in 7 victims said
they had been a victim of a nonconsensual sexual act
11 times or more. Among victims of staff-on-inmate sexual
misconduct, 34% said they had unwilling sexual contact
once; 15% reported 11 times or more.
One in 4 victims of an inmate-on-inmate assault told someone else within or outside the facility about the incident;
about 1 in 7 victims of staff-on-inmate incidents said they
reported the incident to someone.
Percent of staff-on-inmate sexual victimizations, by gender of inmate and staff
Unwilling
Willing
All incidents activity
activity
Male inmates
Female staff
Male staff
Both male and female
Female inmates
Female staff
Male staff
Both male and female

61.5%
14.4
13.1

47.7%
20.4
17.9

78.7%
5.0
8.8

1.7%
7.7
1.5

1.8%
10.2
1.9

1.8%
5.0
0.8

Table 8. Circumstances surrounding incidents of inmate
sexual victimization in local jails, National Inmate Survey,
2007

Circumstance
Number of victims
daya

Time of
6 a.m. to noon
Noon to 6 p.m.
6 p.m. to midnight
Midnight to 6 p.m.
Where occurreda
Victim's cell/room
Another inmate's cell/
room
Shower/bathroom
Yard/recreation area
Closet, office or other
locked room
Workshop/kitchen
Classroom/library
Elsewhere in facility
Off facility grounds
Type of coerciona
Persuaded/talked into it
Given bribe/blackmailed
Given drugs/alcohol
Offered protection from
other inmates
Threatened with harm or
a weapon
Physically held down or
restrained
Physically harmed/injured
Number of perpetrators
One
More than one
Number of times
1
2
3 to 10
11 or more

Nearly 62% of all reported incidents of staff sexual misconduct involved female staff with male inmates; 8% involved
male staff with female inmates. Female staff were involved
in 48% of incidents reported by male inmates who said they
were unwilling and in 79% of incidents with male inmates
who said they were willing. In an effort to better understand
the allegations of staff sexual misconduct, the 2008 NIS will
include questions to determine how often sexual contact
reported as unwilling occurred in the course of pat downs
or strip searches.

Reported at least one
incidentb
Yes
No

Inmate-on-inmate
Staff-on-inmate
NonconAll inci- Unwilling
All inci- sensual
sexual acts dents
activity
dents
12,100

5,200

15,200

10,400

24.1%
30.4
48.4
35.5

32.4%
35.7
50.8
46.6

28.3%
24.3
28.0
47.0

32.2%
28.2
32.4
44.1

56.3%

63.7%

30.3%

30.0%

37.2
19.4
14.2

50.0
29.4
14.7

14.5
22.7
9.2

17.3
24.6
10.3

10.0
8.0
5.6
5.9
6.8

16.7
11.4
9.0
3.7
10.8

47.0
26.6
20.5
5.4
14.4

47.4
29.7
24.9
5.6
15.3

40.6%
34.1
16.7

56.3%
52.4
29.1

35.2%
52.3
24.7

42.0%
60.8
32.6

26.3

41.0

22.1

29.8

43.7

54.3

24.6

32.1

34.1
25.6

41.8
32.5

15.0
11.4

18.7
14.3

66.8%
33.2

57.8%
42.2

79.6%
20.4

73.4%
26.6

:
:
:
:

23.9%
76.1

50.8%
13.8
21.3
14.1

33.0%
67.0

:
:
:
:

14.4%
85.6

34.3%
24.4
26.3
15.0

20.2%
79.8

: Not calculated.
Detail may sum to more than 100% because multiple responses were
allowed for each item.

a
b

Indicated at least one incident was reported to facility staff (line staff,
medical or mental health staff, teacher, counselor, volunteer, or chaplain), another inmate, or a family member or friend.

Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007
PREA Report Summer 2008
Page 31

7

Appendix B.

Methodology
The National Inmate Survey (NIS) was conducted in 282
local jails between April and December 2007, by RTI International under a cooperative agreement with the Bureau of
Justice Statistics (BJS). The NIS comprised two questionnaires—a survey of sexual victimization and a survey of
past drug and alcohol use and abuse. Inmates were randomly assigned one of the questionnaires so that, at the
time of the interview, the content of the survey remained
unknown to facility staff and the survey interviewers.
The interviews, which averaged 26 minutes in length, used
computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI) and audio
computer-assisted self interviewing (ACASI) collection
methods. For approximately the first five minutes, survey
interviewers conducted a personal interview using CAPI to
obtain background data, date of admission, conviction status, and current offense. For the remainder of the interview,
respondents interacted with a computer-administered
questionnaire using a touch-screen and synchronized
audio instructions delivered through 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 available for inmates
who were unable to come to the private interviewing room.
The paper form was completed by 223 inmates (0.6% of all
sexual violence interviews), primarily those housed in
administrative or disciplinary segregation or considered too
violent to be interviewed.
Before the interview, inmates were informed verbally and in
writing that participation was voluntary and that all information provided would be held in confidence. Interviews were
conducted in English (94%) or Spanish (6%).
Selection of local jail facilities
A sample of 303 local jails was drawn to produce a 10%
sample of the 3,002 local jail facilities identified in the 2005
Census of Jail Inmates. The 2005 census was a complete
enumeration of all jail jurisdictions, including all publicly
operated and privately operated facilities under contract to
local jail authorities. The 2007 NIS was restricted to jails
that had more than five inmates on June 30, 2005. Based
on estimates from the 2007 Annual Survey of Jails, these
jails held an estimated 772,800 inmates age 18 or older on
June 29, 2007.
Local jail facilities were systematically sampled to ensure
that at least one jail was selected in each state, except in
Alaska (with 14 facilities operated by local municipalities)
and in Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Rhode Island, and
Vermont, in which there were no jails. In these states, facilities with jail functions were state-operated and were
included in the 2007 NIS prison collection.
All jail facilities were selected in a three-step process. First,
jails on the sampling frame were sorted by region and
8 Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007

state. Jails in six states were determined to lack a sufficient
total number of inmates statewide to meet the one facilityper-state requirement. These facilities were grouped to
form separate strata. One facility from each stratum was
selected with probability proportionate to size. Overall, six
jails in these small states were selected.
Second, 294 jails in the remaining 44 large states and the
District of Columbia were selected. Thirty-two were
selected with certainty, in that their large population yielded
a probability of selection equal to 1.0. After ordering the
remaining facilities by region and state, 262 facilities were
selected based on their size relative to the total number of
inmates in all noncertainty facilities.
Third, two of the selected jails were determined to be multifacility jail jurisdictions (New York City and Cook County,
IL). Initial size measures for these jurisdictions included all
facilities. As a result, jail facilities in these jurisdictions were
enumerated and then sampled—three in New York City
and two in Cook County—with probabilities proportionate to
the number of inmates in the facility relative to the total
reported for the jurisdiction.
Of the 303 selected jails, 21 facilities were excluded from
the survey (table 9). Five facilities refused to participate in
the survey. Eight facilities were determined to be ineligible,
because more than 90% of inmates in each were prearraigned or held for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or the U.S. Marshals Service or because the
Table 9. Sampled jail facilities excluded from the survey,
National Inmate Survey, 2007
5 facilities refused to participate in the survey:
Decatur Co. Prison (GA)
Jefferson Parish Corr. Fac. (LA)
Mississippi Co. Jail (MO)
Mobile Co. Jail (AL)
Rutherford Co. Adult Det. Ctr. (TN)
8 facilities were determined to be ineligible:
Baltimore City Central Booking & Intake Ctr. (MD)a
Broward Co. Work Rel. Ctr. (FL)b
Leavenworth Det. Ctr. (KS)b
Los Angeles Co. Mira Loma Fac. (CA)b
Onondaga Co. Jail (NY)a
Sedgwick Co. Work Rel. Ctr. (KS)c
Val Verde Co. Jail & Corr. Fac. (TX)b
Ventura Co. East Valley Branch Jail (CA)a
8 facilities will be in the 2008 sample with certainty:d
Columbia Co. Det. Ctr. (FL)
Dauphin Co. Prison (PA)
Henderson Co. Jail (TX)
Jackson Co. Jail (MS)
Merced Co. Jail (CA)
Philadelphia City Det. Ctr. & Health Serv. Unit (PA)
Rutherford Co. Jail (NC)
Salt Lake Co. Jail (UT)
a

More than 90% of inmates were pre-arraigned.

bMore

than 90% of inmates held for ICE or U.S. Marshals.

cCommunity-based
d

facility.

Unable to participate due to lack of space, staffing, or jail
renovation/expansion; will be surveyed in 2008, when
logistical issues are resolved.

PREA Report Summer 2008
Page 32

Appendix B.

facility was a community-based facility. (The 2008 NIS will
include all inmates held for ICE and U.S. Marshals Service.) Eight facilities were unable to participate due to lack
of space or staffing or because the jail was being renovated. All expect to be included in the 2008 NIS. All other
selected jails participated fully in the survey.
Selection of inmates
The number of inmates sampled in each facility varied
based on 5 criteria:
• an expected prevalence rate of sexual victimization of
4%
• a desired level of precision based on a standard error of
1.75%
• a projected 70% response rate among selected inmates
• a 10% chance among participating inmates of not
receiving the sexual victimization questionnaire

Weighting and non-response adjustments
Responses from sampled interviewed inmates were
weighted to provide national-level and facility-level estimates. Each interviewed inmate was assigned an initial
weight corresponding to the inverse of the probability of
selection within each sampled facility. A series of adjustment factors were applied to the initial weight to minimize
potential bias due to non-response and to provide national
estimates.
Bias occurs when the estimated prevalence is different
from the actual prevalence for a given facility. 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 non-respondents were different from the
respondents. Post-stratification and non-response adjustments were made to the data to compensate for these two
possibilities. These adjustments included:
• calibration of the weights of the responding inmates
within each facility so that the estimates accurately
reflected the facility’s entire population in terms of known
demographic characteristics. (These characteristics
included distributions by inmate age, gender, race, date
of admission, and sentence length.) This adjustment
ensures that the estimates accurately reflect the entire
population of the facility and not just the inmates who
were randomly sampled.

• 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
prearraigned was known.
An initial roster of inmates was obtained in the week prior to
the start of interviewing at each facility. Inmates under age
18 and inmates who had not been arraigned were deleted
from the roster. Each eligible inmate was assigned a random number and sorted in ascending order. Inmates were
selected from the list up to the expected number of inmates
determined by the sampling criteria.
Due to the dynamic nature of jail populations, a second roster of inmates was obtained on the first day of data collection. Eligible inmates on the second roster who were not on
the initial roster were identified. These inmates had either
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 selected using the same
probability of selection derived from the first roster.
A total of 74,713 inmates were selected. (See appendix
table 1 for the number of inmates sampled in each facility.)
After selection, an additional 7,314 ineligible inmates were
excluded — 6,549 were transferred to another facility
before interviewing began, 676 were mentally or physically
unable to be interviewed, and 89 were under age 18.
Overall, 45,414 inmates participated in the survey, yielding
a response rate of 67%. Approximately 90% of the participating inmates (40,419) received the sexual assault survey.
Of all selected inmates, 18% refused to participate in the
survey; 4% 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 11% were not interviewed due to survey logistics (e.g., language barriers and
transfers to another facility after interviewing began).

• calibration of the weights so that the weight from a nonresponding inmate is assigned to a responding inmate
with similar demographic characteristics. This adjustment
ensures that the estimates accurately reflect the full sample, rather than only the inmates who responded.
For each inmate, these adjustments were based on a generalized exponential model, developed by Folsom and
Singh, and applied to the sexual assault survey respondents.2
A final ratio adjustment to each inmate weight was made to
provide national-level estimates for the total number of
inmates held in jails with an average daily population of
more than six inmates at midyear 2007. These ratios represented the estimated number of inmates by gender in the
survey estimates and accuracy of the 2007 Annual Survey
of Jails divided by the number of inmates by gender in the
2007 NIS after calibration for sampling and non-response.
Survey estimates and accuracy
Survey estimates are subject to sampling error arising from
the fact that the estimates are based on a sample rather
than a complete enumeration. Within each facility, the estimated sampling error varies by the size of the estimate, the
number of completed interviews, and the size of the facility.
2

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

Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007
PREA Report Summer 2008
Page 33

9

Appendix B.

Estimates of the standard errors for selected measures of
sexual victimization are presented in tables 10 and 11 and
in appendix tables 2 through 5.
These standard errors may be used to construct confidence intervals around survey estimates (that is, numbers,
percents, and rates), as well as around differences in these
estimates.
For example, the 95% confidence interval around the percent of inmates reporting sexual victimization in the Torrance County Detention Facility (New Mexico) is approximately 13.4% plus or minus 1.96 times 4.1% (or 5.4% to
21.4%). Based on similarly constructed samples, 95% of
the intervals would be expected to contain the true (but
unknown) percentage.
The standard errors may also be used to construct confidence intervals around differences between facility estimates. For example, the 95% confidence interval comparing the percent of inmates reporting sexual victimization in
the Riverside County Robert Presley Detention Center
(California), 6.4%, with the Torrance County Detention
Facility (New Mexico), 13.4%, may be calculated. The confidence interval around the difference of 7.0% is approximately 1.96 times 4.7% (the square root of the pooled variance estimate, 21.7%). The pooled variance estimate is
calculated by taking the square root of the sum of each
standard error squared, i.e., the square root of (2.22) plus
(4.12). Since the interval (-2.2% to 16.2%) contains zero,
the difference between the Riverside County facility and the
Torrance County facility is not statistically significant.
Exposure period
For purposes of calculating comparative rates of sexual victimization, respondents were asked to provide the most
recent date of admission to the current facility. If the date of
admission was at least 6 months prior to the date of the
interview, inmates were asked questions related to their
experiences during the past 6 months. If the admission
date was less than 6 months prior to the interview, inmates
were asked about their experiences since they had arrived
at the facility.
Overall, the average exposure period for sexual victimization among sampled jail inmates was 2.6 months. Among
sampled inmates, approximately 20% had been in jail for 2
weeks or less; 15% between 2 weeks and a month; 17%
between 1 and 2 months; 30% between 2 and 6 months;
and 18% more than 6 months.

Table 10. Standard errors for the prevalence of inmate
sexual victimization for characteristics of jail inmates,
National Inmate Survey, 2007

Inmate characteristic

Percent of inmates reporting sexual
victimizationa
NonconsenInmate-on- Staff-on- sual sexual
acts
Total inmate
inmate

Gender
Male
Female

0.11%
0.36

0.08%
0.42

0.09%
0.23

0.09%
0.22

Race/Hispanic origin
Whiteb
Blackb
Hispanic
Otherb,c
Two or more racesb

0.24%
0.19
0.33
0.74
0.57

0.16%
0.10
0.16
0.55
0.32

0.16%
0.15
0.31
0.57
0.48

0.16%
0.13
0.31
0.60
0.49

Age
18-19
20-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55 or older

0.67%
0.52
0.27
0.22
0.19
0.52

0.34%
0.24
0.16
0.15
0.15
0.43

0.57%
0.37
0.19
0.18
0.18
0.29

0.59%
0.36
0.20
0.14
0.19
0.46

0.16%
0.24
0.26

0.14%
0.12
0.17

0.11%
0.25
0.27

0.12%
0.24
0.29

0.73

0.57

0.53

0.53

Sexual orientation
Heterosexual
Bi-sexual
Homosexual
Other

0.11%
0.96
1.85
1.49

0.07%
0.74
1.90
1.05

0.08%
0.72
2.09
1.30

0.08%
0.79
2.03
1.37

Number of prior sexual partners
0-1
2-4
5-10
11-20
21 or more

0.22%
0.27
0.30
0.45
0.26

0.17%
0.18
0.20
0.28
0.19

0.18%
0.26
0.20
0.23
0.19

0.19%
0.20
0.20
0.23
0.19

Prior sexual assault
Yes
No

0.55%
0.09

0.49%
0.06

0.38%
0.09

0.49%
0.08

Sexually assaulted at
another facility
Yes
No

2.64%
0.10

2.88%
0.10

1.71%
0.09

2.08%
0.09

Education
Less than high school
High school graduate
Some colleged
College degree or
more

a

Percent of inmates reporting one or more incidents of sexual victimization involving another inmate or facility staff in the past 6 months or
since admission to the facility, if less than 6 months.

b

Measuring sexual victimization

c

The survey of sexual victimization relied on the reporting of
the direct experience of each inmate, rather than on the
reporting on the experience of other inmates. Questions
asked related to inmate-on-inmate sexual activity were
asked separately from questions related to staff sexual misconduct. (For specific survey questions see appendices 7
and 8.)

Excludes persons of Hispanic or Latino origin.

Includes American Indians, Alaska Natives, Asians, Native
Hawaiians, and other Pacific Islanders.

dIncludes

10 Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007
PREA Report Summer 2008
Page 34

persons with associate degrees.

Appendix B.

The ACASI survey began with a series of questions that
screened for specific sexual activities, without restriction,
including both wanted and unwanted sex or sexual contacts with other inmates. As a means to fully measure all
sexual activities, questions related to the touching of body
parts in a sexual way were followed by questions related to
explicit giving or receiving of sexual gratification and questions related to acts involving oral, anal, or vaginal sex. The
nature of coercion (including use of physical force, pressure, or other forms of coercion) was measured for each
type of reported sexual activity.
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 and staff-on-inmate sexual victimization. These questions, known as latent class measures,
were included to assess the reliability of the survey questionnaire. After being asked detailed questions, all inmates
were asked a series of general questions to determine if
they had experienced any type of unwanted sex or sexual
contact with another inmate or had any sex or sexual contact with staff. (See appendix 9.)
The entire ACASI questionnaire (listed as National Inmate
Survey) and the shorter paper and pencil survey form
(PAPI) are available on the BJS web site at <http://
www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/correct.htm#Programs>.
Definition of terms
Sexual victimization — all types of sexual activity, e.g., oral,
anal, or vaginal penetration; handjobs; 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, handjobs, 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.
Table 11. Standard errors for circumstances surrounding
incidents of sexual victimization in local jails, by type of
incident, National Inmate Survey, 2007

Circumstance
Number of victims
Time of day
6 a.m. to noon
Noon to 6 p.m.
6 p.m. to midnight
Midnight to 6 p.m.
Where occurred
Victim's cell/room
Another inmate's cell/
room
Shower/bathroom
Yard/recreation area
Closet, office, or other
locked room
Workshop/kitchen
Classroom/library
Elsewhere in facility
Off facility grounds
Type of coercion
Persuaded/talked into it
Given a bribe/blackmailed
Given drugs/alcohol
Offered protection from
other inmates
Threatened with harm
or a weapon
Physically held down or
restrained
Physically harmed/
injured
Number of perpetrators
More than one
Number of times
1
2
3 to 10
11 or more

Inmate-on-inmate
NonconsenAll inci- sual sexual
acts
dents

All incidents

Unwilling
activity

12,100

15,200

10,400

5,200

Staff-on-inmate

2.09%
2.31
2.75
3.00

2.99%
3.45
3.29
3.21

2.78%
1.64
1.76
2.50

3.32%
2.30
2.05
4.20

2.69%

2.95%

1.77%

3.07%

2.42
1.88
1.67

3.35
3.01
2.38

1.71
2.35
1.47

2.52
2.82
1.65

1.32
1.21
1.01
1.13
1.11

2.44
2.14
1.93
1.18
2.04

2.58
1.79
1.63
1.05
1.71

2.61
2.41
2.35
1.10
1.99

2.58%

3.28%

2.23%

2.34%

2.48
1.71

3.33
3.17

2.70
1.70

2.61
2.32

2.17

3.04

1.67

2.38

2.93

3.51

2.57

3.37

3.07

3.59

1.87

2.49

3.30

3.16

1.57

2.15

3.09%

3.12%

2.25%

2.88%

:
:
:
:

Reported at least one incident*
Yes
2.05%

3.37%
2.32
2.79
2.95
3.17%

:
:
:
:
1.89%

2.99%
2.85
2.36
2.10
2.60%

: Not calculated.
*Indicated at least one incident was reported to facility staff (line staff,
medical or mental health staff, teacher, counselor, volunteer, or chaplain), another inmate, or a family member or friend.

Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007

PREA Report Summer 2008
Page 35

11

Appendix B.
*NCJ~221946*

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

PRESORTED STANDARD
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
DOJ/BJS
Permit No. G-91

Washington, DC 20531

Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300

The Bureau of Justice Statistics is the statistical
agency of the U.S. Department of Justice. Jeffrey
Sedgwick is the Director.
Allen J. Beck and Paige M. Harrison wrote this report.
The statistical unit of RTI, under Marcus Berzofsky,
produced the appendix tables. Allen J. Beck, Paige M.
Harrison, Paul Guerino, and RTI staff provided
statistical review and verification. Tina Dorsey
produced the report, Catherine Bird edited it, and
Jayne Robinson prepared the report for publication,
under the supervision of Doris J. James.

Paige M. Harrison, under the supervision of Allen J.
Beck, was project manager for the National Inmate
Survey. RTI, International staff, under a cooperative
agreement and in collaboration with BJS, designed the
survey, developed the questionnaires, and monitored
data collection and data processing, including 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; Ralph Folsom, Senior Statistician; and Marcus
Berzofsky, Statistics Task Leader.
June 2008 NCJ 221946

This report in portable document format and in
ASCII and its related statistical data and tables are
available at the BJS World Wide Web Internet site:
<http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/
svljri07.htm>.

PREA Report Summer 2008
Page 36

12 Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007

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

Appendix B.

Appendix table 1. Characteristics of local jails selected in the National Inmate Survey, 2007

Facility name
Total
Alabama
Anniston City Jail
Bullock Co. Jail
Etowah Co. Det. Ctr.
Jackson Co. Jail
Limestone Co. Jail
Shelby Co. Jail
Arizona
Coconino Co. Jail
Maricopa Co. Jail - 4th Avenue
Maricopa Co. Jail - Durango
Maricopa Co. Jail - Estrellad
Maricopa Co. Jail - Lower Buckeye
Pinal Co. Jail
Arkansas
Searcy Co. Jail
California
Alameda Co. Santa Rita Jail
Fresno Co. Det. Fac. - Main Jail
Imperial Co. Jail
Kern Co. Lerdo Pre-Trial Fac.
Los Angeles Co. Mens Central Jail
Los Angeles Co. North Corr. Fac.
Los Angeles Co. Pitchess Honor Rancho Jail - North
Los Angeles Co. Twin Towers Corr. Fac.
Orange Co. Central Jail Complex
Orange Co. James A. Musick Fac.
Riverside Co. Larry D. Smith Corr. Ctr.
Riverside Co. Robert Presley Det. Ctr.
Sacramento Co. Rio Cosumnes Corr. Ctr.
Sacramento Co. Main Jail
San Bernardino Co. W. Valley Det. Ctr.
San Bernardino Co Glen Helen Rehab. Ctr.
San Bernardino Co. Central Det. Ctr.
San Diego Co. George F. Bailey Det. Fac.
San Diego Co. Las Colinas Women's Det. Fac.d
San Francisco Co. Jail - No. 1
San Joaquin Co. Jail
Santa Barbara Co. Jail
Santa Clara Co. Elmwood Corr. Complex
Santa Clara Co. Main Jail - North
Stanislaus Co. Public Safety Ctr.
Tulare Co. Men's Corr. Fac.
Ventura Co. Jail - Todd Road
Colorado
Adams Co. Det. Fac.
Arapahoe Co. Jail
El Paso Co. Det. Fac.
Garfield Co. Jail
Prowers Co. Jail
Weld Co. Jail
District of Columbia
D.C. Dept. of Corr. Jail

Number of respondents
Sexual
victimization Response
Total
survey
ratec

Number
of inmates
in custodya

Number
of inmates
sampled

Number
of ineligible
inmatesb

306,598

74,713

7,314

45,414

40,419

67
33
590
187
220
509

67
30
265
164
179
252

24
3
2
15
22
30

30
11
205
113
105
149

26
9
185
102
96
134

69.8
40.7
77.9
75.8
66.9
67.1

596
2,009
2,366
1,160
2,446
1,100

278
323
345
315
343
330

32
15
42
41
29
2

150
227
259
199
231
205

134
201
232
179
203
182

61.0
73.7
85.5
72.6
73.6
62.5

11

11

0

8

8

72.7

4,183
1,005
569
1,322
5,847
4,307
1,681
4,118
2,701
1,186
595
734
2,384
2,340
2,997
1,185
942
1,724
735
479
1,752
1,068
4,943
845
746
1,673
847

358
315
276
322
429
363
321
389
347
326
256
278
341
349
348
297
312
322
267
287
335
317
340
267
271
308
283

45
29
52
30
63
31
16
135
67
19
17
30
26
49
42
18
12
24
21
43
46
26
92
16
14
21
10

184
149
156
206
158
200
204
108
216
264
188
164
205
221
156
225
241
214
177
136
203
218
170
161
179
220
202

161
130
134
183
132
174
183
95
196
240
168
141
186
200
135
208
216
195
162
119
182
183
148
143
165
206
183

58.8
52.1
69.6
70.5
43.2
60.2
66.9
42.5
77.1
86.0
78.7
66.1
65.1
73.7
51.0
80.6
80.3
71.8
72.0
55.7
70.2
74.9
68.5
64.1
69.6
76.7
74.0

1,469
1,296
1,704
109
31
523

304
315
379
109
31
266

38
20
62
9
9
30

190
191
233
72
20
180

177
162
200
66
19
159

71.4
64.7
73.5
72.0
90.9
76.3

3,226

340

20

206

179

64.4

67.4%

Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007
PREA Report Summer 2008
Page 37

13

Appendix B.

Appendix table 1. Characteristics of local jails selected in the National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.)

Facility name
Florida
Alachua Co. Jail
Brevard Co. Det. Ctr.
Broward Co. Conte Corr. Fac.
Broward Co. Main Jail
Broward Co. North Jail - Pompano Beach
Broward Co. Stockade
Collier Co. Jail
Dixie Co. Jail
Hillsborough Co. Falkenburg Road Jail
Hillsborough Co. Orient Road Jail
Jackson Co. Corr. Fac.
Jacksonville City Montgomery Corr. Ctr.
Lake Co. Jail
Lee Co. Jail
Marion Co. Jail
Miami-Dade Co. Metro West Det. Ctr.
Miami-Dade Co. Training & Treatment Ctr.
Miami-Dade Co. Turner Guilford Knight Corr. Ctr.
Orange Co. 33rd Street Corr. Ctr.
Orange Co. Work Release Ctr.
Pinellas Co. Central Division Fac.
Pinellas Co. South Fac. (Max. Sec.)
Sarasota North Co. Jail
Seminole Co. John E. Polk Corr. Fac.
South Co. Jail
St. Johns Co. Jail
Georgia
Atlanta City Jail
Bartow Co. Jail
Carroll Co. Jail
Cobb Co. Sheriff's Office Jail & Prison Unit
Coweta Co. Jail
Crisp Co. Jail
Dekalb Co. Jail
Dooly Co. Jail
Dougherty Co. Jail
Floyd Co. Jail
Fulton Co. Jail
Gwinnett Co. Comprehensive Corr. Complex
Gwinnett Co. Jail
Muscogee Co. Jail
Paulding Co. Det. Ctr.
Pelham Municipal Jail
Richmond Co. Corr. Inst.
Idaho
Bingham Co. Jail
Illinois
Coles Co. Jail
Cook Co. Jail - Division 2
Cook Co. Jail - Division 11
Ogle Co. Jail
Pulaski Co. Tri-County Justice & Det. Ctr.e
Will Co. Adult Det. Fac.
Indiana
Daviess Co. Jail
Hamilton Co. Jail
Harrison Co. Jail
Hendricks Co. Jail
Lake Co. Jail
Marion Co. Jail Intake Fac.
Wayne Co. Jail

Number
Number
of inmates of inmates
in custodya sampled

Number
of ineligible
inmatesb

Number of respondents
Sexual
victimization Response
survey
ratec
Total

1,167
2,000
1,388
1,788
1,092
689
1,300
106
2,524
2,109
237
786
1,278
670
2,102
2,905
1,355
1,204
4,295
300
824
1,506
1,120
1,235
1,444
579

307
327
316
373
312
292
307
105
338
380
186
284
318
275
325
336
352
295
343
203
307
292
294
319
294
266

16
30
24
88
26
50
19
8
27
78
9
8
40
40
12
16
25
26
31
9
48
33
8
31
3
18

218
247
188
134
175
148
172
65
223
187
126
213
180
95
247
203
173
152
206
115
174
151
178
200
177
197

191
228
172
119
161
130
157
56
202
167
111
186
163
87
228
183
151
134
192
104
152
133
156
169
157
173

74.9
83.2
64.4
47.0
61.2
61.2
59.7
67.0
71.7
61.9
71.2
77.2
64.7
40.4
78.9
63.4
52.9
56.5
66.0
59.3
67.2
58.3
62.2
69.4
60.8
79.4

731
556
520
2,973
365
169
3,365
66
863
730
2,464
521
2,826
1,439
347
143
243

432
245
253
341
230
154
354
65
285
280
367
246
342
319
228
140
183

53
15
24
28
31
37
22
4
23
26
59
7
33
45
24
3
4

157
160
186
244
140
90
236
44
178
188
206
178
230
213
94
73
120

145
137
162
221
121
79
215
34
164
173
187
163
203
180
83
67
107

41.4
69.6
81.2
78.0
70.4
76.9
71.1
72.1
67.9
74.0
66.9
74.5
74.4
77.7
46.1
53.3
67.0

134

134

29

51

45

48.6

97
2,080
1,593
39
200
991

94
356
329
39
200
364

0
44
40
4
0
100

78
203
210
22
17
192

70
182
180
20
15
172

83.0
65.1
72.7
62.9
8.5
72.7

186
375
147
300
959
258
370

167
234
147
211
291
234
224

11
7
3
24
19
76
18

100
144
76
102
183
90
154

90
130
71
88
165
80
131

64.1
63.4
52.8
54.5
67.3
57.0
74.8

14 Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007
PREA Report Summer 2008
Page 38

Appendix B.

Appendix table 1. Characteristics of local jails selected in the National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.)

Facility name
Iowa
Polk Co. Jail
Story Co. Jail
Kansas
Atchison Co. Jail
Kentucky
Boyd Co. Jail
Daviess Co. Det. Ctr.
Grant Co. Jail
Hardin Co. Det. Ctr.
Kentucky River Reg. Jail
Lexington-Fayette Co. Det. Ctr.
Louisville-Jefferson Co. Dept. of Corr.
Warren Co. Reg. Jail
Louisiana
Ascension Parish Jail
Avoyelles Parish Bunkie Det. Ctr.
Caldwell Parish Jails (2 facilities)
Catahoula Corr. Ctr.e
East Baton Rouge Prison
Franklin Parish Jail
La Fourche Parish Jail
Lafayette Parish Corr. Center
Sabine Parish Det. Ctr.
St. Bernard Parish Prison
St. Tammany Parish Jail
Terrebonne Parish Jail
Maine
Androscoggin Co. Jail
Maryland
Anne Arundel Co. Dept. of Det. Fac.
Baltimore City Det. Ctr.
Cecil Co. Comm. Adult Rehab. Ctr.
Montgomery Co. Corr. Fac.
Washington Co. Det. Ctr.
Massachusetts
Barnstable Co. Corr. Fac.
Berkshire Co. Jail & House of Corr.
Hampden Co. Western Massachusetts Corr. Alcohol Ctr.
Middlesex Co. House of Corr. - Billerica
Plymouth Co. Corr. Fac.
Worcester Co. Jail & House of Corr.
Michigan
Bay Co. Jail
Kalamazoo Co. Jail
Kent Co. Corr. Fac.
Montmorency Co. Jail
Oakland Co. Jail
Ottawa Co. Jail
Wayne Co. Andrew C. Baird Det. Fac.
Wayne Co. William Dickerson Det. Fac.
Minnesota
Hennepin Co. Adult Det. Ctr.
Koochiching Co. Law Enforcement Ctr.
Mississippi
Madison Co. Jail
Tippah Co. Jail
Missouri
Clay Co. Det. Ctr.
Jackson Co. Municipal Corr. Inst.
St. Louis Co. Jail
Wayne Co. Jail

Number
of inmates
in custodya

Number
Number
of inmates of ineligible
inmatesb
sampled

Number of respondents
Sexual
victimization Response
Total
survey
ratec

1,150
81

302
81

189
14

83
42

74
38

73.5
62.7

77

77

0

44

39

57.1

280
681
360
616
266
1,323
1,960
537

206
282
216
263
197
319
333
255

23
27
8
9
23
21
34
21

118
202
134
203
111
188
179
143

107
178
119
179
92
161
155
120

64.5
79.2
64.4
79.9
63.8
63.1
59.9
61.1

297
316
566
796
1,638
713
264
998
115
181
977
697

202
204
252
385
313
266
245
286
115
167
298
274

14
3
7
28
18
8
19
15
5
29
30
19

152
173
227
311
240
230
173
232
82
115
206
236

137
150
210
272
202
205
151
206
76
104
174
215

80.9
86.1
92.7
87.1
81.4
89.1
76.5
85.6
74.5
83.3
76.9
92.5

116

116

21

64

55

67.4

1,197
2,966
49
740
425

308
358
49
278
238

23
28
5
17
19

187
207
33
202
154

172
182
32
181
142

65.6
62.7
75.0
77.4
70.3

444
363
184
1,245
1,611
1,465

230
216
160
289
307
303

12
3
5
43
10
10

169
185
131
161
198
198

149
159
117
151
174
179

77.5
86.9
84.5
65.4
66.7
67.6

251
394
1,401
37
1,800
444
2,088
1,219

189
222
303
37
352
244
600
376

6
30
20
9
40
27
68
87

117
139
228
25
231
176
165
177

108
126
199
22
204
162
149
153

63.9
72.4
80.6
89.3
74.0
81.1
31.0
61.2

964
20

327
20

64
6

150
14

133
9

57.0
100.0

533
38

287
38

15
3

227
29

212
26

83.5
82.9

305
219
1,270
16

205
196
315
8

15
48
24
1

133
63
218
6

122
55
192
6

70.0
42.6
74.9
85.7

Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007

PREA Report Summer 2008
Page 39

15

Appendix B.

Appendix table 1. Characteristics of local jails selected in the National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.)

Facility name
Montana
Cascade Co. Reg. Jail
Nebraska
Douglas Dept. of Corr.
Nevada
Clark Co. Det. Ctr.
Las Vegas City Det. Ctr.
Washoe Co. Det. Ctr.
New Hampshire
Hillsborough Co. House of Corr.
New Jersey
Atlantic Co. Gerard L. Gormley Justice Fac.
Camden Co. Corr. Fac.
Essex Co. Corr. Fac.
Hudson Co. Corr. Fac.
Mercer Co. Corr. Ctr.
Morris Co. Corr. Fac.
Union Co. Jail
New Mexico
Bernalillo Co. Metropolitan Det. Ctr.
San Juan Co. Det. Ctr.
Santa Fe Co. Adult Corr. Fac.
Torrance Co. Det. Fac.e
New York
Albany Co. Corr. Fac.
Erie Co. Corr. Fac.
Erie Co. Holding Ctr.
Franklin Co. Jail
New York City Anna M. Kross Ctr.
New York City Otis Bantum Corr. Ctr.
New York City Rose M. Singer Ctr.d
Oswego Co. Corr. Fac.
Westchester Co. Penitentiary
North Carolina
Cabarrus Co. Jail
Chowan Co. Det. Fac.
Cleveland Co.
Mecklenburg Co. Jail
Mecklenburg Co. Jail - North
New Hanover Co. Det. Ctr.
Wake Co. Jail
North Dakota
Cass Co. Jail
Ohio
Cuyahoga Co. Corr. Ctr.
Franklin Co. Corrections Ctr. I
Hamilton Co. Justice Ctr.
Hamilton Co. Talbert House Drug & Alcohol Treatment
Marion-Hardin Co. Multi-County Corr. Ctr.
Northwest Ohio Reg. Corr. Ctr.
River City Corr. Fac.
Southeastern Ohio Reg. Jail
Oklahoma
Mayes Co. Jail
Oklahoma Co. Det. Ctr.
Rogers Co. Jail
Oregon
Coos Co. Jail
Marion Co. Corr. Fac.
Washington Co. Jail

Number
Number
Number
of inmates of inmates of ineligible
a
inmatesb
in custody sampled

Number of respondents
Sexual
victimization Response
Total
survey
ratec

391

233

5

136

120

59.6

1,277

305

31

165

146

60.2

3,259
1,172
1,284

368
383
382

38
61
52

204
175
264

180
156
233

61.8
54.3
80.0

575

260

16

158

146

64.8

1,403
1,798
2,306
1,825
920
348
1,000

317
324
345
320
450
230
294

13
24
23
14
36
32
26

145
240
201
226
209
137
182

125
213
178
198
186
121
163

47.7
80.0
62.4
73.9
50.5
69.2
67.9

3,064
740
597
241

341
296
264
185

25
32
19
8

132
205
171
71

117
191
147
67

41.8
77.7
69.8
40.1

853
1,072
716
114
2,565
1,279
1,109
139
667

297
326
324
110
334
319
308
133
271

19
26
41
7
20
44
20
5
16

150
214
133
89
172
175
195
92
202

140
196
118
81
150
157
178
85
183

54.0
71.3
47.0
86.4
54.8
63.6
67.7
71.9
79.2

265
37
267
2,386
737
567
1,416

195
32
226
365
276
277
311

45
4
30
42
14
34
30

68
16
122
217
161
136
201

61
15
108
192
139
117
179

45.3
57.1
62.2
67.2
61.5
56.0
71.5

222

203

27

126

110

71.6

2,173
2,714
1,240
147
184
662
185
204

366
383
316
147
183
289
158
204

32
62
31
8
39
44
0
37

211
187
214
121
64
172
138
95

186
174
186
103
61
154
124
85

63.2
58.3
75.1
87.1
44.4
70.2
87.3
56.9

118
2,021
182

118
322
179

0
33
18

46
218
126

40
194
108

39.0
75.4
78.3

100
602
638

100
275
288

13
35
40

65
187
175

58
169
157

74.7
77.9
70.6

16 Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007

PREA Report Summer 2008
Page 40

Appendix B.

Appendix table 1. Characteristics of local jails selected in the National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.)

Facility name
Pennsylvania
Allegheny Co. Jail
Berks Co. Prison
Blair Co. Prison
Erie Co. Prison
Lancaster Co. Prison
Lycoming Co. Pre-Release Ctr.
Montgomery Co. Corr. Fac.
Philadelphia City Alternative & Special Det. Fac.
Philadelphia City Curran/Fromhold Corr. Fac.
Philadelphia City House of Corr.
Philadelphia City Industrial Corr. Ctr.
York Co. Prison
South Carolina
Beaufort Co. Det. Ctr.
Berkeley Co. Hill-Finklea Det. Ctr.
Charleston Co. Det. Ctr.
Florence Co. Det. Ctr.
Lancaster Co. Det. Ctr.
Sumter-Lee Reg. Det. Ctr.
South Dakota
Pennington Co. Jail
Tennessee
Davidson Co. Criminal Justice Ctr.
Greene Co. Det. Ctr.
Knox Co. Work Release Ctr.
Madison Co. Penal Farm
Shelby Co. Corr. Ctr.
Shelby Co. Justice Ctr.
Sullivan Co. Jail
Tipton Co. Jail
Warren Co. Jail
Texas
Bexar Co. Adult Det. Ctr.
Bowie Co. Corr. Ctr.
Brazoria Co. Jail & Det. Ctr.
Cameron Co. Jail
Dallas Co. Decker Det. Ctr.
Dallas Co. George Allen Jail
Dallas Co. North Tower Jail
Dallas Co. West Tower Jail
Denton Co. Det. Ctr.
El Paso Co. Jail Annex
Galveston Co. Jail
Gregg Co. Jail
Harris Co. Jail
Harris Co. Jail - Baker Street
Haskell Co. Rolling Plains Reg. Jail & Det. Ctr.e
Jefferson Co. Det. Ctr.
Kleberg Co. Jail
Limestone Co. Det. Ctr.e
Montgomery Co. Jail
Newton Co. Corr. Ctr.e
Potter Co. Det. Ctr.
Tarrant Co. Corr. Ctr.
Travis Co. Corr. Fac.
Utah
Weber Co. Corr. Fac.

Number
Number
of inmates of inmates
a sampled
in custody

Number
of ineligible
inmatesb

Number of respondents
Sexual
victimization Response
Total
survey
ratec

2,817
1,325
298
564
1,248
59
1,738
510
3,125
1,700
1,209
2,199

345
313
204
258
298
59
320
248
345
319
293
334

13
34
19
14
10
2
19
13
25
14
10
12

257
211
151
193
204
42
195
157
219
227
202
211

230
176
133
164
180
38
170
141
189
198
180
188

77.4
75.6
81.6
79.1
70.8
73.7
64.8
66.8
68.4
74.4
71.4
65.5

336
377
1,769
458
198
361

212
229
329
247
194
219

17
15
40
21
30
16

146
129
170
180
81
140

133
115
148
163
70
129

74.9
60.3
58.8
79.6
49.4
69.0

386

252

29

133

121

59.6

758
324
64
71
3,142
2,995
727
172
216

272
213
64
71
330
343
275
172
180

28
19
7
4
17
30
13
12
14

104
110
41
59
229
253
198
119
113

90
103
35
54
199
224
184
111
102

42.6
56.7
71.9
88.1
73.2
80.8
75.6
74.4
68.1

4,179
757
932
1,368
455
789
3,185
1,386
1,018
1,426
1,206
952
4,634
4,537
550
1,354
127
1,169
1,097
878
625
2,081
2,432

418
274
319
308
275
287
344
322
296
305
320
314
351
351
270
347
127
408
306
276
276
336
351

67
24
40
16
46
24
27
18
16
18
32
43
25
35
15
27
17
45
22
2
28
33
39

156
155
198
118
152
163
222
173
213
203
194
176
257
248
171
235
55
140
231
260
164
196
245

145
138
181
100
134
146
202
156
192
181
170
161
229
216
152
204
50
127
201
225
144
176
217

44.4
62.0
71.0
40.4
66.4
62.0
70.0
56.9
76.1
70.7
67.4
64.9
78.8
78.5
67.1
73.4
50.0
38.6
81.3
94.9
66.1
64.7
78.5

890

298

16

208

196

73.8

Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007

PREA Report Summer 2008
Page 41

17

Appendix B.

Appendix table 1. Characteristics of local jails selected in the National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.)

Facility name
Virginia
Central Virginia Reg. Jail
Culpeper Co. Jail
Dinwiddie Co. Jail
Duffield Reg. Jail Fac.
Newport News City Jail
Norfolk City Jail
Prince William-Manassas Reg. Adult Corr. Ctr.
Richmond City Jail
Roanoke City Jail
Roanoke Co. Jail
Rockbridge Co. Reg. Jail
Virginia Beach Corr. Ctr.
Washington
Chelan Co. Reg. Jail
Clark Co. Jail
King Co. Corr. Fac.
King Co. Reg. Justice Ctr.
Snohomish Co. Jail
Whatcom Co. Jail
West Virginia
Western Reg. Jail
Wisconsin
Dane Co. Jail
La Crosse Co. Jail
Marathon Co. Adult Det. Fac.
Milwaukee Co. House of Corr.
Milwaukee Co. Jail
Waukesha Co. Jail
Waupaca Co. Jail
Wyoming
Sheridan Co. Det. Ctr.
a
b

Number
of ineligible
inmatesb

Number of respondents
Sexual
victimization Response
survey
ratec
Total

Number
of inmates
in custodya

Number
of inmates
sampled

410
113
59
404
700
1,797
793
1,529
666
330
63
1,653

230
113
59
231
277
320
285
309
276
221
63
323

7
25
5
18
18
18
20
22
10
29
4
14

144
61
41
161
153
223
161
214
150
105
46
228

132
58
39
141
131
198
145
184
131
89
40
205

64.6
69.3
75.9
75.6
59.1
73.8
60.8
74.6
56.4
54.7
78.0
73.8

368
905
1,511
1,249
1,291
387

242
304
386
332
327
283

28
41
57
38
42
21

149
186
186
193
210
175

127
163
168
181
194
156

69.6
70.7
56.5
65.6
73.7
66.8

502

253

9

175

154

71.7

1,035
211
377
2,002
1,217
464
203

303
182
230
326
357
259
161

37
24
29
18
98
24
17

182
96
155
195
144
157
106

152
89
132
171
127
141
97

68.4
60.8
77.1
63.3
55.6
66.8
73.6

99

99

0

79

70

79.8

Number of inmates in the facility on the day of the facility roster plus any new inmates admitted prior to the first day of data collection.

Inmates were considered ineligible if they were (1) under age 18, (2) mentally or physically incapacitated, (3) transferred or released after
sample selection, but before data collection period, or (4) identified as pre-arraigned. See Methodology for sample selection criteria.

c

Response rate is equal to the total number of respondents divided by the number of inmates sampled minus the number of ineligible
inmates times 100%.

d

Female facility.

ePrivate

facility.

18 Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007

PREA Report Summer 2008
Page 42

Appendix B.

Appendix table 2. Percent of local jail inmates reporting sexual victimization and estimated standard error,
by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007
Percent of inmates reporting sexual victimizationa
Facility name
Total
Alabama
Anniston City Jaile
Bullock Co. Jaile
Etowah Co. Det. Ctr.
Jackson Co. Jail
Limestone Co. Jaile
Shelby Co. Jail
Arizona
Coconino Co. Jail
Maricopa Co. Jail - 4th Avenue
Maricopa Co. Jail - Durango
Maricopa Co. Jail - Estrellaf
Maricopa Co. Jail - Lower Buckeye
Pinal Co. Jaile
Arkansas
Searcy Co. Jaile
California
Alameda Co. Santa Rita Jail
Fresno Co. Det. Fac. - Main Jail
Imperial Co. Jail
Kern Co. Lerdo Pre-Trial Fac.
Los Angeles Co. Mens Central Jail
Los Angeles Co. North Corr. Fac.
Los Angeles Co. Pitchess Honor Rancho Jail Northe
Los Angeles Co. Twin Towers Corr. Fac.
Orange Co. Central Jail Complex
Orange Co. James A. Musick Fac.
Riverside Co. Larry D. Smith Corr. Ctr.
Riverside Co. Robert Presley Det. Ctr.
Sacramento Co. Rio Cosumnes Corr. Ctr.
Sacramento Co. Main Jail
San Bernardino Co. W. Valley Det. Ctr.
San Bernardino Co Glen Helen Rehab. Ctr.
San Bernardino Co. Central Det. Ctr.
San Diego Co. George F. Bailey Det. Fac.
San Diego Co. Las Colinas Women's Det.
Fac.f
San Francisco Co. Jail - No. 1
San Joaquin Co. Jaile
Santa Barbara Co. Jail
Santa Clara Co. Elmwood Corr. Complex
Santa Clara Co. Main Jail - North
Stanislaus Co. Public Safety Ctr.e
Tulare Co. Men's Corr. Fac.e
Ventura Co. Jail - Todd Road
Colorado
Adams Co. Det. Fac.
Arapahoe Co. Jail
El Paso Co. Det. Fac.
Garfield Co. Jail
Prowers Co. Jaile
Weld Co. Jail e
District of Columbia
D.C. Dept. of Corr. Jail

Percent of inmates reporting nonconsensual
sexual acts or abusive sexual contactsb

Weightedc

Standard errord

3.3%

3.2%

0.1%

2.6%

0.1%

3.8
0.0
1.6
2.9
2.1
2.2

3.6
0.0
1.5
2.3
2.1
1.9

2.3
0.0
0.7
0.8
1.2
0.9

3.6
0.0
1.5
2.3
2.1
1.9

2.3
0.0
0.7
0.8
1.2
0.9

3.0
3.5
2.2
2.8
3.0
1.6

2.1
2.9
2.1
2.7
2.6
1.8

1.0
1.0
0.9
1.1
1.0
1.0

1.3
2.9
2.1
2.7
2.3
1.8

0.8
1.0
0.9
1.1
1.0
1.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

3.1
3.1
3.0
3.3
3.8
4.0

3.4
3.1
3.3
2.9
3.3
3.2

1.6
1.5
1.4
1.1
1.5
1.2

3.4
3.1
3.3
2.9
3.3
1.9

1.6
1.5
1.4
1.1
1.5
0.9

1.6
7.4
5.1
2.5
2.4
5.7
3.2
2.0
8.1
2.9
2.3
5.1

1.6
6.4
4.3
2.2
2.7
6.4
3.2
2.5
6.0
3.1
2.1
4.9

0.9
2.6
1.4
0.9
1.1
2.2
1.3
1.2
2.2
1.2
0.8
1.6

1.2
6.4
4.3
2.2
1.8
6.4
2.1
2.0
4.6
2.6
1.6
4.4

0.8
2.6
1.4
0.9
0.9
2.2
0.9
1.1
2.0
1.1
0.7
1.5

5.6
5.0
1.1
4.4
2.7
4.2
1.8
1.5
3.3

5.9
4.9
0.9
4.0
2.2
4.0
2.0
1.0
2.8

1.8
1.7
0.6
1.3
1.1
1.5
1.1
0.6
1.0

5.9
4.9
0.9
4.0
2.2
4.0
2.0
0.5
1.8

1.8
1.7
0.6
1.3
1.1
1.5
1.1
0.4
0.8

5.6
4.9
3.0
4.5
0.0
0.6

4.2
3.0
2.6
5.5
0.0
0.8

1.6
1.1
1.0
1.9
0.0
0.7

4.2
3.0
2.1
5.5
0.0
0.8

1.6
1.1
0.9
1.9
0.0
0.7

3.9

4.2

1.7

4.2

1.7

Reported

Weightedc

Standard errord

Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007

PREA Report Summer 2008
Page 43

19

Appendix B.

Appendix table 2. Percent of local jail inmates reporting sexual victimization and estimated standard error,
by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.)
Percent of inmates reporting nonconsensual
Percent of inmates reporting sexual victimizationa sexual acts or abusive sexual contactsb
Facility name
Florida
Alachua Co. Jail
Brevard Co. Det. Ctr.
Broward Co. Conte Corr. Fac.
Broward Co. Main Jail
Broward Co. North Jail - Pompano Beach
Broward Co. Stockadee
Collier Co. Jail
Dixie Co. Jail
Hillsborough Co. Falkenburg Road Jail
Hillsborough Co. Orient Road Jaile
Jackson Co. Corr. Fac.
Jacksonville City Montgomery Corr. Ctr.
Lake Co. Jaile
Lee Co. Jaile
Marion Co. Jail
Miami-Dade Co. Metro West Det. Ctr.
Miami-Dade Co. Training & Treatment Ctr.e
Miami-Dade Co. Turner Guilford Knight Corr.
Ctr.
Orange Co. 33rd Street Corr. Ctr.
Orange Co. Work Release Ctr.
Pinellas Co. Central Division Fac.
Pinellas Co. South Fac. (Max. Sec.)
Sarasota North Co. Jail
Seminole Co. John E. Polk Corr. Fac.
South Co. Jail
St. Johns Co. Jail
Georgia
Atlanta City Jail
Bartow Co. Jail
Carroll Co. Jail
Cobb Co. Sheriff's Office Jail & Prison Unit
Coweta Co. Jail
Crisp Co. Jaile
Dekalb Co. Jail
Dooly Co. Jaile
Dougherty Co. Jail
Floyd Co. Jaile
Fulton Co. Jail
Gwinnett Co. Comprehensive Corr. Complexe
Gwinnett Co. Jail
Muscogee Co. Jail
Paulding Co. Det. Ctr.
Pelham Municipal Jaile
Richmond Co. Corr. Inst.
Idaho
Bingham Co. Jail
Illinois
Coles Co. Jail
Cook Co. Jail - Division 2
Cook Co. Jail - Division 11
Ogle Co. Jail
Pulaski Co. Tri-County Justice & Det. Ctr.e,g
Will Co. Adult Det. Fac.
Indiana
Daviess Co. Jail
Hamilton Co. Jail
Harrison Co. Jaile
Hendricks Co. Jail
Lake Co. Jail
Marion Co. Jail Intake Fac.
Wayne Co. Jail

Reported

Weightedc

Standard errord

Weightedc

Standard errord

4.2
7.9
2.9
5.0
4.3
0.8
5.7
5.4
3.0
1.8
1.8
2.7
1.8
3.4
4.8
2.2
1.3

3.8
8.5
3.0
5.7
4.2
0.7
5.4
6.5
2.4
1.2
1.6
2.8
1.8
3.3
5.2
2.5
1.2

1.2
1.9
1.3
2.5
1.5
0.6
1.8
2.5
1.0
0.7
0.8
1.1
0.9
1.7
1.5
1.3
0.8

3.8
7.1
2.2
5.0
4.2
0.7
4.7
6.5
2.4
1.2
0.9
2.8
1.8
2.2
4.2
2.5
1.2

1.2
1.8
1.1
2.4
1.5
0.6
1.7
2.5
1.0
0.7
0.6
1.1
0.9
1.4
1.3
1.3
0.8

5.2
3.6
0.0
2.6
3.0
6.4
4.7
4.5
1.7

5.1
3.1
0.0
2.4
3.2
6.3
5.0
4.9
2.0

1.9
1.2
0.0
1.1
1.6
1.8
1.7
1.7
1.0

4.5
2.6
0.0
1.8
3.2
5.6
5.0
2.8
2.0

1.8
1.1
0.0
0.9
1.6
1.7
1.7
1.3
1.0

4.8
3.6
1.9
5.0
2.5
1.3
2.8
2.9
3.0
1.2
7.5
0.6
3.9
3.3
6.0
1.5
2.8

7.1
3.3
2.2
5.4
2.9
1.2
3.5
3.6
2.4
1.1
7.1
0.6
3.7
2.7
5.4
1.7
2.3

3.0
1.3
1.0
1.6
1.3
0.8
1.5
2.4
1.0
0.7
1.8
0.5
1.2
1.0
2.1
1.2
1.0

7.1
2.0
2.2
5.4
2.9
0.0
2.9
3.6
0.7
1.1
5.7
0.6
3.2
2.3
5.4
0.0
1.6

3.0
1.0
1.0
1.6
1.3
0.0
1.4
2.4
0.5
0.7
1.7
0.5
1.2
1.0
2.1
0.0
0.8

6.7

5.2

2.3

5.2

2.3

0.0
3.3
3.9
5.0
6.7
5.2

0.0
2.6
3.9
4.8
6.7
6.8

0.0
1.0
1.4
3.1
6.4
2.0

0.0
1.3
3.5
4.8
0.0
4.8

0.0
0.8
1.3
3.1
0.0
1.6

3.3
3.1
1.4
3.4
4.8
3.8
7.6

2.6
3.6
2.0
3.1
4.9
4.1
7.5

1.0
1.4
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.8
1.9

1.8
3.6
2.0
3.1
3.5
2.9
7.5

0.9
1.4
1.4
1.5
1.3
1.5
1.9

20 Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007
PREA Report Summer 2008
Page 44

Appendix B.

Appendix table 2. Percent of local jail inmates reporting sexual victimization and estimated standard error,
by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.)
Percent of inmates reporting sexual victimizationa
Facility name
Iowa
Polk Co. Jaile
Story Co. Jaile
Kansas
Atchison Co. Jaile
Kentucky
Boyd Co. Jail
Daviess Co. Det. Ctr.
Grant Co. Jail
Hardin Co. Det. Ctr.
Kentucky River Reg. Jail
Lexington-Fayette Co. Det. Ctr.
Louisville-Jefferson Co. Dept. of Corr.
Warren Co. Reg. Jail
Louisiana
Ascension Parish Jail
Avoyelles Parish Bunkie Det. Ctr.e
Caldwell Parish Jails - (2 facilities)
Catahoula Corr. Ctr.e
East Baton Rouge Prison
Franklin Parish Jail
La Fourche Parish Jail
Lafayette Parish Corr. Center
Sabine Parish Det. Ctr.e
St. Bernard Parish Prison
St. Tammany Parish Jail
Terrebonne Parish Jail
Maine
Androscoggin Co. Jail
Maryland
Anne Arundel Co. Dept. of Det. Fac.
Baltimore City Det. Ctr.
Cecil Co. Comm. Adult Rehab. Ctr.e
Montgomery Co. Corr. Fac.
Washington Co. Det. Ctr.
Massachusetts
Barnstable Co. Corr. Fac.
Berkshire Co. Jail & House of Corr.
Hampden Co. Western Massachusetts Corr.
Alcohol Ctr.e
Middlesex Co. House of Corr. - Billericae
Plymouth Co. Corr. Fac.
Worcester Co. Jail & House of Corr.
Michigan
Bay Co. Jaile
Kalamazoo Co. Jail
Kent Co. Corr. Fac.
Montmorency Co. Jail
Oakland Co. Jaile
Ottawa Co. Jaile
Wayne Co. Andrew C. Baird Det. Fac.e
Wayne Co. William Dickerson Det. Fac.e
Minnesota
Hennepin Co. Adult Det. Ctr.
Koochiching Co. Law Enforcement Ctr.e
Mississippi
Madison Co. Jail
Tippah Co. Jail
Missouri
Clay Co. Det. Ctr.e
Jackson Co. Municipal Corr. Inst.e
St. Louis Co. Jaile
Wayne Co. Jaile

Reported

Weightedc

Standard errord

Percent of inmates reporting nonconsensual
sexual acts or abusive sexual contactsb
Weightedc

Standard errord

4.1
0.0

4.8
0.0

2.6
0.0

3.4
0.0

2.2
0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

5.6
1.7
3.4
2.8
5.4
6.2
3.9
3.3

5.4
2.4
3.2
2.5
4.0
6.1
4.3
3.8

1.6
1.2
1.3
0.9
1.5
1.9
1.9
1.7

4.6
1.7
1.4
2.1
3.2
3.3
2.3
1.4

1.5
1.1
0.8
0.9
1.3
1.4
1.1
0.9

1.5
1.3
6.2
1.8
4.0
3.9
7.9
5.8
1.3
1.9
4.6
5.1

1.4
1.5
6.9
2.1
3.7
3.9
6.6
5.6
1.3
1.9
4.5
4.7

0.7
0.8
1.6
0.7
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.4
0.7
0.8
1.4
1.2

1.4
0.9
5.3
1.7
3.2
3.4
5.0
4.1
1.3
1.9
4.1
4.4

0.7
0.7
1.4
0.7
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.2
0.7
0.8
1.4
1.1

7.3

6.7

2.2

5.1

2.0

3.5
3.3
0.0
3.9
2.8

2.8
3.5
0.0
3.8
3.0

1.1
1.4
0.0
1.2
1.3

2.2
2.4
0.0
1.3
2.3

0.9
1.2
0.0
0.8
1.1

2.7
4.4

2.4
4.6

0.9
1.3

2.4
3.0

0.9
1.0

0.0
0.7
2.3
3.9

0.0
1.0
2.3
4.2

0.0
0.9
1.1
1.5

0.0
0.0
0.9
3.2

0.0
0.0
0.6
1.2

0.9
3.2
4.5
4.5
1.5
1.2
0.7
0.7

0.9
4.1
4.3
3.6
1.7
1.1
0.2
1.0

0.7
1.6
1.3
1.7
1.0
0.6
0.2
0.9

0.9
1.5
4.3
3.6
1.7
1.1
0.2
1.0

0.7
1.1
1.3
1.7
1.0
0.6
0.2
0.9

3.0
0.0

2.6
0.0

1.2
0.0

1.3
0.0

0.9
0.0

3.3
0.0

4.6
0.0

1.4
0.0

4.6
0.0

1.4
0.0

1.6
0.0
1.6
0.0

1.5
0.0
1.6
0.0

0.8
0.0
0.8
0.0

1.5
0.0
1.6
0.0

0.8
0.0
0.8
0.0

Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007

PREA Report Summer 2008
Page 45

21

Appendix B.

Appendix table 2. Percent of local jail inmates reporting sexual victimization and estimated standard error,
by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.)
Percent of inmates reporting sexual victimizationa
Facility name
Montana
Cascade Co. Reg. Jail
Nebraska
Douglas Dept. of Corr.
Nevada
Clark Co. Det. Ctr.
Las Vegas City Det. Ctr.e
Washoe Co. Det. Ctr.
New Hampshire
Hillsborough Co. House of Corr.
New Jersey
Atlantic Co. Gerard L. Gormley Justice Fac.
Camden Co. Corr. Fac.
Essex Co. Corr. Fac.
Hudson Co. Corr. Fac.
Mercer Co. Corr. Ctr.
Morris Co. Corr. Fac.
Union Co. Jail
New Mexico
Bernalillo Co. Metropolitan Det. Ctr.
San Juan Co. Det. Ctr.e
Santa Fe Co. Adult Corr. Fac.
Torrance Co. Det. Fac.g
New York
Albany Co. Corr. Fac.
Erie Co. Corr. Fac.
Erie Co. Holding Ctr.
Franklin Co. Jail
New York City Anna M. Kross Ctr.
New York City Otis Bantum Corr. Ctr.
New York City Rose M. Singer Ctr.f
Oswego Co. Corr. Fac.
Westchester Co. Penitentiary
North Carolina
Cabarrus Co. Jaile
Chowan Co. Det. Fac.e
Cleveland Co.
Mecklenburg Co. Jail
Mecklenburg Co. Jail - North
New Hanover Co. Det. Ctr.e
Wake Co. Jail
North Dakota
Cass Co. Jail
Ohio
Cuyahoga Co. Corr. Ctr.e
Franklin Co. Corrections Ctr. I
Hamilton Co. Justice Ctr.
Hamilton Co. Talbert House Drug & Alcohol
Treatment
Marion-Hardin Co. Multi-County Corr. Ctr.e
Northwest Ohio Reg. Corr. Ctr.e
River City Corr. Fac.
Southeastern Ohio Reg. Jail
Oklahoma
Mayes Co. Jaile
Oklahoma Co. Det. Ctr.
Rogers Co. Jail
Oregon
Coos Co. Jaile
Marion Co. Corr. Fac.
Washington Co. Jaile

Reported

Weightedc

4.2

3.8

3.4

Weightedc

Standard errord

1.5

3.8

1.5

3.1

1.3

2.7

1.3

2.2
1.3
3.0

2.2
0.6
3.1

1.1
0.4
1.1

1.7
0.6
1.9

0.9
0.4
0.8

3.4

2.9

1.1

2.1

1.0

4.8
1.9
2.8
2.5
3.8
2.5
2.5

4.2
2.0
1.8
2.6
3.0
1.7
3.7

1.7
1.0
0.8
1.1
1.0
0.8
1.8

3.2
1.3
0.7
2.0
1.5
1.3
2.2

1.4
0.7
0.4
1.0
0.7
0.7
1.1

7.7
0.5
4.1
10.4

8.9
0.6
3.7
13.4

2.9
0.5
1.3
4.1

7.8
0.0
2.9
10.1

2.7
0.0
1.1
3.8

3.6
3.6
7.6
7.4
4.7
3.8
7.9
2.4
2.7

3.1
3.1
5.8
7.3
4.4
2.8
7.2
1.8
2.7

1.3
1.1
1.7
1.4
1.6
1.1
1.7
0.7
1.0

2.2
2.8
5.2
5.1
4.4
1.2
6.9
1.8
0.5

1.0
1.1
1.6
1.2
1.6
0.8
1.7
0.7
0.4

4.9
6.7
5.6
3.6
5.8
0.9
3.9

2.8
8.6
6.0
3.8
6.1
0.7
3.9

1.4
5.8
1.9
1.4
1.9
0.6
1.3

2.0
0.0
4.3
3.0
4.7
0.7
3.3

1.3
0.0
1.4
1.2
1.7
0.6
1.2

1.8

1.6

0.7

0.8

0.5

1.1
3.4
2.7

1.1
4.2
3.2

0.7
1.8
1.3

1.1
3.7
2.5

0.7
1.7
1.1

5.8
1.6
0.0
2.4
8.2

5.9
0.8
0.0
2.5
8.1

1.2
0.6
0.0
0.8
2.1

4.9
0.8
0.0
2.5
8.1

1.1
0.6
0.0
0.8
2.1

5.0
4.6
3.7

5.5
4.5
4.4

3.1
1.4
1.3

5.5
4.5
4.4

3.1
1.4
1.3

1.7
3.0
0.6

1.4
3.0
0.5

0.8
1.1
0.4

1.4
2.7
0.5

0.8
1.1
0.4

22 Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007

PREA Report Summer 2008
Page 46

Standard errord

Percent of inmates reporting nonconsensual
sexual acts or abusive sexual contactsb

Appendix B.

Appendix table 2. Percent of local jail inmates reporting sexual victimization and estimated standard error,
by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.)
Percent of inmates reporting nonconsensual
Percent of inmates reporting sexual victimizationa sexual acts or abusive sexual contactsb
Facility name
Pennsylvania
Allegheny Co. Jail
Berks Co. Prisone
Blair Co. Prisone
Erie Co. Prisone
Lancaster Co. Prison
Lycoming Co. Pre-Release Ctr.e
Montgomery Co. Corr. Fac.
Philadelphia City Alternative & Special Det. Fac.
Philadelphia City Curran/Fromhold Corr. Fac.
Philadelphia City House of Corr.e
Philadelphia City Industrial Corr. Ctr.
York Co. Prison
South Carolina
Beaufort Co. Det. Ctr.
Berkeley Co. Hill-Finklea Det. Ctr.
Charleston Co. Det. Ctr.e
Florence Co. Det. Ctr.
Lancaster Co. Det. Ctr.e
Sumter-Lee Reg. Det. Ctr.
South Dakota
Pennington Co. Jail
Tennessee
Davidson Co. Criminal Justice Ctr.e
Greene Co. Det. Ctr.e
Knox Co. Work Release Ctr.e
Madison Co. Penal Farm
Shelby Co. Corr. Ctr.
Shelby Co. Justice Ctr.
Sullivan Co. Jail
Tipton Co. Jail
Warren Co. Jail
Texas
Bexar Co. Adult Det. Ctr.e
Bowie Co. Corr. Ctr.
Brazoria Co. Jail & Det. Ctr.e
Cameron Co. Jail
Dallas Co. Decker Det. Ctr.
Dallas Co. George Allen Jail
Dallas Co. North Tower Jail
Dallas Co. West Tower Jail
Denton Co. Det. Ctr.e
El Paso Co. Jail Annex
Galveston Co. Jail
Gregg Co. Jail
Harris Co. Jail
Harris Co. Jail - Baker Street
Haskell Co. Rolling Plains Reg. Jail & Det. Ctr.e,g
Jefferson Co. Det. Ctr.
Kleberg Co. Jaile
Limestone Co. Det. Ctr.e,g
Montgomery Co. Jail
Newton Co. Corr. Ctr.e
Potter Co. Det. Ctr.e
Tarrant Co. Corr. Ctr.
Travis Co. Corr. Fac.
Utah
Weber Co. Corr. Fac.

Reported

Weightedc

Standard errord

Weightedc

Standard errord

2.2
1.7
0.8
1.2
4.4
2.6
2.9
3.5
3.7
1.5
7.8
2.1

2.2
1.7
0.7
1.3
4.2
2.2
2.8
4.1
3.9
1.5
6.9
2.0

0.9
0.9
0.5
0.8
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.6
1.4
0.8
1.8
1.0

1.4
1.1
0.7
0.4
2.1
0.0
2.8
3.5
2.3
1.1
5.9
2.0

0.8
0.7
0.5
0.3
1.0
0.0
1.2
1.5
1.1
0.7
1.6
1.0

2.3
2.6
1.4
3.7
2.9
3.1

1.9
2.1
1.9
3.8
2.4
3.2

0.8
1.0
1.3
1.2
1.4
1.3

1.3
1.5
1.2
2.4
2.4
3.2

0.7
0.9
1.1
0.9
1.4
1.3

3.3

3.2

1.3

3.2

1.3

3.3
1.9
0.0
1.9
5.0
2.2
2.7
1.8
4.9

4.2
2.0
0.0
2.6
5.3
2.1
2.5
1.6
4.3

2.5
1.1
0.0
1.1
1.8
0.9
1.0
0.6
1.4

1.8
2.0
0.0
2.6
5.3
1.8
1.8
0.0
4.3

1.2
1.1
0.0
1.1
1.8
0.9
0.8
0.0
1.4

2.1
4.3
1.1
0.0
2.2
3.4
5.0
5.1
2.1
4.4
4.1
3.7
2.6
5.1
2.0
4.4
2.0
0.8
3.0
1.3
2.1
3.4
5.5

1.6
2.8
0.8
0.0
1.8
3.1
5.0
5.2
1.7
3.9
4.0
3.8
3.8
5.0
1.3
3.8
2.5
0.7
3.1
1.1
3.0
3.7
6.0

0.9
1.1
0.5
0.0
0.9
1.4
1.5
1.9
1.0
1.3
1.4
1.4
1.6
1.5
0.8
1.2
1.8
0.6
1.1
0.6
1.7
1.5
1.7

1.6
2.3
0.4
0.0
1.8
3.1
4.7
5.2
0.7
3.6
4.0
3.2
2.8
4.7
0.8
3.4
2.5
0.7
2.6
0.8
1.3
3.7
6.0

0.9
1.0
0.4
0.0
0.9
1.4
1.5
1.9
0.4
1.3
1.4
1.3
1.4
1.5
0.7
1.1
1.8
0.6
1.1
0.5
0.8
1.5
1.7

4.1

4.5

1.5

4.5

1.5

Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007
PREA Report Summer 2008
Page 47

23

Appendix B.

Appendix table 2. Percent of local jail inmates reporting sexual victimization and estimated standard error,
by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.)
Percent of inmates reporting sexual victimizationa
Facility name
Virginia
Central Virginia Reg. Jaile
Culpeper Co. Jaile
Dinwiddie Co. Jaile
Duffield Reg. Jail Fac.
Newport News City Jaile
Norfolk City Jaile
Prince William-Manassas Reg. Adult Corr. Ctr.
Richmond City Jail
Roanoke City Jaile
Roanoke Co. Jaile
Rockbridge Co. Reg. Jaile
Virginia Beach Corr. Ctr.e
Washington
Chelan Co. Reg. Jaile
Clark Co. Jail
King Co. Corr. Fac.
King Co. Reg. Justice Ctr.e
Snohomish Co. Jail
Whatcom Co. Jail
West Virginia
Western Reg. Jail
Wisconsin
Dane Co. Jail
La Crosse Co. Jaile
Marathon Co. Adult Det. Fac.
Milwaukee Co. House of Corr.e
Milwaukee Co. Jail
Waukesha Co. Jail
Waupaca Co. Jail
Wyoming
Sheridan Co. Det. Ctr.e

Reported

Weightedc

Standard errord

Percent of inmates reporting nonconsensual
sexual acts or abusive sexual contactsb
Weightedc

Standard errord

0.8
0.0
0.0
3.5
2.3
1.5
2.8
4.9
5.3
2.2
2.5
2.0

0.7
0.0
0.0
3.5
3.7
1.5
2.4
4.5
5.4
2.1
2.0
2.4

0.6
0.0
0.0
1.3
2.1
0.8
1.1
1.4
1.9
1.3
1.1
1.4

0.0
0.0
0.0
3.0
3.7
1.2
2.4
4.5
4.6
0.7
2.0
2.4

0.0
0.0
0.0
1.2
2.1
0.8
1.1
1.4
1.8
0.6
1.1
1.4

1.6
8.0
5.4
0.6
1.5
6.4

1.5
9.1
4.2
0.7
1.4
5.6

0.8
2.2
1.4
0.6
0.8
1.5

1.5
8.5
4.2
0.0
1.4
5.1

0.8
2.1
1.4
0.0
0.8
1.5

3.2

3.9

1.5

2.9

1.3

4.6
2.2
3.8
2.3
2.4
3.5
2.1

3.6
0.6
3.7
2.6
1.8
3.1
2.0

1.3
0.3
1.3
1.4
1.0
1.1
0.9

3.1
0.6
2.7
2.6
1.8
1.8
2.0

1.2
0.3
1.1
1.4
1.0
0.9
0.9

1.4

1.1

0.6

1.1

0.6

aInmates

reporting one or more incidents of sexual victimization involving another inmate or facility staff since admission to the facility or since admission if less than 6 months.

b

Excludes staff-on-inmate acts and contacts reported by inmate as willing.

cWeights

were applied so that inmates who responded accurately reflected the entire population of each facility on selected characteristics, including
age, gender, race, time served, and sentence length. (See Methodology for weighting and nonresponse adjustments.)
d

Standard errors may be used to construct confidence intervals around the weighted survey estimates. For example, the 95% confidence interval
around the total percent is 4.5% plus or minus 1.96 times 0.3% (or 3.9% to 5.1%).

eThe

95% confidence level around the weighted estimate includes zero.

fFemale
gPrivate

facility.
facility.

24 Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007

PREA Report Summer 2008
Page 48

Appendix B.

Appendix table 3. Percent of local jail inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual contacts,
by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007
Facility name
Total
Alabama
Etowah Co. Det. Ctr.
Jackson Co. Jail
Shelby Co. Jail
Arizona
Coconino Co. Jail
Maricopa Co. Jail - 4th Avenue
Maricopa Co. Jail - Durango
Maricopa Co. Jail - Estrellad
Maricopa Co. Jail - Lower Buckeye
California
Alameda Co. Santa Rita Jail
Fresno Co. Det. Fac. - Main Jail
Imperial Co. Jail
Kern Co. Lerdo Pre-Trial Fac.
Los Angeles Co. Mens Central Jail
Los Angeles Co. North Corr. Fac.
Los Angeles Co. Twin Towers Corr. Fac.
Orange Co. Central Jail Complex
Orange Co. James A. Musick Fac.
Riverside Co. Larry D. Smith Corr. Ctr.
Riverside Co. Robert Presley Det. Ctr.
Sacramento Co Rio Cosumnes Corr. Ctr.
Sacramento Co. Main Jail
San Bernardino Co. W. Valley Det. Ctr.
San Bernardino Co. Glen Helen Rehab. Ctr.
San Bernardino Co. Central Det. Ctr.
San Diego Co. George F. Bailey Det. Fac.
San Diego Co. Las Colinas Women's Det. Fac.d
San Francisco Co. Jail - No. 1
Santa Barbara Co. Jail
Santa Clara Co. Elmwood Corr. Complex
Santa Clara Co. Main Jail - North
Ventura Co. Jail - Todd Road
Colorado
Adams Co. Det. Fac.
Arapahoe Co. Jail
El Paso Co. Det. Fac.
Garfield Co. Jail
District of Columbia
D.C. Dept. of Corr. Jail
Florida
Alachua Co. Jail
Brevard Co. Det. Ctr.
Broward Co. Conte Corr. Fac.
Broward Co. Main Jail
Broward Co. North Jail - Pompano Beach
Collier Co. Jail
Dixie Co. Jail
Hillsborough Co. Falkenburg Road Jail
Jackson Co. Corr. Fac.
Jacksonville City Montgomery Corr. Ctr.
Marion Co. Jail
Miami-Dade Co. Metro West Det. Ctr.
Miami-Dade Co. Turner Guilford Knight Corr. Ctr.
Orange Co. 33rd Street Corr. Ctr.
Pinellas Co. Central Division Fac.
Pinellas Co. South Fac. (Max. Sec.)
Sarasota North Co. Jail
Seminole Co. John E. Polk Corr. Fac.
South Co. Jail
St. Johns Co. Jail

Nonconsensual sexual actsa
Percent victimized
Standard errorc

Abusive sexual contacts onlyb
Percent victimized
Standard errorc

2.1%

0.1%

1.1%

0.1%

0.4
1.3
1.3

0.3
0.5
0.8

1.1
1.0
0.6

0.7
0.6
0.5

1.7
1.7
1.3
1.8
2.6

0.9
0.8
0.7
1.0
1.0

0.4
1.1
0.8
0.9
0.0

0.4
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.0

1.9
2.2
2.7
2.4
1.3
2.9
2.7
1.0
1.4
1.6
4.2
2.5
1.1
3.8
1.5
1.6
2.4
3.3
1.5
3.5
0.6
3.4
2.2

1.4
1.2
1.4
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.7
0.7
0.7
0.9
1.9
1.3
0.7
1.9
0.8
0.7
0.9
1.3
0.9
1.2
0.6
1.4
0.9

1.5
1.0
0.6
0.5
2.0
0.3
3.6
3.3
0.7
1.1
2.2
0.7
1.4
2.2
1.6
0.5
2.5
2.7
3.4
0.4
1.5
0.7
0.6

0.9
0.9
0.5
0.5
1.1
0.3
2.0
1.2
0.5
0.6
1.1
0.5
1.0
1.2
0.9
0.5
1.3
1.2
1.4
0.4
0.9
0.6
0.5

2.5
0.1
2.1
3.0

1.0
0.1
0.9
1.2

1.8
2.9
0.4
2.5

1.3
1.1
0.4
1.4

3.1

1.5

1.1

0.7

1.9
7.8
1.1
2.5
3.8
5.1
1.2
1.7
0.7
1.6
3.0
2.5
3.8
1.9
2.4
3.2
2.5
4.2
2.9
1.5

0.9
1.8
0.8
1.9
1.5
1.8
0.8
0.8
0.5
0.8
1.1
1.3
1.7
1.0
1.1
1.6
1.2
1.5
1.4
0.9

1.9
0.8
1.9
3.3
0.5
0.3
5.3
0.7
0.9
1.2
2.2
0.0
1.2
1.1
0.0
0.0
3.7
0.8
2.0
0.5

0.9
0.5
1.1
1.7
0.4
0.3
2.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
1.0
0.0
0.8
0.7
0.0
0.0
1.4
0.7
1.1
0.4

Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007

PREA Report Summer 2008
Page 49

25

Appendix B.

Appendix table 3. Percent of local jail inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual contacts,
by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.)
Facility name
Georgia
Atlanta City Jail
Bartow Co. Jail
Carroll Co. Jail
Cobb Co. Sheriff's Office Jail & Prison Unit
Coweta Co. Jail
Dekalb Co. Jail
Dougherty Co. Jail
Fulton Co. Jail
Gwinnett Co. Jail
Muscogee Co. Jail
Paulding Co. Det. Ctr.
Richmond Co. Corr. Inst.
Idaho
Bingham Co. Jail
Illinois
Cook Co. Jail - Division 2
Cook Co. Jail - Division 11
Will Co. Adult Det. Fac.
Indiana
Daviess Co. Jail
Hamilton Co. Jail
Hendricks Co. Jail
Lake Co. Jail
Marion Co. Jail Intake Fac.
Wayne Co. Jail
Kentucky
Boyd Co. Jail
Daviess Co. Det. Ctr.
Grant Co. Jail
Hardin Co. Det. Ctr.
Kentucky River Reg. Jail
Lexington-Fayette Co. Det. Ctr.
Louisville-Jefferson Co. Dept. of Corr.
Warren Co. Reg. Jail
Louisiana
Ascension Parish Jail
Caldwell Parish Jails - (2 facilities)
Catahoula Corr. Ctr.e
East Baton Rouge Prison
Franklin Parish Jail
La Fourche Parish Jail
Lafayette Parish Corr. Center
St. Bernard Parish Prison
St. Tammany Parish Jail
Terrebonne Parish Jail
Maine
Androscoggin Co. Jail
Maryland
Anne Arundel Co. Dept. of Det. Fac.
Baltimore City Det. Ctr.
Montgomery Co. Corr. Fac.
Washington Co. Det. Ctr.
Massachusetts
Barnstable Co. Corr. Fac.
Berkshire Co. Jail & House of Corr.
Plymouth Co. Corr. Fac.
Worcester Co. Jail & House of Corr.
Michigan
Kalamazoo Co. Jail
Kent Co. Corr. Fac.
Montmorency Co. Jail

Nonconsensual sexual actsa
Percent victimized
Standard errorc

Abusive sexual contacts onlyb
Percent victimized
Standard errorc

5.6
1.2
2.2
2.1
1.9
1.0
2.0
4.8
1.0
1.5
3.5
0.7

2.9
0.7
1.0
0.9
1.0
0.7
0.9
1.6
0.6
0.8
1.8
0.5

1.4
2.1
0.0
3.3
1.0
2.5
0.4
2.3
2.7
1.3
1.8
1.6

0.8
1.0
0.0
1.3
0.8
1.3
0.3
1.0
1.1
0.7
1.1
0.8

2.0

1.5

3.2

1.7

2.6
3.4
4.7

1.0
1.3
1.8

0.0
0.5
2.1

0.0
0.4
1.1

1.5
2.7
2.1
4.6
4.1
1.5

0.7
1.3
1.2
1.6
1.8
0.8

1.1
0.9
1.0
0.4
0.0
6.0

0.7
0.7
0.8
0.3
0.0
1.7

1.6
1.3
1.7
1.4
4.0
5.5
2.8
2.4

0.9
0.8
1.0
0.7
1.5
1.8
1.6
1.5

3.8
1.1
1.5
1.1
0.0
0.6
1.5
1.4

1.4
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.0
0.6
1.0
0.9

0.7
5.0
2.1
1.4
2.4
4.0
3.8
1.0
2.7
1.7

0.5
1.4
0.7
0.7
0.9
0.9
1.2
0.5
1.1
0.7

0.7
1.9
0.0
2.3
1.5
2.6
1.7
0.9
1.8
3.1

0.5
0.7
0.0
1.0
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.5
1.0
1.0

5.1

2.0

1.6

1.0

1.1
2.9
3.1
2.4

0.7
1.3
1.1
1.2

1.7
0.6
0.7
0.6

0.8
0.6
0.6
0.5

1.2
3.0
1.8
1.5

0.7
1.2
1.0
0.8

1.2
1.6
0.5
2.8

0.7
0.7
0.5
1.3

3.1
3.1
3.6

1.4
1.2
1.7

1.0
1.2
0.0

0.7
0.6
0.0

26 Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007

PREA Report Summer 2008
Page 50

Appendix B.

Appendix table 3. Percent of local jail inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual contacts,
by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.)
Facility name
Minnesota
Hennepin Co. Adult Det. Ctr.
Mississippi
Madison Co. Jail
Montana
Cascade Co. Reg. Jail
Nebraska
Douglas Dept. of Corr.
Nevada
Clark Co. Det. Ctr.
Washoe Co. Det. Ctr.
New Hampshire
Hillsborough Co. House of Corr.
New Jersey
Atlantic Co. Gerard L. Gormley Justice Fac.
Camden Co. Corr. Fac.
Essex Co. Corr. Fac.
Hudson Co. Corr. Fac.
Mercer Co. Corr. Ctr.
Morris Co. Corr. Fac.
Union Co. Jail
New Mexico
Bernalillo Co. Metropolitan Det. Ctr.
Santa Fe Co. Adult Corr. Fac.
Torrance Co. Det. Fac.e
New York
Albany Co. Corr. Fac.
Erie Co. Corr. Fac.
Erie Co. Holding Ctr.
Franklin Co. Jail
New York City Anna M. Kross Ctr.
New York City Otis Bantum Corr. Ctr.
New York City Rose M. Singer Ctr.d
Oswego Co. Corr. Fac.
Westchester Co. Penitentiary
North Carolina
Cleveland Co.
Mecklenburg Co. Jail
Mecklenburg Co. Jail - North
Wake Co. Jail
North Dakota
Cass Co. Jail
Ohio
Franklin Co. Corrections Ctr. I
Hamilton Co. Justice Ctr.
Hamilton Co. Talbert House Drug & Alcohol
Treatment
River City Corr. Fac.
Southeastern Ohio Reg. Jail
Oklahoma
Oklahoma Co. Det. Ctr.
Rogers Co. Jail
Oregon
Marion Co. Corr. Fac.
Pennsylvania
Allegheny Co. Jail
Lancaster Co. Prison
Montgomery Co. Corr. Fac.
Philadelphia City Alternative & Special Det. Fac.
Philadelphia City Curran/Fromhold Corr. Fac.
Philadelphia City Industrial Corr. Ctr.
York Co. Prison

Nonconsensual sexual actsa
Percent victimized
Standard errorc

Abusive sexual contacts onlyb
Percent victimized
Standard errorc

2.6

1.2

0.0

0.0

2.5

1.0

2.1

1.0

1.3

0.7

2.5

1.3

2.3

1.1

0.8

0.8

1.2
1.6

0.8
0.7

1.0
1.5

0.7
0.8

1.2

0.7

1.7

0.9

4.2
1.4
1.3
2.2
2.5
1.1
3.7

1.7
0.8
0.8
1.0
0.9
0.7
1.8

0.0
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.6
0.0

0.0
0.5
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.0

6.7
3.7
8.9

2.5
1.3
3.3

2.2
0.0
4.5

1.6
0.0
2.7

1.2
1.9
3.8
5.3
3.7
2.8
1.5
0.9
2.1

0.9
0.8
1.4
1.2
1.5
1.1
0.7
0.5
0.9

1.9
1.2
2.0
2.0
0.7
0.0
5.7
0.9
0.6

1.0
0.8
1.0
0.7
0.7
0.0
1.6
0.5
0.5

5.4
1.5
3.5
1.8

1.9
1.0
1.4
1.0

0.6
2.3
2.5
2.1

0.4
1.0
1.3
1.0

0.8

0.5

0.8

0.5

2.9
2.4

1.3
1.1

1.3
0.9

1.3
0.8

1.9
2.5
5.8

0.7
0.8
1.8

4.0
0.0
2.3

1.0
0.0
1.2

2.2
2.5

1.0
1.0

2.4
2.0

1.0
0.8

2.1

1.0

0.9

0.6

1.7
2.1
1.9
1.8
2.1
5.3
1.3

0.8
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.6
0.9

0.5
2.1
0.9
2.3
1.8
1.6
0.6

0.5
1.0
0.6
1.1
1.0
0.8
0.4

Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007

PREA Report Summer 2008
Page 51

27

Appendix B.

Appendix table 3. Percent of local jail inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual contacts,
by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.)
Facility name
South Carolina
Beaufort Co. Det. Ctr.
Berkeley Co. Hill-Finklea Det. Ctr.
Florence Co. Det. Ctr.
Sumter-Lee Reg. Det. Ctr.
South Dakota
Pennington Co. Jail
Tennessee
Madison Co. Penal Farm
Shelby Co. Corr. Ctr.
Shelby Co. Justice Ctr.
Sullivan Co. Jail
Tipton Co. Jail
Warren Co. Jail
Texas
Bowie Co. Corr. Ctr.
Dallas Co. Decker Det. Ctr.
Dallas Co. George Allen Jail
Dallas Co. North Tower Jail
Dallas Co. West Tower Jail
El Paso Co. Jail Annex
Galveston Co. Jail
Gregg Co. Jail
Harris Co. Jail
Harris Co. Jail - Baker Street
Jefferson Co. Det. Ctr.
Montgomery Co. Jail
Newton Co. Corr. Ctr.e
Tarrant Co. Corr. Ctr.
Travis Co. Corr. Fac.
Utah
Weber Co. Corr. Fac.
Virginia
Duffield Reg. Jail Fac.
Prince William-Manassas Reg. Adult Corr. Ctr.
Richmond City Jail
Roanoke City Jail
Washington
Clark Co. Jail
King Co. Corr. Fac.
Whatcom Co. Jail
West Virginia
Western Reg. Jail
Wisconsin
Dane Co. Jail
Marathon Co. Adult Det. Fac.
Waukesha Co. Jail
Waupaca Co. Jail

Nonconsensual sexual actsa
Percent victimized
Standard errorc

Abusive sexual contacts onlyb
Percent victimized
Standard errorc

1.9
1.4
2.5
1.8

0.8
0.8
1.0
1.0

0.0
0.8
1.2
1.4

0.0
0.6
0.7
0.8

2.1

1.0

1.1

0.9

0.0
3.8
1.3
1.1
1.6
2.8

0.0
1.6
0.8
0.7
0.6
1.2

2.6
1.5
0.7
1.4
0.0
1.5

1.1
0.8
0.5
0.7
0.0
0.7

1.1
1.4
1.8
3.2
2.6
2.1
1.8
3.1
2.3
5.0
2.6
2.0
0.8
3.4
3.0

0.6
0.8
1.1
1.3
1.4
1.0
1.0
1.2
1.1
1.5
1.0
0.9
0.5
1.4
1.2

1.7
0.3
1.3
1.8
2.6
1.8
2.3
0.7
1.5
0.0
1.2
1.1
0.4
0.3
3.0

0.9
0.3
1.0
0.9
1.2
0.9
1.1
0.6
1.1
0.0
0.6
0.7
0.3
0.3
1.2

2.1

1.1

2.4

1.0

0.9
2.4
3.1
1.4

0.5
1.1
1.2
0.9

2.6
0.0
1.4
4.0

1.2
0.0
0.8
1.7

3.4
3.6
4.4

1.3
1.2
1.4

5.7
0.6
1.2

1.8
0.6
0.5

2.8

1.2

1.1

0.9

2.7
3.7
2.6
0.0

1.1
1.3
1.1
0.0

1.0
0.0
0.6
2.0

0.6
0.0
0.5
0.9

Note: Excludes facilities with rates of sexual victimization not statistically different from zero at the 95% confidence level. Detail may not
sum due to rounding.
a

Includes all inmates who reported unwanted contacts with another inmate or any contacts with staff that involved oral, anal, or vaginal
penetration, handjobs, and other sexual acts.

bIncludes

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

cStandard
d
e

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

Female facility.
Privately operated facility.

28 Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007
PREA Report Summer 2008
Page 52

Appendix B.

Appendix table 4. Percent of local jail inmates reporting sexual victimization, by type of incident and facility,
National Inmate Survey, 2007
Inmate-on-inmatea

Facility name
Total
Alabama
Etowah Co. Det. Ctr.
Jackson Co. Jail
Shelby Co. Jail
Arizona
Coconino Co. Jail
Maricopa Co. Jail - 4th Avenue
Maricopa Co. Jail - Durango
Maricopa Co. Jail - Estrellac
Maricopa Co. Jail - Lower Buckeye
California
Alameda Co. Santa Rita Jail
Fresno Co. Det. Fac. - Main Jail
Imperial Co. Jail
Kern Co. Lerdo Pre-Trial Fac.
Los Angeles Co. Mens Central Jail
Los Angeles Co. North Corr. Fac.
Los Angeles Co. Twin Towers Corr. Fac.
Orange Co. Central Jail Complex
Orange Co. James A. Musick Fac.
Riverside Co. Larry D. Smith Corr. Ctr.
Riverside Co. Robert Presley Det. Ctr.
Sacramento Co. Rio Cosumnes Corr. Ctr.
Sacramento Co. Main Jail
San Bernardino Co. W. Valley Det. Ctr.
San Bernardino Co. Glen Helen Rehab. Ctr.
San Bernardino Co. Central Det. Ctr.
San Diego Co. George F. Bailey Det. Fac.
San Diego Co. Las Colinas Women's Det. Fac.c
San Francisco Co. Jail - No. 1
Santa Barbara Co. Jail
Santa Clara Co. Elmwood Corr. Complex
Santa Clara Co. Main Jail - North
Ventura Co. Jail - Todd Road
Colorado
Adams Co. Det. Fac.
Arapahoe Co. Jail
El Paso Co. Det. Fac.
Garfield Co. Jail
District of Columbia
D.C. Dept. of Corr. Jail
Florida
Alachua Co. Jail
Brevard Co. Det. Ctr.
Broward Co. Conte Corr. Fac.
Broward Co. Main Jail
Broward Co. North Jail - Pompano Beach
Collier Co. Jail
Dixie Co. Jail
Hillsborough Co. Falkenburg Road Jail
Jackson Co. Corr. Fac.
Jacksonville City Montgomery Corr. Ctr.
Marion Co. Jail
Miami-Dade Co. Metro West Det. Ctr.
Miami-Dade Co. Turner Guilford Knight Corr. Ctr.
Orange Co. 33rd Street Corr. Ctr.
Pinellas Co. Central Division Fac.
Pinellas Co. South Fac. (Max. Sec.)
Sarasota North Co. Jail
Seminole Co. John E. Polk Corr. Fac.
South Co. Jail
St. Johns Co. Jail

Percent victimized

Standard errorb

Staff-on-inmatea

Percent victimized

Standard errorb

1.6%

0.1%

2.0%

0.1%

1.5
1.8
1.9

0.7
0.7
0.9

0.0
1.3
0.6

0.0
0.5
0.5

0.0
1.7
1.6
2.7
0.4

0.0
0.8
0.8
1.1
0.4

2.1
1.1
0.9
0.4
2.6

1.0
0.6
0.6
0.4
1.0

2.1
1.6
1.3
1.4
1.0
1.4
5.0
3.3
1.8
1.2
3.7
1.2
0.0
3.6
1.3
0.4
3.0
3.8
3.4
3.1
2.2
2.9
1.1

1.1
1.1
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.8
2.4
1.2
0.8
0.7
1.3
0.7
0.0
1.8
0.9
0.3
1.3
1.4
1.4
1.2
1.1
1.3
0.7

1.3
1.5
2.0
2.0
2.5
2.9
1.3
1.0
1.4
2.2
3.7
2.0
2.5
2.6
1.7
1.8
3.7
3.2
1.5
2.1
0.6
1.2
1.6

1.2
1.0
1.2
0.9
1.3
1.1
1.0
0.7
0.7
1.0
1.9
1.2
1.2
1.2
0.8
0.8
1.4
1.5
0.9
1.0
0.6
0.8
0.8

3.7
3.0
1.7
4.0

1.6
1.1
0.8
1.7

1.0
0.2
1.3
3.0

0.6
0.2
0.7
1.2

3.1

1.5

3.2

1.5

2.9
6.7
1.9
1.7
3.8
1.5
5.3
1.6
0.9
1.4
2.7
0.0
2.4
1.4
0.0
2.2
5.0
3.7
0.6
1.2

1.1
1.7
1.0
1.4
1.5
0.7
2.4
0.8
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.0
1.5
0.7
0.0
1.3
1.6
1.5
0.6
0.7

0.9
4.4
1.1
4.1
0.8
4.2
1.2
0.8
0.7
1.4
3.2
2.5
4.6
1.9
2.4
2.7
1.2
1.9
4.3
1.5

0.6
1.5
0.8
2.1
0.5
1.7
0.8
0.6
0.5
0.7
1.1
1.3
1.8
1.0
1.1
1.5
0.8
1.0
1.6
0.9

Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007

PREA Report Summer 2008
Page 53

29

Appendix B.

Appendix table 4. Percent of local jail inmates reporting sexual victimization, by type of incident and facility,
National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.)
Inmate-on-inmatea

Facility name
Georgia
Atlanta City Jail
Bartow Co. Jail
Carroll Co. Jail
Cobb Co. Sheriff's Office Jail & Prison Unit
Coweta Co. Jail
Dekalb Co. Jail
Dougherty Co. Jail
Fulton Co. Jail
Gwinnett Co. Jail
Muscogee Co. Jail
Paulding Co. Det. Ctr.
Richmond Co. Corr. Inst.
Idaho
Bingham Co. Jail
Illinois
Cook Co. Jail - Division 2
Cook Co. Jail - Division 11
Will Co. Adult Det. Fac.
Indiana
Daviess Co. Jail
Hamilton Co. Jail
Hendricks Co. Jail
Lake Co. Jail
Marion Co. Jail Intake Fac.
Wayne Co. Jail
Kentucky
Boyd Co. Jail
Daviess Co. Det. Ctr.
Grant Co. Jail
Hardin Co. Det. Ctr.
Kentucky River Reg. Jail
Lexington-Fayette Co. Det. Ctr.
Louisville-Jefferson Co. Dept. of Corr.
Warren Co. Reg. Jail
Louisiana
Ascension Parish Jail
Caldwell Parish Jails - (2 facilities)
Catahoula Corr. Ctr.d
East Baton Rouge Prison
Franklin Parish Jail
La Fourche Parish Jail
Lafayette Parish Corr. Center
St. Bernard Parish Prison
St. Tammany Parish Jail
Terrebonne Parish Jail
Maine
Androscoggin Co. Jail
Maryland
Anne Arundel Co. Dept. of Det. Fac.
Baltimore City Det. Ctr.
Montgomery Co. Corr. Fac.
Washington Co. Det. Ctr.
Massachusetts
Barnstable Co. Corr. Fac.
Berkshire Co. Jail & House of Corr.
Plymouth Co. Corr. Fac.
Worcester Co. Jail & House of Corr.
Michigan
Kalamazoo Co. Jail
Kent Co. Corr. Fac.
Montmorency Co. Jail

Percent victimized

b

Standard error

Staff-on-inmatea

Percent victimized

Standard errorb

6.2
1.4
1.5
3.5
1.8
2.5
0.3
3.0
2.7
2.3
3.5
1.6

2.9
0.8
0.8
1.3
1.0
1.3
0.2
1.2
1.1
1.0
1.8
0.8

3.2
2.0
0.7
2.4
1.9
1.0
2.1
4.0
1.9
0.4
5.4
0.7

2.1
1.0
0.6
1.1
1.0
0.7
1.0
1.4
0.9
0.4
2.1
0.5

0.0

0.0

5.2

2.3

0.7
1.5
1.8

0.4
0.8
0.9

1.9
2.4
5.6

0.9
1.1
1.9

1.1
1.7
3.1
2.3
0.0
5.5

0.7
0.9
1.5
1.1
0.0
1.7

1.5
1.9
1.1
3.1
4.1
1.9

0.7
1.1
0.9
1.3
1.8
0.9

4.6
1.1
1.4
1.1
1.2
2.1
1.8
0.0

1.5
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.7
1.2
1.0
0.0

1.6
1.3
1.8
1.4
4.0
4.5
2.5
3.8

0.9
0.8
1.0
0.7
1.5
1.6
1.6
1.7

0.7
2.3
1.3
2.8
1.9
3.7
2.7
1.9
4.1
3.7

0.5
0.9
0.6
1.1
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.8
1.4
1.0

0.7
4.5
0.8
1.4
2.0
4.0
2.8
1.9
2.3
2.0

0.5
1.3
0.5
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.8
1.0
0.8

5.1

2.0

2.7

1.3

1.2
0.0
0.6
0.5

0.7
0.0
0.5
0.4

1.6
3.5
3.2
3.0

0.8
1.4
1.1
1.3

1.8
2.4
0.0
2.1

0.8
0.9
0.0
1.0

1.2
2.9
2.3
2.6

0.7
1.1
1.1
1.3

1.5
1.5
3.6

1.1
0.8
1.7

2.6
3.5
0.0

1.2
1.2
0.0

30 Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007

PREA Report Summer 2008
Page 54

Appendix B.

Appendix table 4. Percent of local jail inmates reporting sexual victimization, by type of incident and facility,
National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.)
Inmate-on-inmatea

Facility name
Minnesota
Hennepin Co. Adult Det. Ctr.
Mississippi
Madison Co. Jail
Montana
Cascade Co. Reg. Jail
Nebraska
Douglas Dept. of Corr.
Nevada
Clark Co. Det. Ctr.
Washoe Co. Det. Ctr.
New Hampshire
Hillsborough Co. House of Corr.
New Jersey
Atlantic Co. Gerard L. Gormley Justice Fac.
Camden Co. Corr. Fac.
Essex Co. Corr. Fac.
Hudson Co. Corr. Fac.
Mercer Co. Corr. Ctr.
Morris Co. Corr. Fac.
Union Co. Jail
New Mexico
Bernalillo Co. Metropolitan Det. Ctr.
Santa Fe Co. Adult Corr. Fac.
Torrance Co. Det. Fac.d
New York
Albany Co. Corr. Fac.
Erie Co. Corr. Fac.
Erie Co. Holding Ctr.
Franklin Co. Jail
New York City Anna M. Kross Ctr.
New York City Otis Bantum Corr. Ctr.
New York City Rose M. Singer Ctr.c
Oswego Co. Corr. Fac.
Westchester Co. Penitentiary
North Carolina
Cleveland Co.
Mecklenburg Co. Jail
Mecklenburg Co. Jail - North
Wake Co. Jail
North Dakota
Cass Co. Jail
Ohio
Franklin Co. Corrections Ctr. I
Hamilton Co. Justice Ctr.
Hamilton Co. Talbert House Drug & Alcohol Treatment
River City Corr. Fac.
Southeastern Ohio Reg. Jail
Oklahoma
Oklahoma Co. Det. Ctr.
Rogers Co. Jail
Oregon
Marion Co. Corr. Fac.
Pennsylvania
Allegheny Co. Jail
Lancaster Co. Prison
Montgomery Co. Corr. Fac.
Philadelphia City Alternative & Special Det. Fac.
Philadelphia City Curran/Fromhold Corr. Fac.
Philadelphia City Industrial Corr. Ctr.
York Co. Prison

Staff-on-inmatea

Percent victimized

Standard errorb

Percent victimized

Standard errorb

0.5

0.4

2.6

1.2

1.8

0.7

3.2

1.3

3.1

1.3

0.7

0.6

2.1

1.1

2.3

1.1

0.4
1.0

0.4
0.5

2.2
2.4

1.1
1.0

1.3

0.8

1.6

0.8

2.5
0.8
0.4
0.9
1.1
1.3
0.7

1.2
0.6
0.3
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.6

2.2
1.4
1.3
2.2
2.2
1.1
3.0

1.3
0.8
0.8
1.0
0.9
0.7
1.7

3.8
1.2
6.4

2.2
0.7
3.1

6.7
3.7
7.0

2.5
1.3
3.0

0.0
2.8
1.9
2.2
2.1
0.0
5.5
1.8
0.0

0.0
1.1
1.0
0.7
1.2
0.0
1.5
0.7
0.0

3.1
1.7
4.5
6.4
3.0
2.8
2.9
0.9
2.7

1.3
0.8
1.5
1.3
1.3
1.1
1.1
0.5
1.0

1.6
1.5
2.2
0.4

0.8
0.8
1.2
0.4

5.4
2.2
4.8
3.5

1.9
1.2
1.8
1.3

0.0

0.0

1.6

0.7

3.7
0.9

1.7
0.8

1.0
2.4

0.7
1.1

4.9
1.7
2.5

1.1
0.7
1.2

1.9
1.6
6.9

0.7
0.6
1.9

2.9
1.7

1.1
0.7

1.6
2.7

0.9
1.1

1.5

0.9

1.5

0.7

1.0
1.6
2.8
3.5
1.8
4.0
2.0

0.7
0.9
1.2
1.5
1.0
1.3
1.0

1.2
2.6
0.0
0.6
2.1
3.4
0.0

0.6
1.1
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.3
0.0

Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007
PREA Report Summer 2008
Page 55

31

Appendix B.

Appendix table 4. Percent of local jail inmates reporting sexual victimization, by type of incident and facility,
National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.)
Inmate-on-inmatea

Facility name
South Carolina
Beaufort Co. Det. Ctr.
Berkeley Co. Hill-Finklea Det. Ctr.
Florence Co. Det. Ctr.
Sumter-Lee Reg. Det. Ctr.
South Dakota
Pennington Co. Jail
Tennessee
Madison Co. Penal Farm
Shelby Co. Corr. Ctr.
Shelby Co. Justice Ctr.
Sullivan Co. Jail
Tipton Co. Jail
Warren Co. Jail
Texas
Bowie Co. Corr. Ctr.
Dallas Co. Decker Det. Ctr.
Dallas Co. George Allen Jail
Dallas Co. North Tower Jail
Dallas Co. West Tower Jail
El Paso Co. Jail Annex
Galveston Co. Jail
Gregg Co. Jail
Harris Co. Jail
Harris Co. Jail - Baker Street
Jefferson Co. Det. Ctr.
Montgomery Co. Jail
Newton Co. Corr. Ctr.d
Tarrant Co. Corr. Ctr.
Travis Co. Corr. Fac.
Utah
Weber Co. Corr. Fac.
Virginia
Duffield Reg. Jail Fac.
Prince William-Manassas Reg. Adult Corr. Ctr.
Richmond City Jail
Roanoke City Jail
Washington
Clark Co. Jail
King Co. Corr. Fac.
Whatcom Co. Jail
West Virginia
Western Reg. Jail
Wisconsin
Dane Co. Jail
Marathon Co. Adult Det. Fac.
Waukesha Co. Jail
Waupaca Co. Jail

Percent victimized

Standard error

b

Staff-on-inmatea

Percent victimized

Standard errorb

0.7
0.0
0.6
3.2

0.5
0.0
0.5
1.3

1.3
2.1
3.1
1.1

0.6
1.0
1.1
0.9

2.1

1.2

2.2

1.1

2.6
2.1
0.0
1.4
0.0
3.6

1.1
0.9
0.0
0.7
0.0
1.3

0.0
3.2
2.1
1.1
1.6
0.7

0.0
1.6
0.9
0.7
0.6
0.5

2.3
0.8
2.7
3.0
3.0
1.3
2.9
1.7
2.2
2.5
1.0
2.2
0.4
1.1
4.6

1.0
0.5
1.4
1.2
1.4
0.7
1.2
0.9
1.3
1.0
0.6
1.0
0.3
0.8
1.5

1.1
0.9
0.5
2.1
2.2
2.7
1.1
2.0
1.6
3.0
2.8
1.2
0.8
2.6
2.5

0.6
0.7
0.3
1.0
1.2
1.1
0.7
1.1
0.9
1.2
1.0
0.6
0.5
1.2
1.1

3.1

1.3

2.5

1.2

3.0
1.2
2.9
4.0

1.2
0.7
1.1
1.7

0.5
2.4
3.2
2.0

0.4
1.1
1.2
1.1

5.1
2.7
0.8

1.7
1.2
0.4

4.0
2.4
4.8

1.4
0.9
1.4

1.4

0.8

3.2

1.4

0.4
1.0
1.1
0.9

0.4
0.6
0.6
0.5

3.2
2.9
2.0
1.1

1.2
1.2
1.0
0.7

Note: Excludes facilities with rates of sexual victimization not statistically different from zero at the 95% confidence level. Detail may sum
to more than total because victims may have reported both inmate-on-inmate and staff-on-inmate sexual victimization.
aIncludes

all types of sexual victimization, including oral, anal, or vaginal penetration, touching of the inmate's buttocks, thighs, penis,
breasts, or vagina in a sexual way and other sexual acts.

b
c

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

Female facility.

d

Private facility.

32 Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007

PREA Report Summer 2008
Page 56

Appendix B.

Appendix table 5. Percent of local jail inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts, by type of incident and facility,
National Inmate Survey, 2007
Inmate-on-inmate

Facility name
Total
Alabama
Etowah Co. Det. Ctr.
Jackson Co. Jail
Shelby Co. Jail
Arizona
Coconino Co. Jail
Maricopa Co. Jail - 4th Avenue
Maricopa Co. Jail - Durango
Maricopa Co. Jail - Estrellad
Maricopa Co. Jail - Lower Buckeye
California
Alameda Co. Santa Rita Jail
Fresno Co. Det. Fac. - Main Jail
Imperial Co. Jail
Kern Co. Lerdo Pre-Trial Fac.
Los Angeles Co. Mens Central Jail
Los Angeles Co. North Corr. Fac.
Los Angeles Co. Twin Towers Corr. Fac.
Orange Co. Central Jail Complex
Orange Co. James A. Musick Fac.
Riverside Co. Larry D. Smith Corr. Ctr.
Riverside Co. Robert Presley Det. Ctr.
Sacramento Co. Rio Cosumnes Corr. Ctr.
Sacramento Co. Main Jail
San Bernardino Co. W. Valley Det. Ctr.
San Bernardino Co. Glen Helen Rehab. Ctr.
San Bernardino Co. Central Det. Ctr.
San Diego Co. George F. Bailey Det. Fac.
San Diego Co. Las Colinas Women's Det. Fac.d
San Francisco Co. Jail - No. 1
Santa Barbara Co. Jail
Santa Clara Co. Elmwood Corr. Complex
Santa Clara Co. Main Jail - North
Ventura Co. Jail - Todd Road
Colorado
Adams Co. Det. Fac.
Arapahoe Co. Jail
El Paso Co. Det. Fac.
Garfield Co. Jail
District of Columbia
D.C. Dept. of Corr. Jail
Florida
Alachua Co. Jail
Brevard Co. Det. Ctr.
Broward Co. Conte Corr. Fac.
Broward Co. Main Jail
Broward Co. North Jail - Pompano Beach
Collier Co. Jail
Dixie Co. Jail
Hillsborough Co. Falkenburg Road Jail
Jackson Co. Corr. Fac.
Jacksonville City Montgomery Corr. Ctr.
Marion Co. Jail
Miami-Dade Co. Metro West Det. Ctr.
Miami-Dade Co. Turner Guilford Knight Corr. Ctr.
Orange Co. 33rd Street Corr. Ctr.
Pinellas Co. Central Division Fac.
Pinellas Co. South Fac. (Max. Sec.)
Sarasota North Co. Jail
Seminole Co. John E. Polk Corr. Fac.
South Co. Jail
St. Johns Co. Jail

Percent victimizeda

Standard errorb

Staff-on-inmate

Percent victimizedc

Standard errorb

0.7%

0.1%

1.6%

0.1%

0.4
0.8
1.3

0.3
0.4
0.8

0.0
1.3
0.0

0.0
0.5
0.0

0.0
0.9
0.5
1.8
0.0

0.0
0.6
0.4
1.0
0.0

1.7
0.8
0.9
0.4
2.6

0.9
0.5
0.6
0.4
1.0

0.6
0.6
0.8
0.9
0.3
0.6
1.4
0.0
1.1
0.7
2.2
0.8
0.0
2.2
0.0
0.4
1.5
1.2
0.7
2.6
0.0
2.2
0.6

0.6
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.3
0.5
1.4
0.0
0.7
0.6
1.0
0.6
0.0
1.6
0.0
0.3
0.7
0.7
0.6
1.1
0.0
1.2
0.5

1.3
1.5
2.0
2.0
1.3
2.9
1.3
1.0
1.4
1.6
2.6
1.6
1.1
1.6
1.5
1.3
1.7
2.1
0.8
2.1
0.6
1.2
1.6

1.2
1.0
1.2
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.0
0.7
0.7
0.9
1.7
1.1
0.7
0.9
0.8
0.6
0.8
1.2
0.7
1.0
0.6
0.8
0.8

1.9
0.1
1.3
1.5

0.9
0.1
0.7
0.9

1.0
0.0
1.3
3.0

0.6
0.0
0.7
1.2

2.0

1.3

2.3

1.4

1.0
4.5
0.8
0.0
3.0
1.1
0.0
0.9
0.0
0.8
1.2
0.0
0.5
0.3
0.0
2.2
1.3
2.4
0.0
0.7

0.6
1.3
0.7
0.0
1.4
0.7
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.6
0.7
0.0
0.5
0.3
0.0
1.3
0.8
1.2
0.0
0.6

0.9
4.4
0.3
2.5
0.8
4.2
1.2
0.8
0.7
0.8
2.2
2.5
3.8
1.9
2.4
2.7
1.2
1.9
2.9
1.5

0.6
1.5
0.3
1.9
0.5
1.7
0.8
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.9
1.3
1.7
1.0
1.1
1.5
0.8
1.0
1.4
0.9

Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007
PREA Report Summer 2008
Page 57

33

Appendix B.

Appendix table 5. Percent of local jail inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts, by type of incident and facility,
National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.)
Inmate-on-inmate

Facility name
Georgia
Atlanta City Jail
Bartow Co. Jail
Carroll Co. Jail
Cobb Co. Sheriff's Office Jail & Prison Unit
Coweta Co. Jail
Dekalb Co. Jail
Dougherty Co. Jail
Fulton Co. Jail
Gwinnett Co. Jail
Muscogee Co. Jail
Paulding Co. Det. Ctr.
Richmond Co. Corr. Inst.
Idaho
Bingham Co. Jail
Illinois
Cook Co. Jail - Division 2
Cook Co. Jail - Division 11
Will Co. Adult Det. Fac.
Indiana
Daviess Co. Jail
Hamilton Co. Jail
Hendricks Co. Jail
Lake Co. Jail
Marion Co. Jail Intake Fac.
Wayne Co. Jail
Kentucky
Boyd Co. Jail
Daviess Co. Det. Ctr.
Grant Co. Jail
Hardin Co. Det. Ctr.
Kentucky River Reg. Jail
Lexington-Fayette Co. Det. Ctr.
Louisville-Jefferson Co. Dept. of Corr.
Warren Co. Reg. Jail
Louisiana
Ascension Parish Jail
Caldwell Parish Jails - (2 facilities)
Catahoula Corr. Ctr.e
East Baton Rouge Prison
Franklin Parish Jail
La Fourche Parish Jail
Lafayette Parish Corr. Center
St. Bernard Parish Prison
St. Tammany Parish Jail
Terrebonne Parish Jail
Maine
Androscoggin Co. Jail
Maryland
Anne Arundel Co. Dept. of Det. Fac.
Baltimore City Det. Ctr.
Montgomery Co. Corr. Fac.
Washington Co. Det. Ctr.
Massachusetts
Barnstable Co. Corr. Fac.
Berkshire Co. Jail & House of Corr.
Plymouth Co. Corr. Fac.
Worcester Co. Jail & House of Corr.
Michigan
Kalamazoo Co. Jail
Kent Co. Corr. Fac.
Montmorency Co. Jail

Staff-on-inmate

Percent victimizeda

Standard errorb

Percent victimizedc

Standard errorb

4.8
0.0
1.5
1.3
0.0
0.0
0.3
1.3
1.0
1.0
2.8
0.0

2.9
0.0
0.8
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.9
0.6
0.7
1.7
0.0

3.2
1.2
0.7
1.2
1.9
1.0
1.7
3.5
0.5
0.4
3.5
0.7

2.1
0.7
0.6
0.7
1.0
0.7
0.9
1.3
0.5
0.4
1.8
0.5

0.0

0.0

2.0

1.5

0.7
1.1
0.9

0.4
0.7
0.6

1.9
2.4
3.8

0.9
1.1
1.7

0.0
0.8
2.1
1.4
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.6
1.2
0.9
0.0
0.0

1.5
1.9
1.1
3.1
4.1
1.5

0.7
1.1
0.9
1.3
1.8
0.8

0.0
0.0
0.7
0.0
0.7
1.5
0.4
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.6
1.0
0.3
0.0

1.6
1.3
1.0
1.4
4.0
4.5
2.5
2.4

0.9
0.8
0.8
0.7
1.5
1.6
1.6
1.5

0.0
0.7
1.3
1.0
0.4
0.4
1.5
1.0
1.7
1.4

0.0
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.8
0.5
0.9
0.6

0.7
4.3
0.8
0.9
2.0
4.0
2.4
0.0
1.5
0.8

0.5
1.3
0.5
0.6
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.0
0.8
0.4

3.5

1.7

2.7

1.3

0.0
0.0
0.6
0.5

0.0
0.0
0.5
0.4

1.1
2.9
2.5
2.4

0.7
1.3
0.9
1.2

0.6
1.3
0.0
1.5

0.5
0.7
0.0
0.8

1.2
2.4
1.8
0.5

0.7
1.1
1.0
0.4

1.5
1.1
3.6

1.1
0.8
1.7

1.7
2.7
0.0

0.9
1.1
0.0

34 Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007
PREA Report Summer 2008
Page 58

Appendix B.

Appendix table 5. Percent of local jail inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts, by type of incident and facility,
National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.)
Inmate-on-inmate

Facility name
Minnesota
Hennepin Co. Adult Det. Ctr.
Mississippi
Madison Co. Jail
Montana
Cascade Co. Reg. Jail
Nebraska
Douglas Dept. of Corr.
Nevada
Clark Co. Det. Ctr.
Washoe Co. Det. Ctr.
New Hampshire
Hillsborough Co. House of Corr.
New Jersey
Atlantic Co. Gerard L. Gormley Justice Fac.
Camden Co. Corr. Fac.
Essex Co. Corr. Fac.
Hudson Co. Corr. Fac.
Mercer Co. Corr. Ctr.
Morris Co. Corr. Fac.
Union Co. Jail
New Mexico
Bernalillo Co. Metropolitan Det. Ctr.
Santa Fe Co. Adult Corr. Fac.
Torrance Co. Det. Fac.e
New York
Albany Co. Corr. Fac.
Erie Co. Corr. Fac.
Erie Co. Holding Ctr.
Franklin Co. Jail
New York City Anna M. Kross Ctr.
New York City Otis Bantum Corr. Ctr.
New York City Rose M. Singer Ctr.d
Oswego Co. Corr. Fac.
Westchester Co. Penitentiary
North Carolina
Cleveland Co.
Mecklenburg Co. Jail
Mecklenburg Co. Jail - North
Wake Co. Jail
North Dakota
Cass Co. Jail
Ohio
Franklin Co. Corrections Ctr. I
Hamilton Co. Justice Ctr.
Hamilton Co. Talbert House Drug & Alcohol Treatment
River City Corr. Fac.
Southeastern Ohio Reg. Jail
Oklahoma
Oklahoma Co. Det. Ctr.
Rogers Co. Jail
Oregon
Marion Co. Corr. Fac.
Pennsylvania
Allegheny Co. Jail
Lancaster Co. Prison
Montgomery Co. Corr. Fac.
Philadelphia City Alternative & Special Det. Fac.
Philadelphia City Curran/Fromhold Corr. Fac.
Philadelphia City Industrial Corr. Ctr.
York Co. Prison

Staff-on-inmate

Percent victimizeda

Standard errorb

Percent victimizedc

Standard errorb

0.5

0.4

2.6

1.2

0.8

0.5

1.6

0.9

0.5

0.4

0.7

0.6

0.6

0.6

1.7

1.0

0.0
0.7

0.0
0.4

1.2
0.9

0.8
0.6

0.0

0.0

1.2

0.7

2.0
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.3
0.7
0.7

1.1
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.3
0.6
0.6

2.2
1.4
1.0
2.2
2.2
1.1
3.0

1.3
0.8
0.7
1.0
0.9
0.7
1.7

2.4
0.6
4.7

1.7
0.5
2.7

5.8
3.7
4.2

2.4
1.3
2.1

0.0
1.2
0.6
1.2
1.4
0.0
1.3
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.6
0.5
0.6
1.0
0.0
0.7
0.0
0.0

1.2
1.7
3.2
5.3
3.0
2.8
1.5
0.9
2.1

0.9
0.8
1.3
1.2
1.3
1.1
0.7
0.5
0.9

1.6
0.0
2.2
0.0

0.8
0.0
1.2
0.0

4.8
1.5
1.3
1.8

1.8
1.0
0.8
1.0

0.0

0.0

0.8

0.5

2.4
0.0

1.2
0.0

1.0
2.4

0.7
1.1

1.0
0.9
1.2

0.5
0.5
0.9

1.9
1.6
5.8

0.7
0.6
1.8

1.0
1.0

0.7
0.6

1.2
1.4

0.8
0.8

0.8

0.7

1.2

0.7

0.5
0.0
1.9
1.2
0.0
2.4
1.3

0.5
0.0
1.1
1.0
0.0
1.0
0.9

1.2
2.1
0.0
0.6
2.1
3.4
0.0

0.6
1.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.3
0.0

Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007

PREA Report Summer 2008
Page 59

35

Appendix B.

Appendix table 5. Percent of local jail inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts, by type of incident and facility,
National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.)
Inmate-on-inmate

Facility name
South Carolina
Beaufort Co. Det. Ctr.
Berkeley Co. Hill-Finklea Det. Ctr.
Florence Co. Det. Ctr.
Sumter-Lee Reg. Det. Ctr.
South Dakota
Pennington Co. Jail
Tennessee
Madison Co. Penal Farm
Shelby Co. Corr. Ctr.
Shelby Co. Justice Ctr.
Sullivan Co. Jail
Tipton Co. Jail
Warren Co. Jail
Texas
Bowie Co. Corr. Ctr.
Dallas Co. Decker Det. Ctr.
Dallas Co. George Allen Jail
Dallas Co. North Tower Jail
Dallas Co. West Tower Jail
El Paso Co. Jail Annex
Galveston Co. Jail
Gregg Co. Jail
Harris Co. Jail
Harris Co. Jail - Baker Street
Jefferson Co. Det. Ctr.
Montgomery Co. Jail
Newton Co. Corr. Ctre
Tarrant Co. Corr. Ctr.
Travis Co. Corr. Fac.
Utah
Weber Co. Corr. Fac.
Virginia
Duffield Reg. Jail Fac.
Prince William-Manassas Reg. Adult Corr. Ctr.
Richmond City Jail
Roanoke City Jail
Washington
Clark Co. Jail
King Co. Corr. Fac.
Whatcom Co. Jail
West Virginia
Western Reg. Jail
Wisconsin
Dane Co. Jail
Marathon Co. Adult Det. Fac.
Waukesha Co. Jail
Waupaca Co. Jail

Staff-on-inmate

Percent victimizeda

Standard errorb

Percent victimizedc

Standard errorb

0.7
0.0
0.0
1.8

0.5
0.0
0.0
1.0

1.3
1.4
2.5
1.1

0.6
0.8
1.0
0.9

1.0

0.8

1.1

0.6

0.0
1.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.1

0.0
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.1

0.0
2.7
1.3
1.1
1.6
0.7

0.0
1.5
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5

0.5
0.5
1.6
1.1
1.6
0.9
1.2
1.0
0.7
2.5
0.6
1.1
0.0
0.8
1.5

0.5
0.4
1.0
0.8
1.1
0.6
0.8
0.7
0.7
1.0
0.5
0.7
0.0
0.7
0.8

1.1
0.9
0.2
2.1
1.0
1.2
0.6
2.0
1.6
2.5
2.0
1.2
0.8
2.6
1.9

0.6
0.7
0.2
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.6
1.1
0.9
1.1
0.8
0.6
0.5
1.2
1.0

1.0

0.9

2.1

1.1

0.4
1.2
1.4
0.0

0.3
0.7
0.7
0.0

0.5
1.8
2.7
1.4

0.4
0.9
1.1
0.9

0.0
2.1
0.0

0.0
1.0
0.0

3.4
1.8
4.4

1.3
0.8
1.4

0.7

0.6

2.1

1.0

0.4
0.7
0.5
0.0

0.4
0.6
0.4
0.0

2.2
2.9
2.0
0.0

1.0
1.2
1.0
0.0

Note: Excludes facilities with rates of sexual victimization not statistically different from zero at the 95% confidence level.
a
Includes reports of oral, anal, or vaginal penetration, handjobs, and other sexual acts by another inmate.
bStandard
cIncludes
d
e

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

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

Female facility.
Private facility.

36 Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007

PREA Report Summer 2008
Page 60

Appendix B.

Appendix table 6. Percent of local jail inmates reporting sexual victimization, by type of incident, level of coercion, and
facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007
Inmate-on-inmate
Facility name
Total
Alabama
Etowah Co. Det. Ctr.
Jackson Co. Jail
Shelby Co. Jail
Arizona
Coconino Co. Jail
Maricopa Co. Jail - 4th Avenue
Maricopa Co. Jail - Durango
Maricopa Co. Jail - Estrellac
Maricopa Co. Jail - Lower Buckeye
California
Alameda Co. Santa Rita Jail
Fresno Co. Det. Fac. - Main Jail
Imperial Co. Jail
Kern Co. Lerdo Pre-Trial Fac.
Los Angeles Co. Mens Central Jail
Los Angeles Co. North Corr. Fac.
Los Angeles Co. Twin Towers Corr. Fac.
Orange Co. Central Jail Complex
Orange Co. James A. Musick Fac.
Riverside Co. Larry D. Smith Corr. Ctr.
Riverside Co. Robert Presley Det. Ctr.
Sacramento Co. Rio Cosumnes Corr. Ctr.
Sacramento Co. Main Jail
San Bernardino Co. W. Valley Det. Ctr.
San Bernardino Co. Glen Helen Rehab. Ctr.
San Bernardino Co. Central Det. Ctr.
San Diego Co. George F. Bailey Det. Fac.
San Diego Co. Las Colinas Women's Det. Fac.c
San Francisco Co. Jail - No. 1
Santa Barbara Co. Jail
Santa Clara Co. Elmwood Corr. Complex
Santa Clara Co. Main Jail - North
Ventura Co. Jail - Todd Road
Colorado
Adams Co. Det. Fac.
Arapahoe Co. Jail
El Paso Co. Det. Fac.
Garfield Co. Jail
District of Columbia
D.C. Dept. of Corr. Jail
Florida
Alachua Co. Jail
Brevard Co. Det. Ctr.
Broward Co. Conte Corr. Fac.
Broward Co. Main Jail
Broward Co. North Jail - Pompano Beach
Collier Co. Jail
Dixie Co. Jail
Hillsborough Co. Falkenburg Road Jail
Jackson Co. Corr. Fac.
Jacksonville City Montgomery Corr. Ctr.
Marion Co. Jail
Miami-Dade Co. Metro West Det. Ctr.
Miami-Dade Co. Turner Guilford Knight Corr. Ctr.
Orange Co. 33rd Street Corr. Ctr.
Pinellas Co. Central Division Fac.
Pinellas Co. South Fac. (Max. Sec.)
Sarasota North Co. Jail
Seminole Co. John E. Polk Corr. Fac.
South Co. Jail
St. Johns Co. Jail

Physically forced

Pressured

Staff-on-inmate
a

Physically forced

Pressureda

Without force
or pressureb

1.1%

1.1%

0.8%

1.2%

1.1%

1.5
1.8
1.9

0.6
1.8
1.9

0.0
1.3
0.6

0.0
1.3
0.6

0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
1.3
1.6
1.3
0.4

0.0
1.4
0.9
2.2
0.0

1.3
0.3
0.9
0.4
2.3

0.0
0.8
0.9
0.4
1.9

1.7
0.7
0.0
0.0
1.3

0.9
1.0
0.8
1.4
0.3
0.9
0.6
0.7
1.3
1.2
2.4
0.8
0.0
2.3
1.3
0.4
1.6
3.2
0.8
3.1
1.5
2.2
0.6

1.5
1.6
1.3
0.5
0.7
1.4
4.5
3.0
1.1
0.7
3.2
0.4
0.0
3.4
0.0
0.0
2.2
2.7
2.6
3.1
2.2
2.9
1.1

1.3
1.5
1.2
2.0
2.5
1.0
0.4
1.0
1.4
1.3
2.6
0.0
0.6
1.3
1.2
0.6
1.6
2.8
1.5
1.6
0.0
1.2
0.5

1.3
1.5
2.0
2.0
1.8
1.5
1.0
1.0
1.4
0.7
3.3
0.9
2.0
1.3
1.2
1.3
3.1
3.2
1.5
2.1
0.6
1.2
0.6

0.0
1.5
2.0
1.2
1.7
1.8
0.4
0.0
0.4
1.6
3.0
1.6
0.5
1.9
0.5
0.9
1.4
0.5
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.5
1.5

2.8
2.5
1.7
4.0

1.3
2.8
0.8
4.0

1.0
0.0
0.4
1.5

1.0
0.2
0.9
3.0

0.4
0.2
0.9
0.0

2.1

3.1

0.6

2.2

0.4

2.4
4.1
0.0
0.0
0.8
0.3
5.3
0.8
0.9
1.4
1.8
0.0
1.9
0.6
0.0
1.1
3.7
1.9
0.6
1.2

2.9
6.3
1.9
1.7
3.3
1.5
0.0
1.6
0.9
0.0
1.6
0.0
1.9
1.1
0.0
2.2
2.6
2.3
0.6
0.7

0.9
1.5
0.3
2.8
0.3
2.0
1.2
0.0
0.0
0.8
1.4
0.6
1.5
0.9
1.3
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.7

0.9
2.6
0.3
1.4
0.8
3.5
1.2
0.8
0.0
0.6
0.8
1.5
3.5
1.5
1.0
2.7
0.6
1.3
2.2
1.5

0.0
3.3
0.8
0.7
0.4
2.2
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.4
0.9
0.0
1.8
0.5
1.1
0.5
0.6
0.0
2.8
0.0

Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007

PREA Report Summer 2008
Page 61

37

Appendix B.

Appendix table 6. Percent of local jail inmates reporting sexual victimization, by type of incident, level of coercion, and
facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.)
Inmate-on-inmate
Facility name
Georgia
Atlanta City Jail
Bartow Co. Jail
Carroll Co. Jail
Cobb Co. Sheriff's Office Jail & Prison Unit
Coweta Co. Jail
Dekalb Co. Jail
Dougherty Co. Jail
Fulton Co. Jail
Gwinnett Co. Jail
Muscogee Co. Jail
Paulding Co. Det. Ctr.
Richmond Co. Corr. Inst.
Idaho
Bingham Co. Jail
Illinois
Cook Co. Jail - Division 2
Cook Co. Jail - Division 11
Will Co. Adult Det. Fac.
Indiana
Daviess Co. Jail
Hamilton Co. Jail
Hendricks Co. Jail
Lake Co. Jail
Marion Co. Jail Intake Fac.
Wayne Co. Jail
Kentucky
Boyd Co. Jail
Daviess Co. Det. Ctr.
Grant Co. Jail
Hardin Co. Det. Ctr.
Kentucky River Reg. Jail
Lexington-Fayette Co. Det. Ctr.
Louisville-Jefferson Co. Dept. of Corr.
Warren Co. Reg. Jail
Louisiana
Ascension Parish Jail
Caldwell Parish Jails - (2 facilities)
Catahoula Corr. Ctr.d
East Baton Rouge Prison
Franklin Parish Jail
La Fourche Parish Jail
Lafayette Parish Corr. Center
St. Bernard Parish Prison
St. Tammany Parish Jail
Terrebonne Parish Jail
Maine
Androscoggin Co. Jail
Maryland
Anne Arundel Co. Dept. of Det. Fac.
Baltimore City Det. Ctr.
Montgomery Co. Corr. Fac.
Washington Co. Det. Ctr.
Massachusetts
Barnstable Co. Corr. Fac.
Berkshire Co. Jail & House of Corr.
Plymouth Co. Corr. Fac.
Worcester Co. Jail & House of Corr.
Michigan
Kalamazoo Co. Jail
Kent Co. Corr. Fac.
Montmorency Co. Jail

Staff-on-inmate
a

Physically forced

Pressureda

Without force
or pressureb

Physically forced

Pressured

5.4
1.4
1.5
1.7
1.8
1.6
0.0
1.7
1.8
0.8
3.5
1.6

5.6
0.6
1.5
3.5
0.8
1.4
0.3
2.6
1.9
1.5
2.3
0.0

0.9
0.6
0.7
1.2
1.1
0.0
0.4
2.7
0.5
0.0
3.4
0.0

2.4
0.6
0.7
1.6
1.9
0.4
0.0
2.4
1.4
0.0
4.1
0.0

2.4
2.0
0.0
0.9
1.1
1.0
2.1
1.9
0.5
0.4
2.0
0.7

0.0

0.0

1.6

5.2

1.6

0.7
1.1
0.9

0.0
1.5
0.9

0.0
2.0
1.1

0.7
1.2
3.5

1.3
1.6
2.0

1.1
0.9
2.1
1.8
0.0
4.9

1.1
1.7
2.1
1.4
0.0
3.6

0.7
1.1
1.1
1.7
2.9
1.5

0.7
0.9
1.1
1.7
2.9
1.9

0.8
1.1
1.1
2.5
3.0
1.3

2.5
1.1
1.4
1.1
1.2
1.5
1.5
0.0

4.6
0.0
1.4
0.6
0.7
2.1
1.8
0.0

0.0
0.6
0.0
0.5
3.2
1.2
0.5
0.6

0.8
0.6
0.0
0.9
2.6
1.2
0.0
1.4

1.6
1.3
1.8
0.4
0.9
4.1
2.0
2.4

0.7
1.7
0.9
2.8
1.5
2.1
2.4
1.9
4.1
3.3

0.0
0.9
1.3
1.4
1.5
2.2
2.3
1.0
3.0
2.4

0.7
1.4
0.4
0.5
0.9
0.6
1.4
1.9
1.4
1.7

0.7
2.3
0.4
0.9
1.0
2.0
0.9
1.9
1.2
1.7

0.0
3.6
0.4
0.5
0.5
2.0
1.4
1.9
0.4
0.8

5.1

2.4

1.1

1.1

2.7

1.2
0.0
0.0
0.5

0.4
0.0
0.6
0.0

0.5
1.6
0.0
1.2

1.0
2.4
0.7
2.3

0.6
3.5
2.5
0.7

1.8
1.3
0.0
1.0

1.2
2.4
0.0
1.7

1.2
1.3
0.4
1.1

1.2
0.6
0.5
1.1

0.6
2.9
1.3
1.0

0.0
1.0
3.6

1.5
1.5
3.6

0.0
2.9
0.0

0.0
2.4
0.0

2.6
2.1
0.0

38 Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007

PREA Report Summer 2008
Page 62

Appendix B.

Appendix table 6. Percent of local jail inmates reporting sexual victimization, by type of incident, level of coercion, and
facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.)
Inmate-on-inmate
Facility name
Minnesota
Hennepin Co. Adult Det. Ctr.
Mississippi
Madison Co. Jail
Montana
Cascade Co. Reg. Jail
Nebraska
Douglas Dept. of Corr.
Nevada
Clark Co. Det. Ctr.
Washoe Co. Det. Ctr.
New Hampshire
Hillsborough Co. House of Corr.
New Jersey
Atlantic Co. Gerard L. Gormley Justice Fac.
Camden Co. Corr. Fac.
Essex Co. Corr. Fac.
Hudson Co. Corr. Fac.
Mercer Co. Corr. Ctr.
Morris Co. Corr. Fac.
Union Co. Jail
New Mexico
Bernalillo Co. Metropolitan Det. Ctr.
Santa Fe Co. Adult Corr. Fac.
Torrance Co. Det. Fac.d
New York
Albany Co. Corr. Fac.
Erie Co. Corr. Fac.
Erie Co. Holding Ctr.
Franklin Co. Jail
New York City Anna M. Kross Ctr.
New York City Otis Bantum Corr. Ctr.
New York City Rose M. Singer Ctr.c
Oswego Co. Corr. Fac.
Westchester Co. Penitentiary
North Carolina
Cleveland Co.
Mecklenburg Co. Jail
Mecklenburg Co. Jail - North
Wake Co. Jail
North Dakota
Cass Co. Jail
Ohio
Franklin Co. Corrections Ctr. I
Hamilton Co. Justice Ctr.
Hamilton Co. Talbert House Drug & Alcohol
Treatment
River City Corr. Fac.
Southeastern Ohio Reg. Jail
Oklahoma
Oklahoma Co. Det. Ctr.
Rogers Co. Jail
Oregon
Marion Co. Corr. Fac.
Pennsylvania
Allegheny Co. Jail
Lancaster Co. Prison
Montgomery Co. Corr. Fac.
Philadelphia City Alternative & Special Det. Fac.
Philadelphia City Curran/Fromhold Corr. Fac.
Philadelphia City Industrial Corr. Ctr.
York Co. Prison

Physically forced

Pressureda

Staff-on-inmate
Physically forced

Pressureda

Without force
or pressureb

0.5

0.5

0.5

1.3

1.7

1.3

0.8

2.8

2.1

0.0

3.1

1.9

0.0

0.7

0.7

1.3

1.4

0.5

0.6

1.2

0.0
1.0

0.4
0.7

1.0
0.7

1.7
1.2

1.2
1.5

0.6

0.8

0.7

0.7

0.9

2.5
0.3
0.4
0.9
0.4
0.7
0.7

1.4
0.6
0.3
0.5
1.1
1.3
0.7

0.0
0.7
0.3
1.6
0.4
0.7
1.5

1.2
0.7
0.0
1.1
0.4
0.7
0.9

1.0
1.1
1.0
1.7
1.4
0.4
2.2

3.8
1.2
4.7

1.6
1.2
6.4

2.5
1.2
1.0

5.5
2.9
0.0

2.5
1.4
4.2

0.0
0.9
1.9
2.2
1.4
0.0
3.3
0.9
0.0

0.0
2.8
1.9
1.2
2.1
0.0
4.3
1.8
0.0

1.9
0.5
3.3
2.4
2.5
0.7
1.1
0.0
0.5

1.5
0.8
3.3
4.1
1.7
0.5
1.8
0.9
0.5

2.1
1.7
1.9
3.4
1.8
2.8
1.1
0.9
2.7

1.6
0.8
2.2
0.4

1.6
1.5
2.2
0.0

2.8
0.7
2.8
2.4

2.4
0.7
2.5
2.8

3.6
1.5
1.3
2.4

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.8

0.8

1.9
0.9

3.7
0.0

0.0
0.7

0.5
1.6

0.5
1.4

2.6
0.9
1.2

3.3
1.7
1.2

1.0
0.8
5.6

1.0
1.6
5.8

1.9
1.6
4.4

2.9
0.7

0.9
1.0

0.5
1.4

1.2
2.7

0.0
0.0

1.5

0.8

1.2

1.2

0.2

1.0
1.2
2.4
3.5
1.2
1.8
2.0

1.0
1.6
1.9
2.3
1.3
3.1
1.3

0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.9
0.0

0.4
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.5
2.3
0.0

1.2
2.1
0.0
0.6
2.1
2.0
0.0

Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007

PREA Report Summer 2008
Page 63

39

Appendix B.

Appendix table 6. Percent of local jail inmates reporting sexual victimization, by type of incident, level of coercion, and
facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.)
Inmate-on-inmate
Facility name
South Carolina
Beaufort Co. Det. Ctr.
Berkeley Co. Hill-Finklea Det. Ctr.
Florence Co. Det. Ctr.
Sumter-Lee Reg. Det. Ctr.
South Dakota
Pennington Co. Jail
Tennessee
Madison Co. Penal Farm
Shelby Co. Corr. Ctr.
Shelby Co. Justice Ctr.
Sullivan Co. Jail
Tipton Co. Jail
Warren Co. Jail
Texas
Bowie Co. Corr. Ctr.
Dallas Co. Decker Det. Ctr.
Dallas Co. George Allen Jail
Dallas Co. North Tower Jail
Dallas Co. West Tower Jail
El Paso Co. Jail Annex
Galveston Co. Jail
Gregg Co. Jail
Harris Co. Jail
Harris Co. Jail - Baker Street
Jefferson Co. Det. Ctr.
Montgomery Co. Jail
Newton Co. Corr. Ctr.d
Tarrant Co. Corr. Ctr.
Travis Co. Corr. Fac.
Utah
Weber Co. Corr. Fac.
Virginia
Duffield Reg. Jail Fac.
Prince William-Manassas Reg. Adult Corr. Ctr.
Richmond City Jail
Roanoke City Jail
Washington
Clark Co. Jail
King Co. Corr. Fac.
Whatcom Co. Jail
West Virginia
Western Reg. Jail
Wisconsin
Dane Co. Jail
Marathon Co. Adult Det. Fac.
Waukesha Co. Jail
Waupaca Co. Jail

Staff-on-inmate
a

Physically forced

Pressureda

Without force
or pressureb

Physically forced

Pressured

0.0
0.0
0.0
2.6

0.7
0.0
0.6
2.4

0.6
0.0
1.2
0.0

0.6
1.5
1.8
0.0

1.3
1.4
2.5
1.1

2.1

1.0

1.1

1.1

1.1

2.6
1.7
0.0
1.0
0.0
3.6

0.0
2.1
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.8

0.0
1.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
2.7
1.8
0.4
0.0
0.7

0.0
2.1
0.3
1.1
1.6
0.0

1.7
0.5
2.7
2.5
1.6
1.3
1.7
0.5
2.2
1.7
1.0
1.5
0.4
1.1
3.4

1.7
0.3
1.7
3.0
1.4
0.9
1.6
1.2
0.7
2.5
1.0
1.1
0.0
1.1
4.5

0.0
0.9
0.2
0.0
1.0
1.1
1.1
0.8
0.6
0.8
1.6
0.4
0.0
0.8
1.8

0.5
0.0
0.5
1.7
2.2
2.3
0.5
0.6
0.6
2.6
2.1
0.8
0.4
1.9
1.9

0.5
0.9
0.5
0.4
1.6
0.4
0.0
2.0
1.6
0.7
0.4
0.8
0.4
1.1
0.0

2.5

2.5

1.1

1.8

0.4

1.9
0.6
1.6
2.9

3.0
1.2
2.9
2.7

0.0
1.8
2.6
1.3

0.0
1.8
2.2
1.3

0.5
1.7
0.9
1.4

4.4
1.8
0.4

0.7
2.7
0.4

1.2
1.6
4.0

3.4
1.9
3.5

1.9
0.5
3.2

1.4

0.0

0.7

2.2

1.0

0.4
1.0
1.1
0.9

0.4
0.7
0.5
0.0

2.2
1.1
0.7
0.0

2.2
2.0
0.7
1.1

1.3
0.9
1.3
0.0

Note: Excludes facilities with rates of sexual victimization not statistically different from zero at the 95% confidence level. Details may sum to
more than totals on table 4 because victims may report on more than one incident involving different levels of coercion.
a

Includes incidents in which the perpetrator, without using force, pressured the inmate or made the inmate feel that they had to participate.
(See Methodology for definitions.)

bIncludes

incidents in which the staff offered favors or privileges in exchange for sex or sexual contact and incidents in which the inmate
reported they willingly had sex or sexual contact with staff.
cFemale
d

facility.

Private facility.

40 Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007
PREA Report Summer 2008
Page 64

Appendix B.

Appendix 7. Survey items related to inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization, National Inmate Survey, 2007
Males

Females

E16. During the last 6 months, did another inmate use
physical force to touch your butt, thighs, or penis in a sexual way?

E18. During the last 6 months, did another inmate use
physical force to touch your butt, thighs, breasts, or vagina
in a sexual way?

E17. During the last 6 months, did another inmate, without
using physical force, pressure you or make you feel that
you had to let them touch your butt, thighs, or penis in a
sexual way?

E19. During the last 6 months, did another inmate, without
using physical force, pressure you or make you feel that
you had to let them touch your butt, thighs, breasts, or
vagina in a sexual way?

E22. During the last 6 months, did another inmate use
physical force to make you give or receive a handjob?

E24. During the last 6 months, did another inmate use
physical force to make you give or receive oral sex?

E23. During the last 6 months, did another inmate, without
using physical force, pressure you or make you feel that
you had to give or receive a handjob?

E25. During the last 6 months, did another inmate, without
using physical force, pressure you or make you feel that
you had to give or receive oral sex?

E26. During the last 6 months, did another inmate use
physical force to make you give or receive oral sex or a
blow job?

E28. During the last 6 months, did another inmate use
physical force to make you have vaginal sex?

E27. During the last 6 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 6 months, did another inmate use
physical force to make you have anal sex?
E33. During the last 6 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 6 months, did another inmate use
physical force to make you have any type of sex or sexual
contact other than sexual touching, handjobs, oral sex or
blow jobs, or anal sex?
E35. During the last 6 months, did another inmate, without
using physical force, pressure you or make you feel that
you had to have any type of sex or sexual contact other
than sexual touching, handjobs, oral sex or blowjobs, or
anal sex?

E29. During the last 6 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 6 months, did another inmate use
physical force to make you have anal sex?
E33. During the last 6 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 6 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 6 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 Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007

PREA Report Summer 2008
Page 65

41

Appendix B.

Appendix 8. Survey items related to staff sexual misconduct, National Inmate Survey, 2007
These next questions are about the behavior of staff at
this facility during the last 6 months. By staff we mean
the employees of this facility and anybody who works as
a volunteer in this facility.
G4
During the last 6 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 6 months, have you been physically forced by any facility staff to have sex or sexual contact?
G7
During the last 6 months, have any facility staff
offered you favors or special privileges in exchange for
sex or sexual contact?

G11
[IF G2 OR G4 OR G5 = Yes] During the last 6
months, which of the following types of sex or sexual
contact did you have with a facility staff person?
G11a. You touched a facility staff person's body or had
your body touched in a sexual way
G11b. You gave or received a handjob
G11c. You gave or received oral sex or a blowjob
G11d. You had vaginal sex
G11e. You had anal sex

G2
During the last 6 months, have you willingly had
sex or sexual contact with any facility staff?

42 Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007

PREA Report Summer 2008
Page 66

Appendix B.

Appendix 9. Follow-up questions for inmates reporting no sexual activity, National Inmate Survey, 2007
Follow-up questions for inmates reporting no sexual
activity in the screener questions for sexual activity
with inmates:

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

LCM1 During the last 6 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 6 months, have you had any sex or
sexual contact with staff in this facility whether you wanted
to have it or not?

LCM2a 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?

LCM6a How long has it been since you had any sex or
sexual contact with staff in this facility whether you wanted
to or not?

Within the past 7 days

2. ‰ More than 7 days ago but within the past 30 days

1. ‰ More than 7 days ago but within the past 30 days
2. ‰ More than 30 days ago but within the past 12
months

1. ‰ Within the past 7 days
3. ‰ More than 30 days ago but within the past 12
months
4. ‰ More than 12 months ago

3. ‰ More than 12 months ago

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

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

LCM7 In the last 6 months, did you have oral, vaginal, or
anal sex with any staff at this facility whether you wanted
to or not?

LCM3 [If Male] During the last 6 months, did another
inmate use physical force, pressure you, or make you feel
that you had to have oral or anal sex?
[If Female] During the last 6 months, did another inmate
use physical force, pressure you, or make you feel that
you had to have oral, vaginal, or anal sex?
LCM4a [If Male] How long has it been since another
inmate in this facility used physical force, pressured you,
or made you feel that you had to have oral or anal sex?

LCM8a How long has it been since you had oral, vaginal,
or anal sex with any staff at this facility whether you
wanted to or not?
LCM8b How long has it been since you had oral or anal
sex with any staff at this facility whether you wanted to or
not?

[If Female] How long has it been since another inmate in
this facility used physical force, pressured you, or made
you feel that you had to have oral, vaginal, or anal sex?
LCM4b [If Male] How long has it been since another
inmate in this facility used physical force, pressured you,
or made you feel that you had to have oral or anal sex?
[If Female] How long has it been since another inmate in
this facility used physical force, pressured you, or made
you feel that you had to have oral, vaginal, or anal sex?

Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007
PREA Report Summer 2008
Page 67

43

Appendix C.

Sexual Victimization in Local Jails
Reported by Inmates, 2007

(Comparison of National Jail Survey and Clark County Jail Survey)

National Jail Survey
Inmate in
1
Custody
306,598
100.0%

Sample
74,713
24.4%

Ineligible1
7,314
9.8%

% of inmates Sampled
% of inmates Ineligible
% of Inmates in Net Sampled
% of Total Respondents
% of Inmates Completing Survey
Response Rate
276,584
14.6%

# of Respondents
# Completing
Response
Total
Survey
Rate
Respondents
45,414
40,419
67.4%
14.8%
13.2%

Net Sample
67,399
22.0%
24.4%
9.8%
22.0%
14.8%
13.2%
67.4%

of "Inmates in Custody"
of "Sample"
of "Inmates in Custody"
of "Inmates in Custody"
of "Inmates in Custody"
of inmates in "Net Sample" participated in the Survey

Effective National Jail Population (after excluding 9.8% for "Ineligible" inmates)
Completed Survey (out of the 276,584 Effective National Jail Population)

Clark County Jail Survey
Inmate in
1
Custody
905
100.0%

Sample
304
33.6%

1

Ineligible
41
13.5%

% of inmates Sampled
% of inmates Ineligible
% of Inmates in Net Sampled
% of Total Respondents
% of Inmates Completing Survey
Response Rate
783
20.8%

# of Respondents
# Completing
Response
Total
Survey
Rate
Respondents
163
70.7%
186
20.6%
18.0%

Net Sample
263
29.1%
33.6%
13.5%
29.1%
20.6%
18.0%
70.7%

of "Inmates in Custody"
of "Sample"
of "Inmates in Custody"
of "Inmates in Custody"
of "Inmates in Custody"
of inmates in "Net Sample" participated in the Survey

Effective Clark Co. Jail Population (after excluding 13.5% for "Ineligible" inmates)
Completed Survey (out of the 783 Effective Clark County Jail Population)

1) Due to the survey methodology, the number of "Inmates in Custody" appears to overstate the National and Clark Co. Jail Populations. The 905
figure includes 122 inmates that were either transferred or released before interviews could occur, or were otherwise unable to be interviewed.
Excluding "ineligible Inmates", the Effective National Jail Population would be 276,584 and the Effective Clark Co. Jail Population would be 783.

Prepared by: Darin Rouhier
Based on DOJ Special Report
released June 25, 2008

June 30,2008

PREA Report Summer 2008
Page 68

Jail Sexual Victim Survey 2007 - Final.xls

Appendix C.

Sexual Victimization in Local Jails
Reported by Inmates, 2007
Clark Co. Prevalence Rates

"# of Inmates" is based on Clark County's Effective
Jail Population of 783

Estimated
% Victimized
# of Victims

S
ta
n

95% Confidence Range
# Inmates
# Inmates
Low
High
Mid-point

% of Inmates
2
# of Inmates
% of Inmates
2
# of Inmates
% of Inmates
2
# of Inmates

9.1%
71
3.4%
27
5.7%
45

#

Inmate-on-Inmate sexual
victimization

% of Inmates
2
# of Inmates
% of Inmates
2
# of Inmates
% of Inmates
2
# of Inmates

5.1%
40
4.4%
34
0.7%
5

#

1.8%

#

14

40

% of Inmates
2
# of Inmates
% of Inmates
2
# of Inmates
% of Inmates
2
# of Inmates
% of Inmates
2
# of Inmates
% of Inmates
2
# of Inmates
% of Inmates
# of Inmates2
% of Inmates
2
# of Inmates

4.0%
31
3.4%
26
0.6%
5
1.2%
10
3.4%
26
1.9%
15
0.7%
5

#

1.3%

#

10

#

0.8%

31

#

Nature of
Force

Type

Total sexual victimization
prevalence rate
Nonconsensual
sexual acts
Abusive sexual
contacts only

Physically Forced
Pressured

Type

Staff-on-Inmate sexual
victimization
Nonconsensual
sexual acts
Abusive sexual
contacts only

Nature of
Force

Physically forced
Pressured
Reported as willing
Injured

#

37

71

105

#
7

2.2%

27

#
#

17

45

#

47

9.2%

72

8.4%
66

#
10

-0.5%

34

#
#

-4

5

#

59

1.9%

15

6.7%

7

0.0%

26

#
#

-5

5

53

5.9%

46

1.8%

14

#
-3

0.8%

10

#
#

7

26

#

22

5.9%

46

#
0

-0.5%

15

#
#

-4

5

#

30

1.9%

15

2) The "# of Inmates" is the estimated number of victims in the facility, which is determined by multiplying the weighted % of victims in the Facility
(from the survey results) by the Effective Jail Population of 783.

Prepared by: Darin Rouhier
Based on DOJ Special Report
released June 25, 2008

June 30,2008

Jail Sexual Victim Survey 2007 - Final.xls

PREA Report Summer 2008
Page 69

Appendix C.

Sexual Victimization in Local Jails
Reported by Inmates, 2007
Clark Co. vs. National Survey

Clark Co. Rates and National Rates applied to
Clark County's Effective Jail Population of 783

Clark Co.
Rates
(Applied to
Clark Pop.)

National
Rates
(Applied to
Clark Pop.)

% of Inmates
2
# of Inmates
% of Inmates
2
# of Inmates
% of Inmates
2
# of Inmates

9.1%
71
3.4%
27
5.7%
45

3.2%
25
2.1%
16
1.1%
9

Inmate-on-Inmate sexual
victimization

% of Inmates
2
# of Inmates
% of Inmates
2
# of Inmates
% of Inmates
2
# of Inmates

5.1%
40
4.4%
34
0.7%
5

1.6%
13
1.1%
9
1.1%
9

% of Inmates
2
# of Inmates
% of Inmates
2
# of Inmates
% of Inmates
2
# of Inmates
% of Inmates
2
# of Inmates
% of Inmates
2
# of Inmates
% of Inmates
2
# of Inmates

4.0%
31
3.4%
26
0.6%
5
1.2%
10
3.4%
26
1.9%
15

2.0%
16
1.6%
13
0.4%
3
0.8%
6
1.2%
9
1.1%
9

Nature of
Force

Type

Total sexual victimization
prevalence rate
Nonconsensual
sexual acts
Abusive sexual
contacts only

Physically Forced
Pressured

Nature of
Force

Type

Staff-on-Inmate sexual
victimization
Nonconsensual
sexual acts
Abusive sexual
contacts only
Physically forced
Pressured
Reported as willing

#
#
#
#
#
#

Clark County is…

2.8 X National Avg
1.6 X National Avg
5.2 X National Avg

3.2 X National Avg
4.0 X National Avg
0.6 X National Avg

2.0 X National Avg
2.1 X National Avg
1.5 X National Avg
1.5 X National Avg
2.8 X National Avg
1.7 X National Avg

2) The "# of Inmates" is the estimated number of victims in the facility, which is determined by multiplying the weighted % of victims in the Facility
(from the survey results) by the Effective Jail Population of 783.

Prepared by: Darin Rouhier
Based on DOJ Special Report
released June 25, 2008

June 30,2008

Jail Sexual Victim Survey 2007 - Final.xls

PREA Report Summer 2008
Page 70

Appendix C.

Sexual Victimization in Local Jails
Reported by Inmates, 2007
Clark County vs. King County3

Clark Co. Rates and King Co. Rates applied to
Clark County's Effective Jail Population of 783

Clark Co.
Rates
(Applied to
Clark Pop.)

King Co.
Rates
(Applied to
Clark Pop.)

% of Inmates
2
# of Inmates
% of Inmates
2
# of Inmates
% of Inmates
2
# of Inmates

9.1%
71
3.4%
27
5.7%
45

4.2%
33
3.6%
28
0.6%
5

Inmate-on-Inmate sexual
victimization

% of Inmates
2
# of Inmates
% of Inmates
2
# of Inmates
% of Inmates
2
# of Inmates

5.1%
40
4.4%
34
0.7%
5

2.7%
21
1.8%
14
2.7%
21

% of Inmates
2
# of Inmates
% of Inmates
2
# of Inmates
% of Inmates
2
# of Inmates
% of Inmates
2
# of Inmates
% of Inmates
2
# of Inmates
% of Inmates
2
# of Inmates

4.0%
31
3.4%
26
0.6%
5
1.2%
10
3.4%
26
1.9%
15

2.4%
19
1.8%
14
0.6%
5
1.6%
13
1.9%
15
0.5%
4

Nature of
Force

Type

Total sexual victimization
prevalence rate
Nonconsensual
sexual acts
Abusive sexual
contacts only

Physically Forced
Pressured

Nature of
Force

Type

Staff-on-Inmate sexual
victimization
Nonconsensual
sexual acts
Abusive sexual
contacts only
Physically forced
Pressured
Reported as willing

#
#
#
#
#
#

Clark County is…

2.2 X King Co.
0.9 X King Co.
9.5 X King Co.

1.9 X King Co.
2.4 X King Co.
0.3 X King Co.

1.7 X King Co.
1.9 X King Co.
1.0 X King Co.
0.8 X King Co.
1.8 X King Co.
3.8 X King Co.

2) The "# of Inmates" is the estimated number of victims in the facility, which is determined by multiplying the weighted % of victims in the Facility
(from the survey results) by the Effective Jail Population of 783.
3) King Co. = the King County Correctional Facility, which had an Effective Jail Population of 1,288. A total of 168 inmates, or 13.0% of the effective
Population, were surveyed. (The report also mentioned the King County Regional Justice Center, which had an Effective Population of 1,106 and a
victimization rate indistinguishable from zero.)

Prepared by: Darin Rouhier
Based on DOJ Special Report
released June 25, 2008

June 30,2008
PREA Report Summer 2008
Page 71

Jail Sexual Victim Survey 2007 - Final.xls

Appendix D.

SEXUAL MISCONDUCT
CHAPTER 01.41
SECTIONS
01.41.010 PURPOSE.
01.41.020 POLICY
01.41.030 DEFINITIONS
01.41.040 RED FLAG BEHAVIORS
01.41.050 REPORTING/INVESTIGATION
01.41.010 PURPOSE.
President George W. Bush signed into law the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003, marking
the first time the U.S. government has ever passed a law to deal with sexual assault behind bars.
01.41.020 POLICY
The Clark County Sheriff’s Office affirms the rights of its staff, inmates and any persons
having business with the Sheriff’s Office to an environment free from sexual misconduct, sexual
assault, sexual harassment, and sexual exploitation. To maintain an environment of trust, care,
and respect, the Sheriff’s Office must adhere to Rules of Conduct listed in General Orders 01.29.
The Sheriff’s Office Sexual Misconduct Policy has been designed to uphold these values and to
provide assistance for those individuals whose rights have been violated. The Sheriff’s Office
has ZERO TOLERANCE for any behavior or misconduct within the below definitions;
01.41.030 DEFINITIONS
A. Contractors
Any person or corporation, other than an employee, providing any service to the Agency
(i.e., food services, medical, mental health, programs) for an agreed upon form of
compensation. Contractors may include other local government agencies that contract with
the jail for inmate labor, or who supervise inmate work crews in community improvement
projects.
B. Affected Persons
Inmate - any person committed to the care and custody of the correctional organization by
any court or through judicial sanction. This definition includes inmates assigned to programs
such as pre-trial release, alternatives to incarceration, work or educational release, electronic
monitoring, probation, parole, arrested and pre detainee or in any capacity where employees
are supervising the individual.
Employee - any person compensated by the agency for working full-time, part-time, or by
paid internship.
Visitors - Any person having access to any of the agency’s facilities for personal and/or
official reasons.
Volunteer - Any person who, by mutual agreement with the agency, provides service
without compensation, or who voluntarily assists inmates or the agency in the course of the
volunteer’s duties.
Chapter 1.41

SEXUAL MISCONDUCT
PREA Report Summer 2008
Page 72

Page 1 of 5

Appendix D.

C. Hostile Work Environment
Harassment, speech or conduct that is based on the judgment of a reasonable person; severe
or pervasive enough to create a hostile or abusive work environment. It must be based on
race, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, veteran status, sexual orientation, political
affiliation, citizenship status, marital status, or personal appearance.
D. Rape
Is defined as engaging in sexual intercourse (oral, anal or vaginal) with another person
without that person's consent. Rape may be accomplished by expressly or implicitly forcing
or coercing the victim to have sexual intercourse against his/her will, including the use or
threat of physical force, or any behavior that is designed to intimidate and induce fear in the
victim. Rape can also occur when a victim is under the influence of alcohol or other drugs, is
undergoing physical or emotional trauma, is less than 17 years of age, or is otherwise
incapable of denying or giving consent (for example, when a victim is in an unconscious or
semi-conscious state).
E. Sex Discrimination
Involves conduct directed at a specific individual or a group of identifiable individuals that
subjects the individual or group to treatment that adversely affects their employment,
education, or opportunities on account of their gender. Behaviors that, depending on the
totality of the circumstances present, may constitute sex discrimination include, but are not
limited to: Exclusion from educational resources or activities on the basis of one's gender;
being subjected to jokes or derogatory comments about one's gender; or being held to
different standards or requirements on the basis of one's gender.
F. Sexual Abuse
Includes, but is not limited to, subjecting another person to any sexual act or sexual contact
between an employee, volunteer, contractor, agency representative, or an inmate by force,
persuasion, inducement, or enticement. Any sexual act or contact in which an employee,
volunteer, agency representative, or inmate participates or forces another person to engage;
such as rape, sexual molestation, prostitution or any other form of sexual exploitation. This
includes subjecting another person to any of these acts who is incapable of giving consent by
reason of their custodial status, physical or mental state.
G. Sexual Contact
Behavior that includes, but is not limited to, all forms of sexual contact, intentional sexual
touching or physical contact in a sexual manner, either directly or through clothing, of the
genitalia, anus, groin, breasts, inner thighs, buttocks, with or without the consent of the
person; or any touching or inappropriate viewing with intent to arouse, humiliate, harass,
degrade, or gratify the sexual desire of any person.
H. Sexual Harassment
Includes, but is not limited to, all of the following, whether by staff, volunteers, contractors,
other agency representatives, or inmates: sexual advances; sexually offensive language,
comments or gestures; influencing, promising or threatening any inmate’s (or staffs’) safety,
Chapter 1.41

SEXUAL MISCONDUCT
PREA Report Summer 2008
Page 73

Page 2 of 5

Appendix D.

custody status, privacy, housing, privileges, work or program status, in exchange for personal
gain or favor of a sexual nature; creating or encouraging an atmosphere of intimidation,
hostility or offensiveness as perceived by any individual who observes the sexually offensive
behavior or language.
I. Sexual Misconduct
Is non-consensual, intentional physical contact of a sexual nature which includes, but is not
limited to, unwelcome physical contact with a person's genitals, buttocks, or breasts. Lack of
consent may be inferred from the use of force, coercion, physical intimidation, or advantage
gained by the victim's mental or physical incapacity or impairment of which the perpetrator
was aware or should have been aware.
This includes any illegal or inappropriate sexual activity of a heterosexual or homosexual
nature irrespective of the age or marital status of the complainant, and any inappropriate
sexual conduct, including words, behavior and gestures which offend and/or abuse a
complainant, or any lewd conduct, whether in private or in public. Of course, we recognize
that not all situations are clear, and there may be instances of words or gestures which are not
abusive, but which may be perceived as such.
Any behavior or act of a sexual nature directed toward an inmate by an employee, volunteer,
visitor, contractor, agency representative, or another inmate. This includes acts or attempts to
commit such acts including, but not limited to, sexual assault, sexual abuse, sexual
harassment, sexual contact, sexual gratification, conduct of a sexual nature or implication,
obscenity and unreasonable invasion of privacy. Sexual misconduct also includes, but is not
limited to, conversations or correspondence that suggests a romantic relationship between an
inmate and any party referenced above. Misconduct can also involve inappropriate viewing.
J. Sexualized Work Environment
A work environment in which the behavior, dress, and speech of either staff and/or inmates
create a sexually charged workplace. Sexually explicit talk, inappropriate emails, posted
cartoons, or jokes characterize a sexualized work environment. In a sexualized work
environment, often staffs’ off-duty behaviors, dating, and other activities intrude into the
everyday work environment. In a sexualized work environment talk or actions have sexual
overtones. A sexualized work environment severely erodes the professional boundaries
between staff, and consequently between staff and inmates.
K. Violation of Privacy Rights of Inmates
This includes, but is not limited to, the act or the attempted act of observing or interfering
with an inmate’s personal affairs without a reasonable need to do so for the immediate safety
and security of the inmate, employees, or others within the institution. Violations may
include unreasonable intrusive viewing of an inmate’s use of the shower, toilet, or in areas
where inmates dress, outside legitimate security needs.
01.41.040 RED FLAG BEHAVIORS
Chapter 1.41

SEXUAL MISCONDUCT
PREA Report Summer 2008
Page 74

Page 3 of 5

Appendix D.

Red Flag Behaviors are events, actions or activities that may be present or observed and may
be indicative of sexual misconduct. Some events, actions, or activities may include, but not
limited to:
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x

Over-identifying with the inmate (Any inmate) or their issues (i.e. blind to inmate’s actions)
Horse-play, interaction with sexual overtones between staff and inmate
An inmate knowing personal information about staff not related to a known or public source
Staff isolation from other staff
Inmate has letters or photos of staff
Staff granting special requests or showing favoritism
An Inmate in an unauthorized area, or repeatedly out of their assigned place
Staff spending an unexplainable amount of time with an inmate
Telephone calls to and from staff/inmate
Inmate grape-vine, inmate snitches, inmate/staff rumors
Staff in the facility during “off hours”
Pregnancy or diagnosis of a sexually transmitted disease (STD)
Staff overly concerned about an inmate
Inmate blocking the doors and/or viewing areas from staff
Inmate repeated requests to be moved or transferred
Drastic change in behavior or appearance of an inmate or staff - dress, make-up, hair
Staff having sole involvement with a particular inmate
Indispensable inmate: “Only inmate who can do this job”
High/low number of inmate grievances
Inmate wanting to go to work early or volunteering to stay late
Staff confronting staff over an inmate
Staff intercepting inmate disciplinary infractions or editing infractions
Staff tracking outside inmate calls (number and content of call)
Isolated posts/positions/work assignments
Staff can’t account for time
Staff’s family being involved with inmate’s family
Increase in contraband in an area
Staff working in a secluded area with an inmate
Staff taking an inmate out of cell at unusual times
Staff in personal crisis (divorce, ill health, bankruptcy, death in family)
Staffs who consistently work more overtime than peers and who volunteer to work overtime
only in a specific area.
Unusual balance, or activity, in an inmate’s commissary account
Staff having excessive knowledge about an inmate and his/her family
Staff intervening, or helping with the inmate’s personal life, legal affairs
Staff sharing food or snacks with an inmate
Staff testifying for an inmate, or requesting special treatment for an inmate
Staff delegating their duties to an inmate (supervisory or cleaning, assignments)

Chapter 1.41

SEXUAL MISCONDUCT
PREA Report Summer 2008
Page 75

Page 4 of 5

Appendix D.

x
x
x
x

Staff bringing in large amounts of food, soda, snacks
Overheard conversations between staff and an inmate which are sexualized in nature, or
refers to the physical attributes of staff and inmate sexual activities.
Sexual or personal banter between staff and staff, or staff and inmate
An inmate using staff’s first name; staff using inmates’ first name

01.41.050 REPORTING/INVESTIGATION
Reference Internal Investigations Chapter 01.32 of the General Orders.
Investigations involving allegations of Sexual Misconduct between inmates or any staff,
including but not limited to: attorneys, paralegals, paraprofessionals, bail bondsmen, private
medical professionals, investigators, polygraph examiners, clergy, unpaid interns, or researchers
will be conducted through the criminal process. A copy of the completed investigation will be
sent to I.A. for review and tracking purposes.

Creation Date: November 26, 2007
Revision Date: June 20, 2008

Chapter 1.41

SEXUAL MISCONDUCT
PREA Report Summer 2008
Page 76

Page 5 of 5

Appendix E.
Clark County Sheriff’s Office
707 W. 13th Street, Vancouver, WA
Phone: (360) 397-2211

ATTENTION: All Visitors and Staff
ǰǻǶǺǮǻǶdz: ɜɫɟɦ ɩɨɫɟɬɢɬɟɥɹɦ ɢ ɫɨɬɪɭɞɧɢɤɚɦ
¡ATENCIÓN: Visitantes y miembros del personal
,lII
rrrl

dI ,

,I

II "
I

,

--J"
JII

IIII ",I _
_
If/r

l ~l

II,I rr'

I,IIf
I

II,I

-,,I ,I I.iI, II

,

II;' llil

1,1

I

II II " III
,11,1_
" I:

, ,IIII -

ll,i
II Ii
I,II• III I,II•

,111-

YOU have a duty to report to any Staff ALL allegations, complaints and/or observations
of Sexual Assault or Misconduct.
ǰȉ ȜȏȭȕȎțȩ ȟȜȜȏȧȖȠȪ ȟȜȠȞȡȒțȖȘȎȚ Ȝ ǹȌǯȉȃ ȜȏȐȖțȓțȖȭȣ, ȔȎșȜȏȎȣ Ȗ/ȖșȖ
țȎȏșȬȒȓțȖȭȣ ȟȓȘȟȡȎșȪțȜȑȜ țȎȝȎȒȓțȖȭ ȖșȖ ȖȕțȎȟȖșȜȐȎțȖȭ
USTEDES tienen el deber de reportar al personal TODAS las alegaciones, quejas y/o
observaciones relacionadas con cualquier agresión o mala conducta sexual.

STOP
Ur;TiJHOBIT~
CTilHOBIT~

DETEN6A

any incident by phone or to staff.
ɫɥɭɱɢɜɲɟɦɫɹ ɩɨ ɬɟɥɟɮɨɧɭ ɢɥɢ
ɫɨɬɪɭɞɧɢɤɚɦ.
el incidente por teléfono o directamente al
personal.
Clark County Sheriff’s Office

PREA Report Summer 2008
Page 77

Appendix F.

nmate
Protect yourself:
iAvoid isolated or secluded areas
iBe aware of your body language
iNever share personal information
iNever borrow commissary items
iNever accept gifts from another inmate
iBe cautious of inmates offering to protect you
iReport all acts of violence against you by phone
or to staff

If you are a victim:
;Report the incident as quickly as possible
;Don’t shower
;Don’t remove or wash your clothes
;Don’t brush your teeth

If you are a perpetrator:
Î You will be held accountable
Î The Sheriff’s office will pursue charges and
prosecution

Clark County Sheriff’s Office

Ɉɮɢɫ ɲɟɪɢɮɚ ɨɤɪɭɝɚ Ʉɥɚɪɤ

The Clark County Sheriff’s
Office

.

Ɉɫɬɚɧɨɜɢɬɶ - ȼɢɤɬɢɦɢɡɚɰɢɸ ɡɚɤɥɸɱɟɧɧɵɯ

is committed to a
zero-tolerance
policy of…prison
rape and sexual
assault.

To staff ALL
allegations,
complaints, or
observations
of Sexual
Assault or
Misconduct

ɩɪɨɜɨɞɢɬ ɠɟɫɬɤɭɸ ɩɨɥɢɬɢɤɭ ɚɛɫɨɥɸɬɧɨɣ ɧɟɬɟɪɩɢɦɨɫɬɢ...
ɤ ɢɡɧɚɫɢɥɨɜɚɧɢɸ ɢ ɫɟɤɫɭɚɥɶɧɨɦɭ ɧɚɩɚɞɟɧɢɸ ɜ ɬɸɪɶɦɟ.

ɍɜɟɞɨɦɥɟɧɢɟ ɨ ɫɟɤɫɭɚɥɶɧɵɯ ɩɪɟɫɬɭɩɥɟɧɢɹɯ ɡɚɤɥɸɱɟɧɧɵɯ.

Ʌɸɛɵɟ ɮɨɪɦɵ ɫɟɤɫɭɚɥɶɧɨɝɨ ɧɚɫɢɥɢɹ ɢɥɢ ɤɨɧɬɚɤɬɚ ɦɟɠɞɭ ɩɨɫɟɬɢɬɟɥɹɦɢ,
ɫɨɬɪɭɞɧɢɤɚɦɢ ɢ ɡɚɤɥɸɱɟɧɧɵɦɢ ɫɬɪɨɝɨ ɡɚɩɪɟɳɚɸɬɫɹ ɢ ɹɜɥɹɸɬɫɹ
ɧɚɪɭɲɟɧɢɟɦ ɚɤɬɚ PREA
ɢ/ɢɥɢ
RCW 9A.44.160 ɋɟɤɫɭɚɥɶɧɵɟ ɩɪɟɫɬɭɩɥɟɧɢɹ ɡɚɤɥɸɱɟɧɧɵɯ ɩɟɪɜɨɣ ɫɬɟɩɟɧɢ.
RCW 9A.44.170 ɋɟɤɫɭɚɥɶɧɵɟ ɩɪɟɫɬɭɩɥɟɧɢɹ ɡɚɤɥɸɱɟɧɧɵɯ ɜɬɨɪɨɣ ɫɬɟɩɟɧɢ.

ɋɨɨɛɳɚɣɬɟ ɫɨɬɪɭɞɧɢɤɚɦ ɨ ɅɘȻɕɏ
ɨɛɜɢɧɟɧɢɹɯ, ɠɚɥɨɛɚɯ ɢ/ɢɥɢ ɧɚɛɥɸɞɟɧɢɹɯ
ɫɟɤɫɭɚɥɶɧɨɝɨ ɧɚɩɚɞɟɧɢɹ ɢɥɢ ɢɡɧɚɫɢɥɨɜɚɧɢɹ.
ȼɫɟ ɩɨɫɟɬɢɬɟɥɢ, ɪɚɛɨɬɧɢɤɢ ɢ ɡɚɤɥɸɱɟɧɧɵɟ ɨɛɹɡɚɧɵ
ɫɨɨɛɳɢɬɶ ɫɨɬɪɭɞɧɢɤɚɦ ɨ ɥɸɛɵɯ ɨɛɜɢɧɟɧɢɹɯ, ɠɚɥɨɛɚɯ
ɢ/ɢɥɢ ɧɚɛɥɸɞɟɧɢɹɯ ɫɟɤɫɭɚɥɶɧɨɝɨ ɧɚɩɚɞɟɧɢɹ ɢɥɢ
ɢɡɧɚɫɢɥɨɜɚɧɢɹ.
Ⱥɤɬ ɨ ɥɢɤɜɢɞɚɰɢɢ ɢɡɧɚɫɢɥɨɜɚɧɢɹ ɜ ɬɸɪɶɦɚɯ 2003 (PREA)

Custodial
Sexual
Misconduct
Notice

La Oficina del Alguacil del Condado de Clark

Sexual misconduct or
contact, in any form,
between visitors, staff
and inmates is strictly
prohibited
and
is
a
violation of PREA, and/or
RCW 9A.44.160 Custodial
sexual misconduct in the
first degree
RCW 9A.44.170 Custodial
sexual misconduct in the
second degree

All visitors, staff and inmates have a duty to report
to staff all allegations, complaints, or observations
of sexual assault or misconduct.

está empeñada en hacer valer una política de cero tolerancia con
relación a las violaciones y agresiones sexuales en las prisiones.

DETENGA - las agresiones a los reclusos
Notificación custodial de mala conducta sexual

El contacto o mala conducta sexual, bajo cualquier forma, entre visitantes, el
personal y los reclusos están estrictamente prohibidos, y constituye una
violación de la PREA,
y/o
RCW 9A.44.160 Mala conducta sexual custodial en primer grado
RCW 9A.44.170 Mala conducta sexual custodial en segundo grado

Todas las alegaciones, quejas y/o observaciones
relacionadas con cualquier agresión o mala
conducta sexual.
Los visitantes, el personal y los reclusos tienen la obligación
de denunciar al personal todas las alegaciones, quejas u
observaciones de agresión o mala conducta sexual.
Ley de eliminación de las violaciones sexuales en las prisiones (PREA),
del 2003

PREA Report Summer 2008
Page 78

Appendix G.

Prison
Rape
Elimination
Act
1

PREA
I.

What is it?
A.
B.

II.

The Law
What it Means for Us

The Agency’s Responsibility
A.
B.

Key Strategies
Staff Resources

III. Your Responsibility
A.
B.
C.
D.

Recognize the signs
Remain Diligent
Report
Respond
2
PREA Report Summer 2008
Page 79

Appendix G.

I. What is it?
Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003,
Public Law 108-79
signed September 2003 by President
George Bush.
Purpose:
To provide for analysis of the incidence and
effects of prison rape in Federal, State, and
local institutions and to provide information,
resources, recommendations, and funding
to protect individuals from prison rape. 3

The purpose of PREA

•
•

Establish a zero-tolerance standard for
the incidence of prison rape in prisons
in the US
Make the prevention of prison rape a
top priority in each prison system
Develop and implement national
standards for the detection, prevention,
reduction, and punishment of prison
rape
4
PREA Report Summer 2008
Page 80

Appendix G.

•
•
•

Increase the available data and
information on the incidence of prison
rape
Standardize the definitions used for
collection data on the incidence of
prison rape
Increase the accountability of prison
officials who fail to prevent, reduce,
and punish prison rape
5

Protect the Eighth Amendment
rights of Federal, State, and local
prisoners

6
PREA Report Summer 2008
Page 81

Appendix G.

Farmer v. Brennan (1994)
An 8th Amendment violation exists
when victims can show:
a) that they are incarcerated under
conditions posting a substantial risk of
serious harm, and
b) that correctional staff acted with
deliberate indifference toward the victims’
health or safety in allowing these
conditions to exist.
7

Definitions (42 USC 15609):
Inmate – any person incarcerated or
detained in any facility who is accused
of, convicted of, sentenced for, or
adjudicated delinquent for, violations of
criminal law or the terms and
conditions of parole, probation, pretrial
release , or diversionary program.
8
PREA Report Summer 2008
Page 82

Appendix G.

Definitions cont…
Police Lockup – a temporary holding
facility of a Federal, State or local law
enforcement agency (used) to hold
inmates pending bail or transport to jail,
inebriates until ready for release or
juveniles pending parental custody or
shelter placement.
9

Definitions cont…
Prison Rape – includes the rape of an
inmate in the actual or constructive
control of prison officials. “Rape” as
defined by PREA includes all sex acts
and sexual fondling (touching the
private parts of another person for
sexual gratification).
10
PREA Report Summer 2008
Page 83

Appendix G.

How does the PREA law make
your job easier?

•
•
•
•
•

Safer prisons
Less violence
Less weapons
Less acting out to get into different
housing
Reduced spread of disease
11

Plus, It gives us…

•

An increased level of professionalism,
and
The knowledge that there is something
we can do!

12
PREA Report Summer 2008
Page 84

Appendix G.

In 2000, over 25,000 inmates in
Federal and State prisons were
known to be infected with
HIV/AIDS. It accounted for more
than 6% of prison deaths.

13

Sexual Assault In
Custody Is Costly -- It…

•.,
•
•

Increases administration expenses
Increases health care expenditures
Increases mental health care
expenditures through trauma,
depression, suicide, and aggravated
existing mental illnesses

•

Increases the risks of recidivism, civil
strife, and violent crime by victims of
prison sexual assault
14
PREA Report Summer 2008
Page 85

Appendix G.

II. The Agency’s Responsibility

•
•

Aggressively respond
Investigate
Support the prosecution of sexual
misconduct in Clark County facilities,
both internally and externally in
partnership with law enforcement and
county prosecutors.
15

Offer continual education of staff and
inmates
Increase awareness of safe reporting
mechanisms available
Provide services to victims, thereby
creating institutional cultures that
discourage sexual aggression and
misconduct.
16
PREA Report Summer 2008
Page 86

Appendix G.

••
•

Classification
Housing assignment
Improvements to jail and lockup
architecture where feasible
Identify opportunities to separate and
monitor both sexually assaultive and
vulnerable inmates and sexual
aggressors and victims to reduce the
incidence of sexual misconduct.

17

CCSO PREA Action Plan
Purpose

•

“To provide uniform guidelines and
procedures to reduce the risk of
custody/jail sexual assault and sexual
activity. The Sheriff’s Office is
committed to a zero-tolerance standard
for sexual misconduct and sexual
assault.”
18
PREA Report Summer 2008
Page 87

Appendix G.

•

PREA Coordinator/Commanders

Review and sign off as reviewing authority all
PREA Reports.
Forward completed PREA Reports to Internal
Affairs for review and tracking.
Initiate any follow-up that may be required..
CMDR’S. Mike Anderson & Kim Beltran
19

Sgt. Responsibilities

•
•

In the event of any PREA action, Sergeants
are charged with validating the allegation.
If the sergeant determines probable cause
exists to believe that a crime has been
committed and immediate action is required,
contact a courthouse deputy if available
otherwise contact the on-duty patrol
sergeant. They will conduct a criminal
investigation or make the referral to the
Major Crimes Unit (MCU).
20
PREA Report Summer 2008
Page 88

Appendix G.

Sgt. Responsibilities Cont.
Ensures the inmate victim is safe
and kept separated from the
inmate aggressor.
Ensures the inmate victim does not
shower, eat, or drink until after
evidence collection.
Secures the incident area as a
crime scene until released
21

Sgt. Responsibilities Cont.
SUSPECT
If the report is made immediately after an
assault, the Custody Sergeant will insure:
Suspect is placed in an isolation area where
they do not have access to any water.
Does not allow suspect an opportunity to
shower or change clothing to alter or destroy
evidence. Do not seize clothing evidence
unless the individual is attempting to destroy
it, this should be seized by the investigating
deputy whenever possible
22
PREA Report Summer 2008
Page 89

Appendix G.

Sgt. Responsibilities Cont.
QUESTIONS TO VICTIM
When did the assault occur?
Where did the assault occur? (Ensuring the area is secured as a
crime scene)
Was the assault anal, oral, and other?
When was the last time the victim showered?
Has the victim changed clothes since the assault?
If yes, where is the clothing?
Has the victim brushed their teeth or eaten since the assault?
If yes, where is the toothbrush?
Who assaulted the victim?
Were there witnesses or others who know of the assault?

23

Sgt. Responsibilities Cont.
All PREA cases will have a PREA Action Report
completed. These Action Reports are posted to the I
DRIVE under: FORMS/Custody/ Forms.
If the matter is referred for criminal investigation
supplemental EPR’s will be completed and forwarded
to Case Management to support the investigating
Deputy’s report.
PREA incidents that do no rise to the level of criminal
prosecution will be handled through the inmate
disciplinary system, if the preliminary review shows
reasonable suspicion exists to support a violation.
24
PREA Report Summer 2008
Page 90

Appendix G.

Your Responsibility
Report to your
Supervisor
Remain Diligent
Recognize the Signs

25

Vulnerable Inmate:

•

An inmate who is at high risk to become a
victim of sexual assault by another inmate
due to characteristics related to:
„

age,

„

physical stature,

„

criminal history,

„

physical or mental disabilities, or

„

past history of being victimized.
26
PREA Report Summer 2008
Page 91

Appendix G.

Facts and Figures

..
•.
•.

Inmates with mental illness are at an
increased risk of victimization.
As many as 16% of inmates in State prisons
and jails, and 7% of Federal inmates, suffer
from mental illness.
Juveniles are five times more likely to be
sexually assaulted in adult rather than
juvenile facilities, often within the first 48
hours of incarceration.
27

Warning Signs

..
•.
•.•
•.
•.

Isolation
Lashing out at others
Depression
Refusing to shower
Suicidal thoughts or actions
Seeking protective custody
Refusing to leave segregation
28
PREA Report Summer 2008
Page 92

Appendix G.

Where do Sexual Assaults
Happen?

•
•
•
•
•

Cells
Showers
Work assignments (kitchen, closets)
Recreation Areas
Transport
29

What do you do if an inmate
comes to you
- as a victim, or

- with information about a victim?

1. Listen and take down the information
2. Report it to your Supervisor
3. Maintain professionalism
30
PREA Report Summer 2008
Page 93

Appendix G.

Response to suspected/nonconfirmed sexual assault
Question/check victim without
jeopardizing inmate’s safety/confidence
Remove victim from area
Ask open-ended questions
Advise inmate of reporting options/help
options

31

Response to witnessed/confirmed
sexual assault
Contact Sergeant
Move victim – contact medical
Move assailant to dry cell
Secure scene – limit access
Protect chain of evidence
Write appropriate reports
32
PREA Report Summer 2008
Page 94

Appendix G.

Treat it as Crime Scene

33

What do you
do after an
incident?

34
PREA Report Summer 2008
Page 95

3
•Role Model

R-!5
Don’t Talk About It.

•Reinforce

Reinforce the Victim.

•Redirect

Redirect Inmates Who
Do Talk About It.
35

Don’t Make Promises the
Agency Can’t Keep.

We’ll keep you safe.
We’ll keep this
confidential.

36
PREA Report Summer 2008
Page 96

Confidentiality
Inmates who report information to
Sheriff Office staff do so with the
understanding that CCSO will
investigate and, when appropriate,
seek prosecution.

37

Is there such a thing
as consensual sex in
prison or Jails?

38
PREA Report Summer 2008
Page 97

Appendix G.

RCW 9A.44.160
Class C Felony
Custodial sexual misconduct in the first degree
(1) A person is guilty of custodial sexual misconduct in the first degree
when the person has sexual intercourse with another person:
(a) When:
(i) The victim is a resident of a state, county, or city adult or
juvenile correctional facility, including but not limited to jails,
prisons, detention centers, or work release facilities, or is under
correctional supervision; and
(ii) The perpetrator is an employee or contract personnel of a
correctional agency and the perpetrator has, or the victim
reasonably believes the perpetrator has, the ability to influence
the terms, conditions, length, or fact of incarceration or
correctional supervision; or
(b) When the victim is being detained, under arrest[,] or in
the custody of a law enforcement officer and the perpetrator is a
law enforcement officer.
(2) Consent of the victim is not a defense to a prosecution
under this section.

39

RCW 9A.44.170
Gross Misdemeanor
Custodial sexual misconduct in the second degree
((1) A person is guilty of custodial sexual misconduct in the second degree when
the person has sexual contact with another person:
(a) When:
(i) The victim is a resident of a state, county, or city adult or juvenile
correctional facility, including but not limited to jails, prisons, detention
centers, or work release facilities, or is under correctional supervision;
and
(ii) The perpetrator is an employee or contract personnel of a
correctional agency and the perpetrator has, or the victim reasonably
believes the perpetrator has, the ability to influence the terms,
conditions, length, or fact of incarceration or correctional supervision; or
(b) When the victim is being detained, under arrest, or in the custody
of a law enforcement officer and the perpetrator is a law enforcement
officer.
(2) Consent of the victim is not a defense to a prosecution under this
section.
(3) Custodial sexual misconduct in the second degree is a gross
misdemeanor.

40
PREA Report Summer 2008
Page 98

Appendix G.

Key Concepts

•

Staff member – employees, volunteers,
interns, reserve deputies, any similar staff
member of other agencies, contract
employees of or for CCSO.
Involved Person – any person stopped or
detained by CCSO employees or placed into
active custody (with restraints) or
constructive custody (where a reasonable
person would believe they are under arrest).

•

41

42
PREA Report Summer 2008
Page 99

Appendix H.
Custody Officer Jeff Young: Years of Service 14: Current Assignment Transport Officer
Custody Sergeant Ken Clark: Years of Service 9: Current Assignment Capital Planning
Custody Sergeant Dan Schuab: Years of Service 17: Current Assignment Internal Affairs
Custody Sergeant Dan Kaiser: Years of Service 27: Current Assignment Training
Enforcement Sergeant David Trimble: Years of Service 28: Current Assignment Major Crimes
Risk Analyst Jim Hansen: Years of Service 8 (with Reserve Service): Current Assignment Professional
Standards
Custody Commander Mike Anderson: Years of Service 29: Current Assignment Jail Operations
Enforcement Commander Keith Kilian: Years of Service 30: Current Assignment Professional Standards
Chief Administrative Deputy Ric Bishop: Years of Service 24: Current Assignment Administrative Chief
Deputy

PREA Report Summer 2008
Page 100

For alternate format, contact the Clark County ADA Compliance Office,
V(360)397-2322; TTY (360)397-24485; Email ADA@clark.wa.gov

 

 

PLN Subscribe Now Ad
Advertise here
The Habeas Citebook: Prosecutorial Misconduct Side