Skip navigation

Doj Report on Sexual Abuse in Prisons and Jails 2008-2009

Download original document:
Brief thumbnail
This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Statistics

Sexual Victimization in Prisons
and Jails Reported by Inmates,
2008-09
National Inmate Survey, 2008-09

Federal and State Prisons
Local Jails

Allen J. Beck, PhD, and Paige M. Harrison,
BJS Statisticians
Marcus Berzofsky, Rachel Caspar,
and Christopher Krebs, PhD,
RTI International
August 2010, NCJ 231169

BJS

Federal and State Prisons
Local Jails

Bureau of Justice Statistics
James P. Lynch
Director

The Bureau of Justice Statistics is the
statistics agency of the U.S. Department
of Justice. James P. Lynch is director.

BJS Website:
www.bjs.usdoj.gov

This compendium was written by Allen
J. Beck, PhD, and Paige M. Harrison,
BJS Statisticians, and Marcus Berzofsky,
Rachel Caspar, and Christopher Krebs,
PhD, RTI International.

askbjs@usdoj.gov

Paige M. Harrison, under the supervision of Allen J. Beck, was the project
manager for the NIS-2. RTI, International staff, under a cooperative
agreement and in collaboration with
BJS, designed the survey, developed the
questionnaires, and monitored the data
collection and processing, 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.
Jill Duncan edited the report, Barbara
Quinn designed and produced the
report, and Jayne Robinson prepared
the report for final printing under the
supervision of Doris J. James.
August 2010, NCJ 231169
2

August 2010

Contents
Highlights .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 5

Inmate-on-Inmate Victmization .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 21

National Inmate Survey-2 .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 6

Staff Sexual Misconduct  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 23

Incidents of Sexual Victimization  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 6

Appendix 1. Survey items related to inmate-on-inmate sexual
victimization, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 25

Facility Level Rates .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 7
Demographic Characteristics  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 12
Sexual History and Orientation .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 14

Appendix 2. Survey items related to staff sexual misconduct,
National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 26

Criminal Justice Status  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 16

Appendix 3. Follow-up questions for inmates reporting no sexual
activity, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 26

Predicted Victimization Rates .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 18

Methodology .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 27

List of Tables
Table 1. Inmates reporting sexual victimization, by type of facility and
incident, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 7

Table 11. Multivariate logistic models of sexual victimization, by criminal
justice status and history, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 17

Table 2. Facilities with high rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization,
by type of facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 8

Table 12. Final multivariate logistic models of sexual victimization in prisons
and jails, by type of incident, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 18

Table 3. Facilities with high rates of staff sexual misconduct, by type of
facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 9

Table 13. Estimated and predicted rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual
victimization in high-rate prisons and jails, National Inmate Survey,
2008-09  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 20

Table 4. Facilities with low rates of any type of sexual victimization, by type
of facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 10
Table 5. Rates of sexual victimization in special correctional facilities, by type
of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 11
Table 6. Prevalence of sexual victimization, by type of incident and
demographic inmate characteristic, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09  .  .  . 12
Table 7. Multivariate logistic regression models of sexual victimization, by
inmate demographic characteristic, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09  .  .  . 13
Table 8. Prevalence of sexual victimization, by type of incident and sexual
history, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 14
Table 9. Multivariate logistic models of sexual victimization, by sexual history,
National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 15
Table 10. Prevalence of sexual victimization, by type of incident and criminal
justice status, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 16

Table 14. Estimated and predicted rates of staff sexual misconduct in highrate prisons and jails, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 20
Table 15. Experiences of victims of inmate-on-inmate victims of sexual
victimization, by type of facility and sex, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 .  . 21
Table 16. Circumstances surrounding inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization,
by type of facility and sex, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 22
Table 17. Circumstances surrounding incidents of staff sexual misconduct, by
type of facility and sex of victim, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 .  .  .  .  . 23
Table 18. Sex of perpetrator of staff sexual misconduct, by facility type and
sex of victim, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 24
Table 19. Sexual touching between inmates and staff during and not during
strip searches and pat downs, by sex of victim, National Inmate Survey,
2008-09  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 24

List of Appendix Tables
Appendix Table 1. Characteristics of state and federal prisons and prevalence
of sexual victimization, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09  .  .  .  . 34
Appendix Table 2. Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimization,
by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 .  .  .  .  .  . 41

Appendix Table 7. Percent of jail inmates reporting sexual victimization, by
level of coercion, and facility, National Inmate Survey,
2008-09  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 75

Appendix Table 3. Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimization
by level of coercion, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09  .  .  .  .  .  . 47

Appendix Table 8. Percent of jail inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual
acts and abusive sexual contacts, by facility, National Inmate Survey,
2008-09  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 83

Appendix Table 4. Percent of prison inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual
acts and abusive sexual contacts, by facility, National Inmate Survey,
2008-09  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 53

Appendix Table 9. Characteristics of special correctional facilities and
prevalence of sexual victimization, by facility, National Inmate Survey,
2008-09  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 91

Appendix Table 5. Characteristics of jails and prevalence of sexual
victimization, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 59

Appendix Table 10. Wald F statistics for inmate risk characteristics in the final
multivariate logistic models of sexual victimization in prisons and jails, by
type of incident, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 92

Appendix Table 6. Percent of jail inmates reporting victimization, by type of
incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 67
4

August 2010

Highlights
Prevalence of sexual victimization

•	

Sexual activity with facility staff was reported by
2.9% of male prisoners and 2.1% of male jail inmates,
compared to 2.1% of female prisoners and 1.5% of
female jail inmates.

•	

Rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization in
prisons and jails were significantly higher among
inmates who were white or multi-racial compared
to blacks, inmates with a college degree or more
(compared to those who had not completed high
school), a sexual orientation other than heterosexual
compared to heterosexual, and who had experienced
a sexual victimization before coming to the facility
compared to those who had not.

•	

After controlling for multiple inmate characteristics,
rates of reported staff sexual misconduct were
lower among white inmates (compared to black
inmates), lower among inmates ages 25 or older
(compared to inmates ages 20 to 24), higher
among inmates with a college degree (compared
to those who had not completed high school),
and higher among inmates who had experienced
sexual victimization before coming to the facility
(compared to those who had not).

ƒƒ An estimated 4.4% of prison inmates and 3.1% of jail

inmates reported experiencing one or more incidents
of sexual victimization by another inmate or facility staff
in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility,
if less than 12 months. Nationwide, these percentages
suggest that approximately 88,500 adults held in prisons
and jails at the time of the survey had been sexually
victimized.

ƒƒ About 2.1% of prison inmates and 1.5% of jail inmates

reported an incident involving another inmate. An
estimated 1.0% of prison inmates and 0.8% of jail inmates
said they had nonconsensual sex with another inmate
(the most serious type of acts), including unwilling
manual stimulation and oral, anal, or vaginal penetration.

ƒƒ About 2.8% of prison inmates and 2.0% of jail inmates

reported having had sex or sexual contact with staff. At
least half of the inmates who experienced staff sexual
misconduct (1.8% in prison and 1.1% in jail) said that they
willingly had sex or sexual contact with staff.

Facility rankings

ƒƒ Eight male prisons, 2 female prisons, and 6 jails were

identified as “high rate” facilities based on the prevalence
of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization; 4 male
prisons, 2 female prisons, and 5 jails were identified
as “high rate” based on the prevalence of staff sexual
misconduct. Each of these facilities had a lower bound of
the 95%-confidence interval that was at least 55% higher
than the average rate among comparable facilities.

ƒƒ Seven male prisons, 4 female prisons, and 9 jails

were identified as “low rate” facilities based on a
small percentages of inmates reporting any sexual
victimization by another inmate or staff and a low
upper bound for the 95%-confidence interval around
the rate. Among the 167 prisons and 286 jails in the
survey, 6 prisons and 28 jails had no reported incidents
of sexual victimization.

ƒƒ Except for a 6.0% rate of sexual victimization in the U.S.

Disciplinary Barracks (Leavenworth, KS), rates in the 5
surveyed facilities operated by ICE, 3 operated by the
U.S. Military, and 2 facilities in Indian country were lower
than average rates in state and federal prisons (4.4%)
and jails (3.1%).

Variations in victimization rates

Circumstances surrounding victimization

ƒƒ Among inmates who reported inmate-on-inmate sexual

victimization, 13% of male prison inmates and 19% of
male jail inmates said they were victimized within the
first 24 hours after admission, compared to 4% of female
inmates in prison and jail.

ƒƒ Inmate-on-inmate victimization in prisons and jails was

most commonly reported to have occurred between
6 pm and midnight: more than 40% of victims reported
this time period.

ƒƒ Most victims of staff sexual misconduct were males; most
perpetrators were females. Among male victims of staff
sexual misconduct, 69% of those in prison and 64% of
those in jails reported sexual activity with female staff. An
additional 16% of prison inmates and 18% of jail inmates
reported sexual activity with both female and male staff.

ƒƒ Among inmates who reported staff sexual misconduct,

nearly 16% of male victims in prison and 30% of male
victims in jail said they were victimized by staff within the
first 24 hours, compared to 5% of female victims in prison
and 4% of female victims in jail.

ƒƒ Rates of reported sexual victimization varied among
inmates:

•	

Female inmates in prison (4.7%) or jail (3.1%) were
more than twice as likely as male inmates in prison
(1.9%) or jail (1.3%) to report experiencing inmateon-inmate sexual victimization.

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09

5

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and
Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008-09
National Inmate Survey-2

B

etween October 2008 and
December 2009, BJS completed the second National
Inmate Survey (NIS-2) in 167 state
and federal prisons, 286 jails, and 10
special confinement facilities operated by Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE), the U.S. Military,
and correctional authorities in Indian
country. The survey, conducted by
RTI International (Research Triangle
Park, NC), was administered to 81,566
inmates ages 18 or older, including
32,029 inmates in state and federal
prisons, 48,066 in jails, 957 in ICE
facilities, 399 in military facilities, and
115 in Indian country jails.
The NIS-2 is part of the National
Prison Rape Statistics Program, which
collects administrative records of reported sexual violence, and allegations
of sexual victimization directly from
victims, through surveys of adult inmates in prisons and jails and surveys
of youth held in juvenile correctional
facilities. Administrative records have
been collected annually since 2004.
Reports by victims of sexual victimization have been collected since 2007.
The NIS-2 survey consisted of an
audio computer-assisted self-interview
The Prison Rape Elimination Act of
2003 (P.L. 108-79) (PREA) requires
the Bureau of Justice Statistics
(BJS) to carry out a comprehensive
statistical review and analysis of
the incidents and effects of prison
rape for each calendar year. This
report fulfills the requirements
under Sec. 4(c)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act
to provide a list of prisons and
jails according to the prevalence
of sexual victimization.

6

(ACASI) in which inmates, using
a touch-screen, interacted with a
computer-assisted questionnaire and
followed audio instructions delivered
via headphones. Some inmates (726)
completed a short paper form. Most
of these inmates were housed in
administrative or disciplinary segregation or were considered too violent to
be interviewed.
The NIS-2 collects only allegations
of sexual victimization. Because participation in the survey is anonymous and
reports are confidential, the survey does
not permit any follow-up investigation
or substantiation of reported incidents
through review. Some allegations in the
NIS-2 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 responses
would be kept confidential. Although
the effects may be offsetting, the relative
extent of under reporting and false
reporting in the NIS-2 is unknown.

Incidents of Sexual Victimization
4.4% of prison inmates and 3.1% of
jail inmates reported one or more
incidents of sexual victimization

Among the 76,459 inmates
participating in the NIS-2 sexual
victimization survey, 2,861 reported
experiencing one or more incidents
of sexual victimization in the past 12
months, or since admission to the
facility, if less than 12 months. Because
the NIS-2 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
prison and jail inmates experiencing
sexual victimization totaled 88,500 (or

4.4% of all prison inmates and 3.1% of
jail inmates, nationwide) (table 1).
Among all state and federal inmates,
2.1% (or an estimated 30,100 prisoners)
reported an incident involving another
inmate, and 2.8% (41,200) reported an
incident involving facility staff. Some
prisoners (0.5%) reported sexual victimization by both another inmate and
facility staff.
About 1.5% of jail inmates (11,600)
reported an incident with another
inmate, and 2.0% (15,800) reported
an incident with staff. Approximately
0.4% of jail inmates (3,400) reported
being sexually victimized by both
other inmates and staff.
The NIS-2 screened for specific
sexual activities in which inmates may
have been involved during the past
12 months or since admission to the
facility, if less than 12 months. Inmates
were then asked if they were forced or
pressured to engage in these activities by another inmate or staff. (See
appendices 1 through 3 for specific
survey questions.) Reports of inmateon-inmate sexual victimization were
classified as either nonconsensual
sexual acts or abusive sexual contacts.
Approximately 1.0% of prisoners
and 0.8% of jail inmates said they were
forced or pressured to have nonconsensual sex with another inmate,
including manual stimulation and
oral, anal, or vaginal penetration. An
additional 1.0% of prison inmates and
0.7% of jail inmates said they had experienced one or more abusive sexual
contacts only, or unwanted touching of
specific body parts in a sexual way by
another inmate. (See page 7 for definition of terms.)
An estimated 1.7% of prison
inmates and 1.5% of jail inmates

August 2010

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 1.8% of all prison inmates
and 1.1% of jail inmates reported they
willingly had sex or sexual contact
with staff. Regardless of whether an
inmate reported being willing or
unwilling, any sexual contact between
inmates and staff is illegal; however,
the difference may be informative
when addressing issues of staff training, prevention, and investigation.

Facility Level Rates
NIS-2 provides a basis for identifying
high rate and low rate facilities

As required under the Prison Rape
Elimination Act, the NIS-2 provides
facility-level estimates of inmateon-inmate sexual victimization and
staff sexual misconduct. Since these
estimates are based on a sample of
inmates rather than a complete enumeration, they are subject to sampling
error. (See Methodology for description
of sampling procedures.)
The precision of each of the facility-level estimates can be calculated
based on the estimated standard error.
Typically, a 95%-confidence interval
around each survey estimate is calculated by multiplying the standard error
by 1.96 and then adding and subtracting the result from the sample estimate
to create an upper and lower bound.
This interval expresses the range of
values that could result among 95%
of the different samples that could be
drawn.
For small samples and estimates
close to 0%, as is the case with facilitylevel estimates of sexual victimization
by type of incident, the use of the standard error to construct the 95%-conBrown, L.D., Cai, T., and DasGupta, A. (2001).
Interval Estimation for a Binomial Proportion.
Statistical Science, 16(2), pp. 101-138.
Wilson, E.B. (1927). Probable Inference, the Law of
Succession, and Statistical Inference. Journal of the
American Statistical Association, 22, pp. 209-212.
1

which the lower bound is constrained
to be no less than 0%. It also provides
confidence intervals for facilities in
which the survey estimates are 0% (but
other similarly conducted samples
could yield non-zero estimates).

fidence interval may not be reliable.
An alternative method developed by
Wilson has been shown to perform
better than the traditional method.1
This method provides asymmetrical
confidence intervals for facilities in

Table 1
Inmates reporting sexual victimization, by type of facility and incident, National
Inmate Survey, 2008-09
Type of incident
Total
Inmate-on-inmate

Number of victimsa

Percent of inmates

Prisons

Prisons

Jails

Prisons

Jails

4.4%

3.1%

0.3%

0.1%

Jails

64,500

24,000

Standard errorsb

30,100

11,600

2.1%

1.5%

0.2%

0.1%

Nonconsensual sexual acts

15,100

6,000

1.0

0.8

0.1

0.1

Abusive sexual contacts only

15,000

5,600

1.0

0.7

0.1

0.1

41,200

15,800

2.8%

2.0%

0.2%

0.1%

25,400

11,400

1.7%

1.5%

0.2%

0.1%

19,000

8,200

1.3

1.1

0.1

0.1

5,800

3,100

0.4

0.4

0.1

0.0

25,500

8,500

1.8%

1.1%

0.1%

0.1%

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

21,700

7,200

1.5

0.9

0.1

0.1

3,800

1,300

0.3

0.2

0.0

0.0

Note: Detail may not sum to total because inmates may report more than one type of victimization. They may also report
victimization by both other inmates and staff.
aEstimates of the number of victims nationwide are based on weighted data and rounded to the nearest 100.
bStandard errors may be used to construct confidence intervals around each estimate. See Methodology for calculations.

Definition of terms

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

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09

7

Although the NIS-2 provides
facility-level estimates and measures
of precision, it cannot provide an exact
ranking for all facilities as required
under PREA. Rates of inmate-oninmate sexual victimization and staff
sexual misconduct differ across facilities, but the observed differences are
not always statistically significant. To
address PREA requirements, facilities
have been categorized as having high
rates or low rates based on criteria applied to the lower and upper bounds of
the 95%-confidence interval for each
facility.
The criterion that the lower bound
of the confidence interval be at least
55% higher than the average rate
for comparable facilities was used to
identify high rate male prisons, female
prisons, and jails. The criterion that the
upper bound of the confidence interval
be lower than 65% of the average rate
for comparable facilities was used to
identify low rate facilities.
To better identify variations among
correctional facilities in rates of sexual
victimization, prisons and jails are
compared separately by type of sexual
victimization. Though informative,
an analysis of a single, overall prevalence rate of sexual victimization for
each sampled facility would confound
differing risk factors, circumstances,
and underlying causes of victimization. For the same reasons, prisons
are compared separately by the sex of
inmates housed.
The NIS-2 sample was designed to
ensure a sufficient number of femaleonly prison facilities (35 facilities participated) and a sufficient number of
female respondents (6,279 completed
the survey) to allow for valid comparisons among female prisons. Only 2
of the 286 participating jails in NIS-2
housed only females; as a result, rates
of sexual victimization in jails could
not be compared separately by sex of
inmate housed.

Eight male prisons, 2 female prisons,
and 6 jails were identified as having
high rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual
victimization

Among the 167 prisons and
286 jails surveyed in NIS-2, 8 male
prisons, 2 female prisons, and 6 jails
were designated as high rate facilities
based on reports of inmate-on-inmate
sexual victimization (table 2). Each
of these facilities had a rate of inmateon-inmate sexual victimization that
was at least twice the national rate of
1.9% for male prisons, 4.8% for female
prisons, and 1.5% for jails. Each had a
95%-confidence interval with a lower

bound that was at least 55% higher
than the average rate among comparable facilities.
Selection of slightly lower criteria
would have had only a minor impact
on the list of facilities with high rates
of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization. Lowering the criteria of the
lower bound to at least 50% higher
than the average comparable rate
would not have increased the number
of high rate facilities (16); lowering the
criteria to 35% would have increased
the number to 22 (including 10 male
prisons, 2 female prisons, and 10 jails).

Table 2
Facilities with high rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization, by type of
facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09
Any inmate-on-inmate incidenta
95%-confidence
interval
Facility name
All prisons
Male prisons

Number of Response
respondentsb
rate
Percentc
29,954

Upper
bound
2.5%

71%

2.1%

1.7%

70%

1.9%

1.5%

Hughes Unit (TX)

159

57

8.6

5.2

14.0

Allred Unit (TX)

161

55

7.6

4.4

12.9

Pontiac Corr. Ctr. (IL)

23,675

Lower
bound

2.3%

96

32

6.9

3.0

15.0

Plainfield Corr. Fac. (IN)

181

69

6.1

3.3

11.0

Michael Unit (TX)

158

60

6.1

3.3

11.0

Maine State Prison - Warren (ME)

143

59

5.9

3.1

11.0

California Med. Fac. (CA)

258

60

5.8

3.7

9.1

181

62

5.5

3.0

9.9

78%

4.8%

4.0%

Pleasant Valley State Prison (CA)
Female prisons
Taycheedah Corr. Inst. (WI)d
Fluvanna Corr. Ctr. (VA)d
All jails

6,279
171

75

11.9

199

79

11.4

45,126

5.9%

8.2

16.9

7.7

16.5

68%

1.5%

1.4%

1.7%

Orleans Parish - South White Street Jail (LA)d

138

83

7.5

5.5

10.2

Madison Co. Det. Fac. (AL)

293

71

5.5

3.7

7.9

Miami-Dade Co. - Pre-trial Det. Ctr. (FL)

158

50

5.1

2.9

9.1

Houston Co. Jail (AL)

216

89

4.0

2.3

6.7

Jefferson Co. Jail (MO)

127

81

4.0

2.5

6.2

Madison Co. Det. Ctr. (IN)

158

78

3.9

2.5

6.1

Note: High rate facilities are those in which the lower bound of the 95%-confidence interval is larger than 1.55 times the
average among prisons, by sex of inmates housed, and 1.55 times the average among all jail facilities.
aPercent of inmates reporting one or more incidents of sexual victimization involving another inmate in the past 12
months or since admission to the facility, if less than 12 months.
bNumber of inmates who responded to the sexual victimization survey.
cWeights were applied so that inmates who responded accurately reflected the entire population of each facility on
selected characteristics, including age, sex, race, time since admission, and sentence length.
dFacility houses only female inmates.

8

August 2010

Among male prisons, Hughes Unit
(Texas) recorded an inmate-on-inmate
sexual victimization rate of 8.6%,
and Allred Unit (Texas) recorded a
rate of 7.6%. Among female prisons,
Taycheedah Correctional Institution
(Wisconsin) had a rate of 11.9%, and
Fluvanna Correctional Center (Virginia) had a rate of 11.4%.
Orleans Parish - South White Street
Jail (Louisiana), a female-only facility,
recorded an inmate-on-inmate sexual
victimization rate of 7.5%, which was 5
times the average rate among jails nationwide. Madison County Detention Facility
(Alabama) reported a rate of 5.5%.
Four male prisons, 2 female prisons,
and 5 jails were identified as having
high rates of staff sexual misconduct

Eleven facilities were identified as
high rate facilities based on reports

of staff sexual misconduct—4 male
prisons, 2 female prisons, and 5 jails
(table 3). Each had a confidence
interval with a lower bound that was at
least 55% higher than the national rate
of male prisons (2.9%), female prisons
(2.2%), and jails (2.0%).
Selection of slightly lower criteria
would have had only a minor impact
on the list of facilities with high rates
of staff sexual misconduct. Lowering the criteria of the lower bound to
at least 50% higher than the average
comparable rate would have increased
the number of high rate facilities from
11 to 14 (including 5 male prisons, 2 female prisons, and 7 jails); lowering the
criteria to 35% would have increased
the number to 20 (including 6 male
prisons, 2 female prisons, and 12 jails).
In 3 state prisons, at least 8% of

surveyed inmates reported incidents
of staff sexual misconduct, including
8.2% of males in Crossroads Correctional Facility (Missouri), 8.1% of
males in Attica Correctional Facility
(New York), and 11.5% of females in
Bayview Correctional Facility (New
York). Two jails, Caroline County Jail
(Maryland) with 10.0% and Eastern
Shore Regional Jail (Virginia) with
9.9%, had rates of reported staff sexual
misconduct that exceeded 8%.
The reported use or threat of
physical force to engage in sexual
activity with staff was generally low
among all prison and jail inmates
(1.0%); however, at least 5% of the inmates in 2 state prisons and 2 jails said
that they had been physically forced
or threatened with force. Caroline
County Jail (Maryland), with 10%,

Table 3
Facilities with high rates of staff sexual misconduct, by type of facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09
Any staff sexual misconducta
Level of coercionb

95%-confidence interval
Facility name
All prisons
Male prisons

Number of
respondentsc

Response rate

Percentd

Lower
bound

Upper
bound

Physically
forcede

Pressuredf

Without force
or pressureg

29,954

71%

2.8%

2.5%

3.2%

1.0%

1.6%

1.8%

23,675

70%

2.9%

2.5%

3.3%

1.0%

1.6%

1.8%

Crossroads Corr. Fac. (MO)

207

77

8.2

5.3

12.6

3.8

5.2

4.1

Attica Corr. Fac. (NY)

170

61

8.1

4.8

13.3

6.4

6.0

2.8

Elmira Corr. Fac. (NY)

167

63

7.7

4.5

12.7

2.5

7.1

1.3

Ferguson Unit (TX)

236

82

7.6

4.7

11.9

1.1

3.1

5.8

2.2%

1.6%

1.8%

0.6%

Female prisons
Bayview Corr. Fac. (NY)
Fluvanna Corr. Ctr. (VA)
All jails

6,279
96
199
45,126

78%

2.9%

0.8%

73

11.5

8.3

15.6

6.5

10.8

0.6

79

6.0

3.7

9.5

1.5

4.3

2.4

68%

2.0%

1.9%

2.2%

1.0%

1.3%

1.1%

Caroline Co. Jail (MD)

32

46

10.0

3.2

27.4

10.0

7.9

7.9

Eastern Shore Regional Jail (VA)

27

49

9.9

4.3

21.5

2.6

2.6

9.9

Clallam Co. Corr. Fac. (WA)

75

71

6.1

3.4

10.6

5.2

5.0

2.0

Orleans Co. Jail (NY)

55

82

5.6

3.5

8.9

0.0

0.0

5.6

268

86

5.5

3.6

8.3

2.0

1.7

3.8

Cook Co. Jail - Division 6 (IL)

Note: High rate facilities are those in which the lower bound of the 95%-confidence interval is larger than 1.55 times the average among prisons, by sex of inmates housed, and 1.55 times
the average among all jail facilities.
aPercent of inmates reporting one or more incidents of sexual victimization involving facility staff in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if less than 12 months.
bDetail may not sum total because an inmate may report more than one incident or level of coercion.
cNumber of inmates who responded to the sexual victimization survey.
dWeights were applied so that inmates who responded accurately reflected the entire population of each facility on selected characteristics, including age, sex, race, time since admission,
and sentence length.
ePhysical force or threat of physical force.
fIncludes incidents in which the perpetrator, without using force, pressured the inmate or made the inmate feel they had to participate.
gIncludes incidents in which 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.

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09

9

had the highest percentage of inmates
reporting physical force or threat force
by staff, followed by Bayview Correctional Facility (New York) and Attica
Correctional Facility (New York), with
6.5% and 6.4%, respectively.
An estimated 1.6% of prison
inmates and 1.3% of jail inmates also
reported being coerced by facility staff
without any use or threat of force,
including being pressured or made to
feel they had to have sex or sexual contact. In 6 of the 11 facilities with high
rates of staff sexual misconduct, at
least 5% of the inmates reported such
pressure by staff. Among state prisoners, the highest rates were reported by
female inmates (10.8%) in the Bayview
Correctional Facility (New York) and
by male inmates (7.1%) in the Elmira
Correctional Facility (New York).
Among jail inmates, the highest rates
were reported by inmates in the Caroline County Jail (7.9%).
Seven male prisons, 4 female prisons,
and 9 jails were identified as “low
rate” for sexual victimization overall

Six prisons and 28 jails had no
reported incidents of sexual victimization of any kind. (See appendix tables
1 and 5.) However, estimates of the
number of inmates who experienced
a sexual victimization in each of these
facilities are also subject to sampling
error and could vary if a different
group of inmates had been interviewed. Although the lower bound of
the 95%-confidence interval in each of
these facilities is 0%, the upper bound
varies depending on the number of
completed interviews in each facility.
Combining reports of inmate-oninmate sexual victimization and staff
sexual misconduct, 7 male prisons
and 4 female prisons were designated
as low rate facilities. These designations were based on their low rate
of sexual victimization overall and
the upper bound of their 95%-confidence interval that was less than 65%
of the average rate among male and
female prisons (table 4). Four of these
10

facilities had no reported incidents of
sexual victimization; 7 had at least one
inmate who reported a sexual victimization.
C. Moore Transfer Facility (Texas),
with a reported sexual victimization rate of 0.4%, had a confidence
interval with the lowest upper bound
(1.9%) among male prisons. Halbert

Substance Abuse Felony Punishment
Facility (Texas), with reported sexual
rate of 0.9%, had a confidence interval
with the lowest upper bound (2.5%)
among female prisons.
Nine jails were designated as low rate
facilities based on the upper bound of
the 95%-confidence interval that was less
than 65% of the average for jails nation-

Table 4
Facilities with low rates of any type of sexual victimization, by type of facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09
Inmates reporting any
sexual victimizationa
95%-confidence
interval
Facility name
All prisons
Male prisons

Number of
respondentsb

Response
rate

Percentc

Lower
bound

Upper
bound

29,954

71%

4.4%

3.9%

5.0%

23,675

70%

4.3%

3.8%

4.9%

C. Moore Transfer Fac. (TX)

184

72

0.4

0.1

1.9

Elkton Fed. Corr. Inst. (BOP)

176

64

0.0

0.0

2.1

Morgantown Fed. Corr. Inst. (BOP)

159

65

0.0

0.0

2.4

Centinela State Prison (CA)

143

52

0.0

0.0

2.6

Maximum Security Fac. (RI)

115

55

0.6

0.1

2.7

Northern Nevada Corr. Ctr. (NV)

206

82

0.8

0.2

2.9

242

84

1.1

0.4

3.1

78%

6.0%

5.0%

7.3%

Corr. Reception Ctr. (OH)
Female prisons

6,279

Halbert Substance Abuse Felony Punishment
Fac. (TX)

229

97

0.9

0.3

2.5

Bridgeport Pre-Parole Fac. (TX)d

128

88

0.0

0.0

2.9

56

81

1.3

0.5

3.4

190

77

1.4

0.5

3.9

68%

3.1%

2.9%

3.3%

Swannanoa Corr. Ctr. for Women (NC)
Lincoln Corr. Ctr. (IL)
All jails

45,126

Hinds Co. Penal Farm (MS)

164

80

0.5

0.2

1.6

Lake Co. - Adult Max. Security Det. Ctr. (OH)

120

70

0.5

0.1

1.6

Tulsa Co. - David L. Moss Criminal Justice
Ctr. (OK)

216

59

0.4

0.1

1.8

Lake Co. - Hill Road Corr. Fac. (CA)

111

57

0.5

0.2

1.9

Nassau Co. Det. Fac. (FL)

168

87

0.7

0.2

1.9

Bristol Co. - New Bedford Fac. (MA)

124

75

0.7

0.2

1.9

Lenawee Co. Jail (MI)

141

76

0.9

0.4

2.0

Carson City Jail (NV)

136

77

0.8

0.3

2.0

Coweta Co. Prison (GA)

184

91

0.0

0.0

2.0

Note: Low rate facilities are those in which the upper bound of the 95%-confidence interval is lower than 0.65 times the
average among prisons, by sex of inmates housed, and 0.65 times the average among all jail facilities.
aPercent of inmates reporting one or more incidents of sexual victimization involving another inmate or facility staff in the
past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if less than 12 months.
bNumber of inmates who responded to the sexual victimization survey.
cWeights were applied so that inmates who responded accurately reflected the entire population of each facility on
selected characteristics, including age, sex, race, time since admission, and sentence length.
dPrivately operated facility.

August 2010

wide. Hinds County Penal Farm (Mississippi) and Lake County - Adult Maximum Security Detention Center (Ohio),
both with a 0.5% overall sexual victimization rate, had confidence intervals with
the lowest upper bounds (1.6%).
Low rates of sexual victimization were
reported in military, Indian country,
and ICE facilities

The NIS-2 also surveyed 10 special
confinement facilities including 5 ICE
facilities, 3 military facilities, and 2
Indian country jails. (See Methodology

for sample description.) Except for a
6.0% overall rate of sexual victimization in the U.S. Disciplinary Barracks
(Leavenworth, KS), rates in these facilities were lower than the average rates
in state and federal prisons (4.4%) and
jails (3.1%). (Not shown. See appendix
table 9.)
Reports of inmate-on-inmate
sexual victimization were highest in
the El Paso Processing Center (Texas),
operated by ICE; however, its rate of
2.1% equaled the average rate among
prisoners nationwide (table 5). The

U.S. Disciplinary Barracks, which is
operated by the U.S. Army and holds
the most serious offenders under
military jurisdiction, had a rate of staff
sexual misconduct (5.6%) that was
double the average of prisons nationwide (2.8%). Gila River Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation (Arizona), the largest jail in Indian country,
had no reports of inmate-on-inmate
sexual victimization and one report of
staff sexual misconduct (1%).

Table 5
Rates of sexual victimization in special correctional facilities, by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09
Any inmate-on-inmate incident

Facility name

Number of
completed
interviews

Any staff sexual misconduct

95%-confidence interval
Percenta

Lower bound Upper bound

95%-confidence interval
Percenta

Lower bound

Upper bound

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facilities
Eloy Det. Ctr. (AZ)b,c

241

0.0%

0.0%

1.6%

0.7%

0.2%

2.4%

Stewart Det. Ctr. (GA)c

138

0.0

0.0

2.7

0.9

0.2

4.5

Elizabeth Contract Det. Fac. (NJ)b,c

100

0.8

0.3

2.7

0.0

0.0

3.7

El Paso Processing Ctr. (TX)b

250

2.1

1.1

4.0

0.2

0.1

1.0

South Texas Det. Complex (TX)b

164

0.0

0.0

2.3

0.0

0.0

2.3

Military facilities
Marine Corps Base Brig, Camp Pendleton (CA)

105

0.5%

0.2%

1.6%

0.5%

0.2%

1.6%

Naval Consolidated Brig, Miramar (CA)b

125

1.4

0.5

3.5

1.5

0.6

3.9

U.S. Disciplinary Barracks, Leavenworth (KS)

149

0.4

0.1

1.7

5.6

3.3

9.5

Gila River DOC and Rehab. (AZ)b

97

0.0%

0.0%

3.8%

1.0%

0.4%

2.6%

Navajo Nation - Window Rock (AZ)

10

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Tribal jails
27.8

27.8

aWeighted percent of inmates reporting one or more incidents of sexual victimization involving another inmate or facility staff in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if

less than 12 months.

bFacility houses both males and females; both were sampled at this facility.
cPrivately operated facility.

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09

11

Demographic Characteristics
Rates of reported sexual victimization
varied across demographic categories
of prison and jail inmates

ƒƒ Rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual

victimization among prison inmates
were higher among females (4.7%)
than males (1.9%), higher among
whites (3.0%) or multi-racial (4.4%)
than among blacks (1.3%), higher
among inmates with a college
degree (3.4%) than among inmates
who had not completed high school
(2.0%), and lower among currently
married inmates (1.3%) than
among inmates who never married
or who were widowed, divorced, or
separated (2.2%) (table 6).
ƒƒ Similar patterns of inmate-on-inmate
sexual victimization were reported
by jail inmates. Females (3.1%),
whites (1.5%), and inmates with a
college degree reported higher rates
of victimization (2.9%) than males
(1.3%), blacks (1.2%), and inmates
who had not completed high school
(1.3%).
ƒƒ Rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual
victimization were unrelated to age
among state and federal prisoners,
but were lower among jail inmates
in older age categories (ages 35 to
44, 45 to 54, and 55 or older) than
among inmates ages 20 to 24.
ƒƒ Patterns of staff sexual misconduct
were different—with reports of staff
sexual misconduct being higher
among males in prisons (2.9%) and
jails (2.1%) than among females
in prisons (2.1%) and jails (1.5%),
and higher among black inmates in
prisons (3.2%) and jails (2.4%) than
among white inmates in prisons
(2.3%) and jails (1.5%).
ƒƒ In both prisons and jails, rates of
reported staff sexual misconduct
were lower among inmates in the
oldest age categories (ages 45 to 54
and ages 55 or older) compared to
inmates ages 20 to 24.

12

Table 6
Prevalence of sexual victimization, by type of incident and inmate demographic
characteristic, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09
Prison inmates reporting
sexual victimizationa
Demographic
characteristic

Number of
inmatesb

Inmate-on- Staff sexual
inmate
misconduct

Jail inmates reporting
sexual victimizationa
Number of Inmate-oninmatesb
inmate

Staff sexual
misconduct

Sex
Male*
Female

1,357,100

1.9%

2.9%

678,100

1.3%

2.1%

100,600

4.7**

2.1**

99,100

3.1**

1.5**

Race/Hispanic origin
Whitec

456,800

3.0%**

2.3%**

271,900

1.5%**

1.5%**

Blackc*

565,400

1.3

3.2

279,000

1.2

2.4

Hispanic

304,400

1.4

2.4**

158,500

1.5

1.9

Otherc,d

43,600

2.7

2.9

17,300

1.9

2.4

Two or more racesd

72,100

4.4**

4.3

43,000

3.1**

3.5**

18-19

27,800

1.6%

3.9%

51,400

2.1%

2.7%

20-24*

182,800

2.1

3.5

162,500

1.9

2.9

25-34

482,500

2.2

3.4

255,400

1.5

2.3**

35-44

406,400

2.3

2.7

173,200

1.2**

1.4**

45-54

259,000

1.8

2.1**

105,800

1.2**

1.1**

98,400

1.5

0.9**

28,700

0.9**

0.7**

Less than high school*

867,200

2.0%

2.9%

422,500

1.3%

1.9%

High school graduate

275,600

1.9

2.2**

179,600

1.5

2.0

Some collegee

220,800

2.2

2.7

126,600

1.6

2.1

College degree
or more

88,800

3.4**

3.8

45,500

2.9**

3.4**

Married*

249,900

1.3%

2.0%

138,000

1.2%

2.2%

Widowed, divorced,
or separated

398,700

2.2**

2.1

184,000

1.6

1.6**

Never married

781,300

2.2**

3.3**

445,800

1.6

2.1

1st quartile*

350,200

2.4%

3.0%

265,500

1.8%

1.9%

2nd quartile

360,400

2.1

2.6

191,600

1.3**

1.9

3rd quartile

324,500

1.9

2.6

140,000

1.1**

2.0

4th quartile

390,900

1.7**

2.6

163,600

1.5

2.2

Age

55 or older
Education

Marital status

Weightf

*Comparison group.
**Difference with comparison group is significant at the 95%-confidence level.
aPercent of inmates reporting one or more incidents of sexual victimization involving another inmate or facility staff in the
past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if less than 12 months.
bEstimated number of inmates at midyear 2008 in prisons and jails represented by NIS-2, excluding inmates under age 18.
Estimates have been rounded to the nearest 100.
cExcludes persons of Hispanic or Latino origin.
dIncludes American Indians, Alaska Natives, Asians, Native Hawaiians, and other Pacific Islanders.
eIncludes persons with an associate degree.
fWeight quartiles are defined by sex. Men: 1st quartile—60 to 168 lbs., 2nd quartile—169 to 186 lbs., 3rd quartile—187
to 209 lbs., 4th quartile—210 to 700 lbs. Women: 1st quartile—65 to 144 lbs., 2nd quartile—145 to 166 lbs., 3rd
quartile—167 to 194 lbs., 4th quartile—195 to 450 lbs.

August 2010

These variations in rates of sexual
victimization among demographic
groups are statistically independent
and largely unexplained by covariation
with other demographic characteristics.
Multivariate logistic regression was
used to determine which demographic
characteristics are statistically significant
for predicting a sexual victimization,
while simultaneously controlling for
the effects of other inmate demographic
characteristics. (See Methodology for
discussion of logistic regression.)
Results are displayed in terms of their
conditional predicted probability, which
represents the probability that an inmate
with a particular characteristic has experienced a given sexual victimization outcome conditional on the inmate having
the mean value for all other predictors in
the model (table 7). For example, based
on models with demographic characteristics only, a female prison inmate has a
3.8% chance of being sexually victimized
by another inmate, while a male inmate
has a 1.6% chance (given that the inmates
are at the mean of the joint distribution
of race or Hispanic origin, education
level, and marital status).2
2

These estimates represent the expected risk
of victimization for an inmate, conditional on
the inmate belonging to a particular group
(defined by each characteristic in the final model)
and having the mean value on all of the other
characteristics in the model. For characteristics
that are categorical (which is the case for every
variable in the NIS-2 logistic regression models),
the mean value is a weighted value of the joint
distribution of all other characteristics in the
respective model.
See Research Triangle Institute (2008). SUDAAN
Language Manual Release 10.0. Research Triangle
Park, NC, Section 4.8.3, pp. 209-211

Table 7
Multivariate logistic regression models of sexual victimization, by inmate
demographic characteristic, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09
Predicted percent of prison
inmates reporting
sexual victimizationa
Demographic characteristic

Inmate-oninmate

Staff sexual
misconduct

Predicted percent of jail
inmates reporting
sexual victimizationa
Inmate-oninmate

Staff sexual
misconduct

Sex
Male*

1.6%

2.5%

1.2%

1.8%

Female

3.8**

1.8**

2.8**

1.2**

Whiteb

2.8%**

2.1%

1.3%

1.4%**

Blackb*

1.2

2.7

1.1

2.1

Hispanic

1.3

2.1

1.4

1.7**

Otherb,c

2.4**

2.6

1.5

2.2

Two or more racesb

4.0**

4.0**

2.7**

3.1**

18-19

--

3.4%

2.0%

2.7%

20-24*

--

3.0

1.8

2.9

25-34

--

3.0

1.3**

2.1

35-44

--

2.5

1.0**

1.3**

45-54

--

1.9**

1.0**

1.0**

55 or older

--

0.8**

0.7**

0.5**

Less than high school*

1.7%

2.5%

1.1%

1.6%

High school graduate

1.6

1.7**

1.4

1.7

Some colleged

1.8

2.5

1.4

2.0**

College degree or more

2.8**

4.5**

2.8**

4.0**

Married*

1.1%

1.8%

--

--

Widowed, divorced, or separated

1.6

2.2

--

--

Never married

2.1**

2.8**

--

--

1st quartile*

--

--

1.5%

--

2nd quartile

--

--

1.1**

--

3rd quartile

--

--

1.0**

--

4th quartile

--

--

1.4

--

Race/Hispanic origin

Age

Education

Marital status

Weighte

--Characteristic deleted from model when Wald statistic was not significant at the 95%-confidence level.
*Comparison group.
**Difference with comparison group is significant at the 95%-confidence level. (See Methodology for tests of significance.)
aConditional predicted percent of inmates reporting one or more incidents of sexual victimization involving another
inmate or facility staff in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if less than 12 months.
bExcludes persons of Hispanic or Latino origin.
cIncludes American Indians, Alaska Natives, Asians, Native Hawaiians, and other Pacific Islanders.
dIncludes persons with an associate degree.
eWeight quartiles are defined by sex. Men: 1st quartile—60 to 168 lbs., 2nd quartile—169 to 186 lbs., 3rd quartile—187
to 209 lbs., 4th quartile—210 to 700 lbs. Women: 1st quartile—65 to 144 lbs., 2nd quartile—145 to 166 lbs., 3rd
quartile—167 to 194 lbs., 4th quartile—195 to 450 lbs.

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09

13

Based on four separate models,
each representing the type of sexual
victimization in prison and jail, variations by sex, race, Hispanic origin, and
education remain statistically significant. Except for reports of inmate-oninmate sexual victimization in prison,
older inmates (ages 45 and older in
prison and ages 35 and older in jails)
still have lower rates of sexual victimization, after controlling for the effects
of the other demographic characteristics. Among prison inmates, never
married inmates remain somewhat
more likely than married inmates to
report sexual victimization; however,
among jail inmates, there are no differences by marital status.

Sexual History and Orientation
Large differences in sexual
victimization were found among
inmates based on their sexual
orientation and past sexual
experiences

Inmates with a sexual orientation other than heterosexual reported
significantly higher rates of inmate-oninmate sexual victimization and staff
sexual misconduct:
ƒƒ Among heterosexual state and
federal prisoners, an estimated 1.3%
reported being sexually victimized
by another inmate, and 2.5%
reported being victimized by staff
(table 8). In contrast, among prison
inmates with a sexual orientation

other than heterosexual (including
bisexual, homosexual, gay or
lesbian, or other), 11.2% reported
being sexually victimized by another
inmate, and 6.6% reported being
sexually victimized by staff.
ƒƒ Similar differences were reported
among jail inmates, with
heterosexual inmates reporting
lower rates of inmate-on-inmate
victimization (1.1%) and staff sexual
misconduct (1.9%) than nonheterosexual inmates (7.2% and
3.5%, respectively).
ƒƒ Inmates who had experienced
sexual victimization before coming
to the facility were also more
likely than inmates with no sexual

Table 8
Prevalence of sexual victimization, by type of incident, inmate sexual history, and orientation, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09
Sexual orientation and history

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

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

Sexual orientation
Heterosexual*

1,316,000

1.3%

2.5%

706,000

1.1%

1.9%

114,300

11.2**

6.6**

52,900

7.2**

3.5**

0-1*

229,800

1.4%

2.4%

121,600

1.2%

1.3%

2-4

181,500

2.3**

2.1

108,800

1.6

1.6

5-10

248,500

2.5**

2.0

141,700

1.5

1.5

11-20

227,600

1.8

2.5

125,200

1.1

1.6

21 or more

509,200

2.2**

3.6**

247,000

1.8**

3.1**

Yes

177,000

11.0%**

No*

1,280,400

Bi-sexual, homosexual, or other
Number of sexual partners

Prior sexual victimization
0.8

8.7%**

100,100

7.4%**

6.1%**

2.0

676,900

0.6

1.4

*Comparison group.
**Difference with comparison group is significant at the 95%-confidence level.
aPercent of inmates reporting one or more incidents of sexual victimization involving another inmate or facility staff in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if less than 12
months.
bEstimated number of inmates at midyear 2008 in prisons and jails represented by NIS-2, excluding inmates under age 18. Estimates have been rounded to the nearest 100.

14

August 2010

victimization history to report
incidents of sexual victimization
involving other inmates and
staff. Among inmates who had
experienced sexual victimization
before coming to the facility,
11.0% of prisoners and 7.4% of
jail inmates reported having been
sexually assaulted by another
inmate at the current facility. An
estimated 8.7% of prisoners and
6.1% of jail inmates who had
experienced sexual victimization
before coming to the facility
reported sexual activity with staff.
Prison
and jail inmates with 21
ƒƒ
or more sexual partners prior
to coming to the current facility

reported higher rates of staff sexual
misconduct than inmates with 1 or
no prior sexual partners.
Variations in rates of sexual victimization among groups of inmates based
on their sexual orientation and past
sexual experiences overlapped somewhat. After simultaneously controlling
for the effects of these characteristics,
the regression models reveal that
variations in inmate-on-inmate sexual
victimization remain associated with
sexual orientation and prior sexual victimization, but are not associated with
the number of past sexual partners
(table 9). Except for reports of staff
sexual misconduct in jails, an inmate’s
sexual orientation remained an impor-

tant predictor of victimization. In all
models, inmates who had experienced
sexual victimization before coming
to the facility were more likely than
inmates with no sexual victimization
history to report incidents of sexual
victimization.

Table 9
Multivariate logistic models of sexual victimization, by inmate sexual history and orientation, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09
Predicted percent of prison inmates reporting sexual
victimizationa
Sexual orientation and history

Inmate-on-inmate

Staff sexual misconduct

Predicted percent of jail inmates reporting sexual
victimizationa
Inmate-on-inmate

Staff sexual misconduct

Sexual orientationb
Heterosexual*

0.9%

2.2%

0.8%

--

Bi-sexual, homosexual, or other

4.0**

3.6**

2.4**

--

0-1*

--

2.6%

--

1.3%

2-4

--

1.7

--

1.5

5-10

--

1.6

--

1.2

11-20

--

2.1

--

1.4

21 or more

--

3.0

--

2.6**

Number of sexual partners

Prior sexual victimization
Yes

7.3%**

7.4%**

5.7%**

5.5%**

No*

0.8

1.9

0.6

1.4

--Characteristic deleted from model when Wald statistic was not significant at the 95%-confidence level.
*Comparison group.
**Difference with comparison group is significant at the 95%-confidence level.
aConditional predicted percent of inmates reporting one or more incidents of sexual victimization involving another inmate or facility staff in the past 12 months or since admission to
the facility, if less than 12 months.
bInmates were asked to report if they considered themselves to be heterosexual or straight, bisexual, homosexual, gay, or lesbian, or other.

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09

15

Criminal Justice Status
Inmates held for a violent sexual
offense reported higher rates
of inmate-on-inmate sexual
victimization than inmates held for
other offenses

An estimated 4.6% of violent sex
offenders in prison and 3.9% of violent
sex offenders in jail reported being sexually victimized by another inmate in
the last 12 months or since admission
to the facility, if less than 12 months
(table 10). These rates were higher than
those reported by inmates held for
other offenses. Among state and federal
prisoners, rates of inmate-on-inmate
sexual victimization were—
ƒƒ higher among prison inmates
serving a long sentence (2.9% with
a sentence of 20 or more years
and 3.8% with a sentence to life or
death) than among inmates serving
a sentence of 1 to 5 years (1.5%).
ƒƒ higher among prison inmates who
had served 5 years or more in prison
prior to coming to the current
facility (2.6%) than among inmates
who had not served any prior time
(1.6%).
ƒƒ higher among prison inmates who
had been at their current facility for
5 years or more (3.3%) than among
inmates who had been admitted in
the last month (1.4%).
Among jail inmates, rates of inmateon-inmate sexual victimization—
ƒƒ were higher among first time
offenders (2.0%) than among those
who had been arrested 2 to 3 times
in the past (1.3%) or 4 to 10 times in
the past (1.4%).
ƒƒ increased with the length of time
served in the current facility, rising
from 0.9% among inmates who
had been at the facility for less than
a month to 1.7% among inmates
in jail for 1 to 5 months, to 2.0%
among inmates in jail for 6 to 11
months, and to 2.3% among those in
jail for 1 to 5 years.

16

Table 10
Prevalence of sexual victimization, by type of incident and inmate criminal justice
status and history, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09

Criminal justice
status and history

Prison inmates reporting sexual
victimizationa

Jail inmates reporting sexual
victimizationa

Number of Inmate-on- Staff sexual
prison inmatesb inmate misconduct

Number of Inmate-on- Staff sexual
jail inmatesb inmate misconduct

Most serious offense
Violent sexual offense*

198,000

4.6%

2.8%

36,500

3.9%

2.8%

Other violent offense

435,500

2.2**

4.0**

121,600

1.8**

3.0

Property

260,700

2.5**

3.0

169,000

1.9**

2.3

Drug

344,300

0.6**

1.4**

179,700

1.0**

1.8

Other

157,300

1.6**

2.3

209,000

1.2**

1.5**

76,500

1.6%

0.9%**

--

--

--

1-5 years*

405,400

1.5

1.9

--

--

--

5-10 years

326,200

1.9**

2.8**

--

--

--

10-20 years

285,300

1.6

2.3

--

--

--

20 years or more

196,400

2.9**

4.1**

--

--

--

Life/death

130,900

3.8**

4.6**

--

--

--

0 months*

292,600

1.6%

2.1%

220,000

1.7%

1.5%

1-5 months

169,200

2.0

2.2

156,700

1.7

1.6

6-11 months

135,600

2.1

1.4

76,200

1.5

1.9

1-5 years

425,800

1.8

2.6

187,600

1.2**

2.3**

5 years or more

405,700

2.6**

3.8**

126,800

1.4

2.9**

1 time*

192,100

2.1%

2.1%

82,000

2.0%

2.0%

2-3 times

424,200

2.1

2.7**

215,900

1.3**

1.7

4-10 times

525,800

1.9

2.8**

291,500

1.4**

1.8

11 or more times

281,800

2.1

2.8

174,600

1.6

2.8**

Less than 1 month*

105,000

1.4%

1.6%

264,200

0.9%

1.5%

1-5 months

418,400

1.6

2.6

354,700

1.7**

2.0**

6-11 months

259,500

2.1

2.7**

97,100

2.0**

3.0**

1-5 years

512,600

2.2

2.8**

58,000

2.3**

3.3**

5 years or more

161,500

3.3**

2.8**

2,600

5.4

3.5

Sentence length
Less than 1 year

Time in a correctional facility
prior to current facility

Number of times arrested

Time since admission

--Not calculated.
*Comparison group.
**Difference with comparison group is significant at the 95%-confidence level.
aPercent of inmates reporting one or more incidents of sexual victimization involving another inmate or facility staff in the
past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if less than 12 months.
bEstimated number of inmates at midyear 2008 in prisons and jails represented by NIS-2, excluding inmates under age 18.
Estimates have been rounded to the nearest 100.

August 2010

Rates of staff sexual misconduct also
varied among inmates based on their
criminal justice status and history

ƒƒ Among state and federal prisoners,

inmates with a long sentence,
inmates who had served 5 years
or more in prison prior to coming
to the current facility, and inmates
who had served 5 years or more at
the current facility were more likely
to report experiencing staff sexual
misconduct than inmates with a
sentence of 1 to 5 years, inmates
who had not served any prior time,
and inmates who had been admitted
in the last month.
ƒƒ Among jail inmates, the rates of
reported staff misconduct increased
with time served in the current
facility and were higher among
inmates who had previously served
time in a correctional facility for 1
year or more.
Based on controls for the criminal
justice status variables and past history
variables, the regression models reveal
that rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual
victimization remain higher for violent
sex offenders in prison and jail. A
violent sex offender has a 4.4% chance
of experiencing sexual victimization
by another inmate in prison and 3.1%
chance of being sexually victimized
by another inmate in jail. Inmate-oninmate sexual victimization rates for
inmates held for other offenses are
significantly lower (table 11).
In each of the regression models
for jails, rates of sexual victimization
remain associated with an inmate’s
time since admission and prior time
served in a correctional facility. Jail
inmates who had served longer (i.e., 6
months to 5 years in the current facility
and 6 months or more in other facilities) had statistically significant higher
rates of staff sexual misconduct than
jail inmates who had served less time
(i.e., less than one month in the current
facility and no time in other facilities in
the past).

Table 11.
Multivariate logistic models of sexual victimization, by inmate criminal justice status and history, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09
Predicted percent of prison
inmates reporting sexual
victimizationa
Inmate characteristic

Inmate-oninmate

Staff sexual
misconduct

Predicted percent of jail inmates
reporting
sexual victimizationa
Inmate-oninmate

Staff sexual
misconduct

Most serious offense
Violent sexual offense*

4.4%

2.5%

3.1%

2.4%

Other violent offense

1.8**

3.1

1.5**

2.4

Property

2.5**

2.9

1.7**

2.2

Drug

0.6**

1.4**

0.9**

1.7

Other

1.5**

2.5

1.1**

1.5**
--

Sentence lengthb
Less than 1 year

1.7

1.1**

--

1-5 years*

1.4

2.0

--

--

5-10 years

1.7

2.6

--

--

10-20 years

1.2

2.1

--

--

20 years or more

2.0

3.5**

--

--

Life/death

2.8**

3.6**

--

--

0 months*

1.3%

2.0%

1.5%

1.4%

1-5 months

1.5

2.1

1.8

1.8

6-11 months

1.8**

1.4

1.3

1.9**

1-5 years

1.6

2.5

1.0**

2.2**

5 years or more

2.0**

3.2**

1.1

2.5**

1 time*

--

--

1.5%

2.3%

2-3 times

--

--

1.0**

1.8

4-10 times

--

--

1.3

1.6**

11 or more times

--

--

1.6

2.3

Less than 1 month*

--

--

0.8%

1.5%

1-5 months

--

--

1.6**

1.9

6-11 months

--

--

1.8**

2.4**

1-5 years

--

--

2.0**

2.7**

5 years or more

--

--

4.9**

3.2

Time in a correctional facility prior to
current facility

Number of times arrested

Time since admission

--Characteristic deleted from model when Wald statistic was not significant at the 95%-confidence level.
*Comparison group.
**Difference with comparison group is significant at the 95%-confidence level.
aConditional predicted percent of inmates reporting one or more incidents of sexual victimization involving another
inmate or facility staff in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if less than 12 months.
bSentence length is the total maximum sentence to prison for all sentences for which an inmate was currently serving.
Sentence length for jail inmates is not included in the models.

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09

17

Predicted Victimization Rates
Sexual victimization among high rate
facilities only partially explained by
variations in risk among inmates held

The variations in rates of sexual
victimization among inmates grouped
by demographic characteristics, sexual
orientation and history, and criminal
justice status and history provide a
basis for predicting the probability of
victimization for each inmate. The
final multivariate logistic regression
models summarize the net contribution of each characteristic to the
predicted probability of victimization,
by type of victimization in prison and
jail (table 12).
Because the effects of each characteristic overlap, the estimated conditional probabilities are smaller than
those in previous regression models.
However, the net effects of sexual
orientation and prior sexual victimization remain the largest among all
characteristics in predicting inmateon-inmate victimization in prison and
jail. An inmate’s race (black), age (ages
20 through 24), and education (college
degree or more) are found to increase
the probability of experiencing staff
sexual misconduct, controlling for
other factors.
Taking into account the effects of
sexual history and orientation and
criminal justice status and history, female inmates have lower rates of sexual
victimization than male inmates in
both prison and jail and for both types
of victimization.
Predicted rates of sexual victimization at the facility level have been
calculated by combining all of the
inmate-level characteristics into a final
logistic regression model for each type
of sexual victimization. Based on the
predicted conditional probabilities of
victimization of each inmate (derived
from the multivariate logistic regression models) and the distribution
of inmates in each facility, predicted

18

Table 12
Final multivariate logistic models of sexual victimization in prisons and jails,
by type of incident, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09
Predicted percent of prison
inmates reporting
sexual victimizationa
Inmate characteristic

Inmate-oninmate

Predicted percent of jail
inmates reporting
sexual victimizationa

Staff sexual
misconduct

Inmate-oninmate

Staff sexual
misconduct

Demographic characteristics
Sex
Male*

0.9%

1.9%

0.7%

1.4%

Female

0.7**

0.6**

0.5**

0.5**

Whiteb

1.1%

1.4%**

--

0.9%**

Blackb*

0.8

2.2

--

1.6

Hispanic

0.8

1.6**

--

1.3

Otherb,c

1.2

1.7

--

1.5

Two or more racesb

1.4**

2.3

--

1.7

18-19

--

4.7%

1.2%

2.7%

20-24*

--

3.4

1.0

2.5

25-34

--

2.3**

0.7**

1.5**

Race/Hispanic origin

Age

35-44

--

1.6**

0.5**

0.8**

45-54

--

1.2**

0.5**

0.6**

55 or older

--

0.4**

0.3**

0.4**

--

1.8%

0.6%

1.1%

Education
Less than high school*
High school graduate

--

1.5

0.8

1.3**

Some colleged

--

1.8

0.7

1.4

College degree or more

--

2.9**

1.4**

3.0**
--

Marital status
Married*

0.7%

--

--

Widowed, divorced, or separated

0.8

--

--

--

Never married

1.0**

--

--

--

Weighte
1st quartile*

--

--

0.9%

--

2nd quartile

--

--

0.6**

--

3rd quartile

--

--

0.6**

--

4th quartile

--

--

0.7

--

Heterosexual*

0.8%

1.7%

0.6%

--

Bi-sexual, homosexual, or other

3.4**

3.1**

2.3**

--

Sexual orientation/history characteristics
Sexual orientation

Number of sexual partners
0-1*

--

2.1%

--

1.2%

2-4

--

1.5

--

1.3

5-10

--

1.3

--

1.0

11-20

--

1.5

--

1.0

21 or more

--

2.2

--

1.7**

Prior sexual victimization
Yes

5.8%**

6.8%**

5.1%**

5.7%**

No*

0.7

1.4

0.5

1.0

August 2010

Table 12 (continued)
Final multivariate logistic models of sexual victimization in prisons and jails,
by type of incident, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09
Predicted percent of prison
inmates reporting
sexual victimizationa
Inmate characteristic

Inmate-oninmate

Predicted percent of jail
inmates reporting
sexual victimizationa

Staff sexual
misconduct

Inmate-oninmate

Staff sexual
misconduct

Criminal justice status/history
characteristics
Most serious offense
Violent sexual offense*

1.5%

1.5%

0.9%

--

Other violent offense

1.0**

2.0

0.7

--

Property

1.4

2.3**

0.8

--

Drug

0.4**

1.2

0.5**

--

Other

1.0

2.1

0.7

--

Less than 1 year

0.9%

0.7%

--

--

1-5 years*

0.8

1.4

--

--

5-10 years

1.0

1.8

--

--

10-20 years

0.7

1.6

--

--

20 years or more

1.2

2.9**

--

--

Life/death

1.3

3.0**

--

--

rates of sexual victimization have been
calculated for each of the high rate
facilities.
These predicted rates take into
account the underlying inmate risk
factors and the variations in the distribution of inmates within each of the
facilities. At the facility level, the difference between the predicted rate and
observed rate represents the percent
not accounted for by variations in inmate characteristics. (See Methodology
for facility-level calculations.)
Logistic regression models

Sentence lengthf

Time in a correctional facility prior to
current facility
0 months*

--

1.7%

--

0.9%

1-5 months

--

1.6

--

1.1

6-11 months

--

1.0**

--

1.2

1-5 years

--

1.7

--

1.5**

5 years or more

--

2.3

--

1.9**

1 time*

--

--

1.0%

1.5%

2-3 times

--

--

0.6**

1.2

4-10 times

--

--

0.6**

1.1

11 or more times

--

--

0.8

1.7

Number of times arrested

Time since admission
Less than 1 month*

--

--

0.4%

1.0%

1-5 months

--

--

0.8**

1.3**

6-11 months

--

--

1.0**

1.7**

1-5 years

--

--

1.2**

1.9**

5 years or more

--

--

3.4**

2.6

Note: See appendix table 10 for Wald statistics and tests of significance for each inmate characteristic.
--Characteristic deleted from model when Wald statistic was not significant at the 95%-confidence level.
*Comparison group.
**Difference with comparison group is signficant at 95%-confidence level. (See Methodology for tests of significance.)
aConditional predicted percent of inmates reporting one or more incidents of sexual victimization involving another
inmate or facility staff in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if less than 12 months.
bExcludes persons of Hispanic or Latino origin.
cIncludes American Indians, Alaska Natives, Asians, Native Hawaiians, and other Pacific Islanders.
dIncludes persons with an associate degree.
eWeight quartiles are defined by sex. Men: 1st quartile - 60 to 168 lbs.; 2nd quartile - 169 to 186 lbs.; 3rd quartile - 187 to
209 lbs.; 4th quartile - 210 to 700 lbs. Women: 1st quartile - 65 to 144 lbs.; 2nd quartile - 145 to 166 lbs.; 3rd quartile - 167
to 194 lbs.; 4th quartile: 195 to 450 lbs.

Multivariate logistic regression
estimation is a modeling technique
used to determine what characteristics are statistically significant for
predicting a dichotomous outcome
(e.g., victimized or not victimized)
while controlling for all the other
characteristics in the model. NIS-2
used this technique to determine
what inmate-level characteristics
were significant predictors of
inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization and staff sexual misconduct.
In each of the logistic regression models, the conditional predicted probability represents the
probability that an inmate with a
particular characteristic has experienced sexual victimization (by
type) conditional on the inmate
having the mean value for all
other predictors in the model. For
example, based on demographic
characteristics only, a female
prison inmate has a 3.8% chance
of being victimized by another
inmate given that she was at the
mean of the joint distribution of
race or Hispanic origin, education
level, and marital status. (See table
7 and note 2 on page 13.) (See
Methodology for full discussion on
logistic regression models.)

fSentence length is the total maximum sentence to prison for all sentences for which an inmate was currently serving.
Sentence length for jail inmates is not included in the models.

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09

19

Among high rate male prisons, the
observed rate of inmate-on-inmate
sexual victimization was 6.7%, while
the predicted rate was 3.6% (table 13).
Among high rate female prisons, the
observed rate was 11.6%, while the
predicted rate was 8.0%. Among high
rate jails, the observed rate was 4.9%,
while the predicted rate was 1.9%.
Similar patterns are found for rates
of staff sexual misconduct among the
high rate facilities. In the 4 high rate
male prisons, the observed rate of staff
sexual misconduct was 7.8%, while

the predicted rate was 4.1% (table 14).
In the 2 high rate female prisons, the
observed rate was 8.1%, while the predicted rate was 2.6%. In the 5 high rate
jails, the observed rate was 7.4%, while
the predicted rate was 2.6%.
These data suggest that rates among
the 16 facilities with high rates of
inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization
and the 11 facilities with high rates of
staff sexual misconduct are only partially explained by variation in inmate
demographic characteristics, sexual
orientation and past sexual experience,

Table 13
Estimated and predicted rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual
victimization in high-rate prisons and jails, National Inmate
Survey, 2008-09

and criminal justice status and history.
Differences between the observed
and predicted rates were statistically
significant at the 95% level of confidence in only 3 of the 16 facilities
with high rates of inmate-on-inmate
sexual victimization and in 1 of the
11 facilities with high rates of staff
sexual misconduct. However, the
tests for statistical significance within
each facility were limited by the small
number of surveyed inmates for whom
the predicted and observed rates of
victimization differed. When the

Table 14
Estimated and predicted rates of staff sexual misconduct in
high-rate prisons and jails, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09
Percent of inmates reporting staff
sexual misconduct

Percent of inmates reporting inmate-oninmate sexual vicimization

Facility name

Estimateda

Predictedb

Difference

High rate prisons

6.7%

3.6%

3.1%**

Crossroads Corr. Fac. (MO)

Hughes Unit (TX)

8.6

5.1

3.5

Attica Corr. Fac. (NY)

Allred Unit (TX)

7.6

3.8

3.8

Elmira Corr. Fac. (NY)

Pontiac Corr. Ctr. (IL)

6.9

2.6

4.4

Ferguson Unit (TX)

Plainfield Corr. Fac. (IN)

6.1

3.3

2.8

Michael Unit (TX)

6.1

5.7

0.4

Fluvanna Corr. Ctr. (VA)c

Maine State Prison - Warren (ME)

5.9

4.8

1.1

Bayview Corr. Fac. (NY)c

California Med. Fac. (CA)

5.8

2.7

3.1**

Pleasant Valley State Prison (CA)

5.5

2.1

3.4**

Caroline Co. Jail (MD)

11.6%

8.0%

3.6%**

Taycheedah Corr. Inst. (WI)c

11.9

8.8

Fluvanna Corr. Ctr. (VA)c

11.4

Facility name
High rate prisons
Male prisons

Female prisons

High rate jails
Orleans Parish - South White Street
Jail (LA)c

Estimateda

Predictedb

7.8%

4.1%

3.7%**

8.2

4.8

3.4

8.1

4.1

4.0

7.7

3.9

3.8

7.6

3.9

3.7

8.1%

2.6%

5.5%**

6.0

2.9

3.1

11.5

2.1

9.4**

Male prisons

4.9%
7.5

Female prisons

High rate jails

2.6%

4.8%**

10.0

3.1

6.9

Eastern Shore Regional Jail (VA)

9.9

3.1

6.8

3.1

Clallam Co. Corr. Fac. (WA)

6.1

1.9

4.1

7.3

4.1

Orleans Co. Jail (NY)

5.6

1.9

3.7

1.9%

3.1%**

Cook Co. Jail - Division 6 (IL)

5.5

2.8

2.7

3.3

4.3

Madison Co. Det. Fac. (AL)

5.5

1.8

3.7**

Miami-Dade Co. - Pre-trial Det. Ctr. (FL)

5.1

1.9

3.2

Houston Co. Jail (AL)

4.0

1.9

2.1

Jefferson Co. Jail (MO)

4.0

1.0

3.0

Madison Co. Det. Ctr. (IN)

3.9

1.6

2.4

Note: High rate facilities are those in which the lower bound of the 95%-confidence interval
is larger than 1.55 times the average among prisons, by sex of inmates housed, and 1.55
times the average among all jail facilities.

7.4%

Difference

Note: High rate facilities are those in which the lower bound of the 95%-confidence
interval is larger than 1.55 times the average among prisons, by sex of inmates housed,
and 1.55 times the average among all jail facilities.
**Significant at the 95%-confidence level.
aPercent of inmates reporting one or more incidents of sexual victimization in the past
12 months or since admission to the facility, if less than 12 months.
bConditional predicted percent of inmates (based on the final multivariate logistic
models in table 12) reporting one or more incidents of sexual victimization involving
another inmate or facility staff in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if
less than 12 months.
cFacility houses only female inmates.

**Significant at the 95% confidence level.
aPercent of inmates reporting one or more incidents of sexual victimization in the past 12
months or since admission to the facility, if less than 12 months.
bConditional predicted percent of inmates (based on the final multivariate logistic models
in table 12) reporting one or more incidents of sexual victimization involving another
inmate or facility staff in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if less than
12 months.
cFacility houses only female inmates.

20

August 2010

number of inmates in all high rate
male prisons, female prisons, and jails
were combined, the differences were
found to be statistically significant.
With the exception of 2 facilities—the
Michael Unit (in Texas) and Maine
State Prison - Warren—the differences
between the observed and predicted
rates were large relative to the average
rates of sexual victimization among
male prisons, female prisons, and jails
nationwide.

Inmate-on-Inmate Victimization
Reports of inmate-on-inmate sexual
victimization differed among males
and females by type of facility

Among inmates who reported
inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization
in state and federal prisons—
ƒƒ Males (16%) were more likely
than females (6%) to have been
victimized 11 or more times in the
last 12 months, or since admission if
less than 12 months (table 15).

Table 15
Experiences of victims of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization, by type of facility
and sex of victim, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09
Victims in prison
Experiences
Number of victims

Victims in jail

Male*

Female

Male*

Female

25,312

4,774

8,611

3,023

Number of incidentsa
1

35.2%

41.6%

35.8%

55.8%**

2

18.1

27.1

15.4

16.0

3 to 5

16.7

15.9

10.5

13.1

6 to 10

13.8

10.0

18.0

5.8**

11 or more

16.2

5.5**

20.3

9.4**

Persuaded/talked into it

46.7%

53.8%

43.3%

38.1%

Bribed/blackmailed

41.7

25.7**

47.9

19.1**

Given drugs

18.5

9.5**

25.5

4.4**

Offered protection

38.6

18.9**

39.9

18.3**

Offered to settle debt

13.7

4.0**

19.3

6.2**

Threatened with harm/weapon

48.1

29.5**

57.5

16.2**

Physically held down/restrained

24.3

23.3

40.5

19.7**

Physically harmed/injured

18.1

13.0

31.9

8.8**

24.7%

10.8%**

42.5%

16.0%**

23.8%

15.9%**

37.1%

17.0%**

White

38.9%

36.5%

46.2%

35.0%

Black

64.6

60.4

59.2

60.6

American Indian/Native Alaskan

7.4

7.5

17.0

5.6**

Other

6.3

5.7

20.0

3.9**

4.2%**

36.0%

6.3%**

Type of pressure or forceb

Victimized by more than one perpetrator
Yes

ƒƒ Males were more likely than females
to report having been bribed or
blackmailed to take part in the
sexual activity (42% compared
to 26%), offered protection (39%
compared to 19%), or threatened
with harm or a weapon (48%
compared to 30%).
ƒƒ Males were more likely than females
to report more than one perpetrator
(25% compared to 11%), that
the perpetrator was of Hispanic
or Latino origin (24% compared
to 16%), and that one or more
incidents were initiated by a gang
(20% compared to 4%).
Among victims of inmate-oninmate sexual violence in jails—
ƒƒ Females were more likely than
males to have been victimized only
once (56% compared to 36%) and
less likely to have been victimized
11 or more times (9% compared to
20%).
ƒƒ Males were more likely than females
to report all forms of pressure or
force (except for being persuaded or
talked into it).
ƒƒ Males were more likely than females
to report more than one perpetrator
(43% compared to 16%), that
the perpetrator was of Hispanic
or Latino origin (37% compared
to 17%), and that one or more
incidents were initiated by a gang
(36% compared to 6%).

Hispanic/Latino origin of perpetrator(s)
Yes
Race of perpetrator(s)b

Was any incident initiated by a gang?
Yes

19.9%

*Comparison group.
**Significant at the 95%-confidence level, when compared to male victims.
aIncludes the number of sexual acts (i.e., hand job, oral/vaginal/anal sex) reported by inmate in the last 12 months or since
admission to the facility, if less than 12 months.
bDetail sums to more than 100% because some inmates reported more than one incident or reported more than one type
of pressure or force during an incident.

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09

21

Inmate-on-inmate victimization
occurred most often in the victim’s cell
between 6 pm and midnight

ƒƒ Among inmates who reported

inmate-on-inmate sexual
victimization, males were much
more likely than females to
experience sexual victimization
by another inmate within the first
24 hours after admission. Among
inmates reporting victimization
by another inmate, 13% of male
prison inmates and 19% of male jail
inmates said they were victimized
within the first 24 hours, compared
to 4% of female inmates in prison
and jail (table 16).
ƒƒ In both prisons and jails inmateon-inmate victimization was
most commonly reported to
have occurred between 6 pm and
midnight. More than 40% of male
and female victims reported this
time period.
ƒƒ In both prisons and jails inmateon-inmate victimization was
most commonly reported to have
occurred in the victim’s cell or
sleeping area. Among victims
in prison, more than half of the
male and female victims reported
an incident in their cell. Among
victims in jail, 63% of male victims
and 43% of female victims reported
at least one incident occurred in
their cell or sleeping area.
ƒƒ Among inmates who reported
inmate-on-inmate sexual
victimization in jail, 37% of males
reported being injured, compared to
8% of females. In prison, males and
females were almost equally as likely
to report being injured (21% and
17%, respectively) during the sexual
victimization.

ƒƒ Male and female inmates who

victims in prison, anal or vaginal
tearing was reported by nearly 10%
of males and 6% of females. Among
victims in jails, anal or vaginal
tearing was reported by 21% of
males and 3% of females.

experienced inmate-on-inmate
sexual victimization in prisons
and jails most commonly reported
sustaining bruises, scratches, cuts,
and other minor injuries. Among

Table 16
Circumstances surrounding inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization, by type of
facility and sex of victim, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09
Victims in prison
Circumstance
Number of victims

Male*
25,312

Victims in jail

Female

Male*

Female

4,774

8,611

3,023

When first happeneda
Within 24 hours of admission

13.1%

4.1%**

19.2%

1 to 3 days

12.3

6.4**

18.4

16.9

4.3%**

4 to 30 days

25.3

23.8

33.5

39.9

More than 30 days

49.4

65.7**

28.9

39.0

29.7%

17.0%**

30.6%

12.0%**

Time of dayb
6 am to noon
Noon to 6 pm

34.7

32.3

37.6

28.4

6 pm to midnight

47.4

52.0

44.9

42.4

Midnight to 6 am

28.4

32.1

40.9

20.0**

Where occurredb
In victim’s cell/sleeping area

51.1%

53.4%

62.8%

43.2%**

In other inmate’s cell/room

33.2

26.8

41.8

31.4

Elsewhere in the facility
Closet/locked office

13.4%

14.4%

19.8%

2.3%**

Workshop/kitchen

19.2

17.1

14.6

1.9**

Shower/bathroom

29.5

33.9

27.4

13.3**

Classroom/library

11.2

Yard/recreation area

21.8

On the stairs

11.0

Off facility groundsc

3.2**
24.2

11.5

3.2**

15.7

9.6

5.3**

13.6

2.9**

4.8

3.7

13.3

3.3**

20.7%

17.2%

37.2%

8.2%**

4.6

1.0**

9.5

1.4**

Ever injuredb
Yes
Knife/stab wound
Broken nose

3.9

1.4

12.9

0.4**

Anal/vaginal tearing

9.7

6.3

21.2

2.8**

Chipped teeth

5.7

2.6

19.7

2.1**

Internal injuries

7.1

2.2**

16.0

1.3**

Knocked unconscious

8.6

3.2**

21.2

0.7**

Bruises, scratches, cuts

14.1

15.2

30.7

7.5**

23.6%

18.4%

31.3%

15.4%**

Ever report an incident
Yes
*Comparison group.
**Significant at the 95%-confidence level, when compared to male victims.
aInmate report of when the first victimization at the facility occurred.
bDetail sums to more than 100% because some inmates reported more than one victimization.
cIncludes in a bus, van, or car and at a courthouse, temporary holding facility, or medical facility.

22

August 2010

Staff Sexual Misconduct
Most victims of staff sexual
misconduct in prisons and jails
reported at least one incident that
involved pressure, force, or threat of
force

ƒƒ Among victims in prison, male
victims of staff sexual misconduct
(64%) were more likely than female
victims (30%) to report incidents
that involved no pressure or force
(table 17). A similar pattern was
reported by victims in jail, with an
estimated 56% of male victims and
31% of female victims reporting one
or more incidents that involved no
pressure or force by staff.
ƒƒ Nearly 82% of the female victims
in prison said they were pressured
by staff to engage in sexual activity,
compared to 55% of male victims in
prison.
ƒƒ In both prisons and jails, male
victims were more likely than
female victims to report that
the first incident of staff sexual
misconduct occurred within the
first 24 hours following admission
to the facility. Nearly 16% of male
victims in prison and 30% of the
male victims in jail said they were
victimized within the first 24 hours,
compared to 5% of the female
victims in prison and 4% of female
victims in jail.
ƒƒ In prisons, both male and female
victims reported that the staff sexual
misconduct was most likely to have
occurred in a closet or locked office,
the victim’s cell or sleeping area, or
the shower or bathroom area.
ƒƒ In jails, 45% of male victims and
24% of female victims identified a
closet or locked office as the most
common area in which the staff
sexual misconduct occurred.
ƒƒ Among victims of staff sexual
misconduct in jail, 17% of male
victims and 8% of female victims
reported they had been injured
during the incident.

ƒƒ Among victims of staff sexual

been injured by staff; however,
the difference was not statistically
significant.

misconduct in prison, 9% of males
and 19% of females said they had

Table 17
Circumstances surrounding incidents of staff sexual misconduct, by type of facility
and sex of victim, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09
Victims in prison
Circumstance
Number of victims

Male*

Female

39,121

2,123

Victims in jails
Male*
14,334

Female
1,485

Number of incidentsa
1

24.9%

32.1%

23.9%

38.9%**

2

20.5

19.2

21.9

26.2

3 to 5

17.4

19.3

13.3

19.0

6 to 10

16.7

15.5

14.2

10.1

11 or more

20.5

13.9

26.7

5.8**

Type of coercion or forceb
Without pressure or force

64.1%

29.8%**

56.3%

31.0%**

Pressured

54.8

81.9**

61.7

70.1

Force/threat of force

35.4

38.8

51.4

47.4

When first happenedc
Within 24 hours of admission

15.8%

1 to 3 days

11.3

13.8

5.0%**

30.4%
14.6

19.9

4.2%**

4 to 30 days

25.7

12.6**

27.8

42.4

More than 30 days

47.2

68.5**

27.2

33.4

6 am to noon

34.3%

31.1%

31.1%

32.9%

Noon to 6 pm

32.5

32.9

27.8

18.9

6 pm to midnight

34.8

29.5

34.6

16.5**

Midnight to 6 am

36.8

29.1

52.2

35.3**

36.2%

32.4%

39.1%

21.1%**

Closet/locked office

51.6%

44.3%

44.6%

24.3%**

Workshop/kitchen

31.7

36.8

23.0

9.6**

Shower/bathroom

30.6

28.2

29.1

7.3**

Classroom/library

17.5

7.6**

18.7

9.2**

Yard/recreation area

12.7

9.3

13.2

Other common aread

19.9

19.8

22.4

13.1
11.6

Time of dayb

Where occurredb
In victim’s cell/sleeping area
Elsewhere in the facility

Off facility groundse

7.0

2.8**

15.0

9.3%

19.2%

17.4%

34.7%**

20.6%

11.9

Ever injured
Yes

7.5%**

Ever report an incident
Yes

20.6%

19.6%

*Comparison group.
**Significant at the 95%-confidence level, when compared to male victims.
aNumber of reported willing and unwilling incidents of sexual misconduct.
bDetail sums to more than 100% because some inmates reported more than one victimization.
cBased only on victims reporting incidents involving force, threat of force, or pressure.
dIncludes another inmate’s cell/room and stairs.
eIncludes in a bus, van, or car and at a courthouse, temporary holding facility, or medical facility.

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09

23

Most victims and perpetrators of
staff sexual misconduct were of the
opposite sex

Among the 39,121 male prison
inmates who had been victims of staff
sexual misconduct, 69% reported
sexual activity with female staff; an
additional 16% reported sexual activity
with both female and male staff (table
18). In comparison, among the 2,123
female prison inmates who had been
victimized, 72% reported that the staff
perpetrator was male; an additional
19% reported both male and female
staff.
Similar patterns of staff sexual misconduct were reported by jail inmates.
Nearly two-thirds of the male jail
inmates who had been victimized said
the staff perpetrator was female (64%).
About the same percentage (63%) of
female victims said the perpetrator was
a male staff member at the jail.
Reports of staff sexual misconduct
were linked to strip searches and pat
downs

Victims of staff sexual misconduct
were asked if they touched a facility
staff person’s body or had their body
touched in a sexual way. Regardless of
whether they had wanted it to occur or
not, nearly two-thirds of all victims of
staff sexual misconduct in prison and
jail reported at least one incident of
sexual touching. An estimated 38,270
inmates reported such touching in
the last 12 months or since admission
to the facility, if less than 12 months

24

(table 19). At least 4 of every 10 of
these victims said that this had happened at least once as part of a strip
search or a pat down. Among victims
of sexual touching, male inmates (43%)
were as likely as female inmates (40%)
to report staff sexual misconduct as
part of a strip search or pat down.

The majority of victims said they
had also touched staff or been touched
by staff in a sexual way outside of a
strip search or pat down. An estimated
86% of male victims and 91% of female
victims in prisons and jails said that
this had happened at least once outside
of a strip search or pat down.

Table 18
Sex of perpetrator of staff sexual misconduct, by facility type and sex of victim,
National Inmate Survey, 2008-09
Victims in prison
Number of victims

Victims in jail

Male*

Female

Male*

Female

39,121

2,123

14,334

1,485

Sex of perpetrator(s)
Male only

14.9%

Female only

68.8

Both male and female

16.3

71.8%**

18.2%

62.6%**

9.3**

64.3

27.7**

17.5

9.8

18.9

Note: Sex of staff perpetrator was reported for 69% of prison inmates and 66% of jail inmates reporting staff sexual
misconduct.
*Comparison group.
**Significant at the 95%-confidence level, when compared to male victims.

Table 19
Sexual touching between inmates and staff during and not during strip searches
and pat downs, by sex of victim, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09
Prison and jail inmates reporting staff sexual touchinga
Number of victims

All

Male

Female

38,270

35,887

2,383

All incidentsb
Part of strip search/pat down

42.7%

42.9%

40.0%

Strip search

30.8

30.8

30.0

Pat down

36.4

36.3

36.7

86.1%

85.8%

90.8%

Not during strip search

78.4

78.0

84.1

Not during pat down

75.7

75.7

77.2

Not part of a strip search/pat down

aInmates being touched or touching a facility staff’s body “in a sexual way.”
bDetail sums to more than 100% because some inmates reported more than one victimization.

August 2010

Appendix 1. Survey items related to inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09
Males

E16. During the last 12 months, did
another inmate use physical force to
touch your butt, thighs, or penis in a
sexual way?
E17. During the last 12 months, did
another inmate, without using physical
force, pressure you or make you feel
that you had to let them touch your
butt, thighs, or penis in a sexual way?
E22. During the last 12 months, did
another inmate use physical force to
make you give or receive a hand job?
E23. During the last 12 months, did
another inmate, without using physical
force, pressure you or make you feel
that you had to give or receive a hand
job?
E26. During the last 12 months, did
another inmate use physical force to
make you give or receive oral sex or a
blow job?

E33. During the last 12 months, did
another inmate, without using physical
force, pressure you or make you feel
that you had to have anal sex?

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

E34. During the last 12 months, did
another inmate use physical force
to make you have any type of sex or
sexual contact other than sexual touching, hand jobs, oral sex or blow jobs, or
anal sex?

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

E35. During the last 12 months, did
another inmate, without using physical
force, pressure you or make you feel
that you had to have any type of sex or
sexual contact other than sexual touching, hand jobs, oral sex or blow jobs, or
anal sex?
Females

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

E27. During the last 12 months, did
another inmate, without using physical
force, pressure you or make you feel
that you had to give or receive oral sex
or a blow job?

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

E32. During the last 12 months, did
another inmate use physical force to
make you have anal sex?

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

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09

E29. During the last 12 months, did
another inmate, without using physical
force, pressure you or make you feel
that you had to have vaginal sex?
E32. During the last 12 months, did
another inmate use physical force to
make you have anal sex?
E33. During the last 12 months, did
another inmate, without using physical
force, pressure you or make you feel
that you had to have anal sex?
E34. During the last 12 months, did
another inmate use physical force
to make you have any type of sex or
sexual contact other than sexual touching, oral sex, vaginal sex, or anal sex?
E35. During the last 12 months, did
another inmate, without using physical
force, pressure you or make you feel
that you had to have any type of sex or
sexual contact other than sexual touching, oral sex, vaginal sex, or anal sex?

25

Appendix 2. Survey items related to staff sexual misconduct, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09
These next questions are about the
behavior of staff at this facility during the last 12 months. By staff we
mean the employees of this facility and
anybody who works as a volunteer in
this facility.
G4. During the last 12 months, have
any facility staff pressured you or made
you feel that you had to let them have
sex or sexual contact with you?
G5. During the last 12 months, have you
been physically forced by any facility staff
to have sex or sexual contact?

G7. During the last 12 months, have
any facility staff offered you favors or
special privileges in exchange for sex
or sexual contact?
G2. During the last 12 months, have
you willingly had sex or sexual contact
with any facility staff?
G11. [IF G2 OR G4 OR G5 OR G7 =
Yes] During the last 12 months, which
of the following types of sex or sexual
contact did you have with a facility
staff person?

G11a. You touched a facility staff person’s body or had your body touched
in a sexual way.
G11b. You gave or received a hand job.
G11c. You gave or received oral sex or
a blow job.
G11d. You had vaginal sex.
G11e. You had anal sex.

Appendix 3. Follow-up questions for inmates reporting no sexual activity, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09
Follow-up questions for inmates
reporting no sexual activity in the
screener questions for sexual activity
with inmates:

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

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

LCM4.
[If Male] How long has it been since
another inmate in this facility used
physical force, pressured you, or made
you feel that you had to have oral or
anal sex?

LCM2. How long has it been since
another inmate in this facility used
physical force, pressured you, or made
you feel that you had to have any type
of sex or sexual contact?
1. Within the past 7 days
2. More than 7 days ago but within the
past 30 days
3. More than 30 days ago but within
the past 12 months
4. More than 12 months ago
5. This has not happened to me at this
facility
LCM3.
[If Male] During the last 12 months,
did another inmate use physical force,
pressure you, or make you feel that you
had to have oral or anal sex?

26

[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?
Follow-up questions for inmates
reporting no sexual activity in the
screener questions for sexual activity
with staff:
LCM5. During the last 12 months,
have you had any sex or sexual contact
with staff in this facility whether you
wanted to have it or not?
LCM6. How long has it been since you
had any sex or sexual contact with staff
in this facility whether you wanted to
or not?

1. W
 ithin the past 7 days
2. M
 ore than 7 days ago but within the
past 30 days
3. M
 ore than 30 days ago but within
the past 12 months
4. M
 ore than 12 months ago
5. Th
 is has not happened to me at this
facility
LCM7.
[If Male]	In the last 12 months, did you
have oral, vaginal, or anal sex with any
staff at this facility whether you wanted
to or not?
[If Female] In the last 12 months, did
you have oral, vaginal, or anal sex with
any staff at this facility whether you
wanted to or not?
LCM8.
[If Male] 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?
[If Female] 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?

August 2010

Methodology

T

he National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 (NIS-2) was
conducted in 167 state and federal prisons between
October 13, 2008, and March 11, 2009; 286 jails
between January 20, 2009, and August 13, 2009; and 10
special (military, Indian country, and Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE)) facilities between May 11,
2009, and December 17, 2009. The data were collected by
RTI International under a cooperative agreement with the
Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). The NIS-2 comprised
two questionnaires—a survey of sexual victimization and a
survey of past drug and alcohol use and treatment. Inmates
were randomly assigned to receive one of the questionnaires so that at the time of the interview the content of the
survey remained unknown to facility staff and the interviewers. A total of 81,566 inmates participated in the survey, including 32,029 inmates in state and federal prisons,
48,066 inmates in jails, 399 inmates in military facilities,
115 inmates in Indian country jails, and 957 inmates in
facilities operated by ICE.
The interviews, which averaged 25 minutes in length,
used computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI) and
audio computer-assisted self-interviewing (ACASI) data
collection methods. For approximately the first two minutes, survey interviewers conducted a personal interview
using CAPI to obtain background information and date of
admission to the facility. For the remainder of the interview, respondents interacted with a computer-administered
questionnaire using a touch-screen and synchronized audio
instructions delivered via headphones. Respondents completed the ACASI portion of the interview in private, with
the interviewer either leaving the room or moving away
from the computer.
A shorter paper questionnaire was made available for
inmates who were unable to come to the private interviewing room or interact with the computer. The paper form
was completed by 496 prison inmates (or 1.5% of all prison
interviews), 226 jail inmates (0.5%), and 4 military inmates
(1%). Most of these inmates were housed in administrative
or disciplinary segregation or were considered too violent
to be interviewed. No inmates in Indian country or ICE
facilities completed the paper questionnaire.
Before the interview, inmates were informed verbally
and in writing that participation was voluntary and that all
information provided would be held in confidence. Interviews were conducted in either English (98% in prisons,
95% in jails, 40% in ICE facilities, and 100% in military and
Indian country facilities) or Spanish (2% in prisons, 5% in
jails, and 60% in ICE facilities).

Selection of state and federal prisons

A sample of 171 state and federal prisons was drawn
to produce a sample representing approximately 10% of
the 1,260 state and 192 federal adult confinement facilities
identified in the 2005 Census of State and Federal Adult
Correctional Facilities. The 2005 census was a complete
enumeration of state prisons, including all publicly operated and privately operated facilities under contract to state
correctional authorities. The NIS-2 was restricted to confinement facilities—institutions in which fewer than 50%
of the inmates were regularly permitted to leave, unaccompanied by staff, for work, study, or treatment. Such facilities
included prisons, penitentiaries, prison hospitals, prison
farms, boot camps, and centers for reception, classification, or alcohol and drug treatment. The NIS-2 excluded
community-based facilities, such as halfway houses, group
homes, and work release centers. Based on estimates from
2008 National Prisoner Statistics, the prisons in the study
universe held an estimated 1,267,400 state and 190,300
federal inmates age 18 or older on June 30, 2008.
State and federal confinement facilities were sequentially sampled with probabilities of selection proportionate to size (as measured by the number of inmates held in
state prisons on December 30, 2005, and in federal prisons
on September 28, 2006). Facilities on the sampling frame
were stratified by gender of inmates housed. The measures
of size for facilities that participated in NIS-1 in 2007 were
reduced to lower their probability of selection in NIS-2.
(See page 32 for a listing of NIS-1 reports.) Within each
stratum, facilities on the sampling frame were first sorted
by region, state, and public or private operation. The sample
size for facilities housing only female inmates was set to 36
facilities to ensure a sufficient number of women and allow
for meaningful analyses of sexual victimization by gender.
Facilities were sampled ensuring that at least one facility
in every state was selected. Federal facilities were grouped
together and treated like a state for sampling purposes. The
remaining facilities were selected from each region with
probabilities proportionate to size.
Of the 171 selected prison facilities, 4 were deemed ineligible and excluded from the survey for the following reasons:
ƒƒ Albion Correctional Facility (NY)—Ongoing
litigation.
ƒƒ Robert Scott Correctional Facility (MI)—Ongoing
litigation.
ƒƒ Dinwiddie Correctional Unit (VA)—Closed prior to
the start of data collection.
ƒƒ Waseca FCI (BOP)—Transitioned from holding males
to females during the data collection period (treated
as a closed facility).

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09

27

All other selected prison facilities participated fully in
the survey.
Selection of inmates within prisons

The number of inmates sampled in each facility varied
based on 6 criteria:
ƒƒ an expected sexual victimization prevalence rate of
4%.
ƒƒ a desired level of precision based on a standard error
of 1.75%.
ƒƒ a projected 70% response rate among selected
inmates.
ƒƒ a 5% chance among participating inmates of not
receiving the sexual victimization questionnaire.
ƒƒ an adjustment factor of 1.75 to account for the
complex survey design.
ƒƒ the size of the facility.
A roster of inmates was obtained just prior to the start
of interviewing at each facility. Inmates under age 18 and
inmates expected to be released prior to data collection
were deleted from the roster. Each eligible inmate was assigned a random number and sorted in ascending order.
Inmates were selected from the list up to the expected number of inmates determined by the sampling criteria.
A total of 46,189 prison inmates were selected. After
selection, 1,302 ineligible inmates were excluded—936
(2%) were released or transferred to another facility before
interviewing began, 246 (0.5%) were mentally or physically unable to be interviewed, 13 (0.02%) were under age
18 or their age could not be obtained during the interview
process, 11 (0.02%) were selected in error (i.e., an inmate
was incorrectly listed on the facility roster), and 96 (0.2%)
were on unsupervised work release or only served time on
weekends.
Of all selected eligible prison inmates, 23% refused
to participate in the survey, 2% 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 2% were not interviewed due to survey logistics (e.g.,
language barriers, releases, or transfers to another facility
after interviewing began).
Overall, 32,029 prison inmates participated in the
survey, yielding a response rate of 71%. Approximately 95%
of the participating inmates (29,954) received the sexual
assault survey. (See appendix table 1 for the number of
participating inmates in each prison facility.)
Selection of jail facilities

A sample of 320 jails was drawn to represent approximately 10% of the 3,007 jail facilities identified in the Census of Jail Inmates, 2005. The 2005 census was a complete

28

enumeration of all jail jurisdictions, including all publicly
operated and privately operated facilities under contract to
jail authorities. The NIS-2 was restricted to jails that had
five or more inmates on June 30, 2005. Based on estimates
from the Annual Survey of Jails, 2008, these jails held an
estimated 777,200 inmates age 18 or older on June 30, 2008.
Jail facilities were sequentially sampled with probabilities of selection proportionate to size (as measured by the
number of inmates held on June 30, 2005). Eight facilities
that were unable to participate in NIS-1 were selected with
certainty, while the measures of size of facilities that participated in NIS-1 were reduced to give them a lower probability of selection. The remaining facilities were stratified such
that facilities in each of the 10 largest jail jurisdictions were
placed into strata; all other facilities were placed in a single
stratum. Within the large jurisdiction stratum, 3 facilities
were selected from the 5 largest jurisdictions with probability proportionate to size, and 2 facilities were selected from
the next 5 largest jurisdictions with probability proportion
to size. Facilities in the second stratum were first sorted by
region, state, and public or private operation. Facilities were
sampled to ensure that at least one jail facility in every state
was selected. The remaining jail facilities were selected from
each region with probabilities proportionate to size.
Of the 320 selected jails in NIS-2, 10 facilities refused to
participate:
ƒƒ Baldwin Co. Corrections Center (AL)
ƒƒ Marengo Co. Detention Center (AL)
ƒƒ Merced Co. Jail (CA)
ƒƒ Columbia Co. Detention Center (FL)
ƒƒ Pike Co. Law Enforcement Center (IN)
ƒƒ Flathead Co. Detention Center (MT)
ƒƒ Rutherford Co. Jail (NC)
ƒƒ Monmouth Co. Correctional Institution (NJ)
ƒƒ Hildalgo Co. Detention Center (TX)
ƒƒ Kenosha Co. Jail (WI).
Nine facilities were unable to participate due to lack of
space, staffing shortages, or construction, but expect to be
included in NIS-3 (to be conducted in 2011). Fifteen facilities were determined to be ineligible: 7 had closed, 4 were
community-based facilities, 2 had fewer than 5 inmates,
and 2 were prisons. All other selected jail facilities participated fully in the survey.
Selection of inmates within jails

The number of inmates sampled in each facility varied
based on 6 criteria:
ƒƒ an expected prevalence rate of sexual victimization of
3%.
ƒƒ a desired level of precision based on a standard error
of 1.4%.
ƒƒ a projected 65% response rate among selected inmates.

August 2010

ƒƒ a 5% chance among participating inmates of not

receiving the sexual victimization questionnaire.
ƒƒ an adjustment factor of 1.75 to account for the
complex survey design.
ƒƒ a pre-arraignment adjustment factor equal to 1 in
facilities where the status was known for all inmates
and less than 1 in facilities where only the overall
proportion of inmates who were pre-arraigned was
known.
A roster of inmates was obtained just prior to the start
of interviewing at each facility. Inmates under age 18 and
inmates who had not been arraigned were removed 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
who appeared on the second roster but who had not appeared on the initial roster were identified. These inmates
had been arraigned since the initial roster was created
or were newly admitted to the facility and arraigned. A
random sample of these new inmates was chosen using the
same probability of selection used to sample from the first
roster.
A total of 81,306 jail inmates was selected. After
selection, an additional 9,490 ineligible inmates were
excluded—7,844 (9.7%) were released or transferred to
another facility before interviewing began, 455 (0.6%) were
mentally or physically unable to be interviewed, 144 (0.2%)
were under age 18 or their age could not be obtained during the interview process, 308 (0.4%) were selected in error
(i.e., an inmate was incorrectly listed on the facility roster),
and 739 (0.9%) were on unsupervised work release or only
served time on weekends.
Of all selected inmates, 17% 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 8% were not
interviewed due to survey logistics (e.g., language barriers,
releases, and transfers to another facility after interviewing
began).
Overall, 48,066 jail inmates participated in the survey,
yielding a response rate of 68%. Approximately 95% of the
participating inmates (45,126) received the sexual assault
survey. (See appendix table 5 for the number of participating inmates in each jail facility.)
Selection of special confinement facilities

A sample of 11 special facilities was drawn to represent
the inmate populations in military, Indian country, and ICE

facilities. Three military, 3 Indian country, and 5 ICE facilities were included. The selected military facilities were the
largest Army, Navy, and Marine facilities, including the U.S.
Disciplinary Barracks (Leavenworth, KS), the Naval Consolidated Brig. (Miramar, CA), and the Marine Corps Base Brig.
(Camp Pendleton, CA).
The selected Indian country facilities were the three
largest facilities identified in the 2007 Survey of Jails in
Indian Country. One facility, Tohono O’odham Detention
Center (AZ) was undergoing major renovations to accommodate increased capacity and could not participate in the
survey during the data collection period. This facility will
be included in the NIS-3 data collection. The Navajo Department of Corrections Window Rock (AZ), participated
in the survey but held fewer inmates in 2009 (14) than
reported in the 2007 survey (99).
The 5 ICE facilities were sequentially sampled from the
22 facilities run by ICE with probabilities of selection proportionate to size (as measured by the number of persons
held at yearend 2008). Facilities were sorted by region and
state.
Selection of inmates in special confinement facilities

For purposes of inmate selection, military facilities were
treated as prisons, and Indian country and ICE facilities
were treated like jails. The assumptions used to determine
the sample size within a prison or jail and the corresponding selection procedures were used. However, in ICE facilities, a second sample of newly admitted inmates was not
drawn due to an inability to identify new inmates on the
ICE rosters. In addition, inmates in ICE facilities who did
not speak English or Spanish were defined as ineligible for
the study.
Overall, 2,494 inmates were selected, including 546 in
military facilities, 161 in Indian country facilities, and 1,787
in ICE facilities. After selection, 409 ineligible inmates were
excluded—225 (9%) were released or transferred to another
facility before interviewing began, 10 (0.4%) were mentally
or physically unable to be interviewed, 4 (0.2%) were on
unsupervised work release, and 170 (7%) in ICE facilities
did not speak English or Spanish. A total of 16 inmates
were excluded in military facilities, 15 in Indian country
facilities, and 378 in ICE facilities.
Of all selected inmates in special facilities, 16% refused
to participate in the survey, 0.2% 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 7% were not interviewed due to survey logistics (e.g.,
language barriers, releases, and transfers to another facility
after interviewing began).
Overall, 1,471 inmates participated in the survey (399

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09

29

in military, 115 in Indian country, and 957 in ICE facilities),
yielding a response rate of 71% (75% in military, 79% in
Indian country, and 68% in ICE facilities). Approximately
95% of the participating inmates (1,379) received the sexual
assault survey (379 in military, 107 in Indian country, and
893 in ICE facilities). (See appendix table 9 for the number of
participating inmates in each special confinement facility.)
Weighting and non-response adjustments

Responses from interviewed inmates were weighted
to provide national-level and facility-level estimates. Each
interviewed inmate was assigned an initial weight corresponding to the inverse of the probability of selection
within each sampled facility. A series of adjustment factors
was applied to the initial weight to minimize potential bias
due to 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—
1. calibration of the weights of the responding inmates
within each facility so that the estimates accurately reflected the facility’s entire population in terms of known
demographic characteristics. These characteristics included distributions by inmate age, sex, race, time since
admission, and sentence length. This adjustment ensures
that the estimates better reflect the entire population of
the facility and not just the inmates who were randomly
sampled.
2. calibration of the weights so that the weight from
a non-responding 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.3
A final ratio adjustment to each inmate weight was
made to provide national-level estimates for the total number of inmates ages 18 or older who were held at midyear
2008. These ratios represented the estimated number of
inmates by sex (from BJS’s 2008 Annual Survey of Jails and
2008 National Prisoner Statistics, Midyear) divided by the
3
Folsom, Jr., R.E., 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, pp. 598-603.

30

number of inmates by sex in the NIS-2 after calibration for
sampling and non-response. The national estimates for state
prisons were 1,178,916 males and 88,518 females; for federal prisons, 178,153 males and 12,120 females; and for jails
(with an average daily population of 6 or more inmates),
678,136 males and 99,096 females.
Final ratio adjustments were not applied to inmate
weights in military, Indian country, and ICE facilities. Estimates for special confinement facilities were made at the
facility level only.
Standard errors and tests of significance

The NIS-2 is statistically unable to provide an exact
ranking for all facilities as required under PREA. As with
any survey, the NIS estimates are subject to error arising
from the fact that they are based on a sample rather than a
complete enumeration. Within each facility, the estimated
sampling error varies by the size of the estimate, the number of completed interviews, and the size of the facility.
A common way to express this sampling variability is
to construct a 95%-confidence interval around each survey
estimate. Typically, multiplying the standard error by 1.96
and then adding or subtracting the result from the estimate
produces the confidence interval. This interval expresses the
range of values that could result among 95% of the different
samples that could be drawn.
For small samples and estimates close to 0%, as is the
case with sexual victimization in most prisons and jails, the
use of the standard error to construct the 95%-confidence
interval may not be reliable. An alternative developed by
Wilson has been shown to perform better than the traditional method when constructing a confidence interval.
(See note 1 on page 7.) This method produces an asymmetrical confidence interval around the facility estimates in
which the lower bound is constrained to be greater than or
equal to 0%. It also provides confidence intervals for facilities in which the survey estimates are zero (but other similarly conducted surveys could yield non-zero estimates).
(See tables 2, 4, and 5 and appendix tables 5, 6, 8, and 9.)
When applied to large samples, the traditional and the
Wilson confidence intervals are nearly identical. As a result,
the tables that show national estimates display traditional
standard errors. (See table 1.) The traditional standard errors have also been used to compare estimates of sexual victimization among selected groups of inmates that have been
defined by type of incident, demographic subgroup, sexual
history, and criminal justice status. (See tables 6 through 12
and tables 15 through 19.) To facilitate the analysis, rather
than provide the detailed estimates for every standard error, differences in the estimates of sexual victimization for
subgroups in these tables have been tested and notated for
significance at the 95%-level confidence.

August 2010

For example, the difference in the rate of inmate-oninmate sexual victimization among female prisoners (4.7%),
compared to male prisoners (1.9%), is statistically significant at the 95% level of confidence (table 6). In all tables
providing detailed comparisons, statistically significant differences at the 95% level of confidence or greater have been
designated with two asterisks (**).
Exposure period

To calculate comparative rates of sexual victimization,
respondents were asked to provide the most recent date of
admission to the current facility. If the date of admission
was at least 12 months prior to the date of the interview,
inmates were asked questions related to their experiences
during the past 12 months. If the admission date was less
than 12 months prior to the interview, inmates were asked
about their experiences since they had arrived at the facility.
The average exposure period of inmates participating in
the sexual victimization survey was—
ƒƒ 9.0 months for federal prisoners
ƒƒ 7.9 months for state prisoners
ƒƒ 3.4 months for jail inmates
ƒƒ 8.4 months for inmates in military facilities
ƒƒ 3.0 months for inmates in ICE facilities
ƒƒ 4.4 months for inmates in Indian country facilities.
Measurement of sexual victimization

The survey of sexual victimization relied on inmates reporting their direct experience, rather than inmates reporting on the experience of other inmates. Questions related
to inmate-on-inmate sexual activity were asked separately
from questions related to staff sexual misconduct. (For
specific survey questions see appendices 1 and 2.)
The ACASI survey began with a series of questions
that screened for specific sexual activities without restriction, including both wanted and unwanted sex and sexual
contacts with other inmates. To fully measure all sexual
activities, questions related to the touching of body parts in
a sexual way were followed by questions related to manual
stimulation and questions related to acts involving oral,
anal, and vaginal sex. The nature of coercion (including use
of physical force, pressure, and other forms of coercion) was
measured for each type of reported sexual activity.
ACASI survey items related to staff sexual misconduct
were asked in a different order. Inmates were first asked
about being pressured or being made to feel they had to
have sex or sexual contact with the staff and then asked
about being physically forced. In addition, inmates were
asked if any facility staff had offered favors or special privileges in exchange for sex. Finally, inmates were asked if they
willingly had sex or sexual contact with staff. All reports of
sex or sexual contact between an inmate and facility staff,

regardless of the level of coercion, were classified as staff
sexual misconduct.
The ACASI survey included additional questions related
to both inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization and staff
sexual misconduct. These questions, known as latent class
measures, were included to assess the reliability of the survey
questionnaire. After being asked detailed questions, all
inmates were asked a series of general questions to determine
if they had experienced any type of unwanted sex or sexual
contact with another inmate or had any sex or sexual contact
with staff. (See appendix 3.)
The entire ACASI questionnaire (listed as the National Inmate Survey-2) and the shorter paper and pencil survey form
(PAPI) are available on the BJS web site at <http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.
gov/index.cfm?ty=dcdetail&iid=278>.
Interviews checked for inconsistent response patterns

Once data collection was completed, individual response
patterns were assessed to identify interviewer error, interviews that had been completed in too short of time, and
incomplete interviews. In 133 interviews, the interviewers
administered sex-specific survey items inconsistent with the
sex of the inmate. In 208 interviews, the inmate either failed
to complete enough questions to be considered a completed
interview or completed the survey in too short of time.
These interviews were excluded from the calculations of
sexual victimization.
Interviews were also examined for inconsistent response
patterns. A list of 18 indicators were developed based on inmate characteristics (e.g., education, age, marital status, and
time since admission) and items related to victimization
(e.g., number of times, injuries, willing contact with staff,
sex of staff perpetrator, and reporting of victimization).
Indicators compared responses to initial questions with
responses to detailed follow up questions. The results were
combined into a count of the total number of inconsistent
responses for each inmate.
Overall, the results revealed very high levels of consistency in survey responses. Of 45,126 completed interviews
of jail inmates, 94.4% had no inconsistent responses, 5.2%
had 1, and 0.4% had 2 or more. Of 29,954 completed
interviews of prison inmates, 93.6% had no inconsistent
responses, 5.9% had one, and 0.5% had two or more.
Definition of terms

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

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09

31

Nonconsensual sexual acts—unwanted contacts with
another inmate or any contacts with staff that involved oral,
anal, vaginal penetration, hand jobs, and other sexual acts.
Abusive sexual contacts only—unwanted contacts with
another inmate or any contacts with staff that involved
touching of the inmate’s buttocks, thigh, penis, breasts, or
vagina in a sexual way.
Unwilling activity—incidents of unwanted sexual contacts
with another inmate or staff.
Willing activity—incidents of willing sexual contacts with
staff. These contacts are characterized by the reporting
inmates as willing; however, all sexual contacts between
inmates and staff are legally nonconsensual.
Staff sexual misconduct—includes all incidents of willing and unwilling sexual contact with facility staff and all
incidents of sexual activity that involved oral, anal, vaginal
penetration, hand jobs, blow jobs, and other sexual acts
with facility staff.
Logistic regression models

Multivariate logistic regression estimation is a modeling
technique used to determine what characteristics are statistically significant for predicting a dichotomous outcome (e.g.,
victimized or not victimized) while controlling for all the
other characteristics in the model. NIS-2 used this technique
to determine what inmate-level characteristics were significant
predictors of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization and staff
sexual misconduct. For each outcome, inmate-level characteristics were divided into 3 categories: demographic characteristics, sexual orientation and history, and criminal justice status
and history. For each category a logistic model was iteratively run under a backwards selection technique until only
predictors that were significant at the 95% level of confidence
remained (tables 7, 9, 11).
Each reduced model was then combined to provide 4
models (for each type of sexual victimization and facility
type). Backwards selection was conducted on each of the
combined models until only predictors significant at the 95%
level of confidence remained. Results for each model are
displayed in terms of their conditional predicted probability (table 12).
In each of the logistic regression models, the conditional predicted probability represents the probability that
an inmate with a particular characteristic has experienced
sexual victimization (by type) conditional on the inmate
having the mean value for all other predictors in the model.
For example, based on demographic characteristics only, a
female prison inmate has a 3.8% chance of being victimized
by another inmate given that she was at the mean of the joint
distribution of race or Hispanic origin, education level, and
marital status. (See table 7 and note 2 on page 13.)
32

Predicting facility-level rates of sexual victimization

Estimates of the expected rate of inmate-on-inmate and
staff sexual misconduct in each high rate prison and jail
were calculated based on the characteristics of the inmates
housed in the facility and the estimated rates of victimization associated with each characteristic. For each level of
a characteristic, the logistic models provide an estimate
of the odds that an inmate was sexually victimized given
that the inmate had that characteristic. (For presentation
purposes, these odds have been converted into conditional
probabilities.) Overall, the predicted odds that a particular
inmate has been victimized is the sum of the odds that correspond to that inmate’s set of characteristics.
For example, the inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization model for prison inmates consists of 7 inmate characteristics: sex, race or Hispanic origin, marital status,
sexual orientation, prior sexual assault status, most serious
offense, and sentence length. The model provides estimates
of the odds for each level of each of these characteristics.
The odds of victimization for an inmate who is male, white,
never married, heterosexual, with no prior sexual assault,
held for a property offense, and sentenced to 1 to 5 years in
prison is the sum of the individual odds for each of those
characteristics.
Once the overall odds for an inmate has been calculated,
it can be converted to a probability. A predicted facility-level
victimization rate is the weighted average of probabilities for
all inmates in the facility. This weighted average in each high
rate facility was calculated by summing across all inmates
the product of the inmate’s probability of victimization and
the adjusted inmate sampling weights and dividing it by the
eligible inmate population in the survey.
Five BJS reports on sexual victimization in prisons
and jails:
Sexual Violence Reported by Correctional Authorities,
2004 (NCJ 210333)
Sexual Violence Reported by Correctional Authorities,
2005 (NCJ 214646)
Sexual Violence Reported by Correctional Authorities,
2006 (NCJ 218914)
Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons
Reported by Inmates, 2007 (NCJ 219414)
Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates,
2007 (NCJ 221946)
An overview of all of the BJS prison rape
collections:
PREA Data Collection Activities, 2010 (NCJ 230448)
These reports are available online at
<http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/>.

BJS

August 2010

Appendix Table 1
Characteristics of state and federal prisons and prevalence of sexual victimization, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09
Inmates reporting sexual
victimizationa
95%-confidence rateb
Facility name
Total

Number of inmates
in custodyc

Respondents to sexual
victimization surveyd

Response ratee

Percentf

Lower
bound

Upper
bound

275,442

29,954

71%

4.4%

3.9%

0.1%

Alabama
Bibb Corr. Fac.

1,922

261

95%

4.4%

2.7%

William Donaldson Corr. Fac.

1,631

206

77

8.8

5.7

7.2%

276

104

72%

2.1%

0.8%

5.7%

Arizona State Prison Complex - Lewis

5,237

201

69%

1.9%

0.7%

4.8%

Arizona State Prison Complex - Tucsonh

3,728

233

82

3.5

1.8

6.6

Diagnostic Unitg

454

118

82%

4.8%

2.4%

McPherson Uniti

745

224

93

California Corr. Ctr.

3,686

190

67%

1.4%

0.5%

California Inst. for Womeni

1,924

186

73

6.1

3.4

10.5

13.2

Alaska
Fairbanks Corr. Ctr.g
Arizona

Arkansas
10.3

7.2

9.5%
14.5

California
4.0%

California Med. Fac.

3,067

258

60

9.0

6.2

12.7

Centinela State Prison

5,064

143

52

0.0

0.0

2.6

Central California Women’s Fac.i

4,121

184

63

5.2

2.8

9.6

Chuckawalla Valley State Prison

3,195

193

70

3.6

1.8

7.2

Deuel Vocational Inst.

3,821

197

55

2.6

1.2

5.6

Folsom State Prison

4,005

161

56

1.5

0.5

4.4

High Desert State Prison

3,895

153

55

3.5

1.7

7.4

Los Angeles County State Prison

4,835

218

74

3.9

2.1

7.3

North Kern State Prison

5,459

210

67

2.5

1.1

5.7

Pleasant Valley State Prison

5,097

181

62

6.0

3.3

10.5

Salinas Valley State Prison

4,014

162

57

4.8

2.1

10.4

Valley State Prison for Womeni

4,086

216

72

8.2

5.1

13.0

Wasco State Prison-Reception Ctr.

5,855

221

72

1.9

0.7

4.7

2,481

204

71%

7.5%

4.5%

12.1%

Corrigan-Radgowski Corr. Ctr.

1,604

172

65%

3.0%

1.3%

6.9%

Osborn Corr. Inst.

1,937

190

67

4.0

2.1

7.3

York Corr. Fac.i

1,281

192

74

7.4

4.6

11.9

1,166

207

85%

2.5%

1.3%

4.9%

Colorado
Sterling Corr. Fac.
Connecticut

Delaware
Sussex Corr. Inst.
Florida
Century Corr. Inst. & Work Camp

1,775

208

78%

1.9%

0.8%

4.6%

Gadsden Corr. Fac.i,j

1,516

208

81

2.4

1.0

5.3

Hernando Corr. Inst.i

423

183

90

6.5

4.2

9.9

Indian River Corr. Inst.

469

163

95

2.0

1.0

3.9

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09

33

Appendix Table 1 (continued)
Characteristics of state and federal prisons and prevalence of sexual victimization, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09
Inmates reporting sexual
victimizationa
95%-confidence rateb
Respondents to sexual
victimization surveyd

Response ratee

Percentf

Lower
bound

Upper
bound

865

186

78%

6.7%

4.1%

10.5%

Liberty Corr. Inst. & Work Camp

1,554

229

90

2.0

0.9

4.4

Lowell Corr. Inst., Annex, & Work Campi

2,464

240

85

4.5

2.7

7.5

980

225

90

1.6

0.6

4.2

Okeechobee Corr. Inst.

1,655

241

88

6.1

3.9

9.5

Reception and Med. Ctr. & Reception and Med. Ctr.-West Unith

2,618

259

72

1.7

0.7

4.2

South Florida Reception Ctr. & South Unit

1,477

237

81

1.8

0.8

4.0

Dodge State Prison

1,228

220

86%

2.5%

1.2%

5.4%

Dooly State Prison

1,686

215

79

2.7

1.3

5.6

Pulaski State Prisoni

1,185

239

91

6.1

3.9

9.5

Washington State Prison

1,500

227

86

2.8

1.3

5.6

Wheeler Corr. Fac.j

1,747

232

86

3.1

1.7

5.7

1,138

146

58%

4.8%

2.1%

10.9%

278

100

61

5.0

2.5

9.8

Idaho Corr. Fac.j

1,484

212

76%

2.3%

1.1%

5.1%

Idaho State Corr. Inst.

1,208

213

69

6.0

3.5

10.2%

East Moline Corr. Ctr.

1,126

208

81%

1.4%

0.5%

3.7%

Illinois River Corr. Ctr.

Facility name

Number of inmates
in custodyc

Florida (continued)
Lancaster Corr. Inst. & Work Camp

Moore Haven Corr. Fac.j

Georgia

Hawaii
Oahu Community Corr. Ctr.g
Women’s Community Corr. Ctr.i
Idaho

Illinois

1,973

194

73

1.3

0.5

3.7

Lincoln Corr. Ctr.i

986

190

77

1.4

0.5

3.9

Pontiac Corr. Ctr.

1,074

96

32

12.1

6.3

21.8

Plainfield Corr. Fac.

1,473

181

69%

7.5%

4.3%

12.7%

Putnamville Corr. Fac.

2,431

189

69

8.1

4.9

12.9

Westville Corr. Fac.

3,315

168

58

5.7

3.1

10.2

Indiana

Iowa
Iowa Corr. Inst. - Womeni
Newton Corr. Fac.

601

191

85%

7.7%

5.0%

11.7%

1,188

170

72

5.7

3.1

10.1

297

97

57%

9.0%

5.1%

15.4%

648

173

80%

9.6%

6.1%

14.8%

1,076

158

63

6.1

3.4

10.5

Kansas
Larned Corr. Mental Health Fac.
Kentucky
Kentucky Corr. Inst. for Womeni
Luther Luckett Corr. Complex

34

August 2010

Appendix Table 1 (continued)
Characteristics of state and federal prisons and prevalence of sexual victimization, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09
Inmates reporting sexual
victimizationa
95%-confidence rateb
Number of inmates
in custodyc

Respondents to sexual
victimization surveyd

Response ratee

Percentf

Lower
bound

Upper
bound

1,558

226

84%

5.3%

3.2%

8.7%

915

237

93

4.1

2.4

7.0

1,027

229

90

7.5

5.0

11.0

867

143

59%

9.9%

6.0%

15.8%

593

169

80%

5.0%

2.8%

8.8%

1,086

152

63

3.8

1.8

7.8

208

85

53%

3.8%

1.6%

8.7%

1,211

176

69%

6.3%

3.7%

10.5%

590

143

63

4.2

2.1

8.2

Muskegon Corr. Fac.

1,300

176

66

11.4

6.2

20.0

Richard A. Handlon Corr. Fac.

1,241

209

79

7.3

4.5

11.6

Minnesota Corr. Fac. - Rush City

987

165

65%

7.3%

4.4%

11.9%

Minnesota Corr. Fac. - Shakopeei

515

146

69

8.3

4.9

13.9

Mississippi State Penitentiary

3,817

266

93%

7.5%

4.9%

11.3%

South Mississippi Corr. Inst.

3,028

252

87

5.7

3.5

9.0

Crossroads Corr. Fac.

1,416

207

77%

9.4%

6.2%

13.9%

Fulton Reception & Diagnostic Ctr.

1,481

217

81

1.7

0.7

4.0

Women’s Eastern Reception, Diagnostic, & Corr. Ctr.i

1,959

218

82

8.7

5.7

13.2

1,389

201

78%

10.6%

7.2%

15.5%

313

103

67%

2.9%

1.3%

6.6%

1,327

206

82%

0.8%

0.2%

2.9%

347

104

54%

5.1%

2.5%

10.1%

Bayside State Prison - Ancora Unit

344

133

74%

1.7%

0.6%

4.6%

Edna Mahan Corr. Fac. for Womeni

912

177

76

4.5

2.5

8.0

Facility name
Louisiana
Avoyelles Corr. Ctr.
C. Paul Phelps Corr. Ctr.
Louisiana Corr. Inst. for Womeni
Maine
Maine State Prison - Warren
Maryland
Jessup Pre-Release Unit
Maryland Corr. Inst. - Jessup
Massachusetts
Massachusetts Corr. Inst. - Plymouth
Michigan
Earnest C. Brooks Corr. Fac.
Mid-Michigan Corr. Fac.

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana
Montana State Prison
Nebraska
Diagnostic & Evaluation Ctr.
Nevada
Northern Nevada Corr. Ctr.g
New Hampshire
Lakes Region Fac.
New Jersey

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09

35

Appendix Table 1 (continued)
Characteristics of state and federal prisons and prevalence of sexual victimization, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09
Inmates reporting sexual
victimizationa
95%-confidence rateb
Number of inmates
in custodyc

Respondents to sexual
victimization surveyd

Response ratee

Percentf

Lower
bound

Upper
bound

682

166

78%

3.1%

1.4%

6.7%

Attica Corr. Fac.

2,170

170

61%

8.0%

4.8%

13.2%

Facility name
New Mexico
Southern New Mexico Corr. Fac.
New York

Bare Hill Corr. Fac.

1,675

209

81

7.8

4.9

12.2

Bayview Corr. Fac.i

137

96

73

14.6

11.1

19.1

Cape Vincent Corr. Fac.

850

178

73

1.0

0.3

3.3

Clinton Corr. Fac.

2,854

200

70

4.7

2.6

8.6

Coxsackie Corr. Fac.

1,035

204

80

5.7

3.5

9.2

Elmira Corr. Fac.

1,763

167

63

9.8

6.2

15.2

Walkill Corr. Fac.

591

163

72

3.2

1.5

6.8

Brown Creek Corr. Inst.

908

170

70%

1.8%

0.7%

4.6%

Guilford Corr. Ctr.

165

47

55

0.0

0.0

7.6

Pender Corr. Inst.

753

156

67

1.8

0.7

4.7

93

56

81

1.3

0.5

3.4

828

134

57

6.9

3.9

11.9

Dakota Women’s Corr. & Rehab. Ctr.i

110

77

78%

3.0%

1.6%

5.5%

James River Corr. Ctr.

411

160

82

2.9

1.3

6.3

Corr. Reception Ctr.

1,648

242

84%

1.1%

0.4%

3.1%

Lebanon Corr. Inst.

2,653

231

81

5.6

3.4

9.3

Mansfield Corr. Inst.

2,443

186

68

4.4

2.3

8.3

Ohio Reformatory for Womeni

2,514

233

82

7.7

5.0

11.7

Southeastern Corr. Inst.

1,672

144

52

5.3

2.7

9.9

1,133

189

71%

9.2%

5.9%

13.9%

803

104

42

7.9

4.3

14.1

1,071

208

83%

7.1%

4.4%

11.3%

3,387

233

85%

1.2%

0.3%

4.4%

North Carolina

Swannanoa Corr. Ctr. for Womeni
Warren Corr. Ctr.
North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma
Davis Corr. Fac.j
Mack H. Alford Corr. Ctr.
Oregon
Coffee Creek Corr. Fac.i
Pennsylvania
Camp Hill State Corr. Inst.
Coal Township State Corr. Inst.

1,903

221

80

3.9

2.1

7.1

Cresson State Corr. Inst.

1,576

238

89

5.6

3.5

9.0

433

115

55%

0.6%

0.1%

2.7%

Rhode Island
Maximum Security Fac.

36

August 2010

Appendix Table 1 (continued)
Characteristics of state and federal prisons and prevalence of sexual victimization, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09
Inmates reporting sexual
victimizationa
95%-confidence rateb
Facility name

Number of inmates
in custodyc

Respondents to sexual
victimization surveyd

Response ratee

Percentf

Lower
bound

Upper
bound

South Carolina
Goodman Corr. Inst.i

189

92

64%

3.1%

1.4%

6.7%

Ridgeland Corr. Inst.

1,265

221

84

6.2

3.9

9.8

661

177

76

1.4

0.6

3.6

1,465

169

65%

6.1%

3.2%

11.2%

2,444

222

79%

5.6%

3.4%

9.3%

Allred Unit

3,637

161

55%

10.9%

7.0%

16.7%

Beto Unit

3,322

216

76

7.3

4.6

11.4

200

128

88

0.0

0.0

2.9

C. Moore Transfer Fac.

1,195

184

72

0.4

0.1

1.9

Coffield Unit

4,121

226

76

4.8

2.6

8.5

844

161

70

3.1

1.4

6.5

Crain Uniti

1,679

175

67

4.5

2.4

8.2

Ferguson Unit

2,370

236

83

8.5

5.4

13.2

598

229

97

0.9

0.3

2.5

Hobby Uniti

1,372

240

93

5.5

3.5

8.6

Hughes Unit

2,866

159

57

10.2

6.5

15.8

Jester Unit III

1,079

187

73

2.2

0.9

5.3

Lindsey State Jailj

1,022

199

82

1.8

0.8

4.4

Michael Unit

3,154

158

60

9.1

5.6

14.7

620

128

58

10.5

6.5

16.4

Neal Unit

1,681

179

68

4.3

2.2

8.1

Plane State Jaili

2,022

229

86

2.8

1.2

6.1

Smith Unit

2,067

160

59

5.5

2.9

10.0

Telford Unit

2,767

189

65

7.7

4.7

12.4

1,329

201

75%

2.3%

1.1%

4.8%

145

96

80%

6.2%

4.0%

9.3

Fluvanna Corr. Ctr.i

1,223

199

79%

14.3%

10.2%

19.6%

Haynesville Corr. Ctr.

1,118

165

68

2.5

1.1

5.4

Lawrenceville Corr. Ctr.j

1,547

196

72

3.8

1.9

7.6

Trenton Corr. Inst.
South Dakota
Mike Durfee State Prison & Trusty Unit
Tennessee
West Tennessee State Penitentiary
Texas

Bridgeport Pre-Parole Fac.i,j

Cole State Jail

Halbert Substance Abuse Felony Punishment Fac.i

Mountain View Uniti

Utah
Central Utah Corr. Fac.
Vermont
Northwest State Corr. Fac.
Virginia

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09

37

Appendix Table 1 (continued)
Characteristics of state and federal prisons and prevalence of sexual victimization, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09
Inmates reporting sexual
victimizationa
95%-confidence rateb
Number of inmates
in custodyc

Respondents to sexual
victimization surveyd

Response ratee

Percentf

Lower
bound

Upper
bound

2,122

180

70%

3.4%

1.7%

6.8%

836

193

85

6.0

3.6

9.9

991

121

52%

6.8%

3.6%

12.4%

1,552

200

63%

1.0%

0.3%

3.3%

New Lisbon Corr. Inst.

983

108

43

2.5

0.9

6.9

Taycheedah Corr. Inst.i

679

171

75

12.9

9.1

18.0

1,239

113

44

5.1

2.3

10.9

210

117

78%

2.8%

1.5%

5.3%

89

55

69%

0.0%

0.0%

6.5%

2,564

230

78

0.7

0.1

3.4

Facility name
Washington
Airway Heights Corr. Ctr.
Washington Corr. Ctr. for Womeni
West Virginia
Mount Olive Corr. Complex
Wisconsin
Dodge Corr. Inst.h

Waupun Corr. Inst.
Wyoming
Wyoming Honor Farm
Federal Facilities (Bureau of Prisons)
Big Sandy - Camp
Brooklyn Metropolitan Det. Ctr.g
Bryan Fed. Prison Campi

931

183

72

2.3

1.0

5.2

Carswell Fed. Med. Ctr.i

1,547

154

59

4.8

2.5

9.2

Coleman I U.S. Penitentiary

1,678

147

54

5.0

2.3

10.3

Coleman Medium Fed. Corr. Inst.h

1,600

179

66

0.7

0.1

3.6

Danbury Fed. Corr. Inst.i

1,210

192

76

1.4

0.4

4.6

Elkton Fed. Corr. Inst.

2,076

176

64

0.0

0.0

2.1

915

206

61

1.9

0.8

4.5

Fairton Fed. Corr. Inst.

1,354

171

67

1.6

0.5

5.5

Florence Fed. Corr. Inst.

1,190

76

30

1.4

0.3

7.3

Forrest City Low Fed. Corr. Inst.

1,923

204

75

1.6

0.6

4.3

624

156

71

0.9

0.2

4.2

Morgantown Fed. Corr. Inst.

1,034

159

65

0.0

0.0

2.4

Oakdale Fed. Corr. Inst.

1,188

197

75

1.0

0.2

4.8

Petersburg Medium Fed. Corr. Inst.

1,903

143

55

3.8

1.7

8.5

Englewood Fed. Corr. Inst.

Jesup-Fed. Satellite Low

38

August 2010

Appendix Table 1 (continued)
Characteristics of state and federal prisons and prevalence of sexual victimization, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09
Inmates reporting sexual
victimizationa
95%-confidence rateb
Number of inmates
in custodyc

Respondents to sexual
victimization surveyd

Response ratee

Percentf

Lower
bound

Upper
bound

Schuylkill Fed. Corr. Inst.

1,312

160

64%

2.2%

0.8%

5.5%

Texarkana Fed. Corr. Inst.

1,333

131

53

1.2

0.2

6.0

Victorville U.S. Penitentiary

1,641

130

50

2.4

0.8

6.5

Facility name
Federal Facilities (Bureau of Prisons) (continued)

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

way, and other sexual acts occurring in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if shorter.

bIndicates that different samples in the same facility would yield prevalence rates falling between the lower and upper bound estimates 95 out of 100 times.
cNumber of inmates in custody on day when the facility provided the sample roster.
dNumber of respondents completing the sexual victimization survey. (See Methodology.)
eResponse rate is equal to the number of respondents divided by the number of eligible sampled inmates times 100 percent.
fWeights were applied so that inmates who responded accurately reflected the entire population of each facility on select characteristics, including age, sex, race, time
served, and sentence length. (See Methodology.)
gFacility houses both males and females; both were sampled at this facility.
hFacility houses both males and females; only males were sampled at this facility.
iFemale facility.
jPrivately operated facility.

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09

39

Appendix Table 2
Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimization, by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09
Inmate-on-inmatea

Staff sexual misconducta

95%-confidence intervalb
Facility name
Total

Percent
victimizedc

Lower bound Upper bound

95%-confidence intervalb
Percent
victimizedc

Lower bound

Upper bound

2.1%

1.7%

2.5%

2.8%

2.5%

3.2%

Bibb Corr. Fac.

3.3%

1.9%

5.7%

1.8%

0.8%

3.9%

William Donaldson Corr. Fac.

4.8

2.7

8.4

4.9

2.7

8.5

1.1%

0.3%

4.1%

1.1%

0.3%

4.1%

Alabama

Alaska
Fairbanks Corr. Ctr.d
Arizona
Arizona State Prison Complex - Lewis

0.7%

0.1%

3.8%

1.9%

0.7%

4.8%

Arizona State Prison Complex - Tucsone

0.8

0.2

3.1

2.6

1.2

5.5

Diagnostic Unitd

1.9%

0.7%

5.5%

2.9%

1.2%

7.1%

McPherson Unitf

7.7

5.0

4.4

2.5

7.4

Arkansas
11.6

California
California Corr. Ctr.

0.0%

0.0%

2.0%

1.4%

0.5%

4.0%

California Inst. for Womenf

4.3

2.2

8.3

2.2

0.9

5.3

California Med. Fac.

5.8

3.7

9.1

3.6

2.0

6.2

Centinela State Prison

0.0

0.0

2.6

0.0

0.0

2.6

Central California Women’s Fac.f

3.3

1.5

7.1

3.2

1.4

7.2

Chuckawalla Valley State Prison

2.8

1.2

6.4

1.9

0.8

4.9

Deuel Vocational Inst.

1.8

0.7

4.5

1.3

0.4

3.6

Folsom State Prison

0.7

0.1

3.8

1.5

0.5

4.4

High Desert State Prison

3.0

1.3

6.8

0.9

0.3

3.3

Los Angeles County State Prison

2.0

0.8

5.0

2.5

1.1

5.3
5.7

North Kern State Prison

0.0

0.0

1.8

2.5

1.1

Pleasant Valley State Prison

5.5

3.0

9.9

1.9

0.7

5.5

Salinas Valley State Prison

2.4

0.9

6.2

2.4

0.7

8.1

Valley State Prison for Womenf

6.8

4.0

11.1

4.7

2.4

9.0

Wasco State Prison-Reception Ctr.

0.5

0.1

2.7

1.9

0.7

4.7

3.5%

1.7%

7.0%

6.2%

3.5%

10.7%

Colorado
Sterling Corr. Fac.
Connecticut
Corrigan-Radgowski Corr. Ctr.

0.8%

0.2%

2.7%

2.2%

0.8%

6.1%

Osborn Corr. Inst.

2.7

1.3

5.6

1.3

0.5

3.6

York Corr. Fac.f

6.4

3.8

10.6

2.2

0.9

5.3

1.7%

0.8%

0.8%

0.2%

2.7%

Delaware
Sussex Corr. Inst.

3.8%

Florida
Century Corr. Inst. & Work Camp

0.5%

0.1%

2.5%

1.9%

0.8%

4.6%

Gadsden Corr. Fac.f,g

2.0

0.8

4.8

0.4

0.1

2.0

Hernando Corr. Inst.f

5.5

3.4

8.8

1.5

0.7

3.5

Indian River Corr. Inst.

0.0

0.0

2.3

2.0

1.0

3.9

Lancaster Corr. Inst. & Work Camp

2.7

1.4

5.4

3.9

2.1

7.4

Liberty Corr. Inst. & Work Camp

0.7

0.2

2.2

1.3

0.5

3.7

Lowell Corr. Inst., Annex, & Work Campf

3.5

1.9

6.3

2.0

0.9

4.3

Moore Haven Corr. Fac.g

1.1

0.3

3.3

1.1

0.4

3.5

40

August 2010

Appendix Table 2 (continued)
Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimization, by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09
Inmate-on-inmatea

Staff sexual misconducta

95%-confidence intervalb
Facility name

Percent
victimizedc

Lower bound Upper bound

95%-confidence intervalb
Percent
victimizedc

Lower bound

Upper bound

Florida (continued)
Okeechobee Corr. Inst.

1.6%

0.7%

3.8%

4.9%

3.0%

8.1%

Reception and Med. Ctr. & Reception and Med. Ctr.-West Unite

0.5

0.1

2.4

1.7

0.7

4.3

South Florida Reception Ctr. & South Unit

1.3

0.5

3.5

0.5

0.1

1.5

Dodge State Prison

0.0%

0.0%

1.7%

2.5%

1.2%

5.4%

Dooly State Prison

0.8

0.2

2.7

2.7

1.3

5.6

Georgia

Pulaski State Prisonf

6.1

3.9

9.5

0.3

0.1

1.5

Washington State Prison

0.5

0.1

2.4

2.3

1.0

5.0

Wheeler Corr. Fac.g

0.7

0.2

2.5

2.4

1.2

4.7

Oahu Community Corr. Ctr.d

4.6%

1.9%

10.7%

0.5%

0.1%

1.6%

Women’s Community Corr. Ctr.f

3.8

1.7

8.0

2.9

1.2

6.9

Idaho Corr. Fac.g

0.5%

0.1%

2.4%

2.3%

1.1%

5.1%

Idaho State Corr. Inst.

2.5

1.1

5.5

4.0

2.0

7.7

East Moline Corr. Ctr.

0.4%

0.1%

1.8%

1.0%

0.3%

3.2%

Illinois River Corr. Ctr.

0.8

0.2

2.8

0.5

0.1

2.5

Lincoln Corr. Ctr.f

0.7

0.2

2.1

0.7

0.1

3.4

Pontiac Corr. Ctr.

6.9

3.0

15.0

5.7

2.1

14.2

Plainfield Corr. Fac.

6.1%

3.3%

11.0%

2.2%

0.8%

Putnamville Corr. Fac.

3.3

1.5

6.8

6.5

3.7

11.2

Westville Corr. Fac.

3.0

1.3

6.8

4.5

2.3

8.7

Iowa Corr. Inst. - Womenf

7.3%

4.7%

11.3%

1.5%

0.5%

4.7%

Newton Corr. Fac.

3.7

1.8

7.2

2.0

0.7

5.8

3.7%

1.5%

9.0%

6.3%

3.3%

11.6%

Kentucky Corr. Inst. for Womenf

7.3%

4.4%

11.9%

2.3%

0.8%

6.1%

Luther Luckett Corr. Complex

1.2

0.3

4.1

5.7

3.1

Avoyelles Corr. Ctr.

1.7%

0.7%

4.0%

4.0%

2.2%

7.2%

C. Paul Phelps Corr. Ctr.

0.7

0.2

2.2

3.4

1.9

6.2

Louisiana Corr. Inst. for Womenf

5.7

3.6

8.9

1.8

0.8

4.0

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana
6.0%

Iowa

Kansas
Larned Corr. Mental Health Fac.
Kentucky

10.1

Louisiana

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09

41

Appendix Table 2 (continued)
Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimization, by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09
Inmate-on-inmatea

Staff sexual misconducta

95%-confidence intervalb
Facility name

Percent
victimizedc

Lower bound Upper bound

95%-confidence intervalb
Percent
victimizedc

Lower bound

Upper bound

Maine
Maine State Prison - Warren

5.9%

3.1%

11.0%

4.9%

2.4%

9.7%

Jessup Pre-Release Unit

0.0%

0.0%

2.2%

5.0%

2.8%

8.8%

Maryland Corr. Inst. - Jessup

1.0

0.2

4.8

2.8

1.3

6.1

0.8%

0.2%

3.3%

3.0%

1.1%

8.0%

Earnest C. Brooks Corr. Fac.

2.2%

0.8%

5.8%

4.9%

2.7%

8.7%

Mid-Michigan Corr. Fac.

2.9

1.3

6.6

1.3

0.4

4.1

Muskegon Corr. Fac.

4.8

2.6

8.6

6.7

2.5

16.3

Richard A. Handlon Corr. Fac.

4.7

2.5

8.7

4.4

2.3

8.1

Minnesota Corr. Fac. - Rush City

2.9%

1.3%

6.3%

5.2%

2.8%

9.5%

Minnesota Corr. Fac. - Shakopeef

8.3

4.9

0.4

0.1

2.0

Mississippi State Penitentiary

1.9%

0.9%

4.1%

5.9%

3.6%

9.5%

South Mississippi Corr. Inst.

0.6

0.2

2.2

5.0

3.0

8.3

Crossroads Corr. Fac.

2.3%

1.0%

5.1%

8.2%

5.3%

12.6%

Fulton Reception & Diagnostic Ctr.

0.3

0.1

1.6

1.7

0.7

4.0

Women’s Eastern Reception, Diagnostic, & Corr. Ctr.f

7.7

4.9

11.9

1.5

0.5

4.0

3.8%

2.0%

7.2%

7.2%

4.4%

11.5%

1.9%

0.7%

5.3%

1.9%

0.7%

5.3%

0.8%

0.2%

2.9%

0.0%

0.0%

1.8%

1.1%

0.3%

4.9%

4.0%

1.8%

8.6%

Bayside State Prison - Ancora Unit

0.0%

0.0%

2.8%

1.7%

0.6%

4.6%

Edna Mahan Corr. Fac. for Womenf

3.6

1.8

6.9

1.9

0.8

4.6

2.2%

0.8%

5.7%

1.9%

0.7%

5.0%

Attica Corr. Fac.

0.6%

0.1%

2.9%

8.1%

4.8%

13.3%

Bare Hill Corr. Fac.

1.2

0.4

3.2

6.6

4.0

10.9

Maryland

Massachusetts
Massachusetts Corr. Inst - Plymouth
Michigan

Minnesota

13.9

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana
Montana State Prison
Nebraska
Diagnostic & Evaluation Ctr.
Nevada
Northern Nevada Corr. Ctr.d
New Hampshire
Lakes Region Fac.
New Jersey

New Mexico
Southern New Mexico Corr. Fac.
New York

42

August 2010

Appendix Table 2 (continued)
Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimization, by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09
Inmate-on-inmatea

Staff sexual misconducta

95%-confidence intervalb
Facility name

Percent
victimizedc

Lower bound Upper bound

95%-confidence intervalb
Percent
victimizedc

Lower bound

Upper bound

New York (continued)
Bayview Corr. Fac.f

4.6%

2.9%

7.3%

11.5%

8.3%

15.6%

Cape Vincent Corr. Fac.

1.0

0.3

3.3

0.0

0.0

2.1

Clinton Corr. Fac.

0.3

0.1

1.8

4.4

2.3

8.2

Coxsackie Corr. Fac.

1.4

0.6

3.4

4.6

2.6

7.8

Elmira Corr. Fac.

3.0

1.3

6.7

7.7

4.5

12.7

Walkill Corr. Fac.

0.0

0.0

2.3

3.2

1.5

6.8

North Carolina
Brown Creek Corr. Inst.

0.5%

0.1%

2.6%

1.2%

0.4%

3.9%

Guilford Corr. Ctr.

0.0

0.0

7.6

0.0

0.0

7.6

Pender Corr. Inst.

0.5

0.1

2.6

1.3

0.4

4.0

Swannanoa Corr. Ctr. for Womenf

1.3

0.5

3.4

0.0

0.0

6.4

Warren Corr. Ctr.

2.2

0.8

6.1

5.9

3.2

10.5

North Dakota
Dakota Women’s Corr. & Rehab. Ctr.f

2.2%

1.1%

4.6%

0.8%

0.3%

2.1%

James River Corr. Ctr.

1.6

0.7

3.7

1.3

0.3

5.0

0.4%

0.1%

2.2%

0.7%

0.2%

2.3%

Ohio
Corr. Reception Ctr.
Lebanon Corr. Inst.

3.7

1.9

7.1

2.9

1.4

5.7

Mansfield Corr. Inst.

1.5

0.5

4.3

2.9

1.3

6.4

Ohio Reformatory for Womenf

5.2

3.0

8.8

3.1

1.5

6.2

Southeastern Corr. Inst.

1.7

0.6

4.6

4.2

2.0

8.6

Davis Corr. Fac.g

3.9%

1.9%

8.0%

6.1%

3.6%

10.1%

Mack H. Alford Corr. Ctr.

5.2

2.5

4.8

2.2

10.2

5.5%

3.3%

1.6%

0.5%

Oklahoma
10.4

Oregon
Coffee Creek Corr. Fac.f

9.3%

4.4%

Pennsylvania
Camp Hill State Corr. Inst.

0.3%

0.1%

1.8%

1.2%

0.3%

4.4%

Coal Township State Corr. Inst.

2.6

1.3

5.5

1.7

0.7

4.1

Cresson State Corr. Inst.

2.5

1.2

5.1

3.9

2.2

6.8

0.6%

0.1%

2.7%

0.0%

0.0%

3.3%
4.0%

Rhode Island
Maximum Security Fac.
South Carolina
Goodman Corr. Inst.f

3.1%

1.4%

6.7%

0.0%

0.0%

Ridgeland Corr. Inst.

2.2

1.0

4.8

4.8

2.8

8.1

Trenton Corr. Inst.

0.0

0.0

2.1

1.4

0.6

3.6

3.7%

1.6%

8.0%

2.4%

0.9%

6.5%

1.8%

0.7%

4.5%

5.2%

3.0%

8.7%

Allred Unit

7.6%

4.4%

12.9%

5.6%

2.9%

10.4%

Beto Unit

3.1

1.5

6.2

6.0

3.6

9.9

Bridgeport Pre-Parole Fac.f,g

0.0

0.0

2.9

0.0

0.0

2.9

South Dakota
Mike Durfee State Prison & Trusty Unit
Tennessee
West Tennessee State Penitentiary
Texas

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09

43

Appendix Table 2 (continued)
Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimization, by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09
Inmate-on-inmatea

Staff sexual misconducta

95%-confidence intervalb
Facility name

Percent
victimizedc

Lower bound Upper bound

95%-confidence intervalb
Percent
victimizedc

Lower bound

Upper bound

Texas (continued)
C. Moore Transfer Fac.

0.0%

0.0%

2.0%

0.4%

0.1%

1.9%

Coffield Unit

1.7

0.6

4.8

3.2

1.6

6.3

Cole State Jail

1.4

0.4

4.3

1.7

0.6

4.5

Crain Unitf

3.1

1.4

6.4

2.7

1.2

6.0

Ferguson Unit

1.2

0.3

4.7

7.6

4.7

11.9

Halbert Substance Abuse Felony Punishment Fac.f

0.9

0.3

2.5

0.0

0.0

1.6

Hobby Unitf

4.3

2.6

7.2

2.0

0.9

4.3

Hughes Unit

8.6

5.2

14.0

3.1

1.3

7.1

Jester Unit III

2.2

0.9

5.3

0.0

0.0

2.0

Lindsey State Jailg

0.0

0.0

1.9

1.9

0.8

4.5

Michael Unit

6.1

3.3

11.0

4.8

2.5

9.2

Mountain View Unitf

9.2

5.6

14.7

4.3

2.0

9.1

Neal Unit

1.8

0.7

4.3

2.9

1.3

6.5

Plane State Jailf

2.8

1.2

6.1

0.1

0.0

0.6

Smith Unit

1.2

0.3

4.0

4.3

2.1

8.6

Telford Unit

4.6

2.4

8.4

5.5

3.1

9.8

1.6%

0.7%

3.9%

0.7%

0.2%

2.3%

2.3%

1.1%

4.7%

3.9%

2.3%

6.4%

Fluvanna Corr. Ctr.f

11.4%

7.7%

16.5%

6.0%

3.7%

9.5%

Haynesville Corr. Ctr.

1.0

0.3

3.4

1.5

0.5

4.0

Lawrenceville Corr. Ctr.g

0.8

0.2

4.0

3.0

1.4

6.3

Airway Heights Corr. Ctr.

1.8%

0.7%

4.4%

2.2%

0.9%

5.3%

Washington Corr. Ctr. for Womenf

5.5

3.2

9.3

1.3

0.4

4.0

3.1%

1.2%

7.5%

5.5%

2.7%

11.0%

Dodge Corr. Inst.e

0.0%

0.0%

1.9%

1.0%

0.3%

3.3%

New Lisbon Corr. Inst.

0.7

0.1

3.8

2.5

0.9

6.9

Taycheedah Corr. Inst.f

11.9

8.2

16.9

1.5

0.6

3.9

3.1

1.2

8.0

2.5

0.8

7.1

1.5%

0.6%

3.5%

1.4%

0.6%

3.4%

Utah
Central Utah Corr. Fac.
Vermont
Northwest State Corr. Fac.
Virginia

Washington

West Virginia
Mount Olive Corr. Complex
Wisconsin

Waupun Corr. Inst.
Wyoming
Wyoming Honor Farm

44

August 2010

Appendix Table 2 (continued)
Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimization, by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09
Inmate-on-inmatea

Staff sexual misconducta

95%-confidence intervalb
Facility name

Percent
victimizedc

Lower bound Upper bound

95%-confidence intervalb
Percent
victimizedc

Lower bound

Upper bound

Federal Facilities (Bureau of Prisons)
Big Sandy - Camp

0.0%

0.0%

6.5%

0.0%

0.0%

6.5%

Brooklyn Metropolitan Det. Ctr.d

0.7

0.1

3.4

0.0

0.0

1.6

Bryan Fed. Prison Campf

1.7

0.6

4.4

0.6

0.1

2.7

Carswell Fed. Med. Ctr.f

3.6

1.7

7.6

1.9

0.6

5.5

Coleman I U.S. Penitentiary

1.7

0.5

5.7

3.3

1.3

8.1

Coleman Medium Fed. Corr. Inst.e

0.7

0.1

3.6

0.0

0.0

2.1
2.0

Danbury Fed. Corr. Inst.f

1.4

0.4

4.6

0.0

0.0

Elkton Fed. Corr. Inst.

0.0

0.0

2.1

0.0

0.0

2.1

Englewood Fed. Corr. Inst.

1.6

0.6

4.2

0.3

0.1

1.4

Fairton Fed. Corr. Inst.

0.6

0.1

3.0

1.0

0.2

5.0
7.3

Florence Fed. Corr. Inst.

0.0

0.0

4.8

1.4

0.3

Forrest City Low Fed. Corr. Inst.

0.0

0.0

1.8

1.6

0.6

4.3

Jesup-Fed. Satellite Low

0.9

0.2

4.2

0.0

0.0

2.4

Morgantown Fed. Corr. Inst.

0.0

0.0

2.4

0.0

0.0

2.4

Oakdale Fed. Corr. Inst.

0.0

0.0

1.9

1.0

0.2

4.8

Petersburg Medium Fed. Corr. Inst.

3.1

1.3

7.6

3.0

1.2

7.7

Schuylkill Fed. Corr. Inst.

0.8

0.2

2.6

1.4

0.4

4.9

Texarkana Fed. Corr. Inst.

0.0

0.0

2.8

1.2

0.2

6.0

Victorville U.S. Penitentiary

0.7

0.1

3.5

1.7

0.5

5.7

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

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09

45

Appendix Table 3
Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimization by level of coercion, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09
Inmate-on-inmatea

Staff sexual misconducta

Physically forcedb

Pressuredc

Physically forcedb

Pressuredc

1.3%

1.6%

1.0%

1.6%

1.8%

Bibb Corr. Fac.

1.9%

2.7%

0.3%

1.3%

1.1%

William Donaldson Corr. Fac.

2.9

3.9

1.4

1.5

4.5

1.1%

0.0%

1.1%

1.1%

0.0%

Arizona State Prison Complex - Lewis

0.0%

0.7%

1.4%

1.9%

0.4%

Arizona State Prison Complex - Tucsonf

0.3

0.5

0.4

1.7

2.3

Diagnostic Unite

1.9%

1.9%

0.7%

0.0%

2.2%

McPherson Unitg

4.7

7.2

2.3

3.6

2.4
0.9%

Facility name
Total

Without force or pressured

Alabama

Alaska
Fairbanks Corr. Ctr.e
Arizona

Arkansas

California
California Corr. Ctr.

0.0%

0.0%

1.0%

0.5%

California Inst. for Womeng

2.8

3.6

1.6

1.1

1.3

California Med. Fac.

3.9

4.1

1.7

2.5

1.1

Centinela State Prison

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Central California Women’s Fac.g

1.9

2.9

1.1

3.2

0.2

Chuckawalla Valley State Prison

0.6

2.8

1.2

1.6

1.0

Deuel Vocational Inst.

1.8

0.8

0.7

0.7

0.9

Folsom State Prison

0.7

0.7

1.1

1.1

0.8

High Desert State Prison

2.6

1.7

0.4

0.4

0.5

Los Angeles County State Prison

1.1

2.0

1.6

1.8

1.0

North Kern State Prison

0.0

0.0

0.4

0.9

2.5

Pleasant Valley State Prison

1.9

5.5

0.6

0.6

1.3

Salinas Valley State Prison

1.6

1.9

0.5

0.8

1.6

Valley State Prison for Womeng

5.0

6.5

1.3

3.6

2.0

Wasco State Prison-Reception Ctr.

0.5

0.5

1.3

1.0

1.0

2.6%

2.7%

3.1%

5.0%

3.7%

Colorado
Sterling Corr. Fac.
Connecticut
Corrigan-Radgowski Corr. Ctr.

0.0%

0.8%

0.0%

0.0%

2.3%

Osborn Corr. Inst.

0.7

2.4

0.4

0.8

1.3

York Corr. Fac.g

4.0

4.1

1.1

2.2

0.4

0.6%

1.7%

0.0%

0.0%

0.8%

Delaware
Sussex Corr. Inst.
Florida
Century Corr. Inst. & Work Camp

0.5%

0.5%

0.0%

1.5%

1.4%

Gadsden Corr. Fac.g,h

1.4

0.6

0.0

0.4

0.0

Hernando Corr. Inst.g

3.6

4.5

0.4

1.0

1.2

Indian River Corr. Inst.

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.6

1.3

Lancaster Corr. Inst. & Work Camp

1.9

1.7

1.1

2.0

2.4

Liberty Corr. Inst. & Work Camp

0.7

0.7

0.8

0.8

0.8

Lowell Corr. Inst., Annex, & Work Campg

2.4

3.1

1.3

1.3

1.2

Moore Haven Corr. Fac.h

0.5

0.5

0.5

1.1

1.1

Okeechobee Corr. Inst.

1.6

0.8

2.3

2.4

3.4

46

August 2010

Appendix Table 3 (continued)
Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimization by level of coercion, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09
Inmate-on-inmatea

Staff sexual misconducta

Physically forcedb

Pressuredc

Physically forcedb

Pressuredc

Reception and Med. Ctr. & Reception and Med. Ctr.West Unitf

0.0%

0.5%

0.3%

0.7%

1.0%

South Florida Reception Ctr. & South Unit

1.0

0.7

0.5

0.5

0.3

Dodge State Prison

0.0%

0.0%

0.6%

1.0%

2.5%
2.2

Facility name

Without force or pressured

Florida (continued)

Georgia
Dooly State Prison

0.8

0.5

0.0

0.5

Pulaski State Prisong

4.1

4.4

0.0

0.3

0.0

Washington State Prison

0.5

0.0

0.4

0.4

1.9

Wheeler Corr. Fac.h

0.4

0.4

0.0

0.3

2.4

Oahu Community Corr. Ctr.e

3.3%

3.3%

0.2%

0.3%

0.0%

Women’s Community Corr. Ctr.g

1.7

2.7

0.0

2.9

1.0

Hawaii

Idaho
Idaho Corr. Fac.h

0.5%

0.5%

0.9%

1.0%

1.9%

Idaho State Corr. Inst.

1.7

2.5

1.3

1.3

1.9

Illinois
East Moline Corr. Ctr.

0.4%

0.4%

0.5%

1.0%

0.0%

Illinois River Corr. Ctr.

0.4

0.8

0.0

0.0

0.5

Lincoln Corr. Ctr.g

0.7

0.3

0.0

0.7

0.0

Pontiac Corr. Ctr.

5.0

4.4

0.8

3.4

2.5

5.0%

4.3%

1.2%

2.2%

0.0%

Indiana
Plainfield Corr. Fac.
Putnamville Corr. Fac.

1.6

2.7

1.4

1.8

4.7

Westville Corr. Fac.

1.4

2.3

0.7

1.8

4.5

Iowa
Iowa Corr. Inst. - Womeng

3.4%

5.4%

0.4%

1.5%

1.5%

Newton Corr. Fac.

2.3

2.0

0.7

0.3

1.0

0.0%

3.7%

2.5%

3.4%

2.9%

Kansas
Larned Corr. Mental Health Fac.
Kentucky
Kentucky Corr. Inst. for Womeng

5.1%

6.0%

0.7%

2.3%

0.7%

Luther Luckett Corr. Complex

1.2

1.2

2.1

4.2

3.9

Louisiana
Avoyelles Corr. Ctr.

1.7%

1.3%

2.2%

3.1%

1.8%

C. Paul Phelps Corr. Ctr.

0.4

0.7

0.3

1.3

2.1

Louisiana Corr. Inst. for Womeng

2.4

4.9

1.3

1.8

0.0

2.7%

5.3%

1.6%

1.7%

2.9%

Maine
Maine State Prison - Warren
Maryland
Jessup Pre-Release Unit

0.0%

0.0%

2.4%

3.1%

3.8%

Maryland Corr. Inst. - Jessup

1.0

1.0

0.6

0.6

2.8

0.0%

0.8%

0.0%

0.0%

3.0%

1.4%

2.2%

1.9%

2.4%

2.8%

Massachusetts
Massachusetts Corr. Inst - Plymouth
Michigan
Earnest C. Brooks Corr. Fac.
Mid-Michigan Corr. Fac.

1.4

2.9

0.8

0.8

0.5

Muskegon Corr. Fac.

0.7

4.8

1.1

1.1

5.6

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09

47

Appendix Table 3 (continued)
Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimization by level of coercion, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09
Inmate-on-inmatea

Staff sexual misconducta

Physically forcedb

Pressuredc

Physically forcedb

Pressuredc

2.9%

2.7%

1.6%

3.6%

1.6%

Minnesota Corr. Fac. - Rush City

1.9%

1.8%

2.8%

3.5%

3.9%

Minnesota Corr. Fac. - Shakopeeg

5.5

6.8

0.4

0.4

0.0

Mississippi State Penitentiary

1.2%

1.5%

1.9%

1.9%

5.9%

South Mississippi Corr. Inst.

0.4

0.3

1.0

3.1

2.8

Facility name

Without force or pressured

Michigan (continued)
Richard A. Handlon Corr. Fac.
Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri
Crossroads Corr. Fac.

1.7%

1.7%

3.8%

5.2%

4.1%

Fulton Reception & Diagnostic Ctr.

0.3

0.0

0.8

1.0

1.7

Women’s Eastern Reception, Diagnostic, & Corr. Ctr.g

4.9

6.6

0.5

1.0

0.5

3.6%

1.4%

1.7%

4.7%

5.9%

1.0%

1.9%

1.9%

1.9%

1.0%

0.3%

0.8%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

1.1%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

4.0%

Bayside State Prison - Ancora Unit

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

1.0%

0.7%

Edna Mahan Corr. Fac. for Womeng

1.8

3.6

1.1

1.9

0.6

2.2%

0.9%

1.5%

0.9%

1.3%

Attica Corr. Fac.

0.6%

0.6%

6.4%

6.0%

2.8%
4.8

Montana
Montana State Prison
Nebraska
Diagnostic & Evaluation Ctr.
Nevada
Northern Nevada Corr. Ctr.e
New Hampshire
Lakes Region Fac.
New Jersey

New Mexico
Southern New Mexico Corr. Fac.
New York
Bare Hill Corr. Fac.

0.4

1.2

1.7

2.8

Bayview Corr. Fac.g

3.0

4.6

6.5

10.8

0.6

Cape Vincent Corr. Fac.

1.0

1.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Clinton Corr. Fac.

0.0

0.3

0.7

1.6

3.1

Coxsackie Corr. Fac.

1.4

1.4

2.9

4.1

1.1

Elmira Corr. Fac.

1.5

3.0

2.5

7.1

1.3

Walkill Corr. Fac.

0.0

0.0

2.3

2.3

0.9

North Carolina
Brown Creek Corr. Inst.

0.0%

0.5%

0.6%

0.0%

0.6%

Guilford Corr. Ctr.

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0
0.7

Pender Corr. Inst.

0.0

0.5

0.0

0.6

Swannanoa Corr. Ctr. for Womeng

1.3

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Warren Corr. Ctr.

1.2

1.8

2.0

2.8

5.1

North Dakota
Dakota Women’s Corr. & Rehab. Ctr.g

2.2%

2.2%

0.0%

0.8%

0.0%

James River Corr. Ctr.

1.6

1.0

0.0

0.0

1.3

48

August 2010

Appendix Table 3 (continued)
Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimization by level of coercion, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09
Inmate-on-inmatea
Facility name

Physically forcedb

Pressuredc

Staff sexual misconducta
Physically forcedb

Pressuredc

Without force or pressured

Ohio
Corr. Reception Ctr.

0.0%

0.4%

0.0%

0.3%

0.4%

Lebanon Corr. Inst.

2.3

3.2

1.0

1.0

2.3

Mansfield Corr. Inst.

1.5

1.5

0.6

0.7

2.2

Ohio Reformatory for Womeng

2.3

4.7

0.5

3.1

0.3

Southeastern Corr. Inst.

1.1

1.7

0.7

3.0

3.6

Oklahoma
Davis Corr. Fac.h

3.1%

3.3%

2.3%

3.5%

4.0%

Mack H. Alford Corr. Ctr.

4.7

3.3

1.7

2.6

4.8

2.6%

3.5%

0.3%

1.6%

0.5%

Oregon
Coffee Creek Corr. Fac.g
Pennsylvania
Camp Hill State Corr. Inst.

0.3%

0.3%

0.0%

0.3%

0.8%

Coal Township State Corr. Inst.

1.1

1.9

1.7

1.4

0.3

Cresson State Corr. Inst.

1.1

2.2

1.8

3.3

0.8

0.0%

0.6%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

Rhode Island
Maximum Security Fac.
South Carolina
Goodman Corr. Inst.g

0.0%

3.1%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

Ridgeland Corr. Inst.

0.7

2.2

1.1

1.4

4.4

Trenton Corr. Inst.

0.0

0.0

1.1

0.9

0.5

2.7%

3.7%

0.7%

0.8%

0.9%

1.2%

1.8%

1.2%

1.2%

4.7%

Allred Unit

6.8%

3.9%

3.2%

3.7%

3.2%
5.6

South Dakota
Mike Durfee State Prison & Trusty Unit
Tennessee
West Tennessee State Penitentiary
Texas
Beto Unit

1.8

3.1

1.0

1.9

Bridgeport Pre-Parole Fac.g,h

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

C. Moore Transfer Fac.

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.4

0.4

Coffield Unit

1.7

0.4

0.9

1.4

2.3
0.5

Cole State Jail

1.4

0.7

1.2

0.5

Crain Unitg

1.9

2.2

0.5

1.1

1.6

Ferguson Unit

0.0

1.2

1.1

3.1

5.8

Halbert Substance Abuse Felony Punishment Fac.g

0.5

0.4

0.0

0.0

0.0

Hobby Unitg

3.2

1.9

1.1

0.8

0.4

Hughes Unit

5.9

6.5

1.1

2.6

1.7
0.0

Jester Unit III

1.3

2.2

0.0

0.0

Lindsey State Jailh

0.0

0.0

0.9

0.9

1.5

Michael Unit

3.1

6.1

1.7

3.2

2.8

Mountain View Unitg

5.0

7.1

2.1

3.7

0.7
1.7

Neal Unit

1.4

1.4

0.5

1.7

Plane State Jailg

1.7

2.4

0.0

0.1

0.0

Smith Unit

0.6

1.2

2.6

2.6

1.7

Telford Unit

3.1

3.9

2.2

1.3

4.2

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09

49

Appendix Table 3 (continued)
Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimization by level of coercion, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09
Inmate-on-inmatea
Facility name

Staff sexual misconducta

Physically forcedb

Pressuredc

Physically forcedb

Pressuredc

Without force or pressured

1.6%

0.8%

0.0%

0.0%

0.7%

0.0%

2.3%

0.8%

1.9%

2.0%

Utah
Central Utah Corr. Fac.
Vermont
Northwest State Corr. Fac.
Virginia
Fluvanna Corr. Ctr.g

5.9%

9.5%

1.5%

4.3%

2.4%

Haynesville Corr. Ctr.

0.5

0.5

0.0

1.5

0.9

Lawrenceville Corr. Ctr.h

0.8

0.8

0.6

1.1

1.7

Airway Heights Corr. Ctr.

1.4%

1.8%

1.6%

2.2%

1.1%

Washington Corr. Ctr. for Womeng

3.2

4.9

0.8

0.8

1.3

1.9%

1.2%

2.7%

2.4%

3.5%

Washington

West Virginia
Mount Olive Corr. Complex
Wisconsin
Dodge Corr. Inst.f

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

New Lisbon Corr. Inst.

0.7

0.7

0.0

1.9

1.3

Taycheedah Corr. Inst.g

3.9

10.8

1.0

0.5

0.6

Waupun Corr. Inst.

1.3

3.1

0.5

0.5

2.5

0.7%

0.8%

0.0%

0.0%

1.4%

Wyoming
Wyoming Honor Farm
Federal Facilities (Bureau of Prisons)
Big Sandy - Camp

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

Brooklyn Metropolitan Det. Ctr.e

0.0

0.7

0.0

0.0

0.0

Bryan Fed. Prison Campg

1.7

0.0

0.0

0.6

0.0

Carswell Fed. Med. Ctr.g

1.9

2.4

1.2

1.0

0.0

Coleman I U.S. Penitentiary

1.7

1.7

1.4

1.6

1.2

Coleman Medium Fed. Corr. Inst.f

0.7

0.7

0.0

0.0

0.0

Danbury Fed. Corr. Inst.g

1.4

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Elkton Fed. Corr. Inst.

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Englewood Fed. Corr. Inst.

1.1

0.5

0.3

0.3

0.3

Fairton Fed. Corr. Inst.

0.6

0.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

Florence Fed. Corr. Inst.

0.0

0.0

0.0

1.4

1.4

Forrest City Low Fed. Corr. Inst.

0.0

0.0

1.1

1.1

1.0

Jesup-Fed. Satellite Low

0.9

0.9

0.0

0.0

0.0

Morgantown Fed. Corr. Inst.

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Oakdale Fed. Corr. Inst.

0.0

0.0

1.0

1.0

0.0

Petersburg Medium Fed. Corr. Inst.

1.6

3.1

0.4

2.3

1.1

50

August 2010

Appendix Table 3 (continued)
Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimization by level of coercion, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09
Inmate-on-inmatea
Facility name

Physically forcedb

Pressuredc

Staff sexual misconducta
Physically forcedb

Pressuredc

Without force or pressured

Federal Facilities (Bureau of Prisons) (continued)
Schuylkill Fed. Corr. Inst.

0.0%

0.8%

1.4%

1.4%

1.4%

Texarkana Fed. Corr. Inst.

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

1.2

Victorville U.S. Penitentiary

0.0

0.7

1.0

1.7

0.7

Note: Detail may sum to more than total victimization rate because victims may report on more than one incident involving different levels of coercion.
aIncludes all types of sexual victimization, including oral, anal, or vaginal penetration, hand jobs, touching of the inmate’s butt, thighs, penis, breasts, or vagina in a sexual way, and other
sexual acts occurring in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if shorter.
bPhysical force or threat of physical force reported.
cIncludes incidents in which the perpetrator, without using force, pressured the inmate or made the inmate feel that they had to participate. (See Methodology.)
dIncludes incidents in which the staff offered favors or privileges in exchange for sex or sexual contact and incidents in which the inmate reported that they willingly had sex or sexual
contact with staff.
eFacility houses both males and females; both were sampled at this facility.
fFacility houses both males and females; only males were sampled in this facility.
gFemale facility.
hPrivately operated facility.

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09

51

Appendix Table 4
Percent of prison inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual contacts, by facility, National Inmate Survey,
2008-09
Nonconsensual sexual actsa

Abusive sexual contacts onlyb

95%-confidence intervalc
Facility name
Total

Percent
victimizedd

Lower bound

Upper bound

3.1%

2.7%

3.5%

95%-confidence intervalc
Percent
victimizedd
1.3%

Lower bound
1.1%

Upper bound
1.6%

Alabama
Bibb Corr. Fac.

2.4%

1.2%

4.6%

2.0%

1.0%

4.2%

William Donaldson Corr. Fac.

4.9

2.8

8.5

3.9

2.0

7.3

2.1%

0.8%

5.7%

0.0%

0.0%

3.6%

Arizona State Prison Complex - Lewis

1.9%

0.7%

4.8%

0.0%

0.0%

1.9%

Arizona State Prison Complex - Tucsonf

2.6

1.2

5.5

0.8

0.2

3.1

Diagnostic Unite

4.8%

2.4%

9.5%

0.0%

0.0%

3.2%

McPherson Unitg

4.5

2.6

7.7

5.7

3.5

9.2

California Corr. Ctr.

0.9%

0.2%

3.1%

0.5%

0.1%

2.9%

California Inst. for Womeng

2.7

1.2

6.0

3.4

1.6

7.2

Alaska
Fairbanks Corr. Ctr.e
Arizona

Arkansas

California

California Med. Fac.

3.9

2.3

6.6

5.1

3.1

8.2

Centinela State Prison

0.0

0.0

2.6

0.0

0.0

2.6

Central California Women’s Fac.g

3.3

1.4

7.3

1.9

0.8

4.9

Chuckawalla Valley State Prison

2.7

1.2

6.1

0.9

0.3

3.3

Deuel Vocational Inst.

1.7

0.7

4.2

0.9

0.3

3.4

Folsom State Prison

0.4

0.1

2.1

1.1

0.3

4.0

High Desert State Prison

2.6

1.1

6.2

0.9

0.2

3.5

Los Angeles County State Prison

3.4

1.7

6.6

0.5

0.1

2.7

North Kern State Prison

2.5

1.1

5.7

0.0

0.0

1.8

Pleasant Valley State Prison

4.6

2.4

8.5

1.4

0.4

5.0
3.8

Salinas Valley State Prison

3.5

1.2

9.4

1.3

0.4

Valley State Prison for Womeng

5.3

2.8

9.7

2.9

1.4

6.0

Wasco State Prison-Reception Ctr.

1.9

0.7

4.7

0.0

0.0

1.7

6.2%

3.5%

10.7%

1.3%

0.4%

3.6%

Corrigan-Radgowski Corr. Ctr.

1.8%

0.6%

5.1%

1.2%

0.3%

4.4%

Osborn Corr. Inst.

2.6

1.2

5.4

1.4

0.5

3.9

York Corr. Fac.g

2.6

1.2

5.6

4.9

2.6

8.8

2.5%

1.3%

4.9%

0.0%

0.0%

1.8%

Century Corr. Inst. & Work Camp

1.9%

0.8%

4.6%

0.0%

0.0%

1.8%

Gadsden Corr. Fac.g,h

0.4

0.1

2.0

2.0

0.8

4.8

Hernando Corr. Inst.g

3.2

1.7

6.0

3.3

1.8

5.9

Indian River Corr. Inst.

1.2

0.5

2.9

0.7

0.2

2.3

Lancaster Corr. Inst. & Work Camp

4.3

2.4

7.8

2.3

1.1

4.9

Colorado
Sterling Corr. Fac.
Connecticut

Delaware
Sussex Corr. Inst.
Florida

Liberty Corr. Inst. & Work Camp

1.5

0.6

3.7

0.5

0.1

2.5

Lowell Corr. Inst., Annex, & Work Campg

3.2

1.7

5.9

1.3

0.5

3.2

Moore Haven Corr. Fac.h

1.6

0.6

4.2

0.0

0.0

1.7

52

August 2010

Appendix Table 4 (continued)
Percent of prison inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual contacts, by facility, National Inmate Survey,
2008-09
Nonconsensual sexual actsa

Abusive sexual contacts onlyb

95%-confidence intervalc
Facility name

Percent
victimizedd

Lower bound

Upper bound

4.4%

2.6%

7.3%

95%-confidence intervalc
Percent
victimizedd

Lower bound

Upper bound

Florida (continued)
Okeechobee Corr. Inst.

1.8%

0.7%

4.2%

Reception and Med. Ctr. & Reception and Med. Ctr.-West Unitf

1.4

0.5

4.0

0.3

0.1

1.4

South Florida Reception Ctr. & South Unit

0.9

0.3

2.5

0.8

0.2

3.0

Dodge State Prison

2.0%

0.8%

4.7%

0.5%

0.1%

2.5%
1.5

Georgia
Dooly State Prison

2.4

1.1

5.3

0.3

0.1

Pulaski State Prisong

2.7

1.4

5.1

3.5

1.8

6.4

Washington State Prison

2.3

1.0

5.0

0.5

0.1

2.4

Wheeler Corr. Fac.h

2.5

1.3

4.9

0.6

0.2

2.1

Oahu Community Corr. Ctr.e

3.5%

1.3%

9.0%

1.3%

0.2%

6.3%

Women’s Community Corr. Ctr.g

4.0

1.8

8.4

1.1

0.3

4.3

Hawaii

Idaho
Idaho Corr. Fac.h

2.3%

1.1%

Idaho State Corr. Inst.

6.0

3.5

5.1%
10.2

0.0%

0.0%

1.8%

0.0

0.0

1.8

Illinois
East Moline Corr. Ctr.

1.4%

0.5%

3.7%

0.0%

0.0%

1.8%

Illinois River Corr. Ctr.

1.3

0.5

3.7

0.0

0.0

1.9

Lincoln Corr. Ctr.g

0.0

0.0

2.0

1.4

0.5

3.9

Pontiac Corr. Ctr.

7.4

3.4

15.6

4.6

1.5

13.4

Indiana
Plainfield Corr. Fac.

3.3%

1.4%

4.3%

2.0%

8.8%

Putnamville Corr. Fac.

5.7

3.2

10.1

7.2%

2.4

0.9

5.7

Westville Corr. Fac.

4.8

2.5

9.2

0.9

0.3

3.3

Iowa
Iowa Corr. Inst. - Womeng

4.3%

2.4%

7.5%

3.4%

1.7%

6.6%

Newton Corr. Fac.

3.4

1.5

7.5

2.3

1.0

5.2

5.3%

2.6%

10.5%

3.7%

1.5%

9.0%

Kentucky Corr. Inst. for Womeng

2.8%

1.2%

6.4%

6.8%

3.9%

11.4%

Luther Luckett Corr. Complex

5.1

2.7

9.4

1.0

0.3

3.4

Kansas
Larned Corr. Mental Health Fac.
Kentucky

Louisiana
Avoyelles Corr. Ctr.

4.0%

2.2%

7.1%

1.3%

0.5%

3.6%

C. Paul Phelps Corr. Ctr.

2.9

1.5

5.4

1.3

0.5

3.2

Louisiana Corr. Inst. for Womeng

2.5

1.3

5.0

4.9

3.0

8.0

9.3%

5.5%

15.1%

0.6%

0.1%

3.0%

Maine
Maine State Prison - Warren
Maryland
Jessup Pre-Release Unit

4.3%

2.3%

7.9%

0.7%

0.2%

3.0%

Maryland Corr. Inst. - Jessup

3.8

1.8

7.8

0.0

0.0

2.5

3.0%

1.1%

8.0%

0.8%

0.2%

3.3%

Massachusetts
Massachusetts Corr. Inst - Plymouth

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09

53

Appendix Table 4 (continued)
Percent of prison inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual contacts, by facility, National Inmate Survey,
2008-09
Nonconsensual sexual actsa

Abusive sexual contacts onlyb

95%-confidence intervalc
Facility name

Percent
victimizedd

Lower bound

Upper bound

5.0%

2.7%

9.0%

95%-confidence intervalc
Percent
victimizedd

Lower bound

Upper bound

Michigan
Earnest C. Brooks Corr. Fac.

1.3%

0.4%

3.5%

Mid-Michigan Corr. Fac.

3.4

1.6

7.1

0.8

0.2

3.6

Muskegon Corr. Fac.

7.0

4.1

11.8

4.4

1.1

15.3

Richard A. Handlon Corr. Fac.

5.0

2.8

8.7

2.3

0.9

5.6

Minnesota Corr. Fac. - Rush City

3.1%

1.4%

6.8%

4.2%

2.1%

8.0%

Minnesota Corr. Fac. - Shakopeeg

4.6

2.0

10.1

3.7

2.0

6.9

Minnesota

Mississippi
Mississippi State Penitentiary

7.0%

4.5%

10.8%

0.5%

0.1%

1.8%

South Mississippi Corr. Inst.

4.5

2.7

7.7

1.1

0.4

3.2

Missouri
Crossroads Corr. Fac.

7.1%

4.4%

11.3%

2.2%

1.0%

5.0%

Fulton Reception & Diagnostic Ctr.

1.7

0.7

4.0

0.0

0.0

1.7

Women’s Eastern Reception, Diagnostic, & Corr. Ctr.g

2.0

0.8

4.8

6.8

4.2

10.8

7.8%

4.9%

12.2%

2.9%

1.4%

6.0%

1.9%

0.7%

5.3%

1.0%

0.2%

3.8%

0.8%

0.2%

2.9%

0.0%

0.0%

1.8%

4.0%

1.8%

8.6%

1.1%

0.3%

4.9%

Bayside State Prison - Ancora Unit

1.7%

0.6%

4.6%

0.0%

0.0%

2.8%

Edna Mahan Corr. Fac. for Womeng

0.9

0.3

3.0

3.6

1.8

6.9

1.7%

0.6%

4.6%

1.5%

0.5%

4.5%

Montana
Montana State Prison
Nebraska
Diagnostic & Evaluation Ctr.
Nevada
Northern Nevada Corr. Ctr.e
New Hampshire
Lakes Region Fac.
New Jersey

New Mexico
Southern New Mexico Corr. Fac.
New York
Attica Corr. Fac.

2.7%

1.1%

5.3%

2.8%

9.6%

Bare Hill Corr. Fac.

6.0

3.5

10.2

6.8%

1.8

0.7

4.3

Bayview Corr. Fac.g

10.2

7.3

14.2

4.4

2.6

7.3

Cape Vincent Corr. Fac.

0.4

0.1

2.1

0.6

0.1

2.8

Clinton Corr. Fac.

3.1

1.4

6.6

1.6

0.6

4.1

Coxsackie Corr. Fac.

3.3

1.9

5.9

2.4

1.1

5.3

Elmira Corr. Fac.

8.0

4.8

13.0

1.8

0.6

5.0

Walkill Corr. Fac.

0.9

0.3

2.9

2.3

0.9

5.9

North Carolina
Brown Creek Corr. Inst.

1.2%

0.4%

3.9%

0.5%

0.1%

2.6%

Guilford Corr. Ctr.

0.0

0.0

7.6

0.0

0.0

7.6

Pender Corr. Inst.

1.1

0.4

3.6

0.7

0.1

3.2

Swannanoa Corr. Ctr. for Womeng

0.0

0.0

6.4

1.3

0.5

3.4

Warren Corr. Ctr.

3.5

1.8

7.0

3.4

1.4

8.1

54

August 2010

Appendix Table 4 (continued)
Percent of prison inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual contacts, by facility, National Inmate Survey,
2008-09
Nonconsensual sexual actsa

Abusive sexual contacts onlyb

95%-confidence intervalc

95%-confidence intervalc

Percent
victimizedd

Lower bound

Upper bound

Dakota Women’s Corr. & Rehab. Ctr.g

2.1%

1.0%

4.3%

0.9%

0.3%

2.5%

James River Corr. Ctr.

0.4

0.1

1.6

2.5

1.0

5.9

0.7%

0.2%

2.3%

0.4%

0.1%

2.2%

Facility name

Percent
victimizedd

Lower bound

Upper bound

North Dakota

Ohio
Corr. Reception Ctr.
Lebanon Corr. Inst.

3.6

2.0

6.6

2.0

0.8

5.0

Mansfield Corr. Inst.

1.9

0.7

5.3

2.5

1.1

5.6

Ohio Reformatory for Womeng

3.2

1.6

6.1

4.5

2.5

7.9

Southeastern Corr. Inst.

5.3

2.7

9.9

0.0

0.0

2.6

Oklahoma
Davis Corr. Fac.h

6.9%

4.1%

11.4%

2.3%

1.0%

5.0%

Mack H. Alford Corr. Ctr.

5.1

2.4

10.4

2.8

1.0

7.8

2.3%

1.0%

4.8%

2.7%

8.4%

Oregon
Coffee Creek Corr. Fac.g

5.4%

Pennsylvania
Camp Hill State Corr. Inst.

1.2%

0.3%

4.4%

0.0%

0.0%

1.6%

Coal Township State Corr. Inst.

2.3

1.0

5.0

1.6

0.7

4.0

Cresson State Corr. Inst.

3.6

2.0

6.5

2.0

0.9

4.4

0.6%

0.1%

2.7%

0.0%

0.0%

3.2%

1.1%

0.3%

3.8%

2.0%

0.8%

5.2%

Rhode Island
Maximum Security Fac.
South Carolina
Goodman Corr. Inst.g
Ridgeland Corr. Inst.

5.3

3.1

8.7

0.9

0.3

3.1

Trenton Corr. Inst.

0.9

0.3

2.7

0.5

0.1

2.4

4.5%

2.1%

9.5%

1.6%

0.6%

4.4%

5.6%

3.4%

9.3%

0.0%

0.0%

1.7%

South Dakota
Mike Durfee State Prison & Trusty Unit
Tennessee
West Tennessee State Penitentiary
Texas
Allred Unit

6.5%

3.7%

11.2%

4.4%

2.0%

9.2%

Beto Unit

6.0

3.6

9.8

1.3

0.5

3.7

Bridgeport Pre-Parole Fac.g,h

0.0

0.0

2.9

0.0

0.0

2.9

C. Moore Transfer Fac.

0.4

0.1

1.9

0.0

0.0

2.0

Coffield Unit

3.6

1.8

6.8

1.2

0.3

4.4

Cole State Jail

0.5

0.1

2.4

2.6

1.1

5.9

Crain Unitg

2.6

1.1

5.8

1.9

0.8

4.6

Ferguson Unit

7.3

4.4

11.9

1.2

0.5

3.2

Halbert Substance Abuse Felony Punishment Fac.g

0.0

0.0

1.6

0.9

0.3

2.5

Hobby Unitg

2.3

1.1

4.6

3.2

1.7

5.8

Hughes Unit

3.9

1.9

7.7

6.4

3.5

11.3

Jester Unit III

1.2

0.4

3.8

1.0

0.3

3.7

Lindsey State Jailh

1.5

0.6

4.1

0.3

0.1

1.6

Michael Unit

7.6

4.4

12.8

1.5

0.4

5.2

Mountain View Unitg

4.8

2.4

9.4

5.6

2.9

10.6

Neal Unit

2.9

1.3

6.5

1.4

0.5

3.7

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09

55

Appendix Table 4 (continued)
Percent of prison inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual contacts, by facility, National Inmate Survey,
2008-09
Nonconsensual sexual actsa

Abusive sexual contacts onlyb

95%-confidence intervalc
Facility name

Percent
victimizedd

Lower bound

Upper bound

95%-confidence intervalc
Percent
victimizedd

Lower bound

Upper bound

Texas (continued)
Plane State Jailg

0.0%

0.0%

1.6%

2.8%

1.2%

6.1%

Smith Unit

2.3

0.9

5.6

3.2

1.4

7.3

Telford Unit

7.3

4.3

11.9

0.4

0.1

2.4

1.1%

0.4%

2.9%

1.2%

0.5%

3.4%

6.2%

4.0%

9.3%

0.0%

0.0%

3.9%

Utah
Central Utah Corr. Fac.
Vermont
Northwest State Corr. Fac.
Virginia
Fluvanna Corr. Ctr.g

10.5%

7.0%

15.4%

3.8%

2.0%

7.2%

Haynesville Corr. Ctr.

1.5

0.6

4.1

1.0

0.3

3.2

Lawrenceville Corr. Ctr.h

2.6

1.1

5.9

1.2

0.3

4.1

Airway Heights Corr. Ctr.

2.0%

0.8%

4.8%

1.5%

0.5%

4.1%

Washington Corr. Ctr. for Womeng

4.2

2.2

7.8

1.8

0.8

4.3

6.0%

3.0%

11.5%

0.8%

0.1%

3.9%

Washington

West Virginia
Mount Olive Corr. Complex
Wisconsin
Dodge Corr. Inst.f

1.0%

0.3%

3.3%

0.0%

0.0%

1.9%

New Lisbon Corr. Inst.

2.5

0.9

6.9

0.0

0.0

3.4

Taycheedah Corr. Inst.g

6.5

4.0

10.3

6.4

3.7

10.8

Waupun Corr. Inst.

5.1

2.3

10.9

0.0

0.0

3.3

2.8%

1.5%

5.3%

0.0%

0.0%

3.2%

Wyoming
Wyoming Honor Farm
Federal Facilities (Bureau of Prisons)
Big Sandy - Camp

0.0%

0.0%

6.5%

0.0%

0.0%

6.5%

Brooklyn Metropolitan Det. Ctr.e

0.7

0.1

3.4

0.0

0.0

1.6

Bryan Fed. Prison Campg

0.6

0.1

2.7

1.7

0.6

4.4

Carswell Fed. Med. Ctr.g

2.0

0.7

5.5

2.9

1.2

6.6

Coleman I U.S. Penitentiary

5.0

2.3

10.3

0.0

0.0

2.5

Coleman Medium Fed. Corr. Inst.f

0.7

0.1

3.6

0.0

0.0

2.1

Danbury Fed. Corr. Inst.g

0.0

0.0

2.0

1.4

0.4

4.6

Elkton Fed. Corr. Inst.

0.0

0.0

2.1

0.0

0.0

2.1

Englewood Fed. Corr. Inst.

0.5

0.1

2.3

1.4

0.5

3.8

Fairton Fed. Corr. Inst.

1.0

0.2

5.0

0.6

0.1

3.0

Florence Fed. Corr. Inst.

1.4

0.3

7.3

0.0

0.0

4.8

Forrest City Low Fed. Corr. Inst.

1.6

0.6

4.3

0.0

0.0

1.8

Jesup-Fed. Satellite Low

0.0

0.0

2.4

0.9

0.2

4.2

Morgantown Fed. Corr. Inst.

0.0

0.0

2.4

0.0

0.0

2.4

Oakdale Fed. Corr. Inst.

1.0

0.2

4.8

0.0

0.0

1.9

Petersburg Medium Fed. Corr. Inst.

3.4

1.4

8.1

0.4

0.1

2.4

56

August 2010

Appendix Table 4 (continued)
Percent of prison inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual contacts, by facility, National Inmate Survey,
2008-09
Nonconsensual sexual actsa

Abusive sexual contacts onlyb

95%-confidence intervalc
Facility name

Percent
victimizedd

Lower bound

Upper bound

95%-confidence intervalc
Percent
victimizedd

Lower bound

Upper bound

Federal Facilities (Bureau of Prisons)
Schuylkill Fed. Corr. Inst.

2.2

0.8

5.5

0.0

0.0

2.3

Texarkana Fed. Corr. Inst.

1.2%

0.2%

6.0%

0.0%

0.0%

2.8%

Victorville U.S. Penitentiary

2.4

0.8

6.5

0.0

0.0

2.9

Note: Detail may not sum to total percent victimized within facility due to rounding.
aIncludes all inmates who reported unwanted contacts with another inmate or unwilling contacts with staff that involved oral sex, anal sex, vaginal sex, handjobs, and other sexual acts
occurring in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if shorter.
bIncludes all inmates who reported unwanted contacts with another inmate or unwilling contacts with staff that involved touching of the inmate’s butt, thighs, penis, breasts, or vagina in
a sexual way occurring in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if shorter.
cIndicates that different samples in the same facility would yield prevalence rates falling between the lower and upper bound estimates 95 out of 100 times.
dWeights were applied so that inmates who responded accurately reflected the entire population of each facility on select characteristics, including age, sex, race, time served, and
sentence length. (See Methodology.)
eFacility houses both males and females; both were sampled at this facility.
fFacility houses both males and females; only males were sampled at this facility.
gFemale facility.
hPrivately operated facility.

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09

57

Appendix Table 5
Characteristics of jails and prevalence of sexual victimization, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09
Inmates reporting sexual victimizationa
95%-confidence intervalb
Facility name
Total

Number of inmates
in custodyc
224,484

Respondents to sexual
victimization surveyd

Response ratee Percentf Lower bound Upper bound

45,126

68%

3.1%

2.9%

3.3%

Alabama
Chilton Co. Jail

152

98

86%

3.5%

2.2%

Houston Co. Jail

528

216

89

7.4

5.0

5.6%
10.7

Madison Co. Det. Fac.

890

293

71

7.2

5.1

9.9

Montgomery Co. Det. Fac.

567

243

90

3.1

1.9

5.1

Russell Co. Jail

323

174

86

3.2

1.9

5.3

Maricopa Co. - Durango Jail

2,178

281

83%

3.0%

1.7%

5.4%
4.0

Arizona
Maricopa Co. - Tent City Jail

970

254

84

1.9

0.9

Maricopa Co. - Towers Jail

992

237

77

6.2

3.9

9.9

Mohave Co. Jail

515

190

77

4.8

3.0

7.5

1,890

260

77

1.0

0.4

2.7

35

25

93%

0.0%

0.0%

13.3%

Faulkner Co. Det. Ctr.

191

129

84

3.5

2.3

5.2

Garland Co. Adult Det. Ctr.

261

130

74

5.8

3.7

9.1

43

34

92

0.0

0.0

10.2

523

186

76%

2.7%

1.4%

5.3%

Pima Co. Adult Det. Ctr.
Arkansas
Drew Co. Det. Fac.

Sharp Co. Det. Ctr.
California
Butte Co. Jail
Fresno Co. - Main Jail, North Annex, & South Annex

3,268

231

55

4.9

2.8

8.5

Kern Co. - Lerdo Min. Security Fac.

615

230

85

2.4

1.3

4.6

Lake Co. - Hill Road Corr. Fac.

233

111

57

0.5

0.2

1.9

Los Angeles Co. - Pitchess Det. Ctr. - East Fac.

2,033

251

75

3.8

2.0

7.1

Los Angeles Co. - Pitchess Det. Ctr. - North Fac.

1,240

212

66

1.0

0.3

3.7

Los Angeles Co. - Men’s Central Jail

5,512

234

53

5.0

2.4

10.0

Madera Co. Jail

430

164

64

4.9

3.0

8.1

Mendocino Co. Jail

336

160

69

2.8

1.3

5.9

Monterey Co. Jail

1,082

198

65

3.7

1.9

7.3

Orange Co. - Central Jail Complex

2,675

236

72

3.0

1.6

5.8

732

224

76

2.2

1.1

4.4

Orange Co. - J.A. Musick Fac.
Riverside Co. - Robert Presley Det. Ctr.

1,250

162

51

4.7

2.4

9.0

Riverside Co. - Southwest Det. Ctr.

1,164

191

58

3.1

1.4

6.6

Sacramento Co. - Main Jail

2,688

258

68

5.4

3.3

8.9

San Bernardino Co. - Central Det. Ctr

1,059

211

70

0.7

0.2

2.2

San Bernardino Co. - West Valley Det. Ctr.

3,180

320

44

5.1

3.3

7.7

San Diego Co. - Central Det. Fac.

11.1

1,077

174

56

6.7

4.0

San Diego Co. - Descanso Det. Fac.

340

141

73

1.8

0.9

3.7

San Francisco Co. - County Jail #8

413

123

73

6.0

3.8

9.3

San Joaquin Co. Jail

1,699

215

66

2.8

1.2

6.3

San Mateo Co. - Maguire Corr. Fac.

1,033

177

64

1.6

0.6

4.1
17.8

Santa Cruz Co. - Blaine Street Fac.g

17

13

82

7.7

3.1

Solano Co. - Sentenced Det. Fac.

360

118

67

0.7

0.2

2.7

Sonoma Co. - North Det. Fac.

323

166

81

1.6

0.8

3.2

58

August 2010

Appendix Table 5 (continued)
Characteristics of jails and prevalence of sexual victimization, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09
Inmates reporting sexual victimizationa
95%-confidence intervalb
Facility name

Number of inmates
in custodyc

Respondents to sexual
victimization surveyd

Response ratee Percentf Lower bound Upper bound

Colorado
Adams Co. Det. Fac.

1,548

214

65%

1.1%

0.5%

2.6%

Arapahoe Co. Jail

1,293

227

67

2.8

1.3

5.7

El Paso Co. - Criminal Justice Ctr.

1,603

251

63

1.7

0.7

4.1

Jefferson Co. Jail

1,179

239

69

1.4

0.6

3.3

94

66

73

3.3

1.6

6.8

3,136

167

46%

6.0%

3.1%

11.0%

Logan Co. Jail
District of Columbia
D.C. Dept of Corr. - Central Det. Fac. & Corr. Treatment Fac.
Florida
Bay Co. Jail

801

226

79%

2.3%

1.1%

4.7%

Broward Co. - Joseph V. Conte Fac.

1,362

234

75

3.5

1.8

6.4

Broward Co. - Main Jail

1,602

181

57

4.6

2.5

8.2

767

209

74

4.5

2.7

7.5

1,071

237

77

3.2

1.7

5.7

534

140

59

3.2

1.5

6.8

91

60

73

2.2

0.8

5.9

454

167

66

1.7

0.7

3.9

Broward Co. - North Broward Bureau
Broward Co. - Paul Rein Det. Fac.
Charlotte Co. Jail
Hardee Co. Jail
Highlands Co. Jail
Hillsborough Co. - Falkenburg Road Jail
Jacksonville - James I. Montgomery Corr. Ctr.

2,697

250

68

2.1

0.9

4.5

600

250

93

2.1

1.1

3.9
3.9

Marion Co. Jail

1,516

270

80

1.8

0.8

Miami-Dade Co. - Metro West Det. Ctr.

2,389

233

66

1.7

0.7

4.2

Miami-Dade Co. - Pre-trial Det. Ctr.

1,780

158

50

7.8

4.9

12.2
5.5

Monroe Co. Det. Ctr.

611

192

81

2.9

1.5

Nassau Co. Det. Fac.

271

168

87

0.7

0.2

1.9

Okaloosa Co. Jail

525

224

83

2.6

1.4

4.5

Osceola Co. Jail

1,257

207

69

1.0

0.3

3.4

Palm Beach Co. - Main Det. Ctr.

2,103

218

63

2.4

1.1

4.9
5.7

804

239

85

3.4

2.0

Polk Co. - Central County Jail

Pinellas Co. Med. Security Fac.

1,033

226

63

1.6

0.7

4.0

St. Lucie Co. Main Jail

1,458

268

79

2.5

1.2

5.1

Volusia Co. Branch Jail

1,030

248

80

2.2

1.1

4.7

218

148

85

3.3

2.1

5.0

Walton Co. Jail
Georgia
Atlanta City Jail

1,071

188

71%

4.5%

2.4%

8.2%

Bulloch Co. Jail

416

210

93

5.0

3.4

7.3

Chatham Co. Det. Ctr.

1,960

255

64

1.4

0.6

3.3

438

182

83

1.5

0.7

3.2

Clayton Co. Jail

1,828

248

78

1.6

0.8

3.5

Cobb Co. - Jail & Prison Unit

2,630

276

84

2.1

0.9

4.6

211

184

91

0.0

0.0

2.0

3,713

263

76

4.3

2.5

7.4

Clarke Co. Jail

Coweta Co. Prison
Dekalb Co. Jail
Fulton Co. - Alpharetta Annex

50

33

81

0.0

0.0

10.4

Gilmer Co. Jail

125

54

54

0.0

0.0

6.6

Houston Co. Jail

579

186

75

1.9

0.9

4.1

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09

59

Appendix Table 5 (continued)
Characteristics of jails and prevalence of sexual victimization, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 200-09
Inmates reporting sexual victimizationa
95%-confidence intervalb
Facility name

Number of inmates
in custodyc

Respondents to sexual
victimization surveyd

Response ratee Percentf Lower bound Upper bound

Georgia (continued)
Jackson Co. Jail

163

84

63%

0.0%

0.0%

Jasper Co. Jail

30

19

79

0.0

0.0

16.8

4.4%

Lowndes Co. Jail

805

243

81

2.3

1.2

4.4

Muscogee Co. Prison

592

232

86

2.2

1.1

4.2

Richmond Co. - Charles B. Webster Det. Ctr.

696

219

80

3.2

1.7

5.7

Roswell City Jail

40

9

53

0.0

0.0

29.9

Turner Co. Jail

48

21

65

0.0

0.0

15.5

Ware Co. Jail

387

212

93

4.1

2.7

6.1

Canyon Co. Jail

475

194

76%

3.5%

2.0%

6.0%

Madison Co. Jail

78

40

56

1.1

0.3

3.9

Cook Co. Jail - Division 1

1,175

265

81%

5.2%

3.3%

8.0%

Idaho

Illinois
Cook Co. Jail - Division 6

1,026

268

86

6.4

4.4

9.3

Cook Co. Jail - Division 9

864

195

65

5.0

2.9

8.5

DuPage Co. Jail

855

215

71

3.6

2.0

6.3

LaSalle Co. Jail

210

118

77

3.9

2.3

6.5

Vermilion Co. Jail

225

143

86

3.1

1.9

5.0

Winnebago Co. Jail

842

204

69

4.3

2.5

7.5

102

72

85%

1.3%

0.6%

3.0%

Indiana
Boone Co. Jail
Brown Co. Jail
Madison Co. Det. Ctr.
Marion Co. Jail IIh

40

22

77

0.0

0.0

14.9

312

158

78

5.5

3.8

8.0

1,378

218

67

3.4

1.7

7.0

Pulaski Co. Jail

107

88

95

1.9

1.2

2.8

Vigo Co. Jail

318

148

80

6.5

4.3

9.6

Black Hawk Co. Jail

224

140

78%

2.7%

1.6%

4.4%

Linn Co. Corr. Ctr.

305

126

58

4.1

2.0

8.0

Butler Co. Jail

216

121

71%

3.9%

2.4%

6.4%

Johnson Co. - New Century Adult Det. Ctr.

313

112

64

2.4

1.0

5.5

Iowa

Kansas

Rice Co. Jail

45

13

38

0.0

0.0

22.8

1,405

187

69

2.1

1.0

4.6

Campbell Co. Det. Ctr.

379

184

77%

2.7%

1.5%

4.8%

Floyd Co. Det. Ctr.

170

87

64

3.2

1.4

7.0

Franklin Co. Regional Jail

306

110

71

0.0

0.0

3.4

Henderson Co. Det. Ctr.

554

177

69

1.5

0.6

3.7

Jessamine Co. Det. Ctr.

137

46

44

0.0

0.0

7.7

Sedgwick Co. Jail
Kentucky

Louisville Metro Dept. of Corr. - Community Corr. Ctr.
Louisville Metro Dept. of Corr. - Metro Corr. Fac.
Warren Co. Regional Jail

60

204

88

56

2.8

1.3

5.9

1,782

225

68

2.0

0.9

4.3

535

192

71

3.3

1.7

6.1

August 2010

Appendix Table 5 (continued)
Characteristics of jails and prevalence of sexual victimization, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09
Inmates reporting sexual victimizationa
95%-confidence intervalb
Facility name

Number of inmates
in custodyc

Respondents to sexual
victimization surveyd

Response ratee Percentf Lower bound Upper bound

Louisiana
Calcasieu Parish Corr. Ctr.

1,244

253

77%

2.6%

1.3%

5.4%

Morehouse Parish Det. Ctr.

231

176

93

1.1

0.6

2.2

Natchitoches Det. Ctr.

438

201

88

1.3

0.6

2.5

Orleans Parish - Conchetta Jail

442

141

62

3.2

1.5

6.8

Orleans Parish - Old Parish Prison

997

263

72

3.1

1.7

5.6

Orleans Parish - South White Street Jailg

209

138

83

8.9

6.7

11.7

Orleans Parish - Templeman Phase III

914

201

57

5.1

3.0

8.5

Orleans Parish - Templeman Phase V

286

116

54

3.5

2.0

6.2

Ouachita Parish Corr. Fac.

944

256

92

5.2

3.3

8.1

Richland Parish Det. Ctr.

673

270

96

2.8

1.7

4.7

Webster Parish - Bayou Dorcheat Corr. Ctr.

411

203

94

1.7

0.8

3.5

161

93

66%

4.8%

2.5%

9.0%
6.4%

Maine
Kennecec Co. Jail
Maryland
Allegany Co. Det. Ctr.
Baltimore Co. Det. Ctr.
Caroline Co. Jail
Cecil Co. Det. Ctr.
Prince George’s Co. Corr. Ctr.

146

56

47%

0.0%

0.0%

1,424

159

52

4.0

1.9

8.1

86

32

46

10.0

3.2

27.4

257

117

54

2.7

1.4

5.3

1,264

228

70

3.5

1.9

6.4

1,212

229

51%

3.0%

1.6%

5.5%

199

124

75

0.7

0.2

1.9

Massachusetts
Bristol Co. - Dartmouth Fac.
Bristol Co. - New Bedford Fac.
Hampshire Co. - Jail & House of Corr.

299

158

82

1.0

0.4

2.4

Suffolk Co. House of Corr.

1,799

216

65

4.2

2.0

8.4

Worcester Co. Jail & House of Corr.

1,166

204

67

1.5

0.6

4.0

Michigan
Barry Co. Jail
Jackson Co. - Chanter Road Corr. Fac.
Kent Co. Corr. Fac.

54

36

76%

0.0%

0.0%

9.6%

208

119

69

3.6

2.0

6.4

1,185

215

71

3.8

2.1

6.9

Lenawee Co. Jail

267

141

76

0.9

0.4

2.0

Muskegon Co. Jail

395

195

88

2.9

1.6

5.1

Saginaw Co. Jail

501

158

63

3.0

1.5

5.8

1,606

254

74

2.3

1.1

4.7

Wayne Co. - Andrew C. Baird Det. Fac.
Minnesota
Beltrami Co. Jail

125

37

48%

2.9%

0.7%

10.7%

Morrison Co. Jail

79

39

67

4.2

1.8

9.5

Sherburne Co. Jail

501

128

49

2.3

0.9

5.6

423

213

92%

2.0%

1.1%

3.6%

60

46

86

2.1

1.0

4.7

271

164

80

0.5

0.2

1.6

66

39

73

3.5

1.2

9.3

425

211

87

4.7

3.0

7.2

Mississippi
Bolivar Co. Jail
Copiah Co. Det. Ctr.
Hinds Co. Penal Farm
Issaquena Co. Corr. Fac.
Jackson Co. Jail

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09

61

Appendix Table 5 (continued)
Characteristics of jails and prevalence of sexual victimization, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09
Inmates reporting sexual victimizationa
95%-confidence intervalb
Facility name

Number of inmates
in custodyc

Respondents to sexual
victimization surveyd

Response ratee Percentf Lower bound Upper bound

Mississippi (continued)
16

12

93%

0.0%

0.0%

24.3%

Rankin Co. Jail

Lee. Co. Work Ctr.

409

182

72

6.0

3.6

9.7

Winston-Choctaw Co. Regional Corr. Fac.

327

188

87

3.4

2.1

5.6

1,065

231

70%

5.4%

3.4%

8.5%

Missouri
Jackson Co. Det. Ctr.
Jefferson Co. Jail

218

127

81

5.5

3.7

7.9

Joplin City Jail

73

29

82

2.5

1.0

6.3

Lincoln Co. Jail

188

94

66

3.3

1.7

6.4

St. Louis - Med. Security Inst. & City Justice Ctr.

789

150

57

5.8

3.4

9.6

Buffalo Co. Jail

76

40

75%

0.0%

0.0%

Dodge Co. Jail

39

18

49

0.0

0.0

17.6

1,321

196

58

4.0

1.9

8.0

Nebraska

Douglas Co. Corr. Ctr.

8.8%

Nevada
Carson City Jail
North Las Vegas Det. Ctr.

228

136

77%

0.8%

0.3%

2.0%

1,031

213

66

1.1

0.3

3.4

337

151

72%

2.8%

1.3%

6.3%

New Hampshire
Rockingham Co. Jail & House of Corr.
New Jersey
Atlantic Co. - Gerard L. Gormley Justice Fac.

1,088

139

46

2.5

0.7

8.8

Camden Co. Jail

1,771

184

55%

2.8%

1.2%

6.2%

Essex Co. Corr. Fac.

3,470

254

55

3.5

1.8

6.5

Passaic Co. Jail

1,357

262

82

0.4

0.1

2.1

217

76

43

1.0

0.2

3.8

Chaves Co. Det. Ctr.

255

152

79%

3.3%

2.0%

5.6%

Lea Co. Det. Fac.

281

36

15

0.0

0.0

9.6

85

60

78

1.7

0.7

4.3

Columbia Co. Jail

105

62

73%

2.6%

1.2%

5.6%

Livingston Co. Jail

93

53

72

2.6

1.1

5.8

1,478

200

61

2.7

0.9

8.1

Sussex Co. - Walter Keogh Dwyer Corr. Fac.
New Mexico

Roosevelt Co. Det. Ctr.
New York

Monroe Co. Jail
Nassau Co. Corr. Ctr.
New York City - Eric M. Taylor Ctr.
New York City - Manhattan Det. Ctr.

538

154

54

4.1

2.2

7.5

1,503

198

63

2.6

1.1

5.7

985

126

33

4.8

2.3

9.6

1,019

171

43

4.4

2.4

7.9

442

149

65

1.7

0.7

4.1

Orleans Co. Jail

75

55

82

5.6

3.5

8.9

Wayne Co. Jail

137

92

78

4.2

2.6

6.7

New York City - Vernon C. Bain Ctr.
Onondaga Co. Penitentiary

62

August 2010

Appendix Table 5 (continued)
Characteristics of jails and prevalence of sexual victimization, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09
Inmates reporting sexual victimizationa
95%-confidence intervalb
Facility name

Number of inmates
in custodyc

Respondents to sexual
victimization surveyd

Response ratee Percentf Lower bound Upper bound

North Carolina
Alamance Co. Jail

533

206

59%

4.0%

2.4%

6.5%

Davidson Co. Jail

234

147

80

1.8

1.0

3.1

Durham Co. Jail

654

220

78

5.2

3.3

8.2

Johnston Co. Jail

236

123

69

0.0

0.0

3.0

McDowell Co. Jail

83

58

82

2.8

1.2

6.4

Orange Co. Jail

182

83

65

0.0

0.0

4.4

Rowan Co. Jail

274

128

63

5.2

2.9

9.0

Wilson Co. Jail

204

68

41

4.5

1.9

9.8

Ashtabula Co. Jail

105

51

57%

0.0%

0.0%

7.0%

Clermont Co. Jail

342

170

82

1.8

0.9

3.6

73

44

87

0.0

0.0

8.0

285

120

70

0.5

0.1

1.6

Ohio

Hamilton Co. - Talbert House - Turning Point Treatment Ctr.
Lake Co. - Adult Max. Security Det. Ctr.

1,052

189

61

1.4

0.5

3.8

Pickaway Co. Jail

Montgomery Co. Jail

149

104

78

1.6

0.8

3.2

Wood Co. Justice Ctr.

167

81

63

3.6

1.4

9.3

Muskogee Co. Jail

336

141

69%

1.9%

0.8%

4.2%

Oklahoma Co. Jail

Oklahoma
2,618

281

66

4.5

2.6

7.7

Pawnee Co. Jail

27

14

60

0.0

0.0

21.5

Texas Co. Jail

72

44

86

0.0

0.0

8.0

1,552

216

59

0.4

0.1

1.8

Deschutes Co. Jail

263

139

76%

3.2%

1.9%

Polk Co. Jail

148

76

78

8.0

5.3

Tulsa Co. - David L. Moss Criminal Justice Ctr.
Oregon

5.5%
12.0

Pennsylvania
Allegheny Co. Jail

3,044

216

60%

2.7%

1.2%

5.9%

Centre Co. Corr. Fac.

232

116

68

4.1

2.4

6.9

Chester Co. Prison

965

241

73

1.1

0.5

2.6

Dauphin Co. Prison

913

239

72

3.7

2.1

6.3

Lackawanna Co. Prison

860

231

73

3.5

1.8

6.6

Lawrence Co. Corr. Fac.
Lehigh Co. Prison
Lycoming Co. Prison
Monroe Co. Corr. Fac.

232

103

61

3.9

2.0

7.5

1,207

247

75

2.7

1.4

5.1

231

56

26

4.4

1.9

10.2

376

157

71

0.8

0.3

2.4

Philadelphia City - Det. Ctr. & Prison Health Services Unit

2,818

165

49

4.0

2.0

7.7

Philadelphia City - House of Corr.

1,765

207

60

2.5

1.1

5.5

Philadelphia City - Industrial Corr. Ctr.

1,170

212

69

6.5

4.2

10.1

69

42

72

3.0

1.0

8.7

521

132

52

2.0

0.8

5.2

Tioga Co. Jail
Westmoreland Co. Prison

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09

63

Appendix Table 5 (continued)
Characteristics of jails and prevalence of sexual victimization, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09
Inmates reporting sexual victimizationa
95%-confidence intervalb
Facility name

Number of inmates
in custodyc

Respondents to sexual
victimization surveyd

Response ratee Percentf Lower bound Upper bound

South Carolina
Georgetown Co. Det. Ctr.
Greenville Co. Det. Fac.

229

81

48%

3.9%

1.4%

10.5%

1,094

245

68

1.4

0.4

4.5

Horry Co. - J. Reuben Long Det. Ctr.

695

226

76

4.6

2.6

8.0

Lancaster Co. Det. Ctr.

181

85

57

2.6

1.0

6.3

1,048

219

71

3.4

1.8

6.3

382

108

49

2.3

0.8

6.6

1

0

100%

:

:

:

Bedford Co. Jail

168

105

84%

1.2%

0.5%

Crockett Co. Jail

40

30

84

4.4

1.8

10.0

618

138

60

2.8

1.2

6.1

Richland Co. Det. Ctr.
York Co. Moss Justice Ctr.
South Dakota
Faulk Co. Jaili
Tennessee

Davidson Co. - Criminal Justice Ctr.
Davidson Co. - Metro Det. Fac.h

2.8%

1,066

259

80

4.3

2.6

6.9

Hamilton Co. Jail

582

211

75

1.2

0.5

2.9

Putnam Co. Jail

246

127

70

0.7

0.2

2.3

Silverdale Penal Farmh

946

233

76

4.0

2.3

7.0

White Co. Jail

142

96

82

3.3

2.1

5.3

Texas
Collin Co. Min. Security Fac.

112

71

79%

4.4%

2.5%

7.6%

Dallas Co. - North Tower

3,118

241

65

1.9

0.8

4.9

Dallas Co. - West Tower

1,529

176

51

4.2

2.2

7.8

Ector Co. Jail

554

112

42

1.9

0.7

5.1

Ellis Co. Jail

367

157

72

2.4

1.2

4.8

Fort Bend Co. Jail

796

190

62

1.6

0.7

3.7

Harris Co. Jail

5,122

260

67

2.4

1.1

5.1

Harris Co. Jail - Baker Street

4,929

279

70

4.6

2.8

7.6

Henderson Co. Jail

288

106

54

2.5

0.9

6.9

Hood Co. Jail

179

129

87

4.5

3.2

6.2

Hunt Co. Criminal Justice Ctr.

385

144

74

1.4

0.6

3.7

Lubbock Co. Jail

814

134

49

1.4

0.4

4.4

Newton Co. Corr. Ctr.h

866

247

81

0.7

0.2

2.3

1,021

245

81

2.1

1.0

4.4

496

157

65

3.4

1.7

6.6

Nueces Co. Jail
Smith Co. Jail - Min. & Med. Security Fac.
Tarrant Co. Corr. Ctr.

2,005

179

54

5.2

2.9

9.2

Tarrant Co. - Green Bay Fac.

1,035

164

51

3.7

1.6

8.1

Terry Co. Jail

147

91

75

1.2

0.4

3.5

Van Zandt Co. Jail

168

106

82

0.0

0.0

3.5

Walker Co. Jail

154

74

57

5.4

2.8

10.1

Webb Co. Jail

604

152

57

2.0

0.8

5.0

Wichita Co. Jail

217

112

66

3.4

1.6

7.0

Utah
Salt Lake Co. Jail

2,168

294

81%

3.9%

2.2%

6.6%

Uintah Co. Jail

114

41

55

0.0

0.0

8.6

Utah Co. Jail

798

239

86

1.7

0.8

3.5

64

August 2010

Appendix Table 5 (continued)
Characteristics of jails and prevalence of sexual victimization, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09
Inmates reporting sexual victimizationa
95%-confidence intervalb
Facility name

Number of inmates
in custodyc

Respondents to sexual
victimization surveyd

Response ratee Percentf Lower bound Upper bound

Virginia
Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail

572

171

66%

4.8%

2.7%

8.4%

Alexandria City Det. Ctr.

485

98

42

1.7

0.5

5.2

1,068

117

36

2.6

0.9

6.7

Eastern Shore Regional Jail

Chesapeake Corr. Ctr.

68

27

49

9.9

4.3

21.5

Fairfax Co. - Adult Det. Ctr.

1,168

197

61

2.3

1.1

4.9

Hampton Roads Regional Jail

1,303

214

66

5.3

3.1

8.8

Loudoun Co. - Adult Det. Ctr.

251

81

50

3.3

1.5

7.1

Middle Peninsula Regional Security Ctr.
Norfolk City Jail
Northwestern Regional Adult Det. Ctr.
Page Co. Jail

124

74

73

6.5

3.9

10.5

1,547

178

52

1.4

0.5

3.9

509

168

70

1.1

0.4

3.3

49

23

67

0.0

0.0

14.3

Roanoke City Jail

851

188

69

5.2

3.0

8.8

Southside Regional Jail

217

89

55

2.6

0.9

6.9

132

75

71%

8.4%

5.2%

13.1%

Washington
Clallam Co. Corr. Fac.
King Co. Corr. Fac.

1,639

229

64

5.5

3.2

9.2

Pierce Co. Det. and Corr. Ctr. - New Jail & Main Jail

1,592

207

60

2.0

0.8

4.8

Spokane Co. - Geiger Corr. Ctr.

444

172

68

3.5

2.0

6.1

Spokane Co. Jail

703

179

65

2.8

1.5

5.4

431

147

63%

6.4%

4.1%

9.9%

130

56

56%

2.9%

1.1%

7.3%

West Virginia
Southwestern Regional Jail
Wisconsin
Chippewa Co. Jail

1,039

100

51

4.2

1.9

9.1

LaCrosse Co. Jail

Dane Co. Jail

236

91

48

5.2

2.5

10.5

Ozaukee Co. Jail

176

104

70

1.9

0.9

4.1

1,019

184

67

3.3

1.6

6.9

323

147

69%

4.8%

3.0%

7.7%

Racine Co. Jail
Wyoming
Natrona Co. Det. Ctr.
:Not available.

aIncludes all types of sexual victimization, including oral, anal, or vaginal penetration, hand jobs, touching of the inmate’s butt, thighs, penis, breasts, or vagina in a sexual way, and other
sexual acts occurring in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if shorter.
bIndicates that different samples in the same facility would yield prevalence rates falling between the lower and upper bound estimates 95 out of 100 times.
cNumber of inmates in the facility on the day of the roster plus any new inmates admitted prior to the first day of data collection.
dNumber of respondents consenting to the sexual victimization survey on NIS. (See Methodology.)
eResponse rate is equal to the number of respondents divided by the number of eligible inmates sampled times 100 percent.
fWeights were applied so that inmates who responded accurately reflected the entire population of each facility on select characteristics, including age, sex, race, time served, and
sentence length. (See Methodology.)
gFemale facility.
hPrivately operated facility.
iSole inmate at time of visit received the alternative questionnaire—no sexual victimization data available for this facility.

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09

65

Appendix Table 6
Percent of jail inmates reporting victimization, by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09
Inmate-on-inmatea

Staff sexual misconducta

95%-confidence intervalb
Facility name
Total

Percent victimizedc

Lower bound Upper bound

95%-confidence intervalb
Percent victimizedc

Lower bound

Upper bound

1.5%

1.4%

1.7%

2.0%

1.9%

2.2%

Chilton Co. Jail

1.0%

0.4%

2.2%

3.5%

2.2%

5.6%

Houston Co. Jail

4.0

2.3

6.7

4.4

2.7

7.0

Madison Co. Det. Fac.

5.5

3.7

7.9

1.7

0.9

3.3

Montgomery Co. Det. Fac.

2.7

1.6

4.6

1.7

0.8

3.3

Russell Co. Jail

0.0

0.0

2.2

3.2

1.9

5.3

Maricopa Co. - Durango Jail

1.5%

0.7%

3.3%

1.5%

0.6%

3.5%

Maricopa Co. - Tent City Jail

1.4

0.6

3.2

0.5

0.1

2.2

Maricopa Co. - Towers Jail

1.9

0.8

4.5

5.1

3.0

8.7

Mohave Co. Jail

2.6

1.3

5.0

2.6

1.4

4.6

Pima Co. Adult Det. Ctr.

0.6

0.2

2.1

0.4

0.1

1.9

Drew Co. Det. Fac.

0.0%

0.0%

13.3%

0.0%

0.0%

13.3%

Faulkner Co. Det. Ctr.

2.8

1.7

4.4

1.5

0.8

2.9

Garland Co. Adult Det. Ctr.

3.3

1.8

6.0

4.3

2.5

7.2

Sharp Co. Det. Ctr.

0.0

0.0

10.2

0.0

0.0

10.2

Butte Co. Jail

0.7%

0.2%

2.7%

2.7%

1.4%

5.3%

Fresno Co. - Main Jail, North Annex, & South Annex

2.5

1.1

5.3

2.8

1.4

5.7

Kern Co. - Lerdo Min. Security Fac.

1.9

0.9

3.8

2.0

1.0

4.0

Lake Co. - Hill Road Corr. Fac.

0.5

0.2

1.9

0.5

0.2

1.9

Los Angeles Co. - Pitchess Det. Ctr. - East Fac.

1.3

0.4

4.2

3.3

1.6

6.5

Los Angeles Co. - Pitchess Det. Ctr. - North Fac.

0.8

0.2

3.6

0.3

0.1

1.4

Los Angeles Co. - Men’s Central Jail

3.0

1.1

7.5

2.4

0.9

6.2

Madera Co. Jail

2.9

1.5

5.6

2.8

1.4

5.5

Mendocino Co. Jail

1.7

0.7

4.3

1.8

0.7

4.6

Monterey Co. Jail

2.6

1.2

5.7

2.5

1.0

5.9

Orange Co. - Central Jail Complex

2.4

1.1

5.0

1.6

0.6

3.9

Orange Co. - J.A. Musick Fac.

0.9

0.3

2.6

1.9

0.9

4.0

Riverside Co. - Robert Presley Det. Ctr.

2.0

0.8

4.8

4.1

2.0

8.2

Riverside Co. - Southwest Det. Ctr.

2.8

1.2

6.3

1.3

0.3

4.8

Sacramento Co. - Main Jail

2.4

1.2

5.0

3.5

1.8

6.5

San Bernardino Co. - Central Det. Ctr

0.4

0.1

1.7

0.4

0.1

1.7

San Bernardino Co. - West Valley Det. Ctr.

2.4

1.3

4.5

3.2

1.9

5.4

San Diego Co. - Central Det. Fac.

3.4

1.6

7.1

3.4

1.7

6.7

San Diego Co. - Descanso Det. Fac.

0.5

0.1

1.6

1.3

0.5

3.1

San Francisco Co. - County Jail #8

2.8

1.4

5.4

3.2

1.7

5.9

San Joaquin Co. Jail

1.1

0.3

4.2

1.7

0.6

4.5

Alabama

Arizona

Arkansas

California

San Mateo Co. - Maguire Corr. Fac.

0.5

0.1

2.5

1.1

0.3

3.3

Santa Cruz Co. - Blaine Street Fac.d

0.0

0.0

22.8

7.7

3.1

17.8

Solano Co. - Sentenced Det. Fac.

0.0

0.0

3.2

0.7

0.2

2.8

Sonoma Co. - North Det. Fac.

1.0

0.4

2.3

0.6

0.2

2.0

66

August 2010

Appendix Table 6 (continued)
Percent of jail inmates reporting victimization, by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09
Inmate-on-inmatea

Staff sexual misconducta

95%-confidence intervalb
Facility name

Percent victimizedc Lower bound Upper bound

95%-confidence intervalb
Percent victimizedc Lower bound

Upper bound

Colorado
Adams Co. Det. Fac.

0.8%

0.3%

2.1%

0.6%

0.2%

2.0%

Arapahoe Co. Jail

1.1

0.4

3.0

1.7

0.6

4.5

El Paso Co. - Criminal Justice Ctr.

1.0

0.3

3.2

0.7

0.2

2.4

Jefferson Co. Jail

1.0

0.4

2.7

0.7

0.2

2.3

Logan Co. Jail

3.3

1.6

6.8

2.0

0.7

5.5

3.1%

1.3%

7.0%

5.5%

2.8%

10.5%

Bay Co. Jail

0.4%

0.1%

1.7%

2.3%

1.1%

4.7%

Broward Co. - Joseph V. Conte Fac.

0.9

0.3

3.1

2.6

1.2

5.2

Broward Co. - Main Jail

1.8

0.7

4.5

3.2

1.6

6.5

Broward Co. - North Broward Bureau

2.5

1.2

5.1

2.5

1.3

4.9

Broward Co. - Paul Rein Det. Fac.

0.7

0.2

2.2

2.8

1.5

5.2

Charlotte Co. Jail

0.9

0.2

4.0

2.3

0.9

5.3

Hardee Co. Jail

0.0

0.0

6.0

2.2

0.8

5.9

Highlands Co. Jail

1.2

0.4

3.5

1.7

0.7

3.9

Hillsborough Co. - Falkenburg Road Jail

1.3

0.4

3.7

1.3

0.5

3.4

Jacksonville - James I. Montgomery Corr. Ctr.

1.3

0.5

2.9

1.2

0.5

2.7

Marion Co. Jail

1.4

0.6

3.4

0.7

0.2

2.4

Miami-Dade Co. - Metro West Det. Ctr.

0.7

0.2

2.3

1.4

0.5

3.8

Miami-Dade Co. - Pre-trial Det. Ctr.

5.1

2.9

9.1

3.5

1.8

6.7

Monroe Co. Det. Ctr.

1.5

0.6

3.5

1.5

0.6

3.5

Nassau Co. Det. Fac.

0.0

0.0

2.2

0.7

0.2

1.9

Okaloosa Co. Jail

0.4

0.1

1.6

2.6

1.4

4.5

Osceola Co. Jail

0.0

0.0

1.8

1.0

0.3

3.4

Palm Beach Co. - Main Det. Ctr.

1.6

0.6

3.9

1.2

0.4

3.2

Pinellas Co. Med. Security Fac.

2.3

1.2

4.3

1.5

0.7

3.3

Polk Co. - Central County Jail

1.6

0.7

4.0

0.0

0.0

1.7

St. Lucie Co. Main Jail

1.8

0.8

4.3

0.7

0.2

2.2

Volusia Co. Branch Jail

1.4

0.6

3.7

1.2

0.5

3.0

Walton Co. Jail

0.6

0.2

1.7

3.3

2.1

5.0

Atlanta City Jail

3.2%

1.6%

6.3%

1.7%

0.6%

4.7%

Bulloch Co. Jail

2.4

1.4

4.2

4.6

3.0

6.8

Chatham Co. Det. Ctr.

0.3

0.1

1.4

1.1

0.4

3.0

Clarke Co. Jail

0.5

0.1

1.9

0.9

0.4

2.4

Clayton Co. Jail

0.7

0.2

2.4

0.9

0.3

2.3

Cobb Co. - Jail & Prison Unit

1.2

0.4

3.3

1.2

0.4

3.3

Coweta Co. Prison

0.0

0.0

2.0

0.0

0.0

2.0

Dekalb Co. Jail

3.5

1.9

6.4

1.5

0.6

3.7

Fulton Co. - Alpharetta Annex

0.0

0.0

10.4

0.0

0.0

10.4

Gilmer Co. Jail

0.0

0.0

6.6

0.0

0.0

6.6

Houston Co. Jail

0.5

0.1

2.2

1.4

0.6

3.2

District of Columbia
D.C. Dept of Corr. - Central Det. Fac. & Corr. Treatment Fac.
Florida

Georgia

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09

67

Appendix Table 6 (continued)
Percent of jail inmates reporting victimization, by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09
Inmate-on-inmatea

Staff sexual misconducta

95%-confidence intervalb
Facility name

Percent victimizedc Lower bound Upper bound

95%-confidence intervalb
Percent victimizedc Lower bound

Upper bound

Georgia (continued)
Jackson Co. Jail

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

Jasper Co. Jail

0.0

0.0

16.8

4.4%

0.0

0.0

16.8

4.4%

Lowndes Co. Jail

0.7

0.2

2.2

1.8

0.9

3.6

Muscogee Co. Prison

0.0

0.0

1.6

2.2

1.1

4.2

Richmond Co. - Charles B. Webster Det. Ctr.

2.3

1.1

4.5

1.5

0.6

3.5

Roswell City Jail

0.0

0.0

29.9

0.0

0.0

29.9

Turner Co. Jail

0.0

0.0

15.5

0.0

0.0

15.5

Ware Co. Jail

3.2

2.0

5.0

0.9

0.4

2.1

Canyon Co. Jail

0.8%

0.3%

2.3%

3.0%

1.6%

5.4%

Madison Co. Jail

0.0

0.0

8.8

1.1

0.3

3.9

Cook Co. Jail - Division 1

1.8%

0.9%

3.5%

4.3%

2.6%

7.1%

Cook Co. Jail - Division 6

2.2

1.1

4.3

5.5

3.6

8.3

Cook Co. Jail - Division 9

2.0

0.8

4.9

3.0

1.5

5.9

DuPage Co. Jail

2.0

0.9

4.4

2.0

0.9

4.1

LaSalle Co. Jail

2.3

1.1

4.8

3.9

2.3

6.5

Vermilion Co. Jail

3.1

1.9

5.0

0.6

0.2

1.5

Winnebago Co. Jail

2.1

0.9

4.6

3.2

1.7

5.9

Boone Co. Jail

1.3%

0.6%

3.0%

0.0%

0.0%

5.1%

Brown Co. Jail

0.0

0.0

14.9

0.0

0.0

Madison Co. Det. Ctr.

3.9

2.5

6.1

2.7

1.6

4.5

Marion Co. Jail IIe

0.5

0.1

2.4

3.4

1.7

7.0

Pulaski Co. Jail

1.0

0.6

1.8

0.9

0.5

1.5

Vigo Co. Jail

3.8

2.2

6.4

4.8

2.9

7.7

Black Hawk Co. Jail

1.4%

0.7%

2.8%

1.9%

1.1%

3.4%

Linn Co. Corr. Ctr.

3.4

1.5

7.3

0.7

0.2

2.5

Butler Co. Jail

1.6%

0.8%

3.5%

3.1%

1.8%

5.3%

Johnson Co. - New Century Adult Det. Ctr.

2.0

0.8

5.2

0.4

0.1

1.4

Rice Co. Jail

0.0

0.0

22.8

0.0

0.0

22.8

Sedgwick Co. Jail

1.1

0.4

3.1

1.3

0.5

3.6

Campbell Co. Det. Ctr.

1.1%

0.4%

2.8%

2.7%

1.5%

4.8%

Floyd Co. Det. Ctr.

1.9

0.6

6.1

1.3

0.5

3.1

Franklin Co. Regional Jail

0.0

0.0

3.4

0.0

0.0

3.4

Henderson Co. Det. Ctr.

0.0

0.0

2.1

1.5

0.6

3.7

Jessamine Co. Det. Ctr.

0.0

0.0

7.7

0.0

0.0

7.7

Louisville Metro Dept. of Corr. - Community Corr. Ctr.

0.9

0.3

3.2

2.8

1.3

5.9

Louisville Metro Dept. of Corr. - Metro Corr. Fac.

0.6

0.2

2.1

1.6

0.7

3.9

Warren Co. Regional Jail

1.2

0.4

3.6

2.0

1.0

4.3

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana
14.9

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

68

August 2010

Appendix Table 6 (continued)
Percent of jail inmates reporting victimization, by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09
Inmate-on-inmatea

Staff sexual misconducta

95%-confidence intervalb
Facility name

Percent victimizedc Lower bound Upper bound

95%-confidence intervalb
Percent victimizedc Lower bound

Upper bound

Louisiana
Calcasieu Parish Corr. Ctr.

1.6%

0.7%

3.6%

1.5%

0.5%

4.0%

Morehouse Parish Det. Ctr.

0.6

0.2

1.4

1.1

0.6

2.2

Natchitoches Det. Ctr.

1.0

0.4

2.2

0.6

0.2

1.6

Orleans Parish - Conchetta Jail

2.1

0.9

4.9

1.8

0.6

5.2

Orleans Parish - Old Parish Prison

1.1

0.4

2.7

2.1

1.0

4.4

Orleans Parish - South White Street Jaild

7.5

5.5

10.2

2.4

1.3

4.2

Orleans Parish - Templeman Phase III

3.4

1.8

6.2

3.5

1.8

6.6

Orleans Parish - Templeman Phase V

0.6

0.2

2.2

3.5

2.0

6.2

Ouachita Parish Corr. Fac.

2.9

1.6

5.4

2.2

1.1

4.3

Richland Parish Det. Ctr.

2.8

1.7

4.7

0.4

0.1

1.4

Webster Parish - Bayou Dorcheat Corr. Ctr.

1.7

0.8

3.5

0.6

0.2

2.0

3.8%

1.7%

7.9%

4.1%

1.9%

8.3%

Allegany Co. Det. Ctr.

0.0%

0.0%

6.4%

0.0%

0.0%

6.4%

Baltimore Co. Det. Ctr.

0.5

0.1

2.7

3.5

1.6

7.5

Caroline Co. Jail

7.9

2.0

26.6

10.0

3.2

27.4

Cecil Co. Det. Ctr.

2.0

0.9

4.4

2.2

1.0

4.8

Prince George’s Co. Corr. Ctr.

1.2

0.4

3.5

2.9

1.5

5.7

Bristol Co. - Dartmouth Fac.

1.6%

0.7%

3.4%

1.4%

0.5%

3.6%

Bristol Co. - New Bedford Fac.

0.0

0.0

3.0

0.7

0.2

1.9

Hampshire Co. - Jail & House of Corr.

0.5

0.1

1.5

0.6

0.2

1.8

Suffolk Co. House of Corr.

1.8

0.7

4.4

3.7

1.7

7.8

Worcester Co. Jail & House of Corr.

1.5

0.6

4.0

0.0

0.0

1.8

Barry Co. Jail

0.0%

0.0%

9.6%

0.0%

0.0%

9.6%

Jackson Co. - Chanter Road Corr. Fac.

1.2

0.4

3.5

2.4

1.2

4.7

Kent Co. Corr. Fac.

3.0

1.5

5.9

2.0

0.8

4.5

Lenawee Co. Jail

0.4

0.1

1.3

0.9

0.4

2.0

Muskegon Co. Jail

1.3

0.5

3.1

1.6

0.8

3.4

Saginaw Co. Jail

1.7

0.7

4.0

1.8

0.8

4.3

Wayne Co. - Andrew C. Baird Det. Fac.

0.4

0.1

2.0

2.3

1.1

4.7

Beltrami Co. Jail

0.0%

0.0%

9.4%

2.9%

0.7%

10.7%

Morrison Co. Jail

2.1

0.6

6.6

4.2

1.8

9.5

Sherburne Co. Jail

1.4

0.5

4.3

1.6

0.5

4.8

Bolivar Co. Jail

0.0%

0.0%

1.8%

2.0%

1.1%

3.6%

Copiah Co. Det. Ctr.

2.1

1.0

4.7

2.1

1.0

4.7

Hinds Co. Penal Farm

0.5

0.2

1.6

0.5

0.2

1.6

Issaquena Co. Corr. Fac.

3.5

1.2

9.3

0.0

0.0

9.0

Jackson Co. Jail

2.3

1.2

4.1

2.4

1.3

4.4

Maine
Kennecec Co. Jail
Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09

69

Appendix Table 6 (continued)
Percent of jail inmates reporting victimization, by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09
Inmate-on-inmatea

Staff sexual misconducta

95%-confidence intervalb
Facility name

Percent victimizedc Lower bound Upper bound

95%-confidence intervalb
Percent victimizedc Lower bound

Upper bound

Mississippi (continued)
Lee. Co. Work Ctr.

0.0

0.0

24.3

0.0%

0.0%

24.3%

Rankin Co. Jail

1.5

0.7

3.4

4.9

2.8

8.5

Winston-Choctaw Co. Regional Corr. Fac.

0.6

0.2

1.9

3.4

2.1

5.6

Jackson Co. Det. Ctr.

2.2%

1.1%

4.7%

3.2%

1.8%

5.7%

Jefferson Co. Jail

4.0

2.5

6.2

1.5

0.7

2.9

Joplin City Jail

0.0

0.0

11.7

2.5

1.0

6.3

Lincoln Co. Jail

2.0

0.9

4.5

2.6

1.2

5.7

St. Louis - Med. Security Inst. & City Justice Ctr.

0.5

0.1

2.1

5.3

3.1

9.1

Buffalo Co. Jail

0.0%

0.0%

8.8%

0.0%

0.0%

Dodge Co. Jail

0.0

0.0

17.6

0.0

0.0

17.6

Douglas Co. Corr. Ctr.

1.0

0.3

3.8

3.7

1.7

7.8

Carson City Jail

0.8%

0.3%

2.0%

0.8%

0.3%

2.0%

North Las Vegas Det. Ctr.

0.0

0.0

1.8

1.1

0.3

3.4

0.0%

0.0%

2.5%

2.8%

1.3%

6.3%

Atlantic Co. - Gerard L. Gormley Justice Fac.

1.8%

0.4%

8.7%

0.7%

0.1%

3.5%

Camden Co. Jail

0.6

0.1

3.2

2.2

0.9

5.3

Essex Co. Corr. Fac.

1.9

0.8

4.6

2.1

1.0

4.7

Passaic Co. Jail

0.4

0.1

2.1

0.0

0.0

1.4

Sussex Co. - Walter Keogh Dwyer Corr. Fac.

0.0

0.0

4.8

1.0

0.2

3.8

Chaves Co. Det. Ctr.

1.6%

0.7%

3.6%

1.7%

0.9%

3.2%

Lea Co. Det. Fac.

0.0

0.0

9.6

0.0

0.0

9.6

Roosevelt Co. Det. Ctr.

0.0

0.0

6.0

1.7

0.7

4.3

Columbia Co. Jail

1.1%

0.4%

3.2%

1.5%

0.5%

4.3%

Livingston Co. Jail

1.3

0.4

4.0

2.6

1.1

5.8

Monroe Co. Jail

0.4

0.1

2.2

2.3

0.6

8.0

Nassau Co. Corr. Ctr.

2.2

1.0

4.8

2.5

1.1

5.4

New York City - Eric M. Taylor Ctr.

0.8

0.3

2.8

1.7

0.6

4.8

New York City - Manhattan Det. Ctr.

1.2

0.4

4.1

3.5

1.5

8.1

New York City - Vernon C. Bain Ctr.

1.4

0.5

3.7

4.1

2.2

7.5

Onondaga Co. Penitentiary

0.5

0.1

2.2

1.2

0.4

3.4

Orleans Co. Jail

0.0

0.0

6.5

5.6

3.5

8.9

Wayne Co. Jail

1.0

0.4

2.6

3.1

1.8

5.4

Missouri

Nebraska
8.8%

Nevada

New Hampshire
Rockingham Co. Jail & House of Corr.
New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

70

August 2010

Appendix Table 6 (continued)
Percent of jail inmates reporting victimization, by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09
Inmate-on-inmatea

Staff sexual misconducta

95%-confidence intervalb
Facility name

Percent victimizedc Lower bound Upper bound

95%-confidence intervalb
Percent victimizedc Lower bound

Upper bound

North Carolina
Alamance Co. Jail

1.8%

0.9%

3.4%

2.6%

1.4%

4.9%

Davidson Co. Jail

1.8

1.0

3.1

0.5

0.2

1.4

Durham Co. Jail

2.3

1.1

5.0

2.9

1.6

5.0

Johnston Co. Jail

0.0

0.0

3.0

0.0

0.0

3.0

McDowell Co. Jail

2.8

1.2

6.4

0.0

0.0

6.2

Orange Co. Jail

0.0

0.0

4.4

0.0

0.0

4.4

Rowan Co. Jail

1.3

0.4

4.3

5.2

2.9

9.0

Wilson Co. Jail

1.6

0.4

6.3

4.5

1.9

9.8

Ashtabula Co. Jail

0.0%

0.0%

7.0%

0.0%

0.0%

7.0%

Clermont Co. Jail

1.2

0.5

2.7

1.2

0.5

2.9

Hamilton Co. - Talbert House - Turning Point Treatment Ctr.

0.0

0.0

8.0

0.0

0.0

8.0

Lake Co. - Adult Max. Security Det. Ctr.

0.0

0.0

3.1

0.5

0.1

1.6

Montgomery Co. Jail

1.4

0.5

3.8

0.0

0.0

2.0

Pickaway Co. Jail

0.8

0.3

2.1

0.8

0.3

2.0

Wood Co. Justice Ctr.

3.6

1.4

9.3

0.8

0.2

2.5

Muskogee Co. Jail

1.9%

0.8%

4.2%

1.3%

0.5%

3.6%

Oklahoma Co. Jail

3.2

1.6

6.3

1.5

0.7

3.2

Pawnee Co. Jail

0.0

0.0

21.5

0.0

0.0

21.5

Texas Co. Jail

0.0

0.0

8.0

0.0

0.0

8.0

Tulsa Co. - David L. Moss Criminal Justice Ctr.

0.0

0.0

1.7

0.4

0.1

1.8

Deschutes Co. Jail

2.0%

1.0%

3.9%

2.0%

1.0%

4.0%

Polk Co. Jail

3.0

1.5

6.1

5.1

3.0

8.5

Allegheny Co. Jail

2.1%

0.8%

5.3%

0.6%

0.2%

2.2%

Centre Co. Corr. Fac.

0.7

0.2

2.4

3.4

1.9

6.0

Chester Co. Prison

1.1

0.5

2.6

0.0

0.0

1.6

Dauphin Co. Prison

1.3

0.5

3.1

2.9

1.6

5.4

Lackawanna Co. Prison

2.7

1.3

5.7

0.8

0.3

2.3

Lawrence Co. Corr. Fac.

2.2

0.9

5.5

2.9

1.3

6.1

Lehigh Co. Prison

1.1

0.4

2.9

2.0

0.9

4.2

Lycoming Co. Prison

1.6

0.5

5.0

3.7

1.4

9.4

Monroe Co. Corr. Fac.

0.8

0.3

2.4

0.0

0.0

2.4

Philadelphia City - Det. Ctr. & Prison Health Services Unit

1.2

0.3

4.0

3.5

1.6

7.1

Philadelphia City - House of Corr.

1.2

0.4

4.0

1.3

0.5

3.5

Philadelphia City - Industrial Corr. Ctr.

2.5

1.2

5.0

4.0

2.3

7.1

Tioga Co. Jail

0.0

0.0

8.4

3.0

1.0

8.7

Westmoreland Co. Prison

1.6

0.5

4.8

1.3

0.4

4.1

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09

71

Appendix Table 6 (continued)
Percent of jail inmates reporting victimization, by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09
Inmate-on-inmatea

Staff sexual misconducta

95%-confidence intervalb
Facility name

Percent victimizedc Lower bound Upper bound

95%-confidence intervalb
Percent victimizedc Lower bound

Upper bound

South Carolina
Georgetown Co. Det. Ctr.

0.8%

0.2%

3.1%

3.2%

0.9%

10.1%

Greenville Co. Det. Fac.

1.0

0.2

4.3

0.4

0.1

1.7

Horry Co. - J. Reuben Long Det. Ctr.

2.0

1.0

4.1

3.1

1.4

6.5

Lancaster Co. Det. Ctr.

0.9

0.3

3.2

2.6

1.0

6.3

Richland Co. Det. Ctr.

1.0

0.3

3.0

3.4

1.8

6.3

York Co. Moss Justice Ctr.

1.0

0.2

4.2

1.3

0.3

5.5

:

:

:

:

:

:

Bedford Co. Jail

0.0%

0.0%

3.5%

1.2%

0.5%

2.8%

Crockett Co. Jail

0.0

0.0

11.4

4.4

1.8

Davidson Co. - Criminal Justice Ctr.

0.6

0.1

2.6

2.8

1.3

6.2

Davidson Co. - Metro Det. Fac.e

0.4

0.1

1.8

4.3

2.6

6.9

Hamilton Co. Jail

0.4

0.1

1.8

1.2

0.5

2.9

Putnam Co. Jail

0.7

0.2

2.3

0.0

0.0

3.0

Silverdale Penal Farme

1.7

0.8

4.0

2.7

1.4

5.5

White Co. Jail

0.0

0.0

3.8

3.4

2.1

5.4

Collin Co. Min. Security Fac.

1.7%

0.7%

4.3%

2.8%

1.4%

5.4%

Dallas Co. - North Tower

1.0

0.3

3.3

1.0

0.3

3.6

Dallas Co. - West Tower

1.0

0.3

3.4

3.2

1.5

6.7

Ector Co. Jail

1.3

0.4

4.4

1.4

0.4

4.6

Ellis Co. Jail

0.5

0.1

1.7

1.9

0.8

4.3

Fort Bend Co. Jail

0.0

0.0

2.0

1.6

0.7

3.7

Harris Co. Jail

2.4

1.1

5.1

0.9

0.3

2.7

Harris Co. Jail - Baker Street

3.9

2.2

6.7

1.0

0.4

2.9

Henderson Co. Jail

0.0

0.0

3.5

2.5

0.9

6.9

Hood Co. Jail

2.2

1.3

3.5

3.8

2.6

5.4

Hunt Co. Criminal Justice Ctr.

0.8

0.2

2.9

1.4

0.6

3.7

Lubbock Co. Jail

0.0

0.0

2.8

1.4

0.4

4.4

Newton Co. Corr. Ctr.e

0.0

0.0

1.5

0.7

0.2

2.3

Nueces Co. Jail

1.7

0.8

3.9

1.3

0.5

3.3

Smith Co. Jail - Min. & Med. Security Fac.

1.1

0.4

3.1

2.8

1.3

5.8

Tarrant Co. Corr. Ctr.

2.6

1.1

5.7

3.0

1.4

6.4

Tarrant Co. - Green Bay Fac.

1.9

0.6

6.4

2.9

1.2

7.2

Terry Co. Jail

0.0

0.0

4.1

1.2

0.4

3.5

Van Zandt Co. Jail

0.0

0.0

3.5

0.0

0.0

3.5

Walker Co. Jail

4.0

1.9

8.2

2.7

1.1

6.6

Webb Co. Jail

0.8

0.2

3.4

1.3

0.4

3.8

Wichita Co. Jail

3.4

1.6

7.0

0.0

0.0

3.3

Salt Lake Co. Jail

2.0%

1.0%

4.1%

2.2%

1.0%

4.5%

Uintah Co. Jail

0.0

0.0

8.6

0.0

0.0

8.6

Utah Co. Jail

1.2

0.5

2.9

0.4

0.1

1.8

South Dakota
Faulk Co. Jail
Tennessee
10.0

Texas

Utah

72

August 2010

Appendix Table 6 (continued)
Percent of jail inmates reporting victimization, by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09
Inmate-on-inmatea

Staff sexual misconducta

95%-confidence intervalb
Facility name

Percent victimizedc Lower bound Upper bound

95%-confidence intervalb
Percent victimizedc Lower bound

Upper bound

Virginia
Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail

2.4%

1.1%

5.5%

2.8%

1.4%

5.6%

Alexandria City Det. Ctr.

1.7

0.5

5.2

0.9

0.2

4.0

Chesapeake Corr. Ctr.

0.3

0.1

1.6

2.6

0.9

6.7

Eastern Shore Regional Jail

0.0

0.0

12.5

9.9

4.3

21.5

Fairfax Co. - Adult Det. Ctr.

1.5

0.5

4.2

0.8

0.3

2.1

Hampton Roads Regional Jail

1.3

0.5

3.6

4.0

2.2

7.1

Loudoun Co. - Adult Det. Ctr.

1.0

0.3

3.5

3.3

1.5

7.1

Middle Peninsula Regional Security Ctr.

2.2

0.8

6.0

4.3

2.5

7.2

Norfolk City Jail

0.9

0.3

3.1

1.1

0.3

3.6

Northwestern Regional Adult Det. Ctr.

0.4

0.1

1.8

0.7

0.2

2.9

Page Co. Jail

0.0

0.0

14.3

0.0

0.0

14.3

Roanoke City Jail

3.7%

1.9%

7.0%

2.7%

1.3%

5.5%

Southside Regional Jail

0.0

0.0

4.1

2.6

0.9

6.9

Clallam Co. Corr. Fac.

4.4%

2.2%

8.3%

6.1%

3.4%

10.6%

King Co. Corr. Fac.

2.3

1.0

5.0

3.3

1.6

6.5

Pierce Co. Det. and Corr. Ctr. - New Jail & Main Jail

1.6

0.6

4.3

0.4

0.1

2.2

Spokane Co. - Geiger Corr. Ctr.

2.2

1.1

4.5

1.8

0.9

3.8

Spokane Co. Jail

1.4

0.6

3.5

1.8

0.8

4.1

3.6%

2.1%

6.4%

2.8%

1.4%

5.5%

Chippewa Co. Jail

1.5%

0.4%

5.3%

1.4%

0.4%

5.0%

Dane Co. Jail

2.1

0.8

5.9

3.0

1.1

8.0

LaCrosse Co. Jail

3.3

1.5

7.3

4.1

1.7

9.1

Ozaukee Co. Jail

0.9

0.3

2.6

1.0

0.3

2.9

Racine Co. Jail

1.5

0.5

4.5

2.5

1.1

5.7

2.2%

1.1%

4.2%

3.0%

1.7%

5.5%

Washington

West Virginia
Southwestern Regional Jail
Wisconsin

Wyoming
Natrona Co. Det. Ctr.

Note: Detail may sum to more than total victimization rate because victims may have reported both inmate-on-inmate and staff-on-inmate sexual victimization.
:Not available.
aIncludes all types of sexual victimization, including oral, anal, or vaginal penetration, hand jobs, touching of the inmate’s butt, thighs, penis, breasts, or vagina in a sexual way, and other
sexual acts occurring in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if shorter.
bIndicates that different samples in the same facility would yield prevalence rates falling between the lower and upper bound estimates 95 out of 100 times.
cWeights were applied so that inmates who responded accurately reflected the entire population of each facility on select characteristics, including age, sex, race, time served, and
sentence length. (See Methodology.)
dFemale facility.
ePrivately operated facility.

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09

73

Appendix Table 7
Percent of jail inmates reporting sexual victimization, by level of coercion, and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09
Inmate-on-inmatea
Facility name

Physically forcedb

Pressuredc

Total

1.0%

1.1%

Chilton Co. Jail

1.0%

Houston Co. Jail

2.6

Madison Co. Det. Fac.

Staff sexual misconducta
Physically forcedb

Pressuredc

Without force or pressured

1.0%

1.3%

1.1%

0.0%

3.5%

3.5%

1.0%

3.1

2.5

2.8

3.7

3.4

4.1

1.0

1.0

0.4

Montgomery Co. Det. Fac.

2.4

1.8

0.6

1.3

0.7

Russell Co. Jail

0.0

0.0

2.1

2.7

1.6

Maricopa Co. - Durango Jail

1.2%

1.2%

0.7%

0.8%

1.1%

Maricopa Co. - Tent City Jail

1.1

0.9

0.5

0.5

0.0

Maricopa Co. - Towers Jail

0.0

1.9

3.1

4.3

1.9

Mohave Co. Jail

2.2

0.9

1.6

1.6

1.4

Pima Co. Adult Det. Ctr.

0.0

0.6

0.4

0.4

0.4

Drew Co. Det. Fac.

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

Faulkner Co. Det. Ctr.

2.0

1.3

0.8

0.7

0.0

Garland Co. Adult Det. Ctr.

2.6

2.3

1.9

1.9

2.4

Sharp Co. Det. Ctr.

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Butte Co. Jail

0.7%

0.7%

0.6%

1.6%

2.4%

Fresno Co. - Main Jail, North Annex, & South Annex

1.4

1.1

1.1

2.8

0.8

Kern Co. - Lerdo Min. Security Fac.

1.4

0.9

2.0

1.6

0.0

Lake Co. - Hill Road Corr. Fac.

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

Los Angeles Co. - Pitchess Det. Ctr. - East Fac.

1.3

1.3

1.9

2.9

0.8

Los Angeles Co. - Pitchess Det. Ctr. - North Fac.

0.0

0.8

0.3

0.3

0.3

Los Angeles Co. - Men’s Central Jail

1.9

3.0

1.6

2.4

0.0

Madera Co. Jail

0.7

2.7

1.3

1.1

2.8

Mendocino Co. Jail

0.8

1.7

1.8

1.8

1.8

Monterey Co. Jail

1.7

1.3

0.0

2.5

0.8

Orange Co. - Central Jail Complex

1.6

2.1

1.1

1.6

0.5

Orange Co. - J.A. Musick Fac.

0.5

0.9

1.4

0.9

1.0

Riverside Co. - Robert Presley Det. Ctr.

2.0

2.0

2.2

3.6

1.5

Riverside Co. - Southwest Det. Ctr.

2.2

2.8

0.0

1.0

0.3

Sacramento Co. - Main Jail

0.9

2.0

0.8

1.7

2.4

San Bernardino Co. - Central Det. Ctr.

0.0

0.4

0.0

0.0

0.4

San Bernardino Co. - West Valley Det. Ctr.

1.4

2.0

1.8

1.9

1.4

San Diego Co. - Central Det. Fac.

1.7

3.0

2.4

2.0

1.1

San Diego Co. - Descanso Det. Fac.

0.0

0.5

0.6

1.3

0.0

San Francisco Co. - County Jail #8

0.2

2.6

1.7

2.8

0.8

San Joaquin Co. Jail

0.0

1.1

1.1

0.6

0.6

San Mateo Co. - Maguire Corr. Fac.

0.5

0.0

1.1

1.1

0.0

Santa Cruz Co. - Blaine Street Fac.e

0.0

0.0

7.7

0.0

7.7

Solano Co. - Sentenced Det. Fac.

0.0

0.0

0.7

0.7

0.0

Sonoma Co. - North Det. Fac.

1.0

0.5

0.0

0.6

0.0

Alabama

Arizona

Arkansas

California

74

August 2010

Appendix Table 7 (continued)
Percent of jail inmates reporting sexual victimization, by level of coercion, and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-0
Inmate-on-inmatea
Facility name

Physically forcedb

Pressuredc

Staff sexual misconducta
Physically forcedb

Pressuredc

Without force or pressured

Colorado
Adams Co. Det. Fac.

0.8%

0.2%

0.3%

0.6%

0.0%

Arapahoe Co. Jail

1.1

0.8

1.3

1.3

0.4

El Paso Co. - Criminal Justice Ctr.

1.0

1.0

0.4

0.0

0.4

Jefferson Co. Jail

1.0

0.0

0.7

0.7

0.0

Logan Co. Jail

2.0

3.3

2.0

2.0

2.0

2.2%

1.4%

3.6%

4.4%

0.9%

Bay Co. Jail

0.0%

0.4%

1.0%

1.0%

2.3%

Broward Co. - Joseph V. Conte Fac.

0.3

0.9

1.4

1.1

1.1

Broward Co. - Main Jail

0.8

1.5

1.6

0.6

1.0

Broward Co. - North Broward Bureau

2.1

1.0

1.8

2.2

1.2

Broward Co. - Paul Rein Det. Fac.

0.3

0.7

1.8

2.3

1.2

Charlotte Co. Jail

0.0

0.9

1.0

0.7

1.2

Hardee Co. Jail

0.0

0.0

0.0

2.2

0.0

Highlands Co. Jail

1.2

1.2

1.7

1.7

1.2

Hillsborough Co. - Falkenburg Road Jail

0.8

1.3

0.6

0.6

1.3

Jacksonville - James I. Montgomery Corr. Ctr.

0.3

0.9

0.4

0.4

0.4

Marion Co. Jail

1.4

1.1

0.7

0.7

0.4

Miami-Dade Co. - Metro West Det. Ctr.

0.3

0.7

0.3

0.9

0.8

Miami-Dade Co. - Pre-trial Det. Ctr.

2.2

3.7

2.0

2.0

2.0

Monroe Co. Det. Ctr.

0.9

0.9

1.1

1.5

1.0

Nassau Co. Det. Fac.

0.0

0.0

0.7

0.0

0.0

Okaloosa Co. Jail

0.4

0.0

1.3

0.9

1.7

Osceola Co. Jail

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.6

0.5

Palm Beach Co. - Main Det. Ctr.

1.6

1.2

0.0

0.0

1.2

Pinellas Co. Med. Security Fac.

1.0

2.0

0.7

0.8

0.4

Polk Co. - Central County Jail

1.4

0.8

0.0

0.0

0.0

St. Lucie Co. Main Jail

0.7

1.4

0.3

0.3

0.3

Volusia Co. Branch Jail

0.4

1.4

0.8

0.4

0.8

Walton Co. Jail

0.6

0.6

1.4

1.4

2.5

Atlanta City Jail

0.0%

3.2%

0.0%

0.9%

0.9%

Bulloch Co. Jail

1.5

2.4

1.0

2.2

2.9

Chatham Co. Det. Ctr.

0.3

0.0

0.4

0.4

0.8

Clarke Co. Jail

0.0

0.5

0.5

0.9

0.5

Clayton Co. Jail

0.7

0.3

0.3

0.6

0.3

Cobb Co. - Jail & Prison Unit

0.7

1.2

0.9

0.9

0.8

Coweta Co. Prison

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Dekalb Co. Jail

2.2

3.5

1.1

1.5

0.3

Fulton Co. - Alpharetta Annex

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Gilmer Co. Jail

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Houston Co. Jail

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.9

1.0

District of Columbia
D.C. Dept of Corr. - Central Det. Fac. & Corr. Treatment Fac.
Florida

Georgia

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09

75

Appendix Table 7 (continued)
Percent of jail inmates reporting sexual victimization, by level of coercion, and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-0
Inmate-on-inmatea
Facility name

Physically forcedb

Pressuredc

Staff sexual misconducta
Physically forcedb

Pressuredc

Without force or pressured

Georgia (continued)
Jackson Co. Jail

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

Jasper Co. Jail

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Lowndes Co. Jail

0.7

0.1

0.6

1.0

0.8

Muscogee Co. Prison

0.0

0.0

0.4

1.3

0.9

Richmond Co. - Charles B. Webster Det. Ctr.

1.9

2.0

0.5

0.4

0.5

Roswell City Jail

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Turner Co. Jail

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Ware Co. Jail

1.8

1.4

0.4

0.4

0.5

Canyon Co. Jail

0.8%

0.3%

1.5%

1.5%

2.1%

Madison Co. Jail

0.0

0.0

0.0

1.1

0.0

Cook Co. Jail - Division 1

1.8%

1.2%

0.6%

0.9%

3.7%

Cook Co. Jail - Division 6

1.6

1.5

2.0

1.7

3.8

Cook Co. Jail - Division 9

1.5

2.0

1.0

1.6

1.4

DuPage Co. Jail

1.5

1.5

1.7

1.1

0.6

LaSalle Co. Jail

2.3

1.2

2.7

3.9

0.8

Vermilion Co. Jail

3.1

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.0

Winnebago Co. Jail

1.5

1.5

1.6

2.6

0.9

Boone Co. Jail

1.3%

1.3%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

Brown Co. Jail

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Madison Co. Det. Ctr.

3.5

2.7

1.1

1.0

1.6

Marion Co. Jail IIf

0.5

0.5

2.0

2.8

3.4

Pulaski Co. Jail

1.0

1.0

0.9

0.0

0.0

Vigo Co. Jail

2.6

3.1

2.7

2.0

3.4

Black Hawk Co. Jail

1.4%

1.4%

0.6%

1.9%

0.0%

Linn Co. Corr. Ctr.

1.3

3.4

0.0

0.7

0.0

Butler Co. Jail

0.8%

1.6%

3.1%

2.4%

0.8%

Johnson Co. - New Century Adult Det. Ctr.

0.0

2.0

0.0

0.4

0.0

Rice Co. Jail

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Sedgwick Co. Jail

1.1

0.7

0.9

1.0

0.0

Campbell Co. Det. Ctr.

1.1%

1.1%

1.6%

2.7%

0.0%

Floyd Co. Det. Ctr.

1.9

0.0

0.6

0.7

0.6

Franklin Co. Regional Jail

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Henderson Co. Det. Ctr.

0.0

0.0

0.8

1.5

0.5

Jessamine Co. Det. Ctr.

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Louisville Metro Dept. of Corr. - Community Corr. Ctr.

0.9

0.9

1.8

1.8

1.9

Louisville Metro Dept. of Corr. - Metro Corr. Fac.

0.3

0.3

0.3

1.6

0.5

Warren Co. Regional Jail

0.4

1.2

1.1

0.9

1.1

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

76

August 2010

Appendix Table 7 (continued)
Percent of jail inmates reporting sexual victimization, by level of coercion, and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-0
Inmate-on-inmatea
Facility name

Physically forcedb

Pressuredc

Staff sexual misconducta
Physically forcedb

Pressuredc

Without force or pressured

Louisiana
Calcasieu Parish Corr. Ctr.

1.3%

1.2%

0.8%

1.5%

0.4%

Morehouse Parish Det. Ctr.

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.6

1.1

Natchitoches Det. Ctr.

1.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.6

Orleans Parish - Conchetta Jail

2.1

2.1

1.8

1.1

0.0

Orleans Parish - Old Parish Prison

0.7

0.7

0.7

0.0

2.1

Orleans Parish - South White Street Jaile

5.4

4.5

0.7

1.7

0.7

Orleans Parish - Templeman Phase III

3.4

1.2

0.5

1.4

2.5

Orleans Parish - Templeman Phase V

0.6

0.6

1.2

2.9

1.8

Ouachita Parish Corr. Fac.

2.1

1.8

1.4

1.9

1.3

Richland Parish Det. Ctr.

2.4

1.4

0.0

0.0

0.4

Webster Parish - Bayou Dorcheat Corr. Ctr.

1.7

1.3

0.6

0.0

0.6

3.1%

1.4%

4.1%

4.1%

4.1%

Allegany Co. Det. Ctr.

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

Baltimore Co. Det. Ctr.

0.5

0.0

0.7

1.4

2.1

Caroline Co. Jail

7.9

7.9

10.0

7.9

7.9

Cecil Co. Det. Ctr.

1.5

1.3

0.9

1.5

2.2

Prince George’s Co. Corr. Ctr.

0.6

0.6

1.0

2.2

1.5

Bristol Co. - Dartmouth Fac.

1.1%

1.1%

0.9%

0.9%

0.5%

Bristol Co. - New Bedford Fac.

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.7

Hampshire Co. - Jail & House of Corr.

0.0

0.5

0.6

0.6

0.6

Suffolk Co. House of Corr.

1.8

0.7

2.6

3.2

2.3

Worcester Co. Jail & House of Corr.

0.5

1.5

0.0

0.0

0.0

Barry Co. Jail

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

Jackson Co. - Chanter Road Corr. Fac.

1.2

0.0

1.6

2.4

0.8

Kent Co. Corr. Fac.

2.6

0.4

1.0

1.6

0.8

Lenawee Co. Jail

0.4

0.0

0.9

0.9

0.9

Muskegon Co. Jail

1.3

0.4

0.5

1.0

1.2

Saginaw Co. Jail

1.7

1.2

1.8

1.8

0.7

Wayne Co. - Andrew C. Baird Det. Fac.

0.4

0.0

1.5

1.5

2.3

Beltrami Co. Jail

0.0%

0.0%

2.9%

2.9%

0.0%

Morrison Co. Jail

2.1

2.1

4.2

4.2

4.2

Sherburne Co. Jail

1.4

0.8

0.0

1.6

0.0

Bolivar Co. Jail

0.0%

0.0%

0.5%

0.5%

2.0%

Copiah Co. Det. Ctr.

2.1

2.1

2.1

2.1

0.0

Hinds Co. Penal Farm

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.0

Issaquena Co. Corr. Fac.

3.5

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Jackson Co. Jail

2.3

1.2

1.6

1.6

1.2

Maine
Kennecec Co. Jail
Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09

77

Appendix Table 7 (continued)
Percent of jail inmates reporting sexual victimization, by level of coercion, and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-0
Inmate-on-inmatea
Facility name

Physically forcedb

Pressuredc

Staff sexual misconducta
Physically forcedb

Pressuredc

Without force or pressured

Mississippi (continued)
Lee. Co. Work Ctr.

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

Rankin Co. Jail

1.5

1.0

2.4

3.0

1.5

Winston-Choctaw Co. Regional Corr. Fac.

0.0

0.6

2.3

2.2

2.2

Jackson Co. Det. Ctr.

2.2%

1.1%

0.8%

1.5%

1.6%

Jefferson Co. Jail

3.3

1.5

0.7

0.7

0.7

Joplin City Jail

0.0

0.0

2.5

2.5

0.0

Lincoln Co. Jail

2.0

2.0

1.3

2.6

1.3

City of St. Louis - Med. Security Inst. & City Justice Ctr.

0.5

0.5

2.6

3.3

2.2

Buffalo Co. Jail

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

Dodge Co. Jail

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Douglas Co. Corr. Ctr.

0.3

0.8

1.2

1.4

2.7

Carson City Jail

0.8%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.8%

City of North Las Vegas Det. Ctr.

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.7

0.4

0.0%

0.0%

0.8%

2.8%

0.0%

Camden Co. Jail

0.6%

0.6%

0.7%

1.0%

1.8%

Essex Co. Corr. Fac.

1.6

0.9

0.8

1.2

2.0

Atlantic Co. - Gerard L. Gormley Justice Fac.

1.8

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.7

Passaic Co. Jail

0.4

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Sussex Co. - Walter Keogh Dwyer Corr. Fac.

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

1.0

Chaves Co. Det. Ctr.

1.0%

1.6%

0.6%

1.1%

1.7%

Lea Co. Det. Fac.

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Roosevelt Co. Det. Ctr.

0.0

0.0

1.7

1.7

0.0

Columbia Co. Jail

0.0%

1.1%

1.5%

1.5%

0.0%

Livingston Co. Jail

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

Monroe Co. Jail

0.4

0.4

1.7

1.7

0.6

Nassau Co. Corr. Ctr.

0.6

1.7

1.6

1.9

0.0

New York City - Eric M. Taylor Ctr.

0.4

0.5

1.2

0.9

0.0

New York City - Manhattan Det. Ctr.

1.2

1.2

1.4

1.7

0.5

New York City - Vernon C. Bain Ctr.

0.8

1.1

2.1

4.1

1.3

Onondaga Co. Penitentiary

0.0

0.5

0.0

0.5

0.7

Orleans Co. Jail

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

5.6

Wayne Co. Jail

1.0

0.0

3.1

3.1

1.1

Missouri

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire
Rockingham Co. Jail & House of Corr.
New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

78

August 2010

Appendix Table 7 (continued)
Percent of jail inmates reporting sexual victimization, by level of coercion, and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-0
Inmate-on-inmatea
Facility name

Physically forcedb

Pressuredc

Staff sexual misconducta
Physically forcedb

Pressuredc

Without force or pressured

North Carolina
Alamance Co. Jail

1.8%

0.8%

1.8%

1.8%

1.6%

Davidson Co. Jail

1.8

1.8

0.5

0.5

0.0

Durham Co. Jail

1.8

0.6

0.5

0.5

2.3

Johnston Co. Jail

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

McDowell Co. Jail

2.8

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Orange Co. Jail

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Rowan Co. Jail

0.0

1.3

0.4

3.5

1.3

Wilson Co. Jail

1.6

1.6

3.3

4.5

3.3

Ashtabula Co. Jail

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

Clermont Co. Jail

1.2

0.6

1.2

0.6

0.0

Hamilton Co. - Talbert House - Turning Point Treatment Ctr.

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Lake Co. - Adult Max. Security Det. Ctr.

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.5

Montgomery Co. Jail

1.1

1.4

0.0

0.0

0.0

Pickaway Co. Jail

0.8

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.8

Wood Co. Justice Ctr.

0.8

3.6

0.8

0.8

0.8

Muskogee Co. Jail

1.1%

1.3%

0.0%

0.5%

1.3%

Oklahoma Co. Jail

2.7

1.6

1.2

0.8

0.2

Pawnee Co. Jail

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Texas Co. Jail

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Tulsa Co. - David L. Moss Criminal Justice Ctr.

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.4

Deschutes Co. Jail

1.5%

2.0%

2.0%

2.0%

0.0%

Polk Co. Jail

3.0

3.0

3.2

2.4

3.0

Allegheny Co. Jail

1.2%

2.1%

0.6%

0.3%

0.3%

Centre Co. Corr. Fac.

0.7

0.0

1.5

2.2

1.2

Chester Co. Prison

0.5

1.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

Dauphin Co. Prison

0.8

1.3

1.0

1.6

2.6

Lackawanna Co. Prison

0.5

2.7

0.0

0.0

0.8

Lawrence Co. Corr. Fac.

1.0

2.2

1.9

2.9

0.8

Lehigh Co. Prison

0.7

0.8

0.8

1.2

1.2

Lycoming Co. Prison

1.6

0.8

2.2

2.3

1.4

Monroe Co. Corr. Fac.

0.6

0.8

0.0

0.0

0.0

Philadelphia City - Det. Ctr. & Prison Health Services Unit

0.0

1.2

1.3

1.0

1.7

Philadelphia City - House of Corr.

0.5

0.7

0.4

0.8

0.9

Philadelphia City - Industrial Corr. Ctr.

2.1

1.6

2.3

2.1

3.3

Tioga Co. Jail

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

3.0

Westmoreland Co. Prison

0.0

1.6

0.0

1.3

0.4

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09

79

Appendix Table 7 (continued)
Percent of jail inmates reporting sexual victimization, by level of coercion, and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-0
Inmate-on-inmatea
Facility name

Physically forcedb

Staff sexual misconducta

Pressuredc

Physically forcedb

Pressuredc

Without force or pressured

South Carolina
Georgetown Co. Det. Ctr.

0.0%

0.8%

2.7%

2.7%

0.4%

Greenville Co. Det. Fac.

1.0

1.0

0.0

0.4

0.4

Horry Co. - J. Reuben Long Det. Ctr.

0.9

2.0

2.7

2.1

0.5

Lancaster Co. Det. Ctr.

0.9

0.9

0.9

0.9

1.6

Richland Co. Det. Ctr.

1.0

0.5

0.5

1.9

2.4

York Co. Moss Justice Ctr.

1.0

1.0

1.3

0.0

0.0

:

:

:

:

:

Bedford Co. Jail

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

1.2%

Crockett Co. Jail

0.0

0.0

4.4

4.4

4.4

South Dakota
Faulk Co. Jail
Tennessee

Davidson Co. - Criminal Justice Ctr.

0.6

0.6

0.0

1.2

1.6

Davidson Co. - Metro Det. Fac.f

0.4

0.4

1.9

1.9

3.1

Hamilton Co. Jail

0.4

0.0

0.4

0.9

0.8

Putnam Co. Jail

0.7

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Silverdale Penal Farmf

0.7

1.7

2.1

1.9

1.6

White Co. Jail

0.0

0.0

0.7

1.6

2.5

Collin Co. Min. Security Fac.

1.7%

0.0%

1.3%

1.5%

0.0%

Dallas Co. - North Tower

1.0

0.0

0.3

0.7

0.0

Dallas Co. - West Tower

1.0

1.0

2.1

1.0

2.8

Ector Co. Jail

0.0

1.3

0.9

0.5

1.4

Ellis Co. Jail

0.0

0.5

1.4

1.4

0.5

Fort Bend Co. Jail

0.0

0.0

1.0

1.0

1.1

Harris Co. Jail

2.4

1.5

0.9

0.9

0.7

Harris Co. Jail - Baker Street

1.4

3.1

0.7

1.0

0.0

Henderson Co. Jail

0.0

0.0

0.0

1.2

1.3

Hood Co. Jail

2.2

2.2

2.3

3.1

2.2

Hunt Co. Criminal Justice Ctr.

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.6

Lubbock Co. Jail

0.0

0.0

0.6

0.6

0.8

Newton Co. Corr. Ctr.f

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.7

Nueces Co. Jail

1.3

1.2

0.4

0.8

0.5

Smith Co. Jail - Min. & Med. Security Fac.

1.1

0.5

1.4

1.9

2.0

Tarrant Co. Corr. Ctr.

1.5

2.2

1.5

1.9

2.2

Tarrant Co. - Green Bay Fac.

1.2

1.9

2.3

1.9

0.5

Terry Co. Jail

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

1.2

Van Zandt Co. Jail

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Walker Co. Jail

4.0

4.0

0.0

1.4

1.3

Webb Co. Jail

0.8

0.0

0.6

0.6

1.3

Wichita Co. Jail

0.6

3.4

0.0

0.0

0.0

Salt Lake Co. Jail

1.3%

1.7%

0.4%

0.7%

1.8%

Uintah Co. Jail

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Utah Co. Jail

0.3

0.9

0.0

0.4

0.0

Texas

Utah

80

August 2010

Appendix Table 7 (continued)
Percent of jail inmates reporting sexual victimization, by level of coercion, and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-0
Inmate-on-inmatea
Facility name

Physically forcedb

Pressuredc

Staff sexual misconducta
Physically forcedb

Pressuredc

Without force or pressured

Virginia
Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail

0.4%

2.0%

1.3%

1.1%

1.7%

Alexandria City Det. Ctr.

1.7

0.9

0.9

0.9

0.9

Chesapeake Corr. Ctr.

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3

2.6

Eastern Shore Regional Jail

0.0

0.0

2.6

2.6

9.9

Fairfax Co. - Adult Det. Ctr.

1.5

0.6

0.2

0.2

0.3

Hampton Roads Regional Jail

0.5

0.8

1.0

2.0

3.1

Loudoun Co. - Adult Det. Ctr.

1.0

1.0

2.2

1.0

1.1

Middle Peninsula Regional Security Ctr.

2.2

0.0

2.1

2.1

3.4

Norfolk City Jail

0.9

0.9

1.1

1.1

1.1

Northwestern Regional Adult Det. Ctr.

0.0

0.4

0.0

0.0

0.7

Page Co. Jail

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Roanoke City Jail

3.3

1.9

1.2

2.2

2.2

Southside Regional Jail

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

2.6

Clallam Co. Corr. Fac.

4.4%

2.0%

5.2%

5.0%

2.0%

King Co. Corr. Fac.

1.0

2.3

1.1

2.8

0.4

Pierce Co. Det. and Corr. Ctr. - New Jail & Main Jail

1.6

0.0

0.4

0.4

0.4

Spokane Co. - Geiger Corr. Ctr.

1.5

1.8

1.0

1.4

1.4

Spokane Co. Jail

1.4

0.9

0.9

1.3

0.5

2.6%

1.4%

2.2%

2.2%

1.7%

Chippewa Co. Jail

1.5%

0.0%

1.4%

1.4%

0.0%

Dane Co. Jail

1.6

2.1

1.0

1.9

2.1

LaCrosse Co. Jail

3.3

3.3

4.1

4.1

2.1

Ozaukee Co. Jail

0.9

0.0

0.0

1.0

1.0

Racine Co. Jail

1.5

1.5

1.3

1.9

0.7

1.0%

2.2%

2.1%

2.5%

1.0%

Washington

West Virginia
Southwestern Regional Jail
Wisconsin

Wyoming
Natrona Co. Det. Ctr.
:Not available.
aIncludes all types of sexual victimization, including oral, anal, or vaginal penetration, hand jobs, touching of the inmate’s butt, thighs, penis, breasts, or vagina in a sexual way, and other
sexual acts occurring in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if shorter.
bPhysical force or threat of physical force reported.
cIncludes incidents in which the perpetrator, without using force, pressured the inmate or made the inmate feel that they had to participate.

(See Methodology.)

dIncludes incidents in which the staff offered favors or privileges in exchange for sex or sexual contact and incidents in which the inmate reported that they willingly had sex or sexual

contact with staff.
eFemale facility.

fPrivately operated facility.

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09

81

Appendix Table 8
Percent of jail inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual contacts, by facility, National Inmate Survey,
2008-09
Nonconsensual sexual actsa

Abusive sexual contacts onlyb

95%-confidence intervalc
Facility name
Total

Percent victimizedd
2.0%

Lower bound Upper bound
1.8%

2.2%

95%-confidence intervalc
Percent victimizedd
1.1%

Lower bound Upper bound
1.0%

1.2%

Alabama
Chilton Co. Jail

1.9%

1.1%

3.4%

1.6%

0.7%

3.4%

Houston Co. Jail

4.5

2.7

7.2

2.9

1.5

5.4

Madison Co. Det. Fac.

2.7

1.6

4.7

4.4

2.9

6.7

Montgomery Co. Det. Fac.

2.0

1.1

3.7

1.1

0.5

2.4

Russell Co. Jail

1.1

0.6

2.3

2.1

1.0

4.1

Maricopa Co. - Durango Jail

1.8%

0.8%

3.9%

1.2%

0.5%

2.9%

Maricopa Co. - Tent City Jail

0.4

0.1

1.7

1.5

0.7

3.5

Maricopa Co. - Towers Jail

4.3

2.3

7.7

2.0

0.9

4.1

Mohave Co. Jail

4.4

2.7

7.1

0.4

0.1

1.4

Pima Co. Adult Det. Ctr.

0.7

0.2

2.2

0.3

0.1

1.7

Drew Co. Det. Fac.

0.0%

0.0%

13.3%

0.0%

0.0%

13.3%

Faulkner Co. Det. Ctr.

1.1

0.6

2.2

2.3

1.4

3.9

Garland Co. Adult Det. Ctr.

4.2

2.4

7.1

1.7

0.7

3.8

Sharp Co. Det. Ctr.

0.0

0.0

10.2

0.0

0.0

10.2

Arizona

Arkansas

California
Butte Co. Jail

2.7%

1.4%

5.3%

0.0%

0.0%

2.0%

Fresno Co. - Main Jail, North Annex, & South Annex

2.6

1.2

5.6

2.3

1.1

5.0

Kern Co. - Lerdo Min. Security Fac.

1.4

0.6

3.2

1.0

0.4

2.7

Lake Co. - Hill Road Corr. Fac.

0.5

0.2

1.9

0.0

0.0

3.3

Los Angeles Co. - Pitchess Det. Ctr. - East Fac.

1.9

0.8

4.8

1.9

0.8

4.4

Los Angeles Co. - Pitchess Det. Ctr. - North Fac.

1.0

0.3

3.7

0.0

0.0

1.8

Los Angeles Co. - Men’s Central Jail

1.9

0.5

6.8

3.1

1.4

6.8

Madera Co. Jail

4.2

2.4

7.2

0.7

0.2

2.4

Mendocino Co. Jail

0.8

0.2

2.7

2.0

0.8

5.0

Monterey Co. Jail

1.1

0.3

3.9

2.6

1.2

5.7

Orange Co. - Central Jail Complex

2.2

1.0

4.7

0.8

0.2

2.9

Orange Co. - J.A. Musick Fac.

1.9

0.9

4.0

0.4

0.1

1.5

Riverside Co. - Robert Presley Det. Ctr.

3.9

1.9

7.7

0.9

0.2

4.4

Riverside Co. - Southwest Det. Ctr.

1.8

0.6

5.2

1.3

0.5

3.6

Sacramento Co. - Main Jail

3.3

1.8

6.3

2.1

0.9

4.6

San Bernardino Co. - Central Det. Ctr.

0.4

0.1

1.7

0.4

0.1

1.7

San Bernardino Co. - West Valley Det. Ctr.

2.5

1.4

4.7

2.5

1.4

4.6

San Diego Co. - Central Det. Fac.

5.2

2.8

9.3

1.5

0.6

4.2

San Diego Co. - Descanso Det. Fac.

1.8

0.9

3.7

0.0

0.0

2.7

San Francisco Co. - County Jail #8

4.0

2.3

6.9

2.0

0.9

4.3

San Joaquin Co. Jail

1.7

0.6

4.5

1.1

0.3

4.2

San Mateo Co. - Maguire Corr. Fac.

1.1

0.3

3.3

0.5

0.1

2.5

Santa Cruz Co. - Blaine Street Fac.e

7.7

3.1

17.8

0.0

0.0

22.8

Solano Co. - Sentenced Det. Fac.

0.7

0.2

2.7

0.0

0.0

3.2

Sonoma Co. - North Det. Fac.

1.2

0.5

2.7

0.5

0.1

1.5

82

August 2010

Appendix Table 8 (continued)
Percent of jail inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual contacts, by facility, National Inmate Survey,
2008-09
Nonconsensual sexual actsa

Abusive sexual contacts onlyb

95%-confidence intervalc
Facility name

Percent victimizedd

Lower bound Upper bound

95%-confidence intervalc
Percent victimizedd

Lower bound Upper bound

Colorado
Adams Co. Det. Fac.

0.6%

0.2%

2.0%

0.5%

0.1%

1.6%

Arapahoe Co. Jail

1.7

0.7

4.1

1.0

0.3

3.6

El Paso Co. - Criminal Justice Ctr.

0.8

0.2

2.5

0.9

0.3

3.1

Jefferson Co. Jail

0.3

0.1

1.4

1.1

0.4

3.0

Logan Co. Jail

3.3

1.6

6.8

0.0

0.0

5.5

4.4%

2.1%

8.8%

1.6%

0.4%

5.8%

District of Columbia
D.C. Dept of Corr. - Central Det. Fac. & Corr. Treatment Fac.
Florida
Bay Co. Jail

1.4%

0.6%

3.4%

0.9%

0.3%

2.8%

Broward Co. - Joseph V. Conte Fac.

2.5

1.2

5.2

0.9

0.3

3.1

Broward Co. - Main Jail

1.5

0.5

4.0

3.1

1.5

6.4

Broward Co. - North Broward Bureau

3.9

2.3

6.6

0.6

0.1

2.8

Broward Co. - Paul Rein Det. Fac.

1.9

0.9

4.1

1.2

0.5

3.1

Charlotte Co. Jail

1.5

0.5

4.2

1.6

0.5

4.9

Hardee Co. Jail

2.2

0.8

5.9

0.0

0.0

6.0

Highlands Co. Jail

1.7

0.7

3.9

0.0

0.0

2.2

Hillsborough Co. - Falkenburg Road Jail

1.2

0.4

3.3

0.9

0.3

2.8

Jacksonville - James I. Montgomery Corr. Ctr.

1.7

0.8

3.5

0.3

0.1

1.3

Marion Co. Jail

1.1

0.4

2.9

0.7

0.2

2.2

Miami-Dade Co. - Metro West Det. Ctr.

1.2

0.4

3.2

0.5

0.1

2.8

Miami-Dade Co. - Pre-trial Det. Ctr.

6.8

4.1

11.1

1.0

0.3

3.2

Monroe Co. Det. Ctr.

0.3

0.1

1.4

2.6

1.3

5.1

Nassau Co. Det. Fac.

0.7

0.2

1.9

0.0

0.0

2.2

Okaloosa Co. Jail

2.1

1.1

4.0

0.4

0.1

1.7

Osceola Co. Jail

1.0

0.3

3.4

0.0

0.0

1.8

Palm Beach Co. - Main Det. Ctr.

1.4

0.5

3.7

1.0

0.4

2.8

Pinellas Co. Med. Security Fac.

1.1

0.4

2.6

2.3

1.2

4.4

Polk Co. - Central County Jail

0.6

0.1

2.5

1.1

0.4

3.1

St. Lucie Co. Main Jail

1.0

0.4

2.6

1.5

0.6

4.0

Volusia Co. Branch Jail

2.2

1.1

4.7

0.0

0.0

1.5

Walton Co. Jail

3.3

2.1

5.0

0.0

0.0

2.5

Georgia
Atlanta City Jail

1.3%

0.5%

3.4%

3.2%

1.5%

6.7%

Bulloch Co. Jail

3.9

2.5

6.0

1.2

0.5

2.5

Chatham Co. Det. Ctr.

1.1

0.4

3.0

0.3

0.1

1.4

Clarke Co. Jail

0.0

0.0

2.1

1.5

0.7

3.2

Clayton Co. Jail

0.0

0.0

1.5

1.6

0.8

3.5

Cobb Co. - Jail & Prison Unit

1.6

0.7

4.0

0.4

0.1

2.2

Coweta Co. Prison

0.0

0.0

2.0

0.0

0.0

2.0

Dekalb Co. Jail

2.3

1.1

4.9

1.9

0.9

4.3

Fulton Co. - Alpharetta Annex

0.0

0.0

10.4

0.0

0.0

10.4

Gilmer Co. Jail

0.0

0.0

6.6

0.0

0.0

6.6

Houston Co. Jail

1.1

0.4

3.0

0.9

0.3

2.4

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09

83

Appendix Table 8 (continued)
Percent of jail inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual contacts, by facility, National Inmate Survey,
2008-09
Nonconsensual sexual actsa

Abusive sexual contacts onlyb

95%-confidence intervalc
Facility name

Percent victimizedd

Lower bound Upper bound

95%-confidence intervalc
Percent victimizedd

Lower bound Upper bound

Georgia (continued)
Jackson Co. Jail

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

Jasper Co. Jail

0.0

0.0

16.8

4.4%

0.0

0.0

16.8

4.4%

Lowndes Co. Jail

1.8

0.9

3.6

0.5

0.1

2.1

Muscogee Co. Prison

1.7

0.8

3.6

0.4

0.1

1.7

Richmond Co. - Charles B. Webster Det. Ctr.

2.0

0.9

4.3

1.2

0.5

2.9

Roswell City Jail

0.0

0.0

29.9

0.0

0.0

29.9

Turner Co. Jail

0.0

0.0

15.5

0.0

0.0

15.5

Ware Co. Jail

2.8

1.7

4.6

1.3

0.6

2.5

Canyon Co. Jail

3.0%

1.6%

5.4%

0.5%

0.1%

1.9%

Madison Co. Jail

1.1

0.3

3.9

0.0

0.0

8.8

Idaho

Illinois
Cook Co. Jail - Division 1

3.8%

2.2%

6.5%

1.4%

0.7%

2.9%

Cook Co. Jail - Division 6

4.3

2.7

6.9

2.1

1.1

4.0

Cook Co. Jail - Division 9

2.4

1.2

4.8

2.6

1.1

5.8

DuPage Co. Jail

1.6

0.7

3.7

1.9

0.8

4.3

LaSalle Co. Jail

3.9

2.3

6.5

0.0

0.0

3.2

Vermilion Co. Jail

2.1

1.2

3.7

1.0

0.4

2.5

Winnebago Co. Jail

3.8

2.1

6.7

0.6

0.1

2.5

Indiana
Boone Co. Jail

1.3%

0.6%

0.0%

0.0%

Brown Co. Jail

0.0

0.0

14.9

3.0%

0.0

0.0

14.9

5.1%

Madison Co. Det. Ctr.

2.0

1.1

3.6

3.5

2.2

5.6

Marion Co. Jail IIf

3.1

1.4

6.6

0.4

0.1

1.9

Pulaski Co. Jail

1.9

1.2

2.8

0.0

0.0

4.2

Vigo Co. Jail

4.6

2.8

7.4

1.9

0.9

4.0

Iowa
Black Hawk Co. Jail

1.9%

1.1%

3.4%

0.8%

0.3%

2.0%

Linn Co. Corr. Ctr.

1.3

0.4

4.7

2.7

1.2

6.0
2.5%

Kansas
Butler Co. Jail

3.1%

1.8%

5.3%

0.9%

0.3%

Johnson Co. - New Century Adult Det. Ctr.

1.6

0.5

4.4

0.9

0.2

3.1

Rice Co. Jail

0.0

0.0

22.8

0.0

0.0

22.8

Sedgwick Co. Jail

1.3

0.5

3.6

0.8

0.2

2.7

Kentucky
Campbell Co. Det. Ctr.

1.6%

0.7%

3.3%

1.1%

0.4%

2.8%

Floyd Co. Det. Ctr.

1.3

0.5

3.1

1.9

0.6

6.1

Franklin Co. Regional Jail

0.0

0.0

3.4

0.0

0.0

3.4

Henderson Co. Det. Ctr.

1.5

0.6

3.7

0.0

0.0

2.1

Jessamine Co. Det. Ctr.

0.0

0.0

7.7

0.0

0.0

7.7

Louisville Metro Dept. of Corr. - Community Corr. Ctr.

1.8

0.7

4.5

1.0

0.3

3.3

Louisville Metro Dept. of Corr. - Metro Corr. Fac.

1.1

0.4

3.0

0.8

0.3

2.8

Warren Co. Regional Jail

2.3

1.1

5.0

0.9

0.3

2.6

84

August 2010

Appendix Table 8 (continued)
Percent of jail inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual contacts, by facility, National Inmate Survey,
2008-09
Nonconsensual sexual actsa

Abusive sexual contacts onlyb

95%-confidence intervalc
Facility name

Percent victimizedd

Lower bound Upper bound

95%-confidence intervalc
Percent victimizedd

Lower bound Upper bound

Louisiana
Calcasieu Parish Corr. Ctr.

2.2%

1.0%

4.9%

0.4%

0.1%

1.9%

Morehouse Parish Det. Ctr.

1.1

0.6

2.2

0.0

0.0

2.1

Natchitoches Det. Ctr.

0.6

0.2

1.6

0.6

0.2

1.7

Orleans Parish - Conchetta Jail

2.1

0.9

4.9

1.1

0.3

4.5

Orleans Parish - Old Parish Prison

1.8

0.8

4.1

1.3

0.6

2.9

Orleans Parish - South White Street Jaile

2.3

1.3

4.1

6.6

4.7

9.1

Orleans Parish - Templeman Phase III

3.3

1.8

5.9

1.8

0.7

4.8

Orleans Parish - Templeman Phase V

2.9

1.6

5.5

0.6

0.2

2.2

Ouachita Parish Corr. Fac.

3.0

1.7

5.4

2.1

1.0

4.3

Richland Parish Det. Ctr.

0.7

0.2

1.9

2.1

1.2

3.8

Webster Parish - Bayou Dorcheat Corr. Ctr.

1.7

0.8

3.5

0.0

0.0

1.9

3.8%

1.7%

7.9%

1.0%

0.3%

3.1%

Allegany Co. Det. Ctr.

0.0%

0.0%

6.4%

0.0%

0.0%

6.4%

Baltimore Co. Det. Ctr.

2.2

0.8

6.0

1.8

0.6

4.8

Caroline Co. Jail

7.9

2.0

26.6

2.1

0.5

8.3

Cecil Co. Det. Ctr.

1.5

0.6

3.9

1.2

0.4

3.0

Prince George’s Co. Corr. Ctr.

2.5

1.2

5.2

1.0

0.4

2.6

Maine
Kennecec Co. Jail
Maryland

Massachusetts
Bristol Co. - Dartmouth Fac.

0.9%

0.3%

3.3%

2.0%

1.0%

3.9%

Bristol Co. - New Bedford Fac.

0.0

0.0

3.0

0.7

0.2

1.9

Hampshire Co. - Jail & House of Corr.

0.6

0.2

1.8

0.5

0.1

1.5

Suffolk Co. House of Corr.

3.1

1.4

6.4

1.1

0.2

5.4

Worcester Co. Jail & House of Corr.

1.5

0.6

4.0

0.0

0.0

1.8

Michigan
Barry Co. Jail

0.0%

0.0%

9.6%

0.0%

0.0%

9.6%

Jackson Co. - Chanter Road Corr. Fac.

2.4

1.2

4.7

1.2

0.4

3.5

Kent Co. Corr. Fac.

2.0

0.8

4.5

1.8

0.8

4.2

Lenawee Co. Jail

0.9

0.4

2.0

0.0

0.0

2.7

Muskegon Co. Jail

2.1

1.1

3.9

0.8

0.2

2.7

Saginaw Co. Jail

2.5

1.1

5.2

0.5

0.1

2.1

Wayne Co. - Andrew C. Baird Det. Fac.

2.0

0.9

4.2

0.4

0.1

1.9

Beltrami Co. Jail

2.9%

0.7%

10.7%

0.0%

0.0%

9.4%

Morrison Co. Jail

4.2

1.8

9.5

0.0

0.0

9.0

Sherburne Co. Jail

1.6

0.5

4.8

0.7

0.1

2.9

Minnesota

Mississippi
Bolivar Co. Jail

1.5%

0.7%

2.9%

0.5%

0.2%

1.6%

Copiah Co. Det. Ctr.

2.1

1.0

4.7

0.0

0.0

7.7

Hinds Co. Penal Farm

0.5

0.2

1.6

0.0

0.0

2.3

Issaquena Co. Corr. Fac.

0.0

0.0

9.0

3.5

1.2

9.3

Jackson Co. Jail

2.1

1.1

4.1

2.6

1.5

4.5

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09

85

Appendix Table 8 (continued)
Percent of jail inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual contacts, by facility, National Inmate Survey,
2008-09
Nonconsensual sexual actsa

Abusive sexual contacts onlyb

95%-confidence intervalc
Facility name

Percent victimizedd

Lower bound Upper bound

95%-confidence intervalc
Percent victimizedd

Lower bound Upper bound

Mississippi (continued)
Lee. Co. Work Ctr.

0.0%

0.0%

24.3%

0.0%

0.0%

24.3%

Rankin Co. Jail

5.5

3.2

9.1

0.5

0.1

1.8

Winston-Choctaw Co. Regional Corr. Fac.

3.4

2.1

5.6

0.0

0.0

2.0

Missouri
Jackson Co. Det. Ctr.

3.3%

1.8%

5.9%

2.1%

1.0%

4.4%

Jefferson Co. Jail

1.5

0.7

2.9

4.0

2.5

6.2

Joplin City Jail

0.0

0.0

11.7

2.5

1.0

6.3

Lincoln Co. Jail

2.6

1.2

5.7

0.7

0.2

2.1

City of St. Louis - Med. Security Inst. & City Justice Ctr.

4.7

2.6

8.2

1.1

0.3

3.4

Buffalo Co. Jail

0.0%

0.0%

8.8%

0.0%

0.0%

8.8%

Dodge Co. Jail

0.0

0.0

17.6

0.0

0.0

17.6

Douglas Co. Corr. Ctr.

3.7

1.7

7.8

0.3

0.1

1.3

Nebraska

Nevada
Carson City Jail

0.8%

0.3%

2.0%

0.0%

0.0%

2.8%

City of North Las Vegas Det. Ctr.

1.1

0.3

3.4

0.0

0.0

1.8

2.8%

1.3%

6.3%

0.0%

0.0%

2.5%

New Hampshire
Rockingham Co. Jail & House of Corr.
New Jersey
Camden Co. Jail

1.5%

0.5%

4.2%

1.3%

0.4%

4.3%

Essex Co. Corr. Fac.

2.2

1.0

4.8

1.2

0.4

3.7

Atlantic Co. - Gerard L. Gormley Justice Fac.

0.7

0.1

3.5

1.8

0.4

8.7

Passaic Co. Jail

0.0

0.0

1.4

0.4

0.1

2.1

Sussex Co. - Walter Keogh Dwyer Corr. Fac.

1.0

0.2

3.8

0.0

0.0

4.8

New Mexico
Chaves Co. Det. Ctr.

1.1%

0.5%

2.4%

2.2%

1.1%

4.3%

Lea Co. Det. Fac.

0.0

0.0

9.6

0.0

0.0

9.6

Roosevelt Co. Det. Ctr.

0.0

0.0

6.0

1.7

0.7

4.3

New York
Columbia Co. Jail

1.5%

0.5%

4.3%

1.1%

0.4%

3.2%

Livingston Co. Jail

2.6

1.1

5.8

0.0

0.0

6.8

Monroe Co. Jail

2.7

0.9

8.1

0.0

0.0

1.9

Nassau Co. Corr. Ctr.

1.5

0.5

4.4

2.6

1.3

5.2

New York City - Eric M. Taylor Ctr.

2.2

0.9

5.3

0.4

0.1

1.9

New York City - Manhattan Det. Ctr.

4.3

2.0

9.1

0.5

0.1

2.3

New York City - Vernon C. Bain Ctr.

4.0

2.1

7.3

0.5

0.1

2.2

Onondaga Co. Penitentiary

1.7

0.7

4.1

0.0

0.0

2.5

Orleans Co. Jail

3.8

2.1

6.8

1.8

0.8

4.0

Wayne Co. Jail

3.1

1.8

5.4

1.0

0.4

2.6

86

August 2010

Appendix Table 8 (continued)
Percent of jail inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual contacts, by facility, National Inmate Survey,
2008-09
Nonconsensual sexual actsa

Abusive sexual contacts onlyb

95%-confidence intervalc
Facility name

Percent victimizedd Lower bound Upper bound

95%-confidence intervalc
Percent victimizedd Lower bound Upper bound

North Carolina
Alamance Co. Jail

3.0%

1.7%

5.3%

1.0%

0.4%

2.5%

Davidson Co. Jail

1.1

0.5

2.2

0.7

0.3

1.7

Durham Co. Jail

1.9

0.9

3.6

3.4

1.8

6.2

Johnston Co. Jail

0.0

0.0

3.0

0.0

0.0

3.0

McDowell Co. Jail

0.0

0.0

6.2

2.8

1.2

6.4

Orange Co. Jail

0.0

0.0

4.4

0.0

0.0

4.4

Rowan Co. Jail

3.6

1.8

7.2

1.5

0.6

4.0

Wilson Co. Jail

4.5

1.9

9.8

0.0

0.0

5.3

Ashtabula Co. Jail

0.0%

0.0%

7.0%

0.0%

0.0%

7.0%

Hamilton Co. - Talbert House - Turning Point Treatment Ctr.

0.0

0.0

8.0

0.0

0.0

8.0

Clermont Co. Jail

1.2

0.5

2.9

0.6

0.2

1.9

Lake Co. - Adult Max. Security Det. Ctr.

0.0

0.0

3.1

0.5

0.1

1.6

Montgomery Co. Jail

0.6

0.1

2.8

0.8

0.3

2.7

Pickaway Co. Jail

0.8

0.3

2.0

0.8

0.3

2.1

Wood Co. Justice Ctr.

0.8

0.2

2.5

2.9

0.9

8.9

Ohio

Oklahoma
Muskogee Co. Jail

1.3%

0.5%

3.6%

0.5%

0.1%

2.0%

Oklahoma Co. Jail

2.4

1.2

5.0

2.1

0.9

4.7

Pawnee Co. Jail

0.0

0.0

21.5

0.0

0.0

21.5

Texas Co. Jail

0.0

0.0

8.0

0.0

0.0

8.0

Tulsa Co. - David L. Moss Criminal Justice Ctr.

0.4

0.1

1.8

0.0

0.0

1.7

Oregon
Deschutes Co. Jail

0.7%

0.2%

2.3%

2.5%

1.3%

4.5%

Polk Co. Jail

5.9

3.6

9.8

2.1

1.0

4.2

Pennsylvania
Allegheny Co. Jail

1.3%

0.5%

3.2%

1.4%

0.4%

4.8%

Centre Co. Corr. Fac.

0.5

0.2

1.8

3.6

2.0

6.2

Chester Co. Prison

0.8

0.3

2.1

0.3

0.1

1.4

Dauphin Co. Prison

2.9

1.6

5.4

0.8

0.3

2.3

Lackawanna Co. Prison

0.8

0.3

2.3

2.7

1.3

5.7

Lawrence Co. Corr. Fac.

2.9

1.3

6.3

1.0

0.3

3.4

Lehigh Co. Prison

2.0

0.9

4.2

0.7

0.2

2.2

Lycoming Co. Prison

2.2

0.7

7.0

2.2

0.7

7.1

Monroe Co. Corr. Fac.

0.6

0.2

2.2

0.2

0.1

0.8

Philadelphia City - Det. Ctr. & Prison Health Services Unit

1.8

0.6

4.9

2.2

0.9

5.3

Philadelphia City - House of Corr.

1.5

0.5

4.2

1.0

0.3

3.3

Philadelphia City - Industrial Corr. Ctr.

5.4

3.3

8.7

1.2

0.4

3.1

Tioga Co. Jail

3.0

1.0

8.7

0.0

0.0

8.4

Westmoreland Co. Prison

1.3

0.4

4.1

0.7

0.2

3.3

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09

87

Appendix Table 8 (continued)
Percent of jail inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual contacts, by facility, National Inmate Survey,
2008-09
Nonconsensual sexual actsa

Abusive sexual contacts onlyb

95%-confidence intervalc
Facility name

Percent victimizedd Lower bound Upper bound

95%-confidence intervalc
Percent victimizedd Lower bound Upper bound

South Carolina
Georgetown Co. Det. Ctr.

1.2%

0.4%

3.5%

2.7%

0.7%

10.1%

Greenville Co. Det. Fac.

0.4

0.1

1.7

1.0

0.2

4.3

Horry Co. - J. Reuben Long Det. Ctr.

3.9

2.0

7.3

0.7

0.2

2.1

Lancaster Co. Det. Ctr.

0.9

0.3

3.2

1.6

0.5

5.4

Richland Co. Det. Ctr.

1.8

0.8

4.0

1.6

0.6

4.1

York Co. Moss Justice Ctr.

2.3

0.8

6.6

0.0

0.0

3.4

:

:

:

:

:

:

Bedford Co. Jail

1.2%

0.5%

2.8%

0.0%

0.0%

3.5%

Crockett Co. Jail

4.4

1.8

10.0

0.0

0.0

11.4

Davidson Co. - Criminal Justice Ctr.

2.1

0.8

5.3

0.7

0.1

2.9

Davidson Co. - Metro Det. Fac.f

4.3

2.6

6.9

0.0

0.0

1.5

Hamilton Co. Jail

0.3

0.1

1.2

0.9

0.3

2.6

Putnam Co. Jail

0.0

0.0

3.0

0.7

0.2

2.3

Silverdale Penal Farmf

1.9

0.9

3.9

2.1

0.9

4.9

White Co. Jail

1.8

0.9

3.4

1.6

0.8

3.1

South Dakota
Faulk Co. Jail
Tennessee

Texas
Collin Co. Min. Security Fac.

1.7%

0.7%

4.3%

2.7%

1.4%

5.3%

Dallas Co. - North Tower

1.7

0.6

4.7

0.3

0.1

1.5

Dallas Co. - West Tower

3.6

1.8

7.0

0.6

0.1

3.1

Ector Co. Jail

1.3

0.4

4.4

0.5

0.1

2.6

Ellis Co. Jail

0.5

0.1

1.7

1.9

0.8

4.3

Fort Bend Co. Jail

1.6

0.7

3.7

0.0

0.0

2.0

Harris Co. Jail

1.3

0.5

3.3

1.1

0.3

3.7

Harris Co. Jail - Baker Street

2.2

1.0

4.6

2.5

1.3

4.9

Henderson Co. Jail

1.3

0.3

5.3

1.2

0.3

4.7

Hood Co. Jail

2.9

1.9

4.3

1.6

0.9

2.8

Hunt Co. Criminal Justice Ctr.

1.4

0.6

3.7

0.0

0.0

2.6

Lubbock Co. Jail

1.4

0.4

4.4

0.0

0.0

2.8

Newton Co. Corr. Ctr.f

0.7

0.2

2.3

0.0

0.0

1.5

Nueces Co. Jail

1.7

0.8

3.9

0.4

0.1

1.7

Smith Co. Jail - Min. & Med. Security Fac.

3.4

1.7

6.6

0.0

0.0

2.4

Tarrant Co. Corr. Ctr.

2.7

1.2

6.0

2.6

1.1

5.7

Tarrant Co. - Green Bay Fac.

2.9

1.2

7.2

0.7

0.1

3.5

Terry Co. Jail

1.2

0.4

3.5

0.0

0.0

4.1

Van Zandt Co. Jail

0.0

0.0

3.5

0.0

0.0

3.5

Walker Co. Jail

1.3

0.4

4.4

4.1

2.0

8.4

Webb Co. Jail

2.0

0.8

5.0

0.0

0.0

2.5

Wichita Co. Jail

0.0

0.0

3.3

3.4

1.6

7.0

Utah
Salt Lake Co. Jail

2.4%

1.2%

4.8%

1.4%

0.6%

3.4%

Uintah Co. Jail

0.0

0.0

8.6

0.0

0.0

8.6

Utah Co. Jail

0.4

0.1

1.8

1.2

0.5

2.9

88

August 2010

Appendix Table 8 (continued)
Percent of jail inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual contacts, by facility, National Inmate Survey,
2008-09
Nonconsensual sexual actsa

Abusive sexual contacts onlyb

95%-confidence intervalc
Facility name

Percent victimizedd

Lower bound Upper bound

95%-confidence intervalc
Percent victimizedd

Lower bound Upper bound

Virginia
Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail

3.8%

1.9%

7.2%

1.0%

0.3%

3.1%

Alexandria City Det. Ctr.

0.9

0.2

4.0

0.8

0.2

3.9

Chesapeake Corr. Ctr.

2.6

0.9

6.7

0.0

0.0

3.2

Eastern Shore Regional Jail

9.9

4.3

21.5

0.0

0.0

12.5

Fairfax Co. - Adult Det. Ctr.

1.5

0.6

3.7

0.8

0.2

2.9

Hampton Roads Regional Jail

3.3

1.7

6.3

2.0

0.9

4.4

Loudoun Co. - Adult Det. Ctr.

2.0

0.8

5.2

1.2

0.3

4.4

Middle Peninsula Regional Security Ctr.

3.1

1.6

5.6

3.4

1.6

7.2

Norfolk City Jail

1.4

0.5

3.9

0.0

0.0

2.1

Northwestern Regional Adult Det. Ctr.

0.7

0.2

2.9

0.4

0.1

1.8

Page Co. Jail

0.0

0.0

14.3

0.0

0.0

14.3

Roanoke City Jail

4.1

2.1

7.5

1.1

0.4

2.9

Southside Regional Jail

2.6

0.9

6.9

0.0

0.0

4.1

Clallam Co. Corr. Fac.

5.4%

3.0%

9.5%

3.0%

1.3%

6.6%

King Co. Corr. Fac.

4.0

2.1

7.6

1.5

0.6

3.6

Pierce Co. Det. and Corr. Ctr. - New Jail & Main Jail

0.4

0.1

2.2

1.6

0.6

4.3

Spokane Co. - Geiger Corr. Ctr.

1.4

0.6

3.2

2.1

1.0

4.4

Spokane Co. Jail

1.4

0.5

3.4

1.5

0.6

3.6

2.1%

1.0%

4.5%

4.3%

2.5%

7.2%

Washington

West Virginia
Southwestern Regional Jail
Wisconsin
Chippewa Co. Jail

0.0%

0.0%

6.4%

2.9%

1.1%

7.3%

Dane Co. Jail

1.9

0.6

6.1

2.3

0.8

6.4

LaCrosse Co. Jail

5.2

2.5

10.5

0.0

0.0

4.1

Ozaukee Co. Jail

1.0

0.3

2.9

0.9

0.3

2.6

Racine Co. Jail

2.1

0.8

5.3

1.3

0.4

3.9

3.5%

2.0%

5.9%

1.4%

0.6%

3.3%

Wyoming
Natrona Co. Det. Ctr.
:Not available.
aIncludes all inmates who reported unwanted contacts with another inmate or any contacts with staff that involved oral, anal, or vaginal penetration, hand jobs, and other sexual acts
occurring in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if shorter.
bIncludes all inmates who reported unwanted contacts with another inmate or any contacts with staff that involved touching of the inmate’s buttocks, thigh, penis, breasts or vagina in a
sexual way occurring in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if shorter.
cIndicates that different samples in the same facility would yield prevalence rates falling between the lower and upper bound estimates 95 out of 100 times.
dWeights were applied so that inmates who responded accurately reflected the entire population of each facility on select characteristics, including age, sex, race, time served, and
sentence length. (See Methodology.)
eFemale facility.
fPrivately operated facility.

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09

89

Appendix Table 9
Characteristics of special correctional facilities and prevalence of sexual victimization, by facility, National Inmate Survey,
2008-09
Inmates reporting sexual victimizationa
95%-confidence intervalb
Number of inmates
in custodyc

Respondents to sexual
victimization surveyd

Response ratee

Eloy Det. Ctr. (AZ)g,h

1,464

241

63%

Stewart Det. Ctr. (GA)h

Special correctional facilities

Percentf

Lower bound

Upper bound

Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities
0.7%

0.2%

2.4%

1,506

138

66

0.9

0.2

4.5

Elizabeth Contract Det. Fac. (NJ)g,h

224

100

68

0.8

0.3

2.7

El Paso Processing Ctr. (TX)g

767

250

79

2.1

1.1

4.0

South Texas Det. Complex (TX)g

991

164

64

0.0

0.0

2.3

Military facilities
Marine Corps Base Brig, Camp Pendleton (CA)

171

105

85%

0.5%

0.2%

1.6%

Naval Consolidated Brig, Miramar (CA)g

266

125

73

2.9

1.4

5.6

U.S. Disciplinary Barracks, Leavenworth (KS)

437

149

71

6.0

3.6

10.0

Gila River DOC and Rehab. (AZ)g

149

97

77%

1.0%

0.4%

Navajo Nation-Window Rock (AZ)

14

10

0.0

0.0

Tribal jails
100

2.6%
27.8

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

sexual acts occurring in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if shorter.

bIndicates that different samples in the same facility would yield prevalence rates falling between the lower and upper bound estimates 95 out of 100 times.
cNumber of inmates in custody on day when the facility provided the sample roster.
dNumber of respondents consenting to the sexual victimization survey on NIS. (See Methodology.)
eResponse rate is equal to the number of respondents divided by the number of eligible inmates sampled times 100 percent.
fWeights were applied so that inmates who responded accurately reflected the entire population of each facility on select characteristics, including age, sex, race, time served, and
sentence length. (See Methodology.)
gFacility houses both males and females; both were sampled at this facility.
hPrivately operated facility.

90

August 2010

Appendix table 10.
Wald F statistics for inmate risk characteristics in the final multivariate logistic models of sexual victimization in prisons and
jails, by type of incident, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09
Degrees of
freedom

Wald F statistics for sexual
victimization in prison

Wald F statistics for sexual
victimization in jail

All models*

Inmate-oninmate

Staff sexual
misconduct

Sex

1

4.20

38.48

4.06

35.87

Race/Hispanic origin

4

4.17

3.16

--

7.27

Age

5

--

8.92

6.90

23.15

Education

3

--

3.89

8.55

17.52

Marital status

2

3.20

--

--

--

Weight

3

--

--

5.19

--

Inmate characteristic

Inmate-oninmate

Staff sexual
misconduct

Demographic characteristics

Sexual orientation/history characteristics
Sexual orientation

1

104.60

14.32

61.21

--

Number of sexual partners

4

--

2.65

--

6.68

Prior sexual assault

1

319.00

135.70

345.60

247.20

Most serious offense

4

15.04

3.96

2.61

--

Sentence length

5

3.78

6.20

--

--

Time in a correctional facility prior to current facility

4

--

4.23

--

6.30

Number of times arrested

3

--

--

2.98

5.06

Time since admission

4

--

--

7.35

5.42

Criminal justice status/history characteristics

Note: Wald-F tests were conducted to test for the statistical significance of each inmate characteristic in the four final models presented in table 12. For each characteristic, the Wald-F
tests the null hypothesis that all regression coefficients are equal to zero (i.e., the probability of experiencing a victimization is the same across all categories of the selected characteristic),
conditional on all other inmate characteristics being included in the model. The Wald F statistic is calculated by comparing the maximum likelihood estimate for the characteristic to an
estimate of its standard error. Though varying by the number of degrees of freedom, statistics greater than 2.0 (for 1 degree of freedom) are statistically significant at the 95%-confidence
level.
--Characteristic deleted from model when Wald statistic was not significant at the 95%-confidence level.
*For each inmate characteristic, the degrees of freedom represent the number of categories minus 1.

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09

91

Office of Justic Programs
Innovation • Partnerships • Safer Neighborhoods
http://www.ojp.usdog.gov

 

 

Federal Prison Handbook - Side
PLN Subscribe Now Ad 450x450
The Habeas Citebook: Prosecutorial Misconduct Side