Skip navigation

U.S. Department of Justice Special Report: Sexual Victimization Reported by Adult Correctional Authorities, 2012-15, 2018

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

JULY 2018

Special Report

NCJ 251146

Sexual Victimization Reported by Adult
Correctional Authorities, 2012-15
Ramona R. Rantala, BJS Statistician

I

n 2015, correctional administrators reported
24,661 allegations of sexual victimization in
prisons, jails, and other adult correctional
facilities (fgure 1).1 More than half (58%) involved
sexual victimization by staf toward inmates, and the
remainder (42%) involved sexual victimization by
inmates towards other inmates.
About 8% (1,473) of the allegations were substantiated
based on completed investigations. Te number of
allegations rose sharply afer the National Standards
to Prevent, Detect, and Respond to Prison Rape
were issued by the Department of Justice in 2012.
(See National Standards to Prevent, Detect, and
Respond to Prison Rape text box.) Te standards
require correctional facilities to educate staf and
inmates on sexual victimization, refer all allegations
for investigation, track the information collected
in the Survey of Sexual Victimization (SSV), and
provide the information on request. (See Te Bureau
of Justice Statistics surveys of sexual victimization in
correctional facilities text box.)
1Excludes inmate-on-inmate sexual harassment, which was frst

measured in 2013. (See page 11.)

FIGURE 1
National estimates of allegations and substantiated
incidents of sexual victimization in adult correctional
facilities, 2005–15
Number
30,000
25,000
Implementation of
national standards

20,000
15,000
10,000

Allegations

5,000
Substantiated incidents
0

’05 ’06 ’07 ’08 ’09 ’10 ’11 ’12 ’13 ’14 ’15

Note: Excludes inmate-on-inmate sexual harassment. See appendix
table 1 for estimates and standard errors.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Sexual Victimization, 2005–15.

HIGHLIGHTS
„

Correctional administrators reported 24,661
allegations of sexual victimization in 2015, nearly
triple the number recorded in 2011 (8,768).

„

In 2015, an estimated 1,473 allegations were
substantiated (determined to have occurred),
up 63% from the 902 substantiated in 2011.

„

Most of the increase in allegations was due to an
increase in unfounded (determined not to have
occurred) and unsubstantiated (insufcient evidence
to determine if it occurred) allegations.

„

Fifty-eight percent of substantiated incidents of
sexual victimization in 2015 were perpetrated
by inmates, while 42% were perpetrated by
staf members.

„

The increase in allegations of sexual victimization from
2011 to 2015 coincided with the release in 2012 of the
National Standards to Prevent, Detect, and Respond to
Prison Rape.

„

The number of allegations in prisons increased from
6,660 in 2011 to 18,666 in 2015 (up 180%).

„

During the 3-year aggregated period of 2013-15, there
were an estimated 15,875 allegations of inmate-on-inmate
sexual harassment, of which 2,426 (16%) were
substantiated based on completed investigations.

Defnitions
The Bureau of Justice Statistics uses uniform defnitions for each sexual act and investigative outcome. Each sexual act
is classifed by the perpetrator (i.e., inmate or staf ) and the type of act. In 2013, BJS modifed the survey to align the
defnitions with the national standards. BJS began collecting data on inmate-on-inmate sexual harassment in 2013.
Inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization involves
nonconsensual sexual acts or abusive contact with a
victim without his or her consent or with a victim who
cannot consent or refuse.
„

„

Nonconsensual sexual acts are the most serious
victimizations and include—
|

contact between the penis and the vulva or
the penis and the anus including penetration,
however slight

|

contact between the mouth and the penis,
vulva, or anus

|

penetration of the anal or genital opening of
another person, however slight, by a hand,
fnger, object, or other instrument.

Staf-on-inmate sexual victimization includes sexual
misconduct or sexual harassment perpetrated on
an inmate by staf. Staf includes an employee,
volunteer, contractor, ofcial visitor, or other agency
representative. Family, friends, and other visitors
are excluded.
„

Abusive sexual contact is less serious and
includes intentional touching, either directly
or through the clothing, of the genitalia, anus,
groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any
person. Incidents in which the contact was
incidental to a physical altercation are excluded.

Substantiated allegation means the event was
investigated and determined to have occurred, based
on a preponderance of the evidence (28 C.F.R. §115.72).
Unfounded allegation means the investigation
determined that the event did not occur.
Unsubstantiated allegation means the investigation
concluded that evidence was insufcient to determine
whether or not the event occurred.

„

Staf sexual misconduct includes any
consensual or nonconsensual behavior or act
of a sexual nature directed toward an inmate
by staf, including romantic relationships. Such
acts include—
|

intentional touching, either directly or
through the clothing, of the genitalia, anus,
groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks that is
unrelated to ofcial duties or with the intent
to abuse, arouse, or gratify sexual desire

|

completed, attempted, threatened, or
requested sexual acts

|

occurrences of indecent exposure,
invasion of privacy, or staf voyeurism for
reasons unrelated to ofcial duties or for
sexual gratifcation.

Staf sexual harassment includes repeated verbal
comments or gestures of a sexual nature to an
inmate by staf. Such statements include—
|

demeaning references to an inmate’s gender
or sexually suggestive or derogatory
comments about his or her body or clothing

|

repeated profane or obscene language
or gestures.

SEXUAL VICTIMIZATION REPORTED BY ADULT CORRECTIONAL AUTHORITIES, 2012-15 | JULY 2018

2

Te SSV (formerly the Survey of Sexual Violence) is an
annual collection conducted by the Bureau of Justice
Statistics (BJS) since 2004, and is based on the ofcial
administrative records of correctional systems and
facilities. Te SSV helps BJS to meet its mandates under
the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (PREA).

data were collected from facilities holding 1.96 million
inmates in 2012, 1.97 million inmates in 2013,
1.93 million inmates in 2014, and 1.92 million inmates
in 2015. (See Methodology for more information about
sampling procedures, systems and facilities from which
data were collected, and standard errors.)

Te surveys include all federal and state prisons, all
facilities operated by the U.S. military and ICE, and
a representative sample of jail jurisdictions, privately
operated jails and prisons, and jails holding adults in
Indian country. Responses are weighted to provide
national estimates for jails and privately operated
facilities. Because the estimates for jails and private
facilities are based on a sample rather than a complete
enumeration, they are subject to sampling error.
Standard errors are provided in the appendix. In total,

Administrators provided annual counts for each type of
victimization that was alleged or frst discovered during
the prior calendar year. Tey also indicated how many
were substantiated or determined to have occurred;
unfounded or determined not to have occurred;
unsubstantiated or had insufcient evidence to make a
fnal determination; or under investigation at the time
of data collection. In addition to requiring all allegations
to be investigated, the national standards include criteria
for substantiating incidents based on a preponderance of
the evidence.

National Standards to Prevent, Detect, and Respond to Prison Rape
The Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (PREA)
includes a requirement to develop national
standards.2 Following the process outlined in PREA,
the Department of Justice published the National
Standards to Prevent, Detect, and Respond to Prison
Rape (28 C.F.R. §115) on June 20, 2012. The national
standards were efective immediately for the Federal
Bureau of Prisons (BOP) and outlined a 3-year phase-in
period for audits.
The standards address numerous issues, practices,
and requirements to prevent, detect, and respond to
sexual abuse in confnement settings. The standards
include defnitions of terms related to sexual abuse
(§115.6), prevention planning (§115.11-18), responsive
planning (§115.11-22), training and education of
staf and inmates (§115.31-35), reporting allegations
(§115.51-54), investigation of allegations (§115.71-73),
data collection via the Survey of Sexual Violence
(SSV, §115.87), and audits (§115.93 and §115.401-405).3
In 2013, the SSV was renamed the Survey of Sexual
Victimization and was updated to better refect
the national standards. Defnitions were modifed
for each type of victimization and investigative
outcome. Questions about inmate-on-inmate sexual
harassment were added. Changes to the substantiated
incident forms included asking whether the incident
2Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003, P.L. 108-79 §§ 7-8.
Retrieved from www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-108publ79/pdf/
PLAW-108publ79.pdf
3Prison and Jail Standards, 28 C.F.R. Part 115. Retrieved
from www.prearesourcecenter.org/sites/default/fles/library/
prisonsandjailsfnalstandards.pdf

location was subject to video monitoring, expanding
victim and inmate perpetrator demographic
characteristics to include transgender and intersex,
and expanding answer categories to capture common
written responses.
When the standards were published, it was anticipated
that the number of allegations might increase and that
such an increase—
might refect increased abuse, or it might just
refect inmates’ increased willingness to report
abuse, due to the facility’s success at assuring
inmates that reporting will yield positive outcomes
and not result in retaliation. Likewise, an increase
in substantiated incidents could mean either
that a facility is failing to protect inmates, or else
simply that it has improved its efectiveness at
investigating allegations.4
To provide administrators more time to conduct
investigations, SSV data are collected after the reference
year has ended. For example, 2012 data were collected
from July to December 2013, after the standards came
into efect for the BOP and during the implementation
period for other facilities. Audits can also afect the
numbers reported via SSV. For example, audits may
reveal a miscategorization of type of victimization, and
a facility may revise numbers previously reported to the
Bureau of Justice Statistics.
4National

Standards to Prevent, Detect, and Respond to Prison
Rape, 77 Fed. Reg. 37107 (June 20, 2012) 28 C.F.R. Part 115.
Retrieved from www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-06-20/
pdf/2012-12427.pdf

SEXUAL VICTIMIZATION REPORTED BY ADULT CORRECTIONAL AUTHORITIES, 2012-15 | JULY 2018

3

Each sexual victimization is classifed by the type
of perpetrator (i.e., inmate or staf) and act, which
is defned by BJS in conjunction with the national
standards. Inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization
includes nonconsensual sexual acts, abusive sexual
contact, and sexual harassment (as of 2013).
Staf-on-inmate sexual victimization includes sexual
misconduct and sexual harassment.

FIGURE 2
National estimates of outcomes of alleged sexual
victimization in adult correctional facilities, 2010–15
Number
12,000
10,000

Allegations of sexual victimization

8,000

Allegations of sexual victimization increased in both
prisons and jails

6,000

Afer the national standards were issued in 2012,
the number of allegations of sexual victimization
that were substantiated increased for 2 years, then
leveled of. Te number of allegations that were
unfounded (determined not to have occurred) and
unsubstantiated (insufcient evidence to determine if
it occurred) rose sharply. Of the 24,661 allegations of
sexual victimization in 2015, a total of 1,473 (6%) were
substantiated and 2,733 (11%) were under investigation
during data collection (fgure 2). Prior to 2014, more
allegations were unsubstantiated than were unfounded.
In 2014, for the frst time in 11 years of collecting
SSV data, allegations that were unfounded (8,372)
exceeded those that were unsubstantiated (7,783). In
2015, the number of unfounded allegations (10,142)
was nearly equal to the number of unsubstantiated
allegations (10,313).

Implementation of
national standards
Unfounded

Unsubstantiated

4,000
Under investigation

2,000

Substantiated
0

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Note: Excludes inmate-on-inmate sexual harassment. See appendix
table 2 for estimates and standard errors.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Sexual Victimization,
2010–15.

Te Bureau of Justice Statistics surveys of sexual victimization in
correctional facilities
Section 4(a)(1) of the Prison Rape Elimination Act of
2003 (PREA) requires the Bureau of Justice Statistics
to “carry out, for each calendar year, a comprehensive
statistical review and analysis of the incidence and
efects of prison rape” (P.L. 108-79).
BJS has developed a multiple-measure, multiple-mode
data collection strategy to fully implement
requirements under PREA, including three surveys
relating to inmate sexual victimization. The Survey of

Sexual Victimization annually collects administrative
data on the incidence of sexual victimization in adult
and juvenile correctional facilities. The National Inmate
Survey and the National Survey of Youth in Custody
gather data on the prevalence of sexual assault as
reported by inmates in prisons and jails and by youth
held in juvenile correctional facilities. (For more
information on BJS's PREA data collection activities, see
the BJS website.)

SEXUAL VICTIMIZATION REPORTED BY ADULT CORRECTIONAL AUTHORITIES, 2012-15 | JULY 2018

4

Correctional administrators reported 24,661 allegations
of sexual victimization in 2015, an increase from the
18,891 allegations reported in 2014 (table 1). Te
total allegations in 2015 were nearly triple the number
reported in 2011 (8,768 allegations), the year before the
national standards were implemented. Te standards
specifed not only what data must be tracked and
reported to BJS, but also required inmate education,
medical and mental health care for victims, and

investigations of each allegation, all of which may have
encouraged victims and increased their willingness to
report sexual abuse.
Increases between 2011 and 2015 occurred for all types
of correctional facilities. Te number of allegations
in prisons increased from 6,660 allegations in 2011 to
18,666 in 2015 (up 180%). Te number of allegations
in jails increased from 2,047 in 2011 to 5,809 in 2015
(up 184%).

TABLE 1
National estimates of allegations of sexual victimization, by type of facility, 2005 and 2010–15
Type of facility
Total
Prisonsa
Public - federal
Public - state
Jailsc
Other adult facilities
Military
Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Indian country jailsd

2015*
24,661
18,666
740
16,940
5,809

2014
18,891 †
13,794 †
776 †
12,186 †
4,905 †

2013
13,568 †
9,850 †
879 †
8,394 †
3,577 †

2012
10,047 †
7,575 †
718 †
6,433 †
2,411 †

2011
8,768 †
6,660 †
488 †
5,765 †
2,047 †

2010
8,404 †
6,648 †
479 †
5,812 †
1,700 †

2005
6,241 †
4,791 †
268b
4,341 †
1,406 †

35
151
0

37 †
148 †
7†

16 †
125 †
0

7†
54 †
0

4†
50 †
^

6†
46 †
^

8†
4†
32 †

Note: Excludes inmate-on-inmate sexual harassment. See appendix table 3 for standard errors.
*Comparison year.
†Diference with comparison year is signifcant at the 95% confdence level. Federal prisons, state prisons, military facilities and ICE facilities are
complete enumerations rather than a sample, so any diference with comparison year is signifcant. See footnote b for one exception.
^Too few cases to provide a reliable estimate.
aIncludes federal, state, and private prisons.
bEstimates for federal prisons in 2005 are not comparable to those for other years due to a change in reporting.
cIncludes local and private jails.
dExcludes facilities housing only juveniles.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Sexual Victimization, 2005 and 2010–15.

SEXUAL VICTIMIZATION REPORTED BY ADULT CORRECTIONAL AUTHORITIES, 2012-15 | JULY 2018

5

Te overall rate of reported allegations nearly tripled
during the same period, from 3.9 allegations per 1,000
inmates in 2011 to 11.0 per 1,000 in 2015 (table 2).
Allegation rates increased for all types of facilities.
Rates for prisons rose from 4.5 allegations per 1,000
inmates in 2011 to 12.6 per 1,000 in 2015. Jails
consistently had lower rates than prisons, rising from
2.7 allegations per 1,000 inmates in 2011 to 8.0 in 2015.

FIGURE 3
National estimates of allegations of sexual
victimization in adult correctional facilities, by type of
victimization, 2010–15
Number
10,000
Implementation of
national standards

Staf-on-inmate victimization accounted for 63% of
the increase in allegations from 2011 to 2015

8,000

Afer implementation of the national standards,
allegations of staf-on-inmate sexual misconduct
increased from 2,800 in 2011 to 8,151 in 2015
(up 191%) (fgure 3). Allegations of staf-on-inmate
sexual victimization increased more than
inmate-on-inmate victimization, accounting for
63% of the total increase. During the same period,
inmate-on-inmate nonconsensual sexual acts
accounted for the smallest relative increase (up 101%),
from 2,986 to 5,992.

6,000
4,000

Sta˜ sexual
misconduct

Nonconsensual
sexual acts
Abusive sexual
contact

2,000
0

Sta˜ sexual
harassment
2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Note: Excludes inmate-on-inmate sexual harassment. See appendix
table 5 for estimates and standard errors.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Sexual Victimization,
2010–15.

TABLE 2
Rates per 1,000 inmates of allegations of sexual victimization, by type of facility, 2005 and 2010–15
Type of facility
Total
Prisonsa
Public - federal
Public - state
Jailsc
Other adult facilities
Military
Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Indian country jailsd

2015*
11.04
12.58
4.61
14.63
8.03

2014
8.37 †
9.28 †
4.58 †
10.35 †
6.56 †

2013
5.95 †
6.55 †
5.06 †
7.13 †
4.73 †

2012
4.49 †
5.16 †
4.07 †
5.50 †
3.22 †

2011
3.90 †
4.49 †
2.77 †
4.81 †
2.73 †

2010
3.65 †
4.40 †
2.77 †
4.74 †
2.20 †

2005
2.83 †
3.33 †
1.71b
3.68 †
1.86 †

25.17
8.12
0.00

26.81 †
8.14 †
2.35 †

11.40 †
7.22 †
0.00

4.96 †
2.92 †
0.00

2.63 †
3.41 †
^

3.95 †
2.67 †
^

3.08 †
0.61 †
^

Note: Excludes inmate-on-inmate sexual harassment. See appendix table 4 for standard errors.
*Comparison year.
†Diference with comparison year is signifcant at the 95% confdence level. Federal prisons, state prisons, military facilities and ICE facilities are
complete enumerations rather than a sample, so any diference with comparison year is signifcant. See footnote b for one exception.
^Too few cases to provide a reliable estimate.
aIncludes federal, state, and private prisons.
bEstimates for federal prisons in 2005 are not comparable to those for other years due to a change in reporting.
cIncludes local and private jails.
dExcludes facilities housing only juveniles.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Sexual Victimization, 2005 and 2010–15.

SEXUAL VICTIMIZATION REPORTED BY ADULT CORRECTIONAL AUTHORITIES, 2012-15 | JULY 2018

6

Outcomes of sexual victimization investigations
Overall, 8% of completed investigations were
substantiated from 2012-15
During the 4-year aggregated period of 2012-15,
investigations were completed for 61,316
(91%) of the 67,168 total allegations (table 3).

For inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization,
investigations were completed for 28,507 of the
30,590 allegations (93%), and for staf-on-inmate
victimization, investigations were completed for
32,809 of the 36,578 allegations (90%) during the
4-year period. Overall, 5,187 (8%) of completed
investigations were substantiated.

TABLE 3
National estimates of outcomes of investigations into allegations of sexual victimization, by type of facility, 2012–15
Type of victimization and outcome
Inmate-on-inmate
Substantiated
Unsubstantiated
Unfounded
Under investigation
Nonconsensual sexual acts
Substantiated
Unsubstantiated
Unfounded
Under investigation
Abusive sexual contact
Substantiated
Unsubstantiated
Unfounded
Under investigation
Staf-on-inmate
Substantiated
Unsubstantiated
Unfounded
Under investigation
Sexual misconduct
Substantiated
Unsubstantiated
Unfounded
Under investigation
Sexual harassment
Substantiated
Unsubstantiated
Unfounded
Under investigation
Total

All facilities*
30,590
2,982
14,596
10,928
2,076
18,235
1,137
8,333
7,142
1,620
12,356
1,845
6,263
3,786
456
36,578
2,205
14,746
15,858
3,771
22,268
1,678
8,076
10,040
2,477
14,310
527
6,671
5,819
1,294
67,168

Number of allegations
Federal and state prisons
19,202
1,523
9,696
6,397
1,587
11,298
631
5,288
4,100
1,280
7,904
892
4,408
2,297
307
27,864
1,419
11,667
11,474
3,305
16,244
1,078
6,129
6,950
2,088
11,620
341
5,538
4,524
1,217
47,066

Local jails
9,586
1,282
3,908
3,998
388
5,938
461
2,494
2,702
277
3,648
822
1,414
1,296
111
6,585
598
1,997
3,636
354
4,574
446
1,265
2,562
301
2,011
152
731
1,074
53
16,171

Note: Excludes inmate-on-inmate sexual harassment, which BJS began collecting in 2013. Detail may not sum to total due to discrepancies in reporting.
See appendix table 6 for standard errors.
*Includes private prisons and jails, jails in Indian country, and facilities operated by the U.S. military and Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Sexual Victimization, 2012–15.

SEXUAL VICTIMIZATION REPORTED BY ADULT CORRECTIONAL AUTHORITIES, 2012-15 | JULY 2018

7

During the 4-year aggregated period of 2012-15,
investigations were completed for 16,612 of the
18,235 allegations (91%) of inmate-on-inmate
nonconsensual sexual acts. Fewer than 1 in 10 (7%)
or 1,137 of these completed investigations were
substantiated. More than 4 in 10 (43%) completed
investigations of nonconsensual sexual acts were
unfounded, and half (50%) were unsubstantiated
(table 4).
More than half (53%) of the completed investigations
of inmate-to-inmate abusive sexual contact were
unsubstantiated. An estimated 16% of the completed

investigations were substantiated, and 32% were
unfounded. In local jails, 23% of the completed
investigations were substantiated, 37% were
unfounded, and 40% were unsubstantiated. In state
and federal prisons, 12% of completed investigations
were substantiated, 30% were unfounded, and 58%
were unsubstantiated.
Fewer than 1 in 20 (4%) completed investigations of
staf sexual harassment were substantiated. Fewer than
1 in 10 (8%) of the completed investigations of staf
sexual misconduct were substantiated.

TABLE 4
Outcomes of completed investigations of sexual victimization, by type of facility, 2012–15
All facilitiesb

Percent by outcomea
Federal and state prisons*
100%
8.6%
55.0%
36.3%
17,616
100%
6.3%
52.8%
40.9%
10,019

Type of victimization and outcome
Inmate-on-inmate
Substantiated
Unsubstantiated
Unfounded
Number of completed investigations
Nonconsensual sexual acts
Substantiated
Unsubstantiated
Unfounded
Number of completed investigations

100%
10.5%
51.2%
38.3%
28,507
100%
6.8%
50.2%
43.0%
16,612

Local jails
100%
14.0% †
42.5% †
43.5% †
9,189
100%
8.1% †
44.1% †
47.8% †
5,657

Abusive sexual contact
Substantiated
Unsubstantiated
Unfounded
Number of completed investigations

100%
15.5%
52.7%
31.8%
11,895

100%
11.7%
58.0%
30.2%
7,597

100%
23.3% †
40.0% †
36.7% †
3,532

Staf-on-inmate
Substantiated
Unsubstantiated
Unfounded
Number of completed investigations

100%
6.7%
44.9%
48.3%
32,809

100%
5.8%
47.5%
46.7%
24,560

100%
9.6% †
32.0% †
58.4% †
6,230

Sexual misconduct
Substantiated
Unsubstantiated
Unfounded
Number of completed investigations

100%
8.5%
40.8%
50.7%
19,794

100%
7.6%
43.3%
49.1%
14,157

100%
10.4% †
29.6% †
60.0% †
4,273

Sexual harassment
Substantiated
Unsubstantiated
Unfounded
Number of completed investigations

100%
4.0%
51.3%
44.7%
13,016

100%
3.3%
53.2%
43.5%
10,403

100%
7.8% †
37.4% †
54.9% †
1,957

Note: Detail may not sum to 100% due to rounding. See appendix table 7 for standard errors.
*Comparison group.
†Diference with comparison group is signifcant at the 95% confdence level.
aPercentages based on allegations for which investigations have been completed.
bIncludes private prisons and jails, jails in Indian country, and facilities operated by the U.S. military and Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Sexual Victimization, 2005 and 2010–15.

SEXUAL VICTIMIZATION REPORTED BY ADULT CORRECTIONAL AUTHORITIES, 2012-15 | JULY 2018

8

The annual number of substantiated incidents of
sexual victimization increased by 63% from 2011
to 2015
Correctional administrators reported 1,473 substantiated
incidents of sexual victimization in 2015 (table 5).
Although this was fewer than the 1,522 substantiated
incidents reported in 2014, it was more than the
number reported in all other years and represented
a 63% increase from the 902 incidents substantiated
in 2011. Jails saw a greater percentage increase than

prisons. Te number of substantiated incidents in jails
doubled from 284 in 2011 to 576 in 2015 (up 103%). In
comparison, the number of substantiated incidents in
prisons rose from 605 to 873 (up 44%).
Rates of substantiated incidents of sexual victimization
showed minimal year-to-year changes until one year
afer the standards were issued in 2012 (table 6). Rates of
substantiated incidents in jails doubled from 0.4 per 1,000
inmates in 2011 to 0.8 per 1,000 in 2015.

TABLE 5
National estimates of substantiated incidents of sexual victimization, by type of facility, 2005 and 2010–15
Type of facility
Total
Prisonsa
Public - federal
Public - state
Jailsc
Other adult facilities
Military
Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Indian country jailsd

2015*
1,473
873
19
810
576

2014
1,522
888
13 †
771 †
616

2013
1,239 †
782 †
13 †
704 †
441 †

2012
953 †
656 †
24 †
588 †
292 †

2011
902 †
605 †
9†
537 †
284 †

2010
856 †
603 †
16 †
541 †
244 †

2005
885 †
524 †
41b
459 †
348 †

3
21
0

3
15 †
^

1†
15 †
0

1†
5†
0

2†
5†
^

2†
2†
^

2†
1†
^

Note: Excludes inmate-on-inmate sexual harassment. Detail may not sum to total due to rounding. See appendix table 8 for standard errors.
*Comparison year.
†Diference with comparison year is signifcant at the 95% confdence level. Federal prisons, state prisons, military facilities and ICE facilities are
complete enumerations rather than a sample, so any diference with comparison year is signifcant. See footnote b for one exception.
^Too few cases to provide a reliable estimate.
aIncludes federal, state, and private prisons.
bEstimates for federal prisons in 2005 are not comparable to those for other years due to a change in reporting.
cIncludes local and private jails.
dExcludes facilities housing only juveniles.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Sexual Victimization, 2005 and 2010–15.

TABLE 6
Rates per 1,000 inmates of substantiated incidents of sexual victimization, by type of facility, 2005 and 2010–15
Type of facility
Total
Prisonsa
Public - federal
Public - state
Jailsc
Other adult facilities
Military
Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Indian country jailsd

2015*
0.66
0.59
0.12
0.70
0.80

2014
0.67
0.60
0.08 †
0.65 †
0.82

2013
0.54 †
0.52 †
0.07 †
0.60 †
0.58 †

2012
0.43 †
0.45 †
0.14 †
0.50 †
0.39 †

2011
0.40 †
0.41 †
0.05 †
0.45 †
0.38 †

2010
0.37 †
0.40 †
0.09 †
0.44 †
0.32 †

2005
0.40 †
0.36 †
0.26b
0.39 †
0.46 †

2.16
1.13
0.00

2.17
0.83 †
^

0.71 †
0.87 †
0.00

0.71 †
0.27 †
0.00

1.31 †
0.34 †
^

1.32 †
0.12 †
^

0.77 †
0.15 †
^

Note: Excludes inmate-on-inmate sexual harassment. See appendix table 9 for standard errors.
*Comparison year.
†Diference with comparison year is signifcant at the 95% confdence level. Federal prisons, state prisons, military facilities and ICE facilities are
complete enumerations rather than a sample, so any diference with comparison year is signifcant. See footnote b for one exception.
^Too few cases to provide a reliable estimate.
aIncludes federal, state, and private prisons.
bEstimates for federal prisons in 2005 are not comparable to those for other years due to a change in reporting.
cIncludes local and private jails.
dExcludes facilities housing only juveniles.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Sexual Victimization, 2005 and 2010–15.

SEXUAL VICTIMIZATION REPORTED BY ADULT CORRECTIONAL AUTHORITIES, 2012-15 | JULY 2018

9

From 2014 to 2015, the number of substantiated
incidents did not change signifcantly
From 2011 to 2015, the overall number of substantiated
incidents increased from 902 to 1,473 (table 7). Te
number of substantiated incidents decreased from
1,522 in 2014 to 1,473 in 2015, but the change was not
statistically signifcant.
Inmate-on-inmate sexual victimizations made up
more than half (58%) of the incidents that were
substantiated in 2015. Inmate-on-inmate abusive sexual

contact more than doubled, from 250 substantiated
incidents in 2011 to 557 in 2015, which was
the largest increase in substantiated incidents.
Substantiated incidents of staf sexual misconduct
increased from 327 in 2011 to 467 in 2015.
Each year from 2010 to 2012, staf sexual
misconduct had the largest number of substantiated
incidents; however, from 2013 to 2015, the number
of substantiated incidents of inmate-on-inmate
abusive sexual contact exceeded substantiated
incidents of staf sexual misconduct.

TABLE 7
National estimates of substantiated incidents of sexual victimization, by type of victimization, 2005 and 2010–15
Type of victimization
Total
Inmate-on-inmate
Nonconsensual sexual acts
Abusive sexual contact
Staf-on-inmate
Sexual misconduct
Sexual harassment

2015*
1,473
852
295
557
621
467
154

2014
1,522
863
308
555
659
499
160

2013
1,239 †
756
293
464 †
482 †
359 †
123 †

2012
953 †
511 †
241 †
269 †
442 †
353 †
89 †

2011
902 †
473 †
224 †
250 †
429 †
327 †
102 †

2010
856 †
437 †
198 †
239 †
418 †
319 †
99 †

2005
885 †
499a
326
173 †
386a
338 †
48 †

Note: Excludes inmate-on-inmate sexual harassment. Detail may not sum to total due to rounding. See appendix table 10 for standard errors.
*Comparison year.
†Diference with comparison year is signifcant at the 95% confdence level.
aStandard errors are not available.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Sexual Victimization, 2005 and 2010–15.

SEXUAL VICTIMIZATION REPORTED BY ADULT CORRECTIONAL AUTHORITIES, 2012-15 | JULY 2018

10

Inmate-on-inmate sexual harassment
Sexual harassment of one inmate by another was frst
measured in the Survey of Sexual Victimization (SSV) in
2013. Inmate-on-inmate sexual harassment includes—
„

repeated and unwelcome sexual advances

„

requests for sexual favors

„

verbal comments, gestures, or actions of a
derogatory or ofensive sexual nature by one
inmate directed toward another.

During the 3-year aggregated period of 2013-15, an
estimated 15,875 allegations of inmate-on-inmate
sexual harassment were made (table 8).

More than 10,000 of these allegations occurred in
prisons and more than 5,000 occurred in jails. Overall,
the rate of allegations of inmate-on-inmate sexual
harassment was 2.2 per 1,000 inmates in prisons and
2.5 per 1,000 inmates in jails.
During 2013-15, more than 2,400 allegations
of inmate-on-inmate sexual harassment were
substantiated. Approximately half (1,201) were in
prisons and half (1,196) were in jails. Overall, the rate
of substantiated incidents of inmate-on-inmate sexual
harassment was 0.3 per 1,000 inmates in prisons and
0.5 per 1,000 inmates in jails.

TABLE 8
National estimates of allegations, substantiated incidents, and rates per 1,000 of inmate-on-inmate sexual
harassment, by type of facility, 2013–15
Type of facility
Total
Prisonsa
Public - federal
Public - state
Jailsb
Other adult facilities
Military
Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Indian country jailsc

Number
15,875
10,065
158
9,318
5,671

Allegations
Rate per 1,000
2.34
2.25
0.31
2.65
2.55

19
110
10

4.55
2.03
0.73

Substantiated incidents
Number
Rate per 1,000
2,426
0.36
1,201
0.27
8
0.02
1,136
0.32
1,196
0.54
1
23
5

0.24
0.43
0.35

Note: Detail may not sum to total due to rounding. See appendix table 11 for standard errors.
aIncludes federal, state, and private prisons.
bIncludes local and private jails.
cExcludes facilities housing only juveniles.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Sexual Victimization, 2013–15.

Continued on next page

SEXUAL VICTIMIZATION REPORTED BY ADULT CORRECTIONAL AUTHORITIES, 2012-15 | JULY 2018

11

Inmate-on-inmate sexual harassment (continued)
Of the estimated 15,875 allegations of
inmate-on-inmate sexual harassment reported during
the 3-year period, 2,426 were substantiated, 4,996 were
unfounded, 7,979 were unsubstantiated, and 469 were
still under investigation (table 9). Based on allegations
with completed investigations, a sixth (16%) were
substantiated, a third (32%) were unfounded, and more
than half (52%) were unsubstantiated.

Outcomes difered by type of facility. Among
allegations with completed investigations in state
and federal prisons (excluding those under private
contract), 13% of allegations of inmate-on-inmate
sexual harassment were substantiated and 55% were
unsubstantiated. In local jails, 21% of completed
investigations of inmate-on-inmate sexual harassment
were substantiated and 44% were unsubstantiated.

TABLE 9
National estimates of outcomes of investigations into allegations of inmate-on-inmate sexual harassment, by
type of facility, 2013–15
Outcome
Total
Substantiated
Unsubstantiated
Unfounded
Under investigation

Number of allegations
Federal and
All facilitiesb
state prisonsc Local jailsc
15,875
9,476
5,550
2,426
1,144
1,174
7,979
5,057
2,445
4,996
2,928
1,885
469
347
43

Percent by outcomea
Federal and
All facilitiesb
state prisonsc Local jailsc
15.7%
51.8
32.4

12.5%
55.4
32.1

21.3% †
44.4 †
34.2

Note: Detail may not sum to total due to discrepancies in reporting. Detail may not sum to 100% due to rounding. See appendix table 12 for
standard errors.
*Comparison group.
†Diference with comparison group is signifcant at the 95% confdence level.
aPercentages based on allegations for which investigations have been completed.
bIncludes private prisons and jails, jails in Indian country, and facilities operated by the U.S. military and Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
cExcludes facilities under private contract.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Sexual Victimization, 2013–15.

SEXUAL VICTIMIZATION REPORTED BY ADULT CORRECTIONAL AUTHORITIES, 2012-15 | JULY 2018

12

Methodology
Te Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) began the Survey
of Sexual Violence (renamed the Survey of Sexual
Victimization) in 2004. It is an annual collection
mandated by the Prison Rape Elimination Act of
2003 (PREA) to measure the incidence of prison rape.
Te survey is based on ofcial administrative records
of correctional systems and facilities, and covers all
federal prisons, state prisons, and facilities operated
by the U.S. military and Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, and a representative sample of local jails,
jails in Indian country, and privately operated jails and
prisons. Te U.S. Census Bureau currently serves as the
data collection agent.
Sampling
Te sample designs for BJS's 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015
Survey of Sexual Victimization (SSV, formerly Survey of
Sexual Violence) varied for each type of facility covered
by the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003.
Federal and state prisons
For each year, the survey included the Federal Bureau
of Prisons and all 50 state adult prison systems.
Prison administrators reported on allegations and
substantiated incidents of sexual victimization that
occurred within publicly operated adult prison
facilities only, and excluded allegations and incidents
involving federal or state inmates in other facilities,
such as privately operated prisons or jails.
Privately operated state and federal prisons
For each year, a sample of 125 privately operated
state and federal prison facilities was drawn from
BJS’s Census of State and Federal Adult Correctional
Facilities (CSFACF), which was updated annually to
include new privately operated facilities and to exclude
facilities that had closed or were no longer privately
operated. For SSV 2012, the CSFACF 2005 was used
as the sampling frame. Afer updating, the frame
contained 402 records for privately operated state
and federal prisons. Te number of inmates confned
on June 30, 2005, was used as the measure of size.
Facilities with 450 inmates or more on this date were
selected with certainty (i.e., given a 100% chance of
selection) due to size. Tere were 74 facilities selected
with certainty in 2012.

For SSV 2013, 2014, and 2015, the CSFACF 2012 was
used as the sampling frame. Te number of inmates
confned on December 31, 2012, was used as the
measure of size. Facilities with 450 inmates or more
on this date were selected with certainty due to size.
For SSV 2013, there were 471 privately operated
state and federal prisons in the frame, and 90 were
selected with certainty. For SSV 2014, there were
458 privately operated state and federal prisons in the
updated frame, and 82 were selected with certainty.
For SSV 2015, there were 537 privately operated state
and federal prisons in the updated frame. Te sample
size was increased to 155, and 109 were selected
with certainty.
Te remaining facilities were sorted by region
(Northeast, Midwest, South, or West), state, and
size, then sampled systematically with probabilities
proportional to their size. Tat is, larger facilities had
a greater probability of selection. Fify-one private
prisons were selected in the sample for SSV 2012,
35 were selected for SSV 2013, 43 were selected for SSV
2014, and 46 were selected for SSV 2015.
Among the privately operated prisons selected for the
2012 survey, 13 closed prior to data collection and
2 were out of scope, meaning the facility was no longer
privately operated and the data would be reported by
the state or jail jurisdiction that was operating it. For
the 2013 survey, 5 privately operated prisons closed
prior to data collection and 4 were out of scope; for
the 2014 survey, 4 closed and 4 were out of scope; and
for the 2015 survey, 6 closed and 2 were out of scope.
All active privately operated prisons selected for SSV
2013 responded to the survey. Two active privately
operated prisons selected for SSV 2012, one selected
for 2014, and fve selected for 2015 did not respond to
the survey:
„

Catalyst Behavioral Services Cameo, OK (2014)

„

Delaney Hall, NJ (2015)

„

Dismas Charities, El Paso, TX (2015)

„

Dismas House of Atlanta West, GA (2015)

„

San Luis Valley Community Center, CO (2012)

„

Talbert House, Spring Grove Center, OH (2015)

„

„

Terapeutic Community of Southern Colorado,
CO (2015)
Volunteers of America, Northwest Ohio, OH (2012).

SEXUAL VICTIMIZATION REPORTED BY ADULT CORRECTIONAL AUTHORITIES, 2012-15 | JULY 2018

13

Public jails
A sample of 700 publicly operated jail jurisdictions
was drawn each year from BJS’s Deaths in Custody
Reporting Program (DCRP) data. For each SSV data
collection, the preceding year of DCRP was used as
the sampling frame. For example, DCRP 2014 was
used for SSV 2015. For SSV 2012, there were 2,844 jail
jurisdictions on the frame. In 2013, there were 2,921; in
2014, there were 2,918; and in 2015, there were 2,904.
Each year, the largest jail jurisdiction was selected with
certainty in 45 states and the District of Columbia.5
Jail jurisdictions with average daily populations
(ADP) greater than or equal to 1,000 inmates were
also selected with certainty (116 for SSV 2012, 118 for
2013, 117 for 2014, and 111 for 2015). Te remaining
jail jurisdictions on each frame were then grouped
into three strata based on ADP, then sorted by region
and state.
„

„

„

„

For the SSV 2012 sample, 186 jail jurisdictions
were selected from 1,481 jurisdictions with an
ADP of 87 or less in the frst stratum, 119 from
770 jurisdictions with an ADP of 88 to 268 were
selected in the second stratum, and 233 from
431 with an ADP of 269 to 999 were selected in the
third stratum.
For the SSV 2013 sample, 215 jail jurisdictions
were selected from 1,456 jurisdictions with an
ADP of 81 or less in the frst stratum, 108 from
830 jurisdictions with an ADP of 82 to 265 were
selected in the second stratum, and 213 from
471 with an ADP of 266 to 999 were selected in the
third stratum.
For the SSV 2014 sample, 282 jail jurisdictions
were selected from 1,513 jurisdictions with an
ADP of 89 or less in the frst stratum, 85 from
792 jurisdictions with an ADP of 90 to 273 were
selected in the second stratum, and 170 from
450 with an ADP of 274 to 999 were selected in the
third stratum.
For the SSV 2015 sample, 178 jail jurisdictions
were selected from 1,452 jurisdictions with an
ADP of 81 or less in the frst stratum, 195 from
834 jurisdictions with an ADP of 82 to 261 were
selected in the second stratum, and 170 from
461 with an ADP of 262 to 999 were selected in the
third stratum.

5Five

states with combined jail/prison systems had no public jails:
Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Vermont.

Among the public jail jurisdictions selected in the
samples, one closed prior to the 2012 data collection
and one closed prior to 2015. Tree active jail
jurisdictions selected in the sample did not respond
to the 2012 survey, three did not respond to the 2013
survey, four did not respond to the 2014 survey, and
four did not respond to the 2015 survey:
„

Clinton County Jail, KY (2015)

„

Coahoma County Sherif ’s Ofce, MS (2012)

„

Crittenden County Sherif ’s Ofce, AR (2013)

„

Cumberland County Sherif ’s Ofce, ME (2013)

„

Eau Claire County Sherif ’s Ofce, WI (2014)

„

Harmon County Sherif ’s Ofce, OK (2014)

„

Lawrence County Sherif ’s Ofce, MO (2012)

„

Morgan County Sherif ’s Ofce, AL (2015)

„

Pettis County Sherif ’s Ofce, MO (2015)

„

Pierce County Detention and Corrections Center,
WA (2013, 2014)

„

Ponca City Police Department, OK (2014)

„

Tate County Sherif ’s Ofce, MS (2015)

„

Vigo County Sherif ’s Ofce, IN (2012).

Privately operated jails
For SSV 2012, a sample of 15 private jails was selected
from the 33 in DCRP 2011. Five were selected with
certainty because they were large compared to other
private jails. Te remaining 10 were selected with
probability proportional to size afer sorting the fle
by region, state, and ADP. For SSV 2013, all 32 private
jails on the DCRP 2012 were selected with certainty.
For SSV 2014, all 29 private jails on the DCRP 2013
were selected with certainty. For SSV 2015, a sample
of 15 private jails was selected from the 39 in DCRP
2014. Seven were selected with certainty due to size.
Te remaining eight were selected with probability
proportional to size afer sorting the fle by region,
state, and ADP.
Among the private jails selected for SSV 2012, one
had closed prior to data collection. For SSV 2014,
one closed prior to data collection and two were out
of scope. During the 4 years, one active private jail
selected in the sample did not respond to the survey:
„

Bay County Jail Facility, FL (2013).

SEXUAL VICTIMIZATION REPORTED BY ADULT CORRECTIONAL AUTHORITIES, 2012-15 | JULY 2018

14

Other correctional facilities

Nonresponse adjustments

A sample of jails in Indian country was selected each
year using BJS’s Annual Survey of Jails in Indian
Country from the previous year as the frame. Facilities
that held only adults or adults and juveniles were
eligible to be sampled for the adult SSV data collection.
Facilities that held only juveniles were eligible for the
juvenile SSV data collection.

Survey responses were weighted to produce national
estimates by type of correctional facility. Data from the
Federal Bureau of Prisons and all state prison systems,
U.S. military facilities, and dedicated ICE facilities were
given a weight of 1.00 because they were all selected
with certainty and had 100% survey participation.

Each year, large jails were selected with certainty. Te
measure of size was ADP, which was adjusted to one
for jails whose average was less than one. For SSV
2012, a sample of 20 jails was selected from a total of
60 on the frame. Tree had an ADP of 140 or more and
were selected with certainty. For SSV 2013, a sample
of 20 jails was selected from a total of 59. Four had an
ADP of 124 or more and were selected with certainty.
For SSV 2014, a sample of 25 jails was selected from a
total of 58. Eight had an ADP of 68 or more and were
selected with certainty. For SSV 2015, a sample of
25 jails was selected from a total of 57. Seven had an
ADP of 83 or more and were selected with certainty.
Te remaining sample was selected using probability
proportional to size for each survey year.
All of the selected adult jails in Indian country were
active. Two did not respond to SSV 2012, two did
not respond to SSV 2013, and one did not respond to
SSV 2014:
„

„

„

„

Choctaw Justice Complex Adult Detention, MS
(2012)
Navajo Department of Corrections -Tuba City, AZ
(2012)
Tohono O’odham Adult Detention Center, AZ (2013,
2014)
White Mountain Apache Detention Center, AZ
(2013).

A census of all military facilities operated by the
U.S. Air Force, U.S. Army, U.S. Navy and the
U.S. Marine Corps was taken. A second census of all
facilities operated by or exclusively for Immigration
and Customs Enforcement (ICE), that is, dedicated
ICE facilities, was taken. Tis list was updated annually
by ICE. Tere were 23 dedicated ICE facilities for the
2012 survey, 22 for the 2013 and 2014 surveys, and
24 for the 2015 survey. All active U.S. military facilities
and dedicated ICE facilities participated in the survey
each of the 4 years.

Among public jails, private jails, Indian country
jails, and private prisons, facilities were assigned an
initial weight equal to the inverse of the probability of
selection. In each survey year, weights for responding
public jail jurisdictions were adjusted for nonresponse
by multiplying initial weights by the ratio of the sum
of initial weights of active jurisdictions in each stratum
to the sum of weights for participating jurisdictions.
As a result, the sum of the fnal weights in each
stratum equaled the sum of weights for active jails in
each stratum.
Nonresponse adjustments for samples of private jails,
private prisons, and jails in Indian country were based
on the ratio of the sum of weights times the measure
of size for each afected stratum. Within each stratum
the number of active jails or prisons was multiplied by
the measure of size of each facility, and then summed.
Te ratio of the frst sum to the latter sum equaled the
nonresponse adjustment factor for the afected stratum.
Overall, afer adjusting for nonresponse and summing
across all strata, multiplying the adjusted weight by the
sum of the measure of size equaled the total number of
inmates held in private jails, private prisons, and jails
in Indian country.
National estimates and accuracy
When national estimates are derived from a sample,
caution must be used when comparing one estimate
to another or when comparing estimates over time.
Although one estimate may be larger than another,
estimates based on a sample have some degree of
sampling error. Te sampling error of an estimate
depends on several factors, including the amount of
variation in the responses and the size of the sample.
When the sampling error around an estimate is taken
into account, estimates that appear diferent may not
be statistically diferent.
One measure of the sampling error associated with
an estimate is the standard error. Te standard error
may vary from one estimate to the next. Generally,

SEXUAL VICTIMIZATION REPORTED BY ADULT CORRECTIONAL AUTHORITIES, 2012-15 | JULY 2018

15

an estimate with a small standard error provides a
more reliable approximation of the true value than an
estimate with a large standard error. Estimates with
relatively large standard errors are associated with less
precision and reliability and should be interpreted
with caution.
Estimates and standard errors were calculated using
SUDAAN.6 For summary-level statistics, the 2012,
2013, 2014, and 2015 data fles were treated separately.
Standard errors are included in the appendix tables.
Tese standard errors may be used to construct
confdence intervals around survey estimates
(e.g., numbers, rates, and percentages), and diferences
between estimates. For example, table 1 shows an
estimated 24,661 allegations in 2015; appendix table
3 shows a standard error of 206 for that estimate.
Te 95% confdence interval around the number
of allegations is 24,661 ± 1.96 × 206, resulting in a
confdence interval of 24,257 to 25,065.

Test of statistical signifcance
BJS conducted statistical tests to determine whether
diferences in estimated numbers, percentages, and
rates in this report were statistically signifcant once
sampling error was taken into account. To facilitate
the analysis, diferences in estimates of sexual
victimization for subgroups have been tested at the
95% signifcance level. For example, the diference
between the total number of allegations of sexual
victimization in 2015 (24,661 allegations) and 2014
(18,891 allegations) is statistically signifcant at
the 95% confdence level (see table 1). In all tables
providing detailed comparisons, diferences that are
signifcant at the 95% confdence level have been
designated with a dagger (†). Te comparison group
has been designated with one asterisk (*).

6See

Research Triangle Institute (June 2013). SUDAAN Release
11.0.1. Research Triangle Park, NC.

SEXUAL VICTIMIZATION REPORTED BY ADULT CORRECTIONAL AUTHORITIES, 2012-15 | JULY 2018

16

APPENDIX TABLE 1
Estimates and standard errors for fgure 1: National estimates of
allegations and substantiated incidents of sexual victimization in adult
correctional facilities, 2005–15
Allegations
Estimate
Standard error
24,661
206
18,891 †
214
13,568 †
215
10,047 †
106
8,768 †
90
8,404 †
115
7,855 †
87
7,457 †
212
7,374 †
198
6,528 †
169
6,241 †
179

Year
2015*
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005

Substantiated incidents
Estimate
Standard error
1,473
40
1,522
61
1,239 †
44
953 †
27
902 †
30
856 †
29
851 †
40
931 †
38
1,001 †
57
967 †
76
885 †
90

*Comparison year.
†Diference with comparison year is signifcant at the 95% confdence level.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Sexual Victimization, 2005–15.

APPENDIX TABLE 2
Estimates and standard errors for fgure 2: National estimates of outcomes of alleged sexual victimization in adult
correctional facilities, 2010–15
Year
2015*
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010

Substantiated
Estimate Standard error
1,473
40
1,522
61
1,239 †
44
953 †
27
902 †
30
856 †
29

Unsubstantiated
Estimate Standard error
10,313
88
7,783 †
105
6,122 †
83
5,124 †
64
4,611 †
50
4,489 †
70

Unfounded
Estimate
Standard error
10,142
148
8,372 †
129
5,158 †
145
3,115 †
53
2,338 †
51
2,293 †
72

Under investigation
Estimate
Standard error
2,733
12
1,213 †
12
1,045 †
20
856 †
7
919 †
18
766 †
17

*Comparison year.
†Diference with comparison year is signifcant at the 95% confdence level.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Sexual Victimization, 2010–15.

APPENDIX TABLE 3
Standard errors for table 1: National estimates of allegations of sexual victimization, by type of facility, 2005 and
2010–15
Type of facility
Total
Prisons
Jails
Other adult facilities
Indian country jails

2015
206
75
192
0

2014
214
51
208
3

2013
215
55
208
0

2012
106
14
105
0

2011
90
16
88

2010
115
56
100

2005
179
52
171

^

^

13

^Too few cases to provide a reliable estimate.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Sexual Victimization, 2005 and 2010–15.

SEXUAL VICTIMIZATION REPORTED BY ADULT CORRECTIONAL AUTHORITIES, 2012-15 | JULY 2018

17

APPENDIX TABLE 4
Standard errors for table 2: Rates per 1,000 inmates of allegations of sexual victimization, by type of facility, 2005
and 2010–15
Type of facility
Total
Prisons
Jails
Other adult facilities
Indian country jails

2015
0.10
0.06
0.27

2014
0.09
0.04
0.27

2013
0.09
0.04
0.26

2012
0.05
0.01
0.14

2011
0.04
0.02
0.12

2010
0.06
0.03
0.14

2005
0.09
0.03
0.23

0.00

1.05

0.00

0.00

^

^

^

^Too few cases to provide a reliable estimate.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Sexual Victimization, 2005 and 2010–15.

APPENDIX TABLE 5
Estimates and standard errors for fgure 3: National estimates of allegations of sexual victimization in adult
correctional facilities, by type of victimization, 2010–15
2015
Standard
Type of incident Estimate error
Inmate-oninmate
Nonconsensual
sexual acts
5,992
107
Abusive sexual
contact
4,320
63
Staf-on-inmate
Sexual
misconduct
8,151
90
Sexual
harassment
6,197
67

2014
Standard
Estimate error

2013
Standard
Estimate error

2012
Standard
Estimate error

2011
Standard
Estimate error

2010
Standard
Estimate error

5,057

104

3,931

82

3,255

54

2,986

45

2,660

49

3,433

71

2,743

123

1,860

34

1,480

34

1,360

37

6,449

106

4,345

75

3,322

53

2,800

42

2,692

60

3,953

48

2,549

35

1,611

30

1,502

36

1,692

38

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Sexual Victimization, 2010–15.

SEXUAL VICTIMIZATION REPORTED BY ADULT CORRECTIONAL AUTHORITIES, 2012-15 | JULY 2018

18

APPENDIX TABLE 6
Standard errors for table 3: National estimates of
outcomes of investigations into allegations of sexual
victimization, by type of facility, 2012–15
Type of victimization and outcome
Inmate-on-inmate
Substantiated
Unsubstantiated
Unfounded
Under investigation
Nonconsensual sexual acts
Substantiated
Unsubstantiated
Unfounded
Under investigation
Abusive sexual contact
Substantiated
Unsubstantiated
Unfounded
Under investigation
Staf-on-inmate
Substantiated
Unsubstantiated
Unfounded
Under investigation
Sexual misconduct
Substantiated
Unsubstantiated
Unfounded
Under investigation
Sexual harassment
Substantiated
Unsubstantiated
Unfounded
Under investigation
Total

Number of allegations
All facilities
Local jails
258
253
65
60
120
117
169
168
20
20
179
177
35
35
96
93
115
115
19
19
159
155
54
48
63
63
101
100
4
4
212
191
58
45
102
90
147
132
16
15
167
153
53
39
83
75
109
100
15
14
94
82
19
19
48
41
73
61
2
2
382
364

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Sexual Victimization,
2012–15.

APPENDIX TABLE 7
Standard errors for table 4: Outcomes of completed
investigations of sexual victimization, by type of
facility, 2012–15
Percent by outcome
Type of victimization and outcome
All facilities
Local jails
Inmate-on-inmate
Substantiated
0.21%
0.60%
Unsubstantiated
0.33
0.91
Unfounded
0.37
1.07
Number of completed investigations
255
250
Nonconsensual sexual acts
Substantiated
0.19%
0.56%
Unsubstantiated
0.42
1.18
Unfounded
0.44
1.24
Number of completed investigations
175
173
Abusive sexual contact
Substantiated
0.39%
1.24%
Unsubstantiated
0.46
1.21
Unfounded
0.55
1.74
Number of completed investigations
158
155
Staf-on-inmate
Substantiated
0.17%
0.67%
Unsubstantiated
0.24
1.05
Unfounded
0.26
1.17
Number of completed investigations
210
189
Sexual misconduct
Substantiated
0.25%
0.83%
Unsubstantiated
0.31
1.27
Unfounded
0.34
1.38
Number of completed investigations
165
151
Sexual harassment
Substantiated
0.14%
0.93%
Unsubstantiated
0.33
1.68
Unfounded
0.35
1.83
Number of completed investigations
94
82
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Sexual Victimization,
2012–15.

APPENDIX TABLE 8
Standard errors for table 5: National estimates of
substantiated incidents of sexual victimization, by type
of facility, 2005 and 2010–15
Type of facility 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2005
Total
40
61
44
27
30
30
90
Prisons
0
37
21
9
11
11
9
Jails
40
48
39
25
28
27
90
Other adult
facilities
Indian
country
jails
0
^
0
0
^
^
^
^Too few cases to provide a reliable estimate.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Sexual Victimization, 2005
and 2010–15.

SEXUAL VICTIMIZATION REPORTED BY ADULT CORRECTIONAL AUTHORITIES, 2012-15 | JULY 2018

19

APPENDIX TABLE 9
Standard errors for table 6: Rates per 1,000 inmates of substantiated incidents of sexual victimization, by type of
facility, 2005 and 2010–15
Type of facility
Total
Prisons
Jails
Other adult facilities
Indian country jails

2015
0.02
0.00
0.06

2014
0.03
0.02
0.06

2013
0.02
0.01
0.05

2012
0.01
0.01
0.03

2011
0.01
0.01
0.04

2010
0.01
0.01
0.04

2005
0.04
0.01
0.12

0.00

^

0.00

0.00

^

^

^

^Too few cases to provide a reliable estimate.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Sexual Victimization, 2005 and 2010–15.

APPENDIX TABLE 10
Standard errors for table 7: National estimates of substantiated incidents of sexual victimization, by type of
victimization, 2005 and 2010–15
Type of victimization
Total
Inmate-on-inmate
Nonconsensual sexual acts
Abusive sexual contact
Staf-on-inmate
Sexual misconduct
Sexual harassment

2015
40
35
18
29
19
17
7

2014
61
37
18
32
46
44
10

2013
44
37
18
31
23
16
12

2012
27
17
15
8
20
18
8

2011
30
17
13
11
23
17
13

2010
30
16
8
15
23
20
11

2005
90
…
79
29
…
30
5

…Not available.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Sexual Victimization, 2005 and 2010–15.

APPENDIX TABLE 11
Standard errors for table 8: National estimates of allegations, substantiated incidents,
and rates per 1,000 of inmate-on-inmate sexual harassment, by type of facility, 2013–15
Type of facility
Total
Prisons
Jails
Other adult facilities
Indian country jails

Number
285
40
283
^

Allegations
Rate per 1,000
0.04
0.01
0.13
^

Substantiated incidents
Number
Rate per 1,000
89
0.01
16
0.00
87
0.04
^

^

^Too few cases to provide a reliable estimate.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Sexual Victimization, 2013–15.

APPENDIX TABLE 12
Standard errors for table 9: National estimates of outcomes of investigations into allegations of inmate-on-inmate
sexual harassment, by type of facility, 2013–15
Outcome
Total
Substantiated
Unsubstantiated
Unfounded
Under investigation

Number of allegations
All facilities
Local jails
285
282
89
87
127
124
131
131
9
9

Percent by outcome
All facilities
Local jails
0.43%
0.48
0.44

1.15%
1.18
1.18

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Sexual Victimization, 2013–15.

SEXUAL VICTIMIZATION REPORTED BY ADULT CORRECTIONAL AUTHORITIES, 2012-15 | JULY 2018

20

Te Bureau of Justice Statistics of the U.S. Department of Justice is the
principal federal agency responsible for measuring crime, criminal
victimization, criminal ofenders, victims of crime, correlates of crime,
and the operation of criminal and civil justice systems at the federal, state,
tribal, and local levels. BJS collects, analyzes, and disseminates reliable
statistics on crime and justice systems in the United States, supports
improvements to state and local criminal justice information systems, and
participates with national and international organizations to develop and
recommend national standards for justice statistics. Jefrey H. Anderson
is director.
Tis report was written by Ramona R. Rantala. Jessica Stroop contributed
to the production of the report. Mark Motivans and Stephanie Mueller
verifed the report.
Brigitte Coulton and Jill Tomas edited the report. Steve Grudziecki and
Tina Dorsey produced the report.
July 2018, NCJ 251146

NCJ251146

Ofce of Justice Programs
Building Solutions • Supporting Communities • Advancing Justice
www.ojp.usdoj.gov

 

 

Prisoner Education Guide side
Advertise Here 4th Ad
CLN Subscribe Now Ad 450x600