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

Sexual Victimization in Juvenile
Facilities Reported by Youth,
2012
National Survey of Youth in Custody, 2012

•

--.

•
••

•

•
••

,e

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

• • ill. _
•
•
-\.

• • •
••• •
• • • •

. . ......' ........
•
: .
•• •
•
·.
~

h

State-owned or -operated
Locally or privately operated

Allen J. Beck, Ph.D.
BJS Statistician
David Cantor, Ph.D., John Hartge, and Tim Smith
Westat
June 2013, NCJ 241708

BJS

Bureau of Justice Statistics
William J. Sabol, Ph.D.
Acting Director
BJS Website:
www.bjs.gov
askbjs@usdoj.gov
The Bureau of Justice Statistics is the statistical agency of the U.S. Department of
Justice. William J. Sabol is the acting director.
This report was written by Allen J. Beck, Ph.D., BJS Statistician, David Cantor,
Ph.D., Westat Vice-President, and John Hartge and Tim Smith, Westat Senior
Study Directors.
Paul Guerino (former BJS Statistician), under the supervision of Allen J. Beck,
was the project manager for the second National Survey of Youth in Custody.
Westat staff, under a cooperative agreement and in collaboration with BJS,
designed the survey, developed the questionnaires, coordinated logistical
arrangements related to interviewing, collected and processed the data, and
assisted in table development. The project team included David Cantor and
Andrea Sedlak, Co‑Principal Investigators; John Hartge and Tim Smith, CoProject Directors; Greg Norman, Sampling Statistician; Alfred Bishop, Computer
Systems; Susan Cross, Director of Enrollment/Consent Operations; Sherry
Sanborne, Field Director; and an extensive project team of researchers, analysts,
and programmers. Andrea Burch, BJS Statistician, and Leanne Heaton, Westat
Associate Field Director, verified the report.
Morgan Young and Jill Thomas edited the report, and Barbara Quinn designed
and produced the report under the supervision of Doris J. James.
June 2013, NCJ 241708

Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2012 | June 2013

2

Contents
Highlights  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 4

Methodology .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 26

National Survey of Youth in Custody-2 .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 6

Appendix 1. Survey items measuring sexual activity within
the facility during the past 12 months or since entering
the facility, if less than 12 months .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 32

Prevalence of sexual victimization .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 9
Facility-level rates .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 12
State-level rates  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 18
Demographic and other youth characteristics .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 20

Appendix 2. Survey items measuring pressure or nature of coercion  . 34
Appendix 3. Items checked for extreme and inconsistent response
patterns .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 35

Circumstances surrounding the incident  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 21

List of tables
Table 1.  Youth reporting sexual victimization, by type of incident, National
Survey of Youth in Custody, 2012 .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 9

Table 9.  Prevalence of sexual victimization, by type of incident and selected
facility characteristics, National Survey of Youth in Custody, 2012 .  .  .  .  .  . 17

Table 2.  Youth reporting sexual victimization in state juvenile facilities,
by type of incident and survey year, National Survey of Youth in Custody,
2008–09 and 2012 .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 10

Table 10.  Percent of youth reporting sexual victimization, by state, National
Survey of Youth in Custody, 2012 .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 19

Table 3.  Percent of youth reporting sexual victimization, by youth opinions
about facility and staff, facility size, and exposure time, National Survey of
Youth in Custody, 2008–09 and 2012  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 11

Table 11.  Prevalence of sexual victimization, by type of incident and selected
youth victim characteristics, National Survey of Youth in Custody, 2012 .  . 20
Table 12.  Experiences of youth-on-youth victims of sexual victimization,
National Survey of Youth in Custody, 2012 .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 21

Table 4.  Juvenile facilities with the highest rates of sexual victimization,
National Survey of Youth in Custody, 2012 .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 12

Table 13.  Circumstances surrounding youth-on-youth sexual victimization,
National Survey of Youth in Custody, 2012 .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 22

Table 5.  Juvenile facilities with the lowest rates of sexual victimization,
National Survey of Youth in Custody, 2012 .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 14

Table 14.  Victims of staff sexual misconduct, by use of force and sex of youth
and staff, National Survey of Youth in Custody, 2012  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 23

Table 6.  Juvenile facilities with the highest rates of sexual victimization, by
type of contact, National Survey of Youth in Custody, 2012  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 15

Table 15.  Circumstances surrounding incidents of staff sexual misconduct,
National Survey of Youth in Custody, 2012 .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 24

Table 7.  Juvenile facilities with the highest rates of sexual victimization, by
type of incident, National Survey of Youth in Custody, 2012  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 16

Table 16.  Victims of staff sexual misconduct, by relationship characteristic,
National Survey of Youth in Custody, 2012 .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 25

Table 8.  Juvenile facilities with the highest rates of staff sexual victimization,
by use of force, National Survey of Youth in Custody, 2012 .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 16

Table 17.  Estimated rates of sexual victimization and lower bounds of the
95%-confidence intervals among high-rate facilities, by exclusion criteria,
National Survey of Youth in Custody, 2012 .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 31

List of appendix tables
Appendix table 1.  Characteristics of juvenile facilities participating in the
National Survey of Youth in Custody, 2012 .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 36
Appendix table 2.  Percent of youth reporting sexual victimization, by
facility, National Survey of Youth in Custody, 2012 .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 44
Appendix table 3.  Percent of youth reporting sexual victimization by
another youth, by type of incident and facility, National Survey of Youth in
Custody, 2012  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 48

Appendix table 5.  Percent of youth reporting staff sexual misconduct
excluding touching, by use of force and facility, National Survey of Youth in
Custody, 2012  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 58
Appendix table 6.  Characteristics of juvenile facilities used to provide
state‑level estimates, National Survey of Youth in Custody, 2012  .  .  .  .  .  . 63
Appendix table 7.  Percent of youth reporting sexual victimization, by type
of incident and state, National Survey of Youth in Custody, 2012 .  .  .  .  .  . 64

Appendix table 4.  Percent of youth reporting staff sexual misconduct, by
type of incident and facility, National Survey of Youth in Custody, 2012  .  . 53

List of figures
Figure 1.  Confidence intervals at the 95%-level for juvenile facilities with
the highest rates of sexual victimization, National Survey of Youth in
Custody, 2012  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 13

Figure 2.  Confidence intervals at the 95%-level for juvenile facilities with
high rates of sexual victimization, by state, National Survey of Youth in
Custody, 2012  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 18

Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2012 | June 2013

3

Highlights
Prevalence of sexual victimization

State-level rates

ƒƒ An estimated 9.5% of adjudicated youth in state

ƒƒ For the first time, state-level estimates were added to

juvenile facilities and state contract facilities
(representing 1,720 youth nationwide) reported
experiencing one or more incidents of sexual
victimization by another youth or staff in the past
12 months or since admission, if less than 12 months.

ƒƒ About 2.5% of youth (450 nationwide) reported an

incident involving another youth, and 7.7% (1,390)
reported an incident involving facility staff.

ƒƒ An estimated 3.5% of youth reported having sex or

other sexual contact with facility staff as a result of
force or other forms of coercion, while 4.7% of youth
reported sexual contact with staff without any force,
threat, or explicit form of coercion.

ƒƒ Among state juvenile facilities, the rate of sexual

victimization declined from 12.6% in 2008-09 (when
the first survey was conducted) to 9.9% in 2012. The
decline in state facilities was linked to staff sexual
misconduct with force (declining from 4.5% of youth in
2008-09 to 3.6% in 2012) and staff sexual misconduct
without force (declining from 6.7% to 5.1%).

the survey to provide feedback to state administrators,
especially those who operate facilities too small to
provide facility-level estimates.

ƒƒ Three states (Delaware, Massachusetts, and New York)

and the District of Columbia had no reported incidents
of sexual victimization.

ƒƒ Four states (Georgia, Illinois, Ohio, and South Carolina)
had high rates, based on the lower bound of the
95%-confidence interval of at least 35% higher than
the national average. Each of these states had an
overall sexual victimization rate exceeding 15%,
which was primarily due to high rates of staff sexual
misconduct.

Demographic and other youth characteristics

ƒƒ Rates of reported sexual victimization varied among
youth:

•	

8.2% of males and 2.8% of females reported sexual
activity with staff.

•	

5.4% of females and 2.2% of males reported forced
sexual activity with another youth at a facility.

•	

White youth reported sexual victimization by
another youth (4.0%) more often than black youth
(1.4%) or Hispanic youth (2.1%).

•	

Black youth reported a higher rate of sexual
victimization by facility staff (9.6%) than white youth
(6.4%) or Hispanic youth (6.4%).

•	

Youth who identified their sexual orientation as gay,
lesbian, bisexual, or other reported a substantially
higher rate of youth-on-youth victimization (10.3%)
than heterosexual youth (1.5%).

Facility rankings

ƒƒ Thirteen facilities were identified as high-rate based on

the prevalence of sexual victimization by youth or staff.
Rates in each of these facilities had a 95%-confidence
interval with a lower bound that was at least 35%
higher than the average rate of sexual victimization
among facilities nationwide.

ƒƒ Two of the high-rate facilities—Paulding Regional

Detention Center (Georgia) and Circleville Juvenile
Correctional Facility (Ohio)—had sexual victimization
rates of 30% or greater.

ƒƒ Twenty-six facilities had no reported incidents of sexual
victimization, and 14 were identified as low-rate after
taking into account potential statistical variation. The
upper bound of the 95%-confidence interval in these
14 facilities was less than half the average rate among
all facilities listed in the survey.

ƒƒ Youth held in state-owned or -operated facilities reported
higher rates of staff sexual misconduct (8.2%) than those
held in locally or privately operated facilities (4.5%).

Circumstances surrounding the incident

ƒƒ About 67.7% of youth victimized by another youth
reported experiencing physical force or threat of
force, 25.2% were offered favors or protection, and
18.1% were given drugs or alcohol to engage in
sexual contact.

ƒƒ Most youth-on-youth victims reported more than one
incident (69.6%). An estimated 37.2% reported more
than one perpetrator.

ƒƒ Most youth victimized by another youth reported no
physical injury (82.1%).

Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2012 | June 2013

4

Highlights (continued)
ƒƒ Among the estimated 1,390 youth who reported

victimization by staff, 89.1% were males reporting
sexual activity with female staff and 3.0% were
males reporting sexual activity with both male and
female staff. In comparison, males comprised 91%
of adjudicated youth in the survey and female staff
accounted for 44% of staff in the sampled facilities.

ƒƒ Most victims of staff sexual misconduct reported more
than one incident (85.9%). Among these youth, nearly
1 in 5 (20.4%) reported 11 or more incidents.

ƒƒ About 1 in 5 (20.3%) victims of staff sexual misconduct
reported experiencing physical force or threat of force,
12.3% were offered protection, and 21.5% were given
drugs or alcohol to engage in sexual contact.

ƒƒ When youth were asked who initiated sexual contact,

36.4% reported that the facility staff always made the
first move, 17.4% reported that they always made the
first move, and 46.3% said that sometimes the facility
staff made the first move and sometimes they did.

Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2012 | June 2013

5

Sexual Victimization in Juvenile
Facilities Reported by Youth, 2012
National Survey of Youth in Custody-2

B

etween February 2012 and September 2012, the
Bureau of Justice Statistics completed the second
National Survey of Youth in Custody (NSYC-2) in
273 state-owned or -operated juvenile facilities and 53 locally
or privately operated facilities that held adjudicated youth
under state contract. The survey was conducted by Westat
(Rockville, MD), under a cooperative agreement with BJS. It
was administered to 8,707 youth sampled from at least one
facility in every state and the District of Columbia.
The NSYC-2 is part of the National Prison Rape Statistics
Program, which collects reported sexual violence
in administrative records and allegations of sexual
victimization directly from victims through surveys
of inmates in prisons and jails and surveys of youth
held in juvenile correctional facilities. BJS has collected
administrative records annually since 2004. Victim
self‑reports have been periodically collected since 2007
(adult facilities only), followed by surveys in 2008-09
(adult and juvenile facilities) and 2011-12 (adult and
juvenile facilities).
The universe for the NSYC-2 was all adjudicated youth
residing in facilities owned or operated by a state juvenile
correctional authority and all state-placed adjudicated
youth held under state contract in locally or privately
operated juvenile facilities. The universe was restricted to
facilities that housed youth for at least 90 days, contained
more than 25% adjudicated youth, and housed at least
10 adjudicated youth.
The Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (P.L. 10879; 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 requirement under Sec.4(c)(2)(B)(ii) of the act
to provide a list of juvenile correctional facilities
according to the prevalence of sexual victimization.

The NSYC-2 sampling frame included contract facilities
in states where these facilities held at least 20% of all
state-adjudicated youth or where fewer than 80 completed
interviews were expected from youth held in state facilities.
Since locally and privately operated facilities were more
difficult to enroll and less likely to agree to participate in
surveys related to the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA),
the NSYC-2 excluded contract facilities in states in which
they were not needed for state-level estimation. The NSYC2 collected data from contract facilities in 15 states.
The NSYC-2 is a multistage probability sample providing
representative data on state-adjudicated youth

Facilities were selected using a multistage stratified sample
design based on information obtained from the Census
of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP), which was
conducted in 2010 by the Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention. At the first stage, 446 facilities
were selected from the 503 eligible facilities identified
in the CJRP. All facilities with 20 or more state-placed
adjudicated youth were included in the survey. Smaller
facilities (housing between 10 and 19 adjudicated youth)
were sampled with probabilities proportionate to their size.
(See Methodology for sample description.)
Of the sampled facilities, 113 were later determined to
be out-of-scope because they had closed, no longer held
state-adjudicated youth, had merged with other facilities, or
were no longer eligible for other reasons. Three additional
sampled facilities were excluded due to scheduling problems
and burden, and four facilities lacked consent for a sufficient
number of youth to permit data collection. As a result, the
NSYC-2 was conducted in 326 facilities, representing 18,138
state-adjudicated youth held nationwide in state-operated
and locally or privately operated juvenile facilities in 50 states
and the District of Columbia.
The NSYC-2 survey consisted of an audio computerassisted self-interview (ACASI) in which youth used a
touchscreen to interact with a computerized questionnaire
and followed audio instructions delivered via headphones.
The NSYC-2 used self-administered procedures to ensure
the confidentiality of reporting youth and to encourage
fuller reporting of victimization. The survey used audio
technology to provide assistance to youth with varying

Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2012 | June 2013

6

levels of literacy and language skills. Approximately 99%
of the interviews were conducted in English, and 1% in
Spanish.
Administrators in each state, county, and private facility
determined the type of consent required for youth to be
eligible for participation. Youth who had reached the age
of majority were able to self-consent, and contact with
a parent or guardian was not required. Administrators
provided in loco parentis (ILP) consent in 127 facilities for
youth who were below the age of majority. In loco parentis
is when administrators provide consent in the place of the
parent to contact youth. Administrators required parental
or guardian consent (PGC) from youth in 160 facilities
and collected a mixture of ILP and PGC in 39 facilities,
depending on the age of the sampled youth. Youth in all
sampled facilities also had to assent to participate in the
interview. (See Methodology for additional details on the
consent process.)
In each sampled ILP facility, administrators were asked
5 weeks prior to data collection to provide a roster of all
adjudicated youth assigned a bed. In other facilities (PGC
or a mixture of consent requirements), administrators were
asked to provide a roster 9 weeks prior to data collection.
The initial rosters were updated to reflect youth admitted
or discharged between the eighth and second week prior
to data collection. Youth were randomly sampled from the
initial and updated rosters.

Prior to the start of data collection, field staff assessed the
interviewing capacity at each facility based on the number
of available days, interviewing rooms, and interviewers.
In facilities in which the NSYC-2 team had the capacity
to complete all of the interviews, all youth for whom
consent had been given, as well as youth who were able to
self-consent, were selected. In other facilities, youth were
randomly subsampled so the number of youth did not
exceed interviewing capacity.
The result of this process yielded a sample of 22,944
state-adjudicated youth held nationwide in state-owned
or -operated juvenile facilities or placed in locally or
privately operated juvenile facilities. A total of 9,703 youth
participated in the survey. Of these, 8,707 youth completed
the survey on sexual victimization, and 996 completed the
survey on drug and alcohol use and treatment.
The NSYC-2 collected allegations of sexual victimization.
Since participation in the survey was anonymous and
reports were confidential, the NSYC-2 did not permit any
follow-up investigation or substantiation through review
of official records. Some allegations in the NSYC-2 may be
untrue. At the same time, some youth may remain silent
about any sexual victimization experienced in the facility.

Terms and definitions
Sexual victimization—any forced sexual activity with
another youth (nonconsensual sexual acts and other
sexual contacts) and all sexual activity with facility staff.
Nonconsensual sexual acts—any forced sexual acts
with another youth and all sexual acts with facility staff
involving contact with the penis and the vagina or anus;
contact between the mouth and the penis, vagina, or
anus; penetration of the anal or vaginal opening of
another person by a hand, finger, or other object; and
rubbing of another person’s penis or vagina by a hand.
Other sexual contacts only—includes kissing on the
lips or another part of the body, looking at private body
parts, being shown something sexual, such as pictures or
a movie, and engaging in some other sexual act that did
not involve touching.
Staff sexual misconduct—all sexual activity with facility
staff, including contact with the penis and the vagina or
anus; contact between the mouth and the penis, vagina,
or anus; penetration of the anal or vaginal opening of
another person by a hand, finger, or other object; rubbing

of another person’s penis or vagina by a hand; kissing on
the lips or another part of the body; looking at private
body parts; being shown something sexual, such as
pictures or a movie; and engaging in some other sexual
act that did not involve touching.
Staff sexual misconduct excluding touching—sexual
activity with facility staff involving contact with the penis
and the vagina or anus; contact between the mouth and
the penis, vagina, or anus; penetration of the anal or
vaginal opening of another person by a hand, finger, or
other object; and rubbing of another person’s penis or
vagina by a hand.
Forced sexual activity—includes sexual activity between
youth and facility staff as a result of physical force or
threat of physical force; force or pressure of some other
type (e.g., threatening with harm, threatening to get
the youth in trouble, pressuring the youth, or forcing or
pressuring in some other way); and in return for money,
favors, protection, or other special treatment.

Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2012 | June 2013

7

To address concerns of false reporting by youth, reports
of victimization were checked for consistency across
survey items. Interviews that contained response patterns
considered to be extreme or highly inconsistent were
excluded from victimization rate calculations. (See text box
below for details.) After deleting interviews due to extreme or

inconsistent responses and interviews that were incomplete,
the NSYC-2 sexual victimization survey and survey of
alcohol and drug use and treatment were completed by 59%
of all eligible sampled youth. (See Methodology for further
details on sampling and survey participation.)

Interviews checked for extreme and inconsistent response patterns
As with any survey, the NSYC-2 is subject to measurement
error. To reduce this error, the survey incorporated several
design features, including the use of an audio-assisted
questionnaire delivered via headphones to address low
levels of literacy; the use of “hot words” highlighted in
a different color, which youth could access if they were
uncertain about the definition; range checks for selected
questions to guard against unrealistic values; and logic
checks that asked youth to verify their responses. To assist
youth who were having difficulty with the interview,
the computer flagged those who spent a long period in
particular sections of the interview and prompted the
youth to obtain assistance from an interviewer. While
these measures and others helped reduce error, they did
not prevent it from occurring.
Once the interviews were completed, individual
response patterns were assessed to identify interviews
having extreme or internally inconsistent responses.
Three response patterns were considered extreme
and indicative of an unreliable interview overall. These
patterns were—

ƒƒ The core survey was completed in less than 10

minutes. Based on internal testing, it was determined
to be extremely difficult for a respondent to seriously
complete the interview in less than 10 minutes.

ƒƒ The reported number of sexual contacts with staff or

forced sexual contacts with other youth exceeded 1.5
incidents per day for every day since admission to the
facility.

ƒƒ During the data collection visit, the facility received

specific reports from youth that they had entered false
responses to the survey.

Out of 8,845 completed interviews, 67 had at least one
of the extreme response patterns. These interviews were
excluded from the calculations of sexual victimization.

Thirty additional indicators were developed to assess
whether a youth showed signs that he or she did not fully
understand the survey items, did not consistently report
the details of events, or provided inconsistent responses.
One indicator was providing unrealistic dates or personal
information, and another indicator was an affirmative
response to a debriefing item that asked about difficulty
understanding questions on sexual activity. Other
indicators compared responses in one section of the
survey with responses in other sections. (See appendix 3
for a full list of the indicators.)
The results of these 30 indicators were combined
into a total number for each youth. About 90.4% of
youth did not record any inconsistent responses, 7.0%
reported one inconsistent response, 1.8% reported
two, and 0.8% reported three or more. For estimating
sexual victimization rates, an additional 71 interviews
were excluded based on three or more indicators of
inconsistent responses.
Deleting extreme or inconsistent responses from
estimates lowers the overall victimization rate since many
of the indicators rely on checking the consistency of
reported sexual victimization. The estimate for the overall
sexual victimization rate would have been 10.4% without
deleting any interviews. The rate dropped to 9.5% after
deleting 138 interviews that had at least one extreme
response or three or more inconsistent responses. If
interviews with two or more inconsistent responses
were deleted, then the rate would have dropped to
approximately 7.9%. If interviews with one or more had
been deleted, the rate would have been approximately
5.0%. The cutoff at three or more inconsistent responses
was selected in recognition that youth could legitimately
report some inconsistent information without
invalidating their entire interview.

Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2012 | June 2013

8

Prevalence of sexual victimization
About 10% of youth in state-owned or -operated juvenile
facilities and state contract facilities reported one or more
incidents of sexual victimization

Among the 8,707 youth who participated in the 2012
survey, 833 reported experiencing one or more incidents of
sexual victimization. Since the NSYC-2 is a sample survey,
weights were applied for sampled facilities and youth
within facilities to produce national-level and facility-level
estimates. The estimated number of adjudicated youth
who reported experiencing sexual violence totaled 1,720
(or 9.5% of the 18,138 estimated adjudicated youth held in
state-owned or -operated or state contract facilities covered
by the survey) (table 1).
About 2.5% of adjudicated youth (an estimated 450
nationwide) reported an incident involving another youth,
and 7.7% (1,390) reported an incident involving facility
staff. Some youth reported sexual victimization by both
another youth and facility staff (0.7%) (not shown in table).
Sexual acts or contacts between youth with no report of
force or coercion were excluded from all measures of sexual
victimization.
The NSYC-2 screened for specific sexual activities in
which youth may have been involved during the past
12 months or since admission to the facility, if less than
12 months. Youth were asked to report which of these

activities involved another youth and which involved staff
at the facility. Additionally, youth were asked if any of these
activities happened because they were forced, threatened
with force, pressured in another way, or offered money,
favors, special protection or other special treatment. (See
appendices 1 and 2 for specific survey questions.) Reports
of unwilling youth-on-youth sexual activity were classified
as either nonconsensual acts or other sexual contacts only.
Approximately 1.7% of youth (300 nationwide) said they
had nonconsensual sex with another youth, including
giving or receiving sexual gratification, and oral, anal,
or vaginal penetration. An estimated 0.6% (110) of
adjudicated youth said they had experienced one or more
other unwilling sexual contacts only with other youth,
such as looking at private body parts, unwanted kissing on
the lips or another part of the body, and other unwanted
touching of specific body parts in a sexual way.
Reports of staff sexual misconduct with youth were
classified separately depending on whether the misconduct
involved any force, threat, pressure, or offers of special
favors or protection. An estimated 3.5% of youth (630
nationwide) reported that they had sex or other sexual
contact with facility staff as a result of force or other forms
of coercion, and an estimated 4.7% (850) of youth said
they had sexual contact with facility staff without any force,
threat, or other explicit form of coercion.

Table 1
Youth reporting sexual victimization, by type of incident, National Survey of Youth in Custody, 2012
Type of incident
U.S. total
Youth-on-youthb
Nonconsensual sexual actsc
Other sexual contacts onlyd
Staff sexual misconduct
Force reportede
Excluding touchingc
Other sexual contacts onlyd
No report of force
Excluding touchingc
Other sexual contacts onlyd

Number of victims
1,720
450
300
110
1,390
630
550
40
850
770
70

National estimatea
Percent of youth victimized
9.5%
2.5%
1.7
0.6
7.7%
3.5
3.1
0.2
4.7
4.3
0.4

Standard error
0.4%
0.2%
0.2
0.1
0.4%
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.1

Note: Detail may not sum to total because youth may have reported multiple victimizations or due to item nonresponse. Youth were asked to report on any victimization involving another
youth or facility staff in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if less than 12 months.
aBased on reports from 8,707 adjudicated youth interviewed in 326 juvenile facilities and weighted to represent the number of adjudicated youth held in the nation. (See Methodology.)
bExcludes acts in which there was no report of force.
cIncludes contact between the penis and the vagina or the penis and the anus; contact between the mouth and the penis, vagina, or anus; penetration of the anal or vaginal opening of
another person by a hand, finger, or other object; and rubbing of another person’s penis or vagina by a hand.
dIncludes kissing on the lips or another part of the body; looking at private body parts; showing something sexual, such as pictures or a movie; and engaging in some other sexual contact
that did not involve touching.
eIncludes physical force, threat of force, other force or pressure, and other forms of coercion, such as being given money, favors, protections, or special treatment.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Survey of Youth in Custody, 2012.

Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2012 | June 2013

9

Rates of sexual victimization in state juvenile facilities
decreased from 12.6% in 2008-09 to 9.9% in 2012

Rates of sexual victimization reported by youth in
state‑owned or -operated juvenile facilities declined from an
estimated 12.6% in 2008-09 to 9.9% in 2012 (table 2). These
estimates were based on interviews of 8,156 adjudicated
youth in 169 sampled facilities in the NSYC-1 and 7,356
youth in 272 sampled facilities in the NSYC-2. To compare
rates across the two surveys, youth held in locally or privately
operated facilities were excluded in both surveys due to
differences in sampling and coverage. The criteria used to
define inconsistent, extreme, and incomplete responses were
also made comparable between the NSYC-1 and NSYC-2.

The overall decrease in reported sexual victimization
was due to statistically significant declines in staff sexual
misconduct with force (declining from 4.5% in the NSYC‑1
to 3.6% in the NSYC-2) and staff sexual misconduct
without force (from 6.7% to 5.1%). Although youth
reported slightly lower rates of youth-on-youth sexual
victimization in 2012 than in 2008-09 (decreasing from
2.8% to 2.5%), the decline was not statistically significant.
Declines in sexual victimization rates were linked to fewer
youth held in large facilities, a drop in average exposure
time, and rising positive views of facility staff and fairness

While many factors may account for the decline in
sexual victimization rates in state juvenile facilities, the
NSYC-2 identified four important trends linked to sexual
victimization rates.

Table 2
Youth reporting sexual victimization in state juvenile facilities, by type of incident and survey year, National Survey of Youth
in Custody, 2008–09 and 2012

Type of incident
U.S. total
Youth-on-youthb
Nonconsensual sexual actsc
Other sexual contacts onlyd
Staff sexual misconduct
Force reportede
Excluding touchingc
Other sexual contacts onlyd
No report of force
Excluding touchingc
Other sexual contacts onlyd

Percent of youth reporting any sexual victimization
in state-owned or -operated facilities onlya
NSYC-1
NSYC-2
2008–09*
2012
12.6%
9.9%**
2.8%
2.5%
2.1
1.7
0.5
0.6
10.7%
8.2%**
4.5
3.6**
4.1
3.2**
0.4
0.2
6.7
5.1**
6.1
4.6**
0.5
0.5

Standard error
NSYC-1
2008–09
0.5%
0.3%
0.2
0.2
0.4%
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.1

NSYC-2
2012
0.5%
0.3%
0.2
0.1
0.4%
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.1

Note: Detail may not sum to total because youth may have reported multiple victimizations or due to item nonresponse. Youth were asked to report on any victimization involving another
youth or facility staff in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if less than 12 months.
*Comparison group.
**Difference with comparison group is significant at the 95%-confidence level.
aBased on reports from 8,156 adjudicated youth in 169 facilities interviewed in NSYC-1 and 7,356 youth in 272 facilities interviewed in NSYC-2 and weighted to represent the number of
adjudicated youth held in comparable state-owned or -operated juvenile facilites. Excludes youth held in locally or privately operated facilities. (See Methodology.)
bExcludes acts in which there was no report of force.
cIncludes contact between the penis and the vagina or the penis and the anus; contact between the mouth and the penis, vagina, or anus; penetration of the anal or vaginal opening of
another person by a hand, finger, or other object; and rubbing of another person’s penis or vagina by a hand.
dIncludes kissing on the lips or another part of the body; looking at private body parts; showing something sexual, such as pictures or a movie; and engaging in some other sexual contact
that did not involve touching.
eIncludes physical force, threat of force, other force or pressure, and other forms of coercion, such as being given money, favors, protections, or special treatment.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Survey of Youth in Custody, 2012.

Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2012 | June 2013

10

The proportion of youth held in large facilities dropped
sharply from 2008-09 to 2012:

victimization decreased. The percentage of youth who were
in the facility for less than 5 months increased from 20.9%
in the NSYC-1 to 26.9% in NSYC-2.

ƒƒ An estimated 65.6% of youth in the NSYC-1 were held

ƒƒ When combined with a decline in the rates of sexual

in large facilities (with 101 or more adjudicated youth),
compared to 53.2% of youth in the NSYC-2 (table 3).

ƒƒ The proportion of youth held in medium facilities (with
51 to 100 youth) increased from 17.0% in 2008-09 to
24.0% in 2012.

ƒƒ In each survey, sexual victimization rates were two to

three times higher in large facilities than facilities with
10 to 25 youth.

Among sampled youth, the average time youth had been
held in facilities declined:

ƒƒ As measured by the average exposure time (i.e., 12 months
or the elapsed time between the admission date and the
survey date for youth admitted to the facility in the last
12 months), the time that youth were at risk of sexual

victimization reported by youth held for 5 to 6 months
(from 13.4% to 10.0%) and youth held for 7 to 12 months
(from 14.4% to 11.6%), this decline in exposure time
was linked to the decrease in the overall rate of sexual
victimization.

Youth in the NSYC-2 reported more positive opinions about
the facility and fairness in how the facilities were run than
youth in the NSYC-1. (See Methodology for a list of survey
items.) Based on eight separate items, youth who had no
positive opinions of the facility also reported the highest
rates of sexual victimization (a third of sampled youth in
each survey). Youth with four or more positive opinions
about the facility had the lowest sexual victimization rates
(5.5% in the NSYC-1 and 3.9% in NSYC-2).

Table 3
Percent of youth reporting sexual victimization, by youth opinions about facility and staff, facility size, and exposure time,
National Survey of Youth in Custody, 2008–09 and 2012
Percent of all youth
NSYC-1
NSYC-2
2008–09*
2012
Number of positive opinions about the facility and
fairness of facility policiesa
None
1–3
4–8
Number of positive opinions about the facility staffb
None
1–3
4–8
Number of adjudicated youth in facilityc
10–25
26–50
51–100
101 or more
Average exposure time in facilityd
Less than 5 months
5–6 months
7–12 months

Youth reporting any sexual victimization
Percent
Standard error
NSYC-1
NSYC-2
NSYC-1
NSYC-2
2008–09*
2012
2008–09*
2012

7.1%
41.9
51.0

6.4%
38.3**
55.4**

32.6%
17.7
5.5

33.8%
14.7**
3.9**

2.5%
0.8
0.5

2.6%
0.9
0.4

19.2%
26.0
54.8

17.1%**
22.9**
60.0**

22.9%
15.9
7.4

23.5%
13.9
4.6**

1.4%
0.8
0.6

1.4%
1.3
0.4

6.0%
11.4
17.0
65.6

8.0%
14.1
24.0**
53.2**

6.7%
12.7
10.3
13.7

4.2%
6.3**
9.3
12.2

3.2%
2.7
1.8
0.4

1.0%
0.8
0.8
0.7

20.9%
38.2
40.9

26.9%**
34.3
38.8

7.4%
13.4
14.4

7.6%
10.0**
11.6**

1.1%
0.8
0.7

0.6%
0.7
0.8

Note: Estimates based on reports from adjudicated youth in comparable facilities in both surveys. Excludes youth held in locally or privately operated facilities.
*Comparison group.
**Difference with comparison group is significant at the 95%-confidence level.
aBased on 8 questions about what happens at the facility and perceptions of fairness. (See Methodology for list of items.)
bBased on 8 questions about facility staff related to their conduct and how they treat youth at the facility. (See Methodology for list of items.)
cAmong facilities in the NSYC-2, 0.7% had fewer than 10 adjudicated youth. This row is not shown since there is no comparison group in NSYC-1.
dBased on the length of time between the admission date and the survey date. Exposure was capped at 12 months. If the admission date was more than 12 months prior to the survey,
youth were asked only about their experiences in the last 12 months.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Survey of Youth in Custody, 2012.

Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2012 | June 2013

11

Youth in the NSYC-2 also expressed more positive opinions
of the facility staff than youth in the NSYC-1. When asked
if staff were “good role models,” “friendly,” “genuinely
car[ing],” “helpful,” “fun to be with,” “disrespectful,”
“hard to get along with,” or “mean,” an estimated 60.0%
responded with positive views in the NSYC-2 (up from
54.8% in NSYC-1). Across both surveys, youth with four or
more positive opinions had the lowest sexual victimization
rates (7.4% in the NSYC-1 and 4.6% in NSYC-2), while
youth with no positive opinions of the facility staff had the
highest sexual victimization rates (22.9% in the NSYC-1
and 23.5% in NSYC-2).
While changing youth opinions may reflect improved
conditions in the facilities between the NSYC-1 and
NSYC-2 surveys, they may also be the result of lower levels
of sexual victimization by staff. Although the exact cause or
effect is unknown, the improved perceptions of the facility
and facility staff are associated with the decline in the
percentage of staff sexual misconduct which underlie the
overall decline in sexual victimization.

Facility-level rates
After taking into account statistical variation, thirteen
facilities were identified as high-rate

Of the 157 juvenile facilities eligible for comparison in
the NSYC-2, 13 had an overall victimization rate that was
identified as high rate (table 4). Though other measures
may be considered when comparing facilities, the overall
victimization rate is a measure of prevalence that includes
all reports of unwilling sexual activity between youth and
all reports of staff sexual misconduct, regardless of the level
of coercion and type of sexual activity.1
An exact ranking for all facilities as required under the
PREA cannot be statistically produced. As with any survey,
the NSYC-2 estimates are subject to sampling error because
they are based on a sample of youth rather than a complete
enumeration. In some facilities, youth were subsampled; in
other facilities, all youth were selected. In 155 of the listed
1Facility-level

rates were based on the reports of adjudicated youth who
were in the facility at least 2 weeks prior to the time of the interview.
Excludes the experiences of non-adjudicated youth and youth held in
the facility in the past 12 months who were not in the facility when the
interviews were conducted.

Table 4
Juvenile facilities with the highest rates of sexual victimization, National Survey of Youth in Custody, 2012
Facility name
All facilities - U.S. total
Paulding Reg. Yth. Det. Ctr. (GA)
Circleville Juv. Corr. Fac. (OH)
Birchwood (SC)
Eastman Yth. Dev. Campus (GA)
Scioto Juv. Corr. Fac. (OH)d
Arkansas Juv. Assess. & Trtmt. Ctr. (AR)d
Corsicana Res. Trtmt. Ctr. (TX)
Boys State Training School (IA)e
Illinois Yth. Ctr. Joliet (IL)
Augusta Yth. Dev. Campus (GA)
Sumter Yth. Dev. Campus (GA)
John G. Richards (SC)f
Cuyahoga Hills Juv. Corr. Fac. (OH)

Number of respondentsb
8,667
28
66
24
116
69
69
76
69
114
51
86
40
89

Response ratec
60.1%
56.9
77.6
83.3
82.9
69.0
84.3
71.0
80.2
75.7
82.3
67.4
76.9
68.5

Youth reporting any sexual victimizationa
95%-confidence interval
Percent
Lower bound
Upper bound
9.5%
8.7%
10.3%
32.1
21.7
44.7
30.3
24.4
36.9
29.2
20.6
39.5
24.4
20.7
28.5
23.2
18.1
29.2
23.2
17.7
29.7
22.4
17.1
28.7
21.7
17.1
27.2
21.1
16.6
26.3
20.9
15.8
27.1
20.8
15.7
27.0
20.0
14.1
27.6
19.8
14.6
26.2

Note: High-rate facilities are those in which the lower bound of the confidence interval is larger than 1.35 times the national average. Facilities housed males only unless otherwise noted.
aWeighted percentage of youth reporting one or more incidents of sexual victimization involving another youth or facility staff in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if
less than 12 months.
bNumber of adjudicated youth who participated in the sexual victimization component of the survey. Excludes 40 youth due to item nonresponse.
cResponse rate accounts for different probabilities of selection among youth and the exclusion of interviews with extreme or inconsistent responses. (See Methodology for details.)
dFacility housed both males and females. Both were sampled at this facility.
eSee Methodology for discussion of extreme and inconsistent responses and handling of false responses.
fWould not be included among high-rate facilities if additional exclusion criteria for extreme and inconsistent responses were used. (See Methodology for details.)
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Survey of Youth in Custody, 2012.

Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2012 | June 2013

12

facilities (see appendix table 1), some of the eligible youth did
not participate in the survey due to the absence of consent by
a parent or guardian, self-consent, or assent by the selected
youth.
To address nonresponse bias, adjustments were applied
to the base weights. To address sampling variability, a
95%-confidence interval was provided for 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.
For small samples and estimates close to 0% or 100%, as
is the case with the NSYC-2, using the standard error to
construct the 95%-confidence interval may not be reliable.
An alternative developed by E.B. Wilson has performed
better than the traditional method when constructing a
confidence interval.2,3 When applied to large samples, the
traditional and the Wilson confidence intervals are virtually
identical.
Consequently, the tables in this report containing facility-level
and state-level estimates provide confidence intervals based
on Wilson’s methodology (tables 4 through 8, table 10, table
17, appendix tables 2 through 5, and appendix table 7). Tables

containing national estimates are based on traditional standard
error calculations (tables 1 through 3, table 9, and tables 11
through 16). (See Methodology for details.)
The 13 facilities were identified as having high rates because
the lower bound of the 95%-confidence interval was at
least 35% higher than the average rate among all facilities
(9.5%) (figure 1).4 Although the NSYC-2 cannot uniquely
identify the facility with the highest victimization rate, two
facilities had rates of 30% or greater. Paulding Regional
Detention Center (Georgia) recorded an overall rate of
32.1%, and Circleville Juvenile Correctional Facility (Ohio)
recorded a rate of 30.3%. Birchwood (South Carolina) had a
victimization rate of 29.2%.
While each of the 13 facilities had high rates, some
facilities not classified as having high rates were not
statistically different from the 13 high-rate facilities due to
sampling error.
2Brown,

L.D., Cai, T., & DasGupta, A. (2001). “Interval Estimation for a
Binomial Proportion.” Statistical Science, 16(2), 101-117.

3Wilson,

E.B. (1927). “Probable Inference, the Law of Succession, and
Statistical Inference.” Journal of the American Statistical Association,
22(158), pp. 209-212.

4The

criterion of at least 35% higher than the average rate was established
to identify a small group of facilities that would be considered as having
high rates. Other criteria reflecting variation in the estimates would have
identified a smaller or larger number of facilities.

Figure 1
Confidence intervals at the 95%-level for juvenile facilities with the highest rates of sexual victimization, National Survey of
Youth in Custody, 2012
Percent
50

40

30

20

10

0

All facilities Paulding Circleville Birchwood Eastman
Scioto
Reg. Yth. Juv. Corr. (SC)
Yth. Dev.
Juv. Corr.
Det. Ctr. Fac. (OH)
Campus (GA) Fac. (OH)
(GA)

Arkansas Corsicana Boys State Illinois
Juv. Assess. Res. Trtmt. Training
Yth. Ctr.
& Trtmt. Ctr. (TX) School (IA) Joliet (IL)
Ctr. (AR)

Augusta
Yth. Dev.
Campus
(GA)

Sumter
Yth. Dev.
Campus
(GA)

John G. Cuyahoga
Richards Hills Juv.
(SC)
Corr. Fac.
(OH)

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Survey of Youth in Custody, 2012.

Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2012 | June 2013

13

26 facilities had no reported sexual victimizations, and
14 of these facilities were identified as low rate

The NSYC-2 is unable to provide an exact identification of
the facilities with the lowest rates of sexual victimization.
Twenty-six of the sampled juvenile facilities (17%) had no
reported incidents of sexual victimization (see appendix
table 2). Rates in each of the 26 facilities are subject to
sampling error, depending on which youth were selected
and the number of surveys completed by youth within
the facility. Although in each facility the lower bound of
the confidence interval was 0%, the upper bound varied
depending on the number of completed interviews.

Among the 157 surveyed facilities, 14 were identified as
low-rate facilities for sexual victimization based on the
percentages of youth who reported incidents and the
upper bounds of the 95%-confidence intervals that were
less than half the average rate among all facilities (table 5).
All of the 14 low-rate facilities had no reported incidents
of sexual victimization with the upper bound confidence
interval between 1.5% and 4.7%. Ft. Bellefontaine Campus
(Missouri), Owensboro Treatment Center (Kentucky), and
Grand Mesa Youth Services Center (Colorado) had no
reported incidents and had confidence intervals with upper
bounds below 2%.

Table 5
Juvenile facilities with the lowest rates of sexual victimization, National Survey of Youth in Custody, 2012
Facility name
All facilities - U.S. total
Ft. Bellefontaine Campus (MO)
Owensboro Trtmt. Ctr. (KY)
Grand Mesa Yth. Srvcs. Ctr. (CO)d
Waverly Reg. Yth. Ctr. (MO)
Cadet Leadership & Education Program (KY)
Green River Yth. Dev. Ctr. (KY)
Rich Hill Yth. Dev. Ctr. (MO)
Mt. View Yth. Srvcs. Ctr. (CO)d
RiverBend Yth. Transition Fac. (OR)
Camp Florence Yth. Transition Fac. (OR)
Camino Nuevo Yth. Ctr. (CNYC) (NM)d
McFadden Ranch (TX)
Sierra-Osage Trtmt. Ctr. (MO)d
Girardot Ctr. for Yth. and Families (MO)

Number of respondentsb
8,667
23
22
33
34
18
18
17
42
32
19
44
29
17
16

Response ratec
60.1%
100
100
94.3
91.9
100
100
100
75.0
80.0
90.5
69.8
78.4
89.5
94.1

Youth reporting any sexual victimizationa
95%-confidence interval
Percent
Lower bound
Upper bound
9.5%
8.7%
10.3%
0.0
0.0
1.5
0.0
0.0
1.6
0.0
0.0
1.9
0.0
0.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
2.4
0.0
0.0
2.4
0.0
0.0
3.0
0.0
0.0
3.1
0.0
0.0
3.4
0.0
0.0
3.8
0.0
0.0
3.9
0.0
0.0
4.0
0.0
0.0
4.6
0.0
0.0
4.7

Note: Low-rate facilities are those in which the upper bound of the confidence interval is lower than 0.5 times the national average. Facilities housed males only unless otherwise noted.
aWeighted percentage of youth reporting one or more incidents of sexual victimization involving another youth or facility staff in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility,
if less than 12 months.
bNumber of adjudicated youth who participated in the sexual victimization component of the survey. Excludes 40 youth due to item nonresponse.
cResponse rate accounts for different probabilities of selection among youth and the exclusion of interviews with extreme or inconsistent responses. (See Methodology.)
dFacility housed both males and females. Both were sampled at this facility.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Survey of Youth in Custody, 2012.

Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2012 | June 2013

14

Youth held in high-rate facilities reported high rates of
nonconsensual sexual activity

Among the 13 high-rate facilities, most reports of sexual
victimization involved nonconsensual sexual acts with
another youth and sexual acts with facility staff excluding
touching (table 6). When rates of sexual victimization were
limited to the most serious nonconsensual acts (excluding
touching only, kissing on the lips or another body part,
and engaging in other less serious acts), the percentages
of youth reporting one or more incidents remained high
(between 16.2% and 28.8%).

Circleville Juvenile Correctional Facility (Ohio) had a
28.8% rate of sexual victimization excluding touching and
a confidence interval with a lower bound (22.9%) that was
more than three times the national average (7.1%). Six
other facilities had rates of sexual victimization excluding
touching that were more than double the national average
and a confidence interval with a lower bound that was more
than twice the national average.

Table 6
Juvenile facilities with the highest rates of sexual victimization, by type of contact, National Survey of Youth in Custody, 2012

Facility name
All facilities - U.S. total
Circleville Juv. Corr. Fac. (OH)
Paulding Reg. Yth. Det. Ctr. (GA)
Birchwood (SC)
Eastman Yth. Dev. Campus (GA)
Corsicana Res. Trtmt. Ctr. (TX)
Illinois Yth. Ctr. Joliet (IL)
Boys’ State Training School (IA)
Cuyahoga Hills Juv. Corr. Fac. (OH)
Sumter Yth. Dev. Campus (GA)
Scioto Juv. Corr. Fac. (OH)c
John G. Richards (SC)
Augusta Yth. Dev. Campus (GA)
Arkansas Juv. Assess. & Trtmt. Ctr. (AR)c

Youth reporting nonconsensual
sexual acts excluding touchinga
95%-confidence interval
Percent
Lower bound
Upper bound
7.8%
7.1%
8.6%
28.8
22.9
35.5
25.9
15.7
39.8
22.7
14.6
33.6
21.3
17.6
25.6
19.7
14.6
26.1
19.5
15.4
24.3
18.8
14.4
24.3
18.8
13.9
24.9
18.5
13.6
24.7
17.9
13.4
23.5
17.5
12.0
24.8
17.3
12.5
23.5
16.2
12.1
21.4

Youth reporting other sexual contacts onlyb
95%-confidence interval
Percent
Lower bound
Upper bound
1.0%
0.8%
1.3%
1.5
0.5
4.3
3.7
1.0
13.1
0.0
0.0
4.2
1.7
0.8
3.4
2.6
1.2
5.9
0.9
0.3
3.0
2.9
1.4
5.9
0.9
0.2
3.5
2.3
1.0
5.3
3.0
1.3
6.9
0.0
0.0
2.9
1.9
0.7
4.9
4.3
2.5
7.4

Note: High-rate facilities are those in which the lower bound of the confidence interval is larger than 1.35 times the national average. Facilities housed males only unless otherwise noted.
aIncludes contact between the penis and the vagina or the penis and the anus; contact between the mouth and the penis, vagina, or anus; penetration of the anal or vaginal opening
of another person by a hand, finger, or other object; and rubbing of another person’s penis or vagina by a hand. Includes any of these acts with a staff member and any forced acts with
another youth.
bIncludes kissing on the lips or other part of the body; looking at private body parts; showing something sexual, such as pictures or a movie; and engaging in some other sexual act that
did not involve touching.
cFacility housed both males and females. Both were sampled at this facility.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Survey of Youth in Custody, 2012.

Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2012 | June 2013

15

Of the 13 high-rate facilities, one facility (Arkansas Juvenile
Assessment and Treatment Center) had a youth-on-youth
sexual victimization rate that exceeded 10% (table 7). In
two facilities, none of the interviewed youth reported any
sexual victimization by other youth in the facility. However,
one of these facilities, Paulding Regional Youth Detention
Center (Georgia), had the highest rate of staff-on-youth
sexual victimization (31.0%).

High percentages of youth reported staff sexual misconduct
in which no force, threat, or other forms of coercion were
involved. Seven of the 13 high-rate facilities had rates
of staff sexual misconduct (with no report of force) that
were more than twice the national average (table 8). Two
facilities—Paulding Regional Youth Detention Center and
Circleville Juvenile Correctional Center—had a confidence
interval around the rate of staff sexual misconduct (with no
force) with a lower bound that exceeded 10%.

Table 7
Juvenile facilities with the highest rates of sexual victimization, by type of incident, National Survey of Youth in Custody, 2012
Facility name
All facilities - U.S. total
Arkansas Juv. Assess. & Trtmt. Ctr. (AR)c
Corsicana Res. Trtmt. Ctr. (TX)
Scioto Juv. Corr. Fac. (OH)c
John G. Richards (SC)
Birchwood (SC)
Cuyahoga Hills Juv. Corr. Fac. (OH)
Circleville Juv. Corr. Fac. (OH)
Eldora State Training School for Boys (IA)
Sumter Yth. Dev. Campus (GA)
Illinois Yth. Ctr. Joliet (IL)
Eastman Yth. Dev. Campus (GA)
Paulding Reg. Yth. Det. Ctr. (GA)
Augusta Yth. Dev. Campus (GA)

Percent
2.5%
11.6
7.9
5.8
5.0
4.0
3.8
3.0
2.9
2.3
1.8
0.8
0.0
0.0

Youth-on-youtha
95%-confidence interval
Lower bound
Upper bound
2.1%
3.0%
8.1
16.4
5.0
12.2
3.2
10.1
2.3
10.4
1.4
10.6
1.9
7.3
1.4
6.4
1.4
6.0
1.0
5.3
0.7
4.2
0.3
2.2
0.0
6.4
0.0
2.0

Staff sexual misconductb
95%-confidence interval
Percent
Lower bound
Upper bound
7.7%
7.0%
8.4%
14.2
10.4
19.2
18.4
13.4
24.8
18.8
14.0
24.9
15.0
9.9
22.0
29.2
20.6
39.5
16.0
11.0
22.7
28.8
22.9
35.5
18.8
14.4
24.2
18.3
13.5
24.3
20.0
15.6
25.2
23.5
19.8
27.7
31.0
20.9
43.4
20.9
15.8
27.1

Note: High-rate facilities are those in which the lower bound of the confidence interval is larger than 1.35 times the national average. Facilities housed males only unless otherwise noted.
aWeighted percentage of youth reporting one or more incidents of sexual victimization involving another youth in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if less than 12
months.
bWeighted percentage of youth 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.
cFacility housed both males and females. Both were sampled at this facility.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Survey of Youth in Custody, 2012.

Table 8
Juvenile facilities with the highest rates of staff sexual victimization, by use of force, National Survey of Youth in Custody, 2012
Youth reporting staff sexual misconduct with forcea
95%-confidence interval
Facility name
Percent
Lower bound
Upper bound
All facilities - U.S. total
3.5%
3.0%
4.0%
Birchwood (SC)
21.7
14.2
31.8
Circleville Juv. Corr. Fac. (OH)
15.2
10.6
21.1
Illinois Yth. Ctr. Joliet (IL)
14.0
10.1
19.2
Augusta Yth. Dev. Campus (GA)
13.6
9.5
19.3
Eastman Yth. Dev. Campus (GA)
13.1
10.2
16.8
13.0
8.9
18.7
Scioto Juv. Corr. Fac. (OH)b
Corsicana Res. Trtmt. Ctr. (TX)
10.5
6.8
16.0
Sumter Yth. Dev. Campus (GA)
10.3
7.0
15.0
Paulding Reg. Yth. Det. Ctr. (GA)
7.1
2.7
17.6
Eldora State Training School for Boys (IA)
5.8
3.5
9.5
John G. Richards (SC)
5.0
2.3
10.4
Arkansas Juv. Assess. & Trtmt. Ctr. (AR)b
4.0
2.3
6.8
Cuyahoga Hills Juv. Corr. Fac. (OH)
2.6
1.0
6.7

Youth reporting staff sexual misconduct with no report of force
95%-confidence interval
Percent
Lower bound
Upper bound
4.7%
4.1%
5.3%
4.5
1.6
12.1
18.2
13.4
24.2
6.2
3.9
9.6
9.3
6.0
14.0
12.3
9.5
15.8
6.0
3.3
10.6
10.7
7.2
15.6
9.2
6.0
13.8
25.9
16.1
39.0
13.0
9.5
17.6
10.0
6.0
16.3
8.9
6.1
12.8
13.4
9.1
19.2

Note: High-rate facilities are those in which the lower bound of the confidence interval is larger than 1.35 times the national average. Facilities housed males only unless otherwise noted.
aIncludes physical force, threat of force, other force or pressure, and other forms of coercion, such as being given money, favors, protections, or special treatment.
bFacility housed both males and females. Both were sampled at this facility.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Survey of Youth in Custody, 2012.

16

Rates of sexual victimization were strongly associated
with basic facility characteristics

An initial examination of available facility characteristics
revealed significant differences in sexual victimization
rates:5

ƒƒ Female-only facilities had the highest rates of

youth‑on‑youth sexual victimization (5.7%), while
male-only facilities had the highest rates of staff sexual
misconduct (8.2%).

ƒƒ Small facilities (those holding 25 or fewer adjudicated
youth) had the lowest rates of staff sexual misconduct
(1.3% among facilities with 1 to 9 youth, and 2.9%
among facilities with 10 to 25 youth). Larger facilities
had higher rates of staff sexual misconduct (5.4% for
those with 26 to 50 youth, 6.8% with 51 to 100 youth,
and 10.2% with more than 100 youth).

ƒƒ State adjudicated youth held in state-owned or -operated
facilities reported higher rates of staff sexual misconduct
(8.2%) than those held in locally or privately operated
facilities (4.5%) (table 9).

5For

the first time, the NSYC-2 included a facility questionnaire to obtain
in-depth information about each sampled facility. Items included data
on facility staff by sex, occupation, and length of service; staff turnover;
personnel screening; facility capacity, occupancy, and crowding; use and
type of video surveillance by area covered; type of facility and primary
function; types of youth held and special problems; and types of treatment
programs. These data and other facility characteristics will be examined in
a second report from the NSYC-2.

ƒƒ Facilities in which youth were held for an average

of less than 5 months had the lowest rates of sexual
victimization (6.8%), compared to facilities in which
youth were held for longer periods (10.0% in facilities
with an average exposure time of 5 to 6 months, and
11.3% in facilities with an average of 7 to 12 months).

Table 9
Prevalence of sexual victimization, by type of incident and selected facility characteristics, National Survey of Youth in
Custody, 2012

Facility characteristic
Number of youtha
Operating agency
State*
15,500
Non-stateb
2,600
Sex of youth housed
Males only*
13,600
Females only
800
Both males and females
3,700
Number of adjudicated youthc
1–9
300
10–25*
2,000
26–50
2,800
51–100
4,300
101 or more
8,700
Average exposure time in facilityd
Less than 5 months*
5,500
5–6 months
6,200
7–12 months
6,400

Percent of youth reporting
any sexual victimization by—
Both youth
and staff
Another youth
Facility staff

Standard error
Both youth
and staff

Another youth

Facility staff

9.9%
6.9**

2.4%
2.9

8.2%
4.5**

0.5%
1.0

0.3%
0.5

0.4%
0.9

9.7%
6.7**
9.4

2.0%
5.7**
3.7**

8.2%
2.2**
7.2

0.5%
1.3
0.9

0.2%
1.2
0.7

0.4%
0.7
0.8

2.5%
4.5
7.6**
8.4**
12.0**

1.2%
2.2
2.6
2.3
2.7

1.3%
2.9
5.4**
6.8**
10.2**

1.1%
0.9
0.9
0.7
0.7

0.7%
0.5
0.6
0.4
0.4

0.8%
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6

6.8%
10.0**
11.3**

1.5%
2.4**
3.5**

5.6%
8.3**
8.8**

0.5%
0.6
0.9

0.2%
0.3
0.6

0.5%
0.6
0.7

*Comparison group.
**Difference with comparison group is significant at the 95%-confidence level.
Note: Weighted percentage of youth reporting one or more incidents of sexual victimization involving another youth or facility staff in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility,
if less than 12 months.
aEstimated number of adjudicated youth in facilities covered by the NSYC-2 rounded to nearest 100.
bRefers to locally and privately operated juvenile facilities in 15 states where a significant number of state-adjudicated youth were held in these facilities. The rates do not reflect local and
contract facilities that hold state-adjudicated youth in other states. (See Methodology.)
cBased on the number of adjudicated youth assigned beds in the facility. The number of youth reported at the time of enrollment (approximately 2 months prior to the visit), was used for
six facilities unable to provide these data in the facility questionnaire.
dThe average exposure period for youth in the facility was based on reports from all interviewed youth. Exposure time was based on the number of months each youth in the sexual
victimization survey was in the facility during the 12 months prior to the survey or since admission, if less than 12 months. (See Methodology.)
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Survey of Youth in Custody, 2012.

Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2012 | June 2013

17

State-level rates
In addition to facility-level and national-level estimates,
the NSYC-2 was designed to provide state-level estimates.
State estimates were added to provide more comprehensive
feedback to administrators, especially to those who operate
facilities that were too small to provide reliable facility-level
estimates. State-level rates are particularly valuable in states
comprised of small facilities. At least half of facilities in the
NSYC-2 (169 of 326 sampled facilities) were determined to
be too small (with fewer than 15 completed interviews) or fell
below standards of statistical precision needed for publishing
facility-level survey rates. These facilities held approximately
30% of adjudicated youth covered in the NSYC-2. (See
Methodology for discussion of reporting criteria.)
Using each facility’s measure of size, the state-level rates were
created by combining the weighted average of the facilitylevel rates for published facilities with an estimate for the
unpublished facilities. Except for 11 states, all published and
unpublished facility rates were used (table 10). Including the
unpublished facility with the rates for the published facilities
would have made it possible to derive the rate for each
unpublished facility. Excluding the 11 facilities in these states
had a minimal impact on the state estimates. These facilities
represented 10% or less of adjudicated youth for all but 2 of
the 11 states: Delaware and Nebraska. (See Methodology for
discussion of state-level estimation.)
Three states (Delaware, Massachusetts, and New York)
and the District of Columbia had no reported incidents
of sexual victimization.6 Although the samples of

participating youth were relatively small, the upper bound
of the 95%-confidence interval in the District of Columbia
and each of the three states fell below the national average
(9.5%) across all states.
Four states were identified as high-rate for sexual
victimization

While the NSYC-2 should not be used to provide an exact
ranking of states, the same criteria that were used to classify
facilities may be used to classify states. Six states had rates
of sexual victimization that exceeded 15% (figure 2). Four
of these states (Georgia, Illinois, Ohio, and South Carolina)
may be identified as having high rates since the lower bound
of the confidence interval around each estimate was at least
35% higher than the average rate among all facilities (9.5%).
A high percentage of adjudicated youth reported staff
sexual misconduct in these four states (not shown; see
appendix table 7). An estimated 17.1% of adjudicated youth
in Ohio, 17.0% in South Carolina, 15.0% in Georgia, and
13.7% in Illinois reported one or more incidents of staff
sexual misconduct. The lower bound of the confidence
interval was 35% higher than the national average (7.7%)
for estimates in each of these states. None of these states
had rates of youth-on-youth sexual victimization that met
the criteria to be classified as high.
6Although

none of the 51 youth interviewed in New York reported an
incident of sexual victimization, the response rate was extremely low
(12.5%). The state required youth to give permission to contact his or
her guardian before NSYC-2 survey staff could request consent from
the guardian and subsequent assent from the youth. This resulted in low
participation among sampled youth.

Figure 2
Confidence intervals at the 95%-level for juvenile facilities with high rates of sexual victimization, by state, National Survey
of Youth in Custody, 2012
Percent
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

National average

California

Georgia*

Illinois*

Kansas

*High-rate states with the lower bound around the confidence interval that was at least 35% higher than the national average.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Survey of Youth in Custody, 2012.

Ohio*

South Carolina*

18

Table 10
Percent of youth reporting sexual victimization, by state, National Survey of Youth in Custody, 2012
State
U.S. totalb
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

Number of respondents
8,667
132
101
149
230
167
424
21
24
573
497
37
184
451
370
214
252
222
226
90
51
87
60
61
42
517
23
24
75
174
95
51
105
54
329
46
561
139
39
108
45
134
633
100
15
174
160
109
148
56

Percent of youth reporting any sexual victimization
95%-confidence interval
Lower bound
Upper bound
Weighted percenta
9.5%
8.7%
10.3%
13.2
10.1
17.1
3.4
2.1
5.6
9.0
6.1
13.3
13.7
11.5
16.2
18.6
12.0
27.5
8.7
7.1
10.6
0.0
0.0
8.4
0.0
0.0
8.5
5.2
3.6
7.6
15.8
13.8
18.1
10.8
6.3
17.9
3.8
2.8
5.1
15.4
13.3
17.7
10.4
8.8
12.2
7.9
4.2
14.4
14.6
12.0
17.8
3.9
2.9
5.3
5.2
3.2
8.4
5.0
3.0
8.4
4.8
1.2
17.0
0.0
0.0
2.2
10.5
5.4
19.5
3.4
1.1
10.2
11.9
7.9
17.6
4.0
3.4
4.7
13.0
5.4
28.4
4.2
0.9
17.7
10.3
5.6
18.3
6.3
3.3
11.5
2.5
0.8
7.1
0.0
0.0
9.0
4.2
2.1
8.3
7.3
4.4
11.9
19.8
17.0
23.0
18.4
8.4
35.5
10.5
9.4
11.7
7.5
4.2
13.1
5.1
1.9
12.8
18.7
16.1
21.5
5.4
1.5
18.3
13.0
8.5
19.5
11.6
9.7
13.8
10.3
6.3
16.4
6.7
3.1
13.7
11.3
7.3
17.0
5.7
3.1
10.0
13.5
11.5
15.9
6.5
4.2
9.9
1.9
0.5
6.9

Note: Data for Connecticut and New Hampshire are not reported due to insufficient data to provide a state rate. (See Methodology for estimation of state-level rates.)
aBased on weighted percentage of youth reporting one or more incidents of sexual victimization involving another youth or facility staff in the past 12 months or since admission to the
facility, if less than 12 months.
bIncludes data from respondents in all facilities that participated in the NSYC-2. Excludes 40 youth who did not report enough information to determine their victimization by youth and
staff.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Survey of Youth in Custody, 2012.

Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2012 | June 2013

19

Demographic and other youth characteristics
Rates of sexual victimization were strongly related to
specific youth characteristics

Rates of sexual victimization varied among youth:

ƒƒ Males reported sexual activity with facility staff more often
than females. An estimated 8.2% of males, compared
to 2.8% of females, reported experiencing one or more
incidents of sexual activity with staff (table 11).

ƒƒ Females reported forced sexual activity with other youth
more often than males. About 5.4% of females and 2.2%
of males reported forced sexual activity with another
youth at the facility.

ƒƒ Rates of staff sexual misconduct were higher among

youth age 17 (8.0%) and those age 18 or older (8.7%)
than youth age 15 or younger (5.8%).

ƒƒ White youth (4.0%) reported sexual victimization

by another youth more often than black (1.4%) and
Hispanic (2.1%) youth.

Table 11
Prevalence of sexual victimization, by type of incident and selected youth victim characteristics, National Survey of Youth in
Custody, 2012

Victim characteristic
Sex
Male*
Female
Age
15 or younger*
16
17
18 or older
Race/Hispanic origin
White*,b
Blackb
Hispanic
Otherb,c
Two or more racesb
Sexual orientation
Heterosexual*
Non-heterosexuald
Any prior sexual assault
Yes
No*
Sexually assaulted at another facility
Yes
No*
Time in facility
Less than 1 month
1–5 months*
6–11 months
12 months or more

Number
of youtha

Percent of youth reporting
any sexual victimization by—
Both youth
and staff
Another youth
Facility staff

Standard error
Both youth
and staff

Another youth

Facility staff

16,500
1,600

9.7%
6.9**

2.2%
5.4**

8.2%
2.8**

0.5%
0.8

0.2%
0.8

0.4%
0.6

3,000
4,000
5,200
6,000

7.6%
8.8
9.7
10.7**

2.5%
2.2
2.4
2.8

5.8%
7.3
8.0**
8.7**

0.7%
0.9
0.9
0.6

0.4%
0.6
0.5
0.3

0.7%
0.9
0.7
0.6

6,500
7,700
3,000
600
400

9.7%
10.3
7.5
6.9
8.9

4.0%
1.4**
2.1**
2.8
2.2

6.4%
9.6**
6.4
4.6
6.7

0.7%
0.6
1.0
1.3
1.7

0.5%
0.3
0.4
0.8
1.0

0.5%
0.6
0.9
1.2
1.6

15,900
2,200

8.9%
14.3**

1.5%
10.3**

7.8%
7.5

0.5%
1.3

0.2%
1.2

0.4%
1.2

2,500
15,600

17.4%**
8.2

9.6%**
1.3

9.7%**
7.3

1.6%
0.4

1.3%
0.2

1.1%
0.4

300
17,900

52.3%**
8.6

33.5%**
1.8

29.3%**
7.3

4.9%
0.4

5.2%
0.1

4.6%
0.4

5.9%
6.3
8.7**
10.1**

1.0%
0.6
0.8
1.0

0.6%
0.3
0.5
0.6

1.0%
0.5
0.7
0.9

1,000
8,800
4,700
3,600

7.1%
8.0
10.6**
12.4**

1.9%
1.9
2.5
4.2**

*Comparison group.
**Difference with comparison group is significant at the 95%-confidence level.
Note: Weighted percentage of youth reporting one or more incidents of sexual victimization involving another youth or facility staff in the past 12 months or since admission to the
facility, if less than 12 months.
aEstimated number of adjudicated youth covered by the NSYC-2 rounded to nearest 100.
bExcludes persons of Hispanic or Latino origin.
cIncludes American Indian, Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian, and other Pacific Islander.
dIncludes gay, lesbian, bisexual, and other sexual orientations.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Survey of Youth in Custody, 2012.

Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2012 | June 2013

20

ƒƒ Black youth reported a higher rate of sexual

victimization by facility staff (9.6%) than white (6.4%)
and Hispanic (6.4%) youth.

ƒƒ Youth with a non-heterosexual sexual orientation

reported a substantially higher rate of youth-on-youth
victimization (10.3%) than heterosexual youth (1.5%).

ƒƒ Rates of staff-on-youth sexual victimization increased

with the length of time a youth was held in the facility.
An estimated 10.1% of youth who were in the facility
for a year or longer reported sexual activity with a staff
member, compared to 5.9% of youth who were in the
facility less than 1 month, 6.3% of youth who were in the
facility between 1 and 5 months, and 8.7% of youth who
were held between 6 and 11 months.

ƒƒ Youth who experienced any prior sexual assault were

more than twice as likely to report experiencing one or
more sexual assaults in the current facility (17.4%) than
those with no sexual assault history (8.2%).

ƒƒ Among youth who were previously sexually assaulted at
another correctional facility, over half (52.3%) reported
being sexually victimized at the current facility within
the last 12 months or since admission, if less than 12
months. Among these youth, an estimated 33.5% were
sexually victimized by another youth at the current
facility, and 29.3% were victimized by staff.

Circumstances surrounding the incident
Most youth-on-youth victims (69.6%) reported more
than one incident, and 37.2% reported more than one
perpetrator

In the NSYC-2, victims were also asked to provide
information about the circumstances surrounding their
victimization, including the number of times it happened,
characteristics of the perpetrators, the type of physical force
or pressure, when and where the incidents occurred, and
whether or not they reported injury.
Data provided by youth who reported sexual victimization
by another youth revealed that—

ƒƒ About 69.6% were victimized more than once, while

18.9% were victimized more than 10 times (table 12).

ƒƒ An estimated 37.2% of youth-on-youth victims were
victimized by more than one perpetrator.

Table 12
Experiences of youth-on-youth victims of sexual
victimization, National Survey of Youth in Custody, 2012
Experience
Number of incidents
1
2
3–5
6–10
11 or more
Victimized by more
than one perpetrator
Yes
No
Race of perpetratora
White
Black
Otherb
Hispanic or Latino origin
of perpetrator
Yes
No
Any of the perpetrators
in a gang
Yes
No

Victims of any sexual
victimization by another youth
Percent
Standard error
30.4%
11.9
24.5
14.3
18.9

6.1%
3.1
4.2
4.5
3.3

37.2%
62.8

5.0%
5.0

65.1%
57.2
27.5

4.7%
5.1
5.1

40.6%
59.4

5.6%
5.6

52.4%
47.6

5.5%
5.5

Note: Based on an estimated 450 youth sexually victimized by another youth.
aDetail sums to more than 100% because some youth reported more than one
victimization or more than one perpetrator.
bIncludes American Indian, Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian, and other Pacific Islander.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Survey of Youth in Custody, 2012.

Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2012 | June 2013

21

ƒƒ An estimated 65.1% of victims said that they were

victimized by a youth who was white, 57.2% said
they were victimized by a youth who was black. In
comparison, 32.2% of all adjudicated youth held in
sampled facilities were white and 45.9% were black.

ƒƒ The majority of victims (52.4%) said they were victimized
at least once by a youth known to be in a gang.

ƒƒ About 67.7% of victims reported experiencing physical
force or threat of force, 25.2% were offered favors or
protection, and 18.1% were given drugs or alcohol
to engage in the sexual act or other sexual contact
(table 13).

ƒƒ Most youth victimized by another youth (82.1%)
reported no physical injury.

Youth-on-youth sexual victimization occurred in areas
throughout the facilities

Among youth who reported unwanted sexual activity with
another youth, 44.4% said they were victimized at least once
in their room or sleeping area, and 31.0% said they were
victimized at least once in the room or sleeping area of another
youth. Nearly a third (32.7%) reported at least one incident
taking place in a shower or bathroom, 25.0% said they were
victimized in a recreation area, and 59.1% said at least one
incident happened in some other common area, such as a
classroom, library, kitchen, office, closet, or supply room.
Youth-on-youth sexual victimization was more common
in the evening (between 6 p.m. and midnight) than at any
other time. An estimated 60.9% of the youth who reported
unwanted sexual activity with another youth said at least
one of the incidents occurred during those hours.

Table 13
Circumstances surrounding youth-on-youth sexual
victimization, National Survey of Youth in Custody, 2012
Circumstance
Type of pressure or forcea
Force/threat of force
Gave victim drugs/alcohol
Offered favors or protection
Type not reported
Victim injured
Yes
No
Where occurreda
In victim’s room/sleeping area
In room/sleeping area of another youth
Shower/bathroomb
Recreation areab
Other common areab,c
Off facility grounds
Time of daya
6 a.m. to noon
Noon to 6 p.m.
6 p.m. to midnight
Midnight to 6 a.m.

Victims of any sexual
victimization by another youth
Percent
Standard error
67.7%
18.1
25.2
24.2

4.7%
3.4
3.7
4.9

17.9%
82.1

3.5%
3.5

44.4%
31.0
32.7
25.0
59.1
5.3

5.2%
5.6
3.9
5.2
5.8
1.5

29.3%
43.5
60.9
20.3

4.4%
5.1
4.7
3.4

Note: Weighted percentage of youth reporting one or more incidents of sexual
victimization involving another youth in the past 12 months or since admission to the
facility, if less than 12 months.
aDetail sums to more than 100% because some youth reported more than one
victimization or more than one location.
bBased on all victims who reported a location of occurrence.
cIncludes a classroom, library, workshop, kitchen or other workplace, office, someone
else’s room or sleeping area, closet, or supply room.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Survey of Youth in Custody, 2012.

Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2012 | June 2013

22

Most perpetrators of staff sexual misconduct were female

An estimated 92.4% of all youth who reported staff sexual
misconduct said they were victimized by female facility
staff (table 14).7 Among the estimated 1,390 adjudicated
youth who reported victimization, 89.1% were males
reporting sexual activity with female staff only, and 3.0%
were males reporting sexual activity with both female and
male staff.
7An

estimated 91% of all adjudicated youth held in the sampled facilities
were male. Approximately 44% of all staff and 34% of frontline staff in
participating facilities were female.

An estimated 630 youth reported physical force, threat of
force, and other forms of pressure and coercion by facility
staff. Among these victims, 20.5% reported a male staff
member as the perpetrator (15.0% involved male staff only
and 5.5% involved both male and female staff).
Male staff members represented a smaller percentage
of perpetrators among youth reporting staff sexual
misconduct that did not involve any force. Among the 840
youth who experienced staff sexual misconduct without
force, 5.1% reported the involvement of a male staff
member (2.7% involved male staff only and 2.4% involved
both male and female staff).

Table 14
Victims of staff sexual misconduct, by use of force and sex of youth and staff, National Survey of Youth in Custody, 2012
All victims
Male victim
Male staff
Female staff
Both male and female staff
Female victim
Male staff
Female staff
Both male and female staff
Estimated number of victimsa

Percent of youth reporting any sexual victimization
All victims
Force reported*
No report of force
100%
100%
100%
5.2%
89.1
3.0

9.9%
79.3
5.5

2.0%**
94.6**
2.4

2.4%
0.2
0.1

5.1%
0.2
--

0.7%**
0.4
--

630

840

1,390

All victims
:

Standard error
Force reported No report of force
:
:

1.5%
1.8
0.7

3.1%
3.4
1.5

0.8%
1.4
0.8

0.7
0.2
0.1

1.5
0.2
--

0.6
0.3
--

:

:

:

Note: In facilities covered by the NSYC-2, an estimated 91% of adjudicated youth were male. Based on staff counts provided by 321 facilities responding to the facility survey, 44% of staff
members were female.
*Comparison group.
**Difference with comparison group is significant at the 95%-confidence level.
: Not calculated.
--Less than 0.05%.
aDetail sums to more than total because some youth reported more than one victimization.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Survey of Youth in Custody, 2012.

Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2012 | June 2013

23

Most victims of staff sexual misconduct (85.9%) reported
more than one incident, while 20.4% reported being
victimized more than 10 times

Data provided by youth who were sexually victimized by
facility staff revealed that—

ƒƒ Approximately a third (32.0%) of youth were victimized
by more than one staff member (table 15).

ƒƒ About 20.3% of youth experiencing physical force or

threat of force, 12.3% were offered favors or protection,
and 21.5% were given drugs or alcohol to engage in the
sexual act or other sexual contact.

ƒƒ Most youth victimized by staff (93.9%) were not
physically injured.
ƒƒ Approximately 80.9% of victims said at least one incident

occurred in a common area, such as a classroom, library,
kitchen, office, closet, or supply room. Nearly half (48.9%)
of victims said at least one incident occurred in a shower
or bathroom, and more than half (52.5%) said they were
victimized by staff in the youth’s room or sleeping area.

ƒƒ Staff sexual misconduct most commonly occurred

between 6 p.m. and midnight (53.5%), followed by
incidents occurring between noon and 6 p.m. (49.4%).

ƒƒ An estimated 41.1% of staff sexual misconduct victims

said that the first sexual activity occurred during the first
month at the facility (10.6% within the first 24 hours,
6.9% during the remainder of the first week, and 23.6%
during the remainder of the month).

Table 15
Circumstances surrounding incidents of staff sexual
misconduct, National Survey of Youth in Custody, 2012
Circumstance
Number of incidents
1
2
3–5
6–10
11 or more
Victimized by more than one
staff member
Yes
No
Type of pressure or forcea
Force/threat of force
Gave victim drugs/alcohol
Offered favors or protection
Noneb
Victim injured
Yes
No
Where occurreda,c
In victim’s room/sleeping area
Shower/bathroom
Recreation area
Other common aread
Off of facility grounds
Time of daya
6 a.m. to noon
Noon to 6 p.m.
6 p.m. to midnight
Midnight to 6 a.m.
When incident first happenede
During first 24 hours
During first week
During first month
During first 2 months
After first 2 months
Not reported

Victims of any staff sexual misconduct
Percent
Standard error
14.2%
18.3
32.2
15.0
20.4

1.5%
1.8
2.3
1.9
1.6

32.0%
68.0

2.3%
2.3

20.3%
21.5
12.3
63.4

2.1%
1.8
1.6
2.6

6.1%
93.9

1.4%
1.4

52.5%
48.9
14.4
80.9
9.7

2.7%
2.5
1.8
1.7
1.4

42.9%
49.4
53.5
40.2

2.5%
2.4
2.5
2.2

10.6%
6.9
23.6
11.6
40.0
7.3

1.5%
1.1
2.5
1.6
2.7
1.1

Note: Based on an estimated 1,390 youth reporting one or more incidents of staff sexual
misconduct in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if less than
12 months.
aDetail sums to more than 100% because some youth reported more than one
victimization or more than one location.
bIncludes type of force or pressure not reported.
cBased on all victims who reported a location occurrence.
dIncludes a classroom, library, workshop, kitchen or other workplace, office, someone
else’s room or sleeping area, closet, and supply room.
eBased on when the youth first came to the facility on the current admission.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Survey of Youth in Custody, 2012.

Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2012 | June 2013

24

Staff sexual misconduct was linked to other inappropriate
contact with youth

As a result of the high rate of staff sexual misconduct
reported in the NSYC-1 (10.3%), new items were added
to the NSYC-2 questionnaire to better understand the
circumstances surrounding incidents. Youth were asked
a series of questions related to their relationship with the
facility staff prior to sexual contact (table 16). Among
victims of staff sexual misconduct—

ƒƒ Nearly two-thirds said that staff told them about their

personal life outside of work (69.1%), treated them like a
favorite or better than other youth (63.6%), or gave them
a special gift that the staff would not have given to most
other youth (62.3%).

ƒƒ Almost half (49.2%) said the staff member gave them

pictures or wrote them letters. Nearly a third (29.8%)
said that the staff member contacted them in other ways
when the staff member was not at the facility.

ƒƒ More than a third (36.7%) said youth gave the staff

member pictures of themselves, and more than a quarter
(28.1%) said youth gave the staff member a special gift.

When youth were asked who initiated the sexual contact,
36.4% said that the facility staff always made the first move,
17.4% reported that the youth always made the first move,
and 46.3% said that sometimes the facility staff made the
first move and sometimes the youth did.

Table 16
Victims of staff sexual misconduct, by relationship
characteristic, National Survey of Youth in Custody, 2012

Relationship characteristic
Prior contact/relationship between youth and staff
Staff told youth about personal life outside of work
Staff gave youth pictures or wrote letters
Staff gave youth special gift
Staff treated youth as special/favorite
Youth gave staff pictures or wrote letters
Youth gave staff special gift
Staff member contacted youth in other ways when
staff not at the facility
Who initiated the sexual contact*
Always the facility staff
Always the youth
Sometimes the youth and sometimes staff
Youth’s perception of the relationship
Really cared about each other
Friends with benefits
Usually just sexual

Victims of any staff
sexual misconduct
Standard
Percent error
69.1%
49.2
62.3
63.6
36.7
28.1

2.1%
2.5
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.2

29.8

2.1

36.4%
17.4
46.3

2.3%
1.9
2.4

13.6%
40.1
46.3

1.7%
2.7
2.8

Note: Based on an estimated 1,390 youth reporting one or more incidents of staff sexual
misconduct in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if less than 12 months.
*Includes youth who reported one or more incidents.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Survey of Youth in Custody, 2012.

Youth were also asked to describe the sexual relationship
with staff. Nearly half (46.3%) said the incident was usually
just sexual. An estimated 40.1% said the sexual contact was
more like friends with benefits, and 13.6% said that they
really cared about each other.

Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2012 | June 2013

25

Methodology
The second National Survey of Youth in Custody (NSYC-2)
was conducted in all 50 states and the District of Columbia
by Westat (Rockville, MD), under a cooperative agreement
with the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). Data collection
was conducted in 326 juvenile facilities between February
and September 2012.
Interviewing juveniles in residential facilities on such
sensitive topics required extensive preparations with agency
and facility administrators prior to the interview. These
preparations ranged from methods to obtain consent,
procedures to file mandatory reports of child abuse or
neglect, arrangements for counseling in case a youth
became upset, and logistical support to physically carry out
the interviewing. The specific procedures that had to be
negotiated with state and local authorities were—

ƒƒ Consent to interview minors—22 states and the District

of Columbia provided consent in loco parentis (ILP), in
which the state agency acting as the guardian provided
consent; 20 states required written consent and 3 states
required either verbal or written parental or guardian
consent (PGC); and 5 states allowed for a combination of
ILP and PGC.

ƒƒ Mandatory reporting of abuse or neglect—all survey

staff in direct contact with youth had to comply with
state and local reporting requirements when a youth
made a verbal statement suggesting abuse or neglect.
Jurisdictions provided contact information and
instructions for submitting reports to an agency outside
of the facility (e.g., local Child Protective Services).

ƒƒ Counseling services—jurisdictions were asked to

identify both facility-based and external resources for
counseling services in the event a youth would become
emotionally upset during the interview or make a
specific request to the interviewer for such services.

The NSYC-2 comprised two questionnaires—a survey of
sexual victimization and a survey of past drug and alcohol
use and treatment. Youth were randomly assigned one of
the questionnaires so that, at the time of the interview, the
content of the survey remained unknown to facility staff
and the survey interviewers.
The interviews, which averaged approximately 30 minutes
in length, used audio computer-assisted self-interviewing
(ACASI) data collection methods. Youth interacted with the
computer-administered questionnaires using a touchscreen
and synchronized audio instructions delivered through
headphones. Youth could choose to take the interview in

either English or Spanish. Youth completed the interview in
private, with the interviewer remaining in the room but in a
position that did not offer a view of the computer screen.
A total of 9,703 youth participated in the NSYC-2. Of these,
8,707 youth completed the survey on sexual victimization
and passed editing and consistency checks. A total of
996 completed the survey on drug and alcohol use and
treatment.
Sampling of facilities

The universe for the survey was all adjudicated youth
residing in facilities owned or operated by a state juvenile
correctional authority and all state-adjudicated youth
held under contract in locally or privately operated
juvenile facilities. The universe was restricted to facilities
that housed youth for at least 90 days, held at least 25%
adjudicated youth, and held at least 10 adjudicated youth
at the time of the survey. These restrictions were imposed
to allow sufficient time to obtain consent from the parent
or guardian.
The NSYC-2 sampling frame included contract facilities
in states where contract facilities held at least 20% of all
state-adjudicated youth or where fewer than 80 completed
interviews were expected from youth held in state facilities.
Since locally and privately operated facilities were more
difficult to enroll and less likely to participate in surveys
related to the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA), the
NSYC-2 excluded contract facilities in states not needed for
state-level estimation. Given these parameters, the NSYC-2
collected data from contract facilities in 15 states.
A multistage stratified sample design was used. At the
first stage of selection, 446 facilities were selected from
503 eligible facilities in the United States. Facilities were
selected using the 2010 Census of Juveniles in Residential
Placement (CJRP), conducted by the Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

ƒƒ All facilities in the frame with 20 or more adjudicated

youth were sampled with certainty. This threshold
yielded at least one sample facility in each state except
Vermont, which had one state facility that housed fewer
than 10 adjudicated youth. (This facility was selected to
meet the PREA mandate of including at least one facility
in every state.)

ƒƒ Facilities with 10 to 19 adjudicated youth were sampled

with probability proportional to size. For state facilities,
the measure of size was the number of adjudicated youth
reported in the 2010 CJRP. For the contract facilities, it

Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2012 | June 2013

26

was the number of state-adjudicated placed youth. The
selection probability of these facilities was their measure
of size divided by 20. This number corresponded to the
measure of size for the smallest certainty facility.

ƒƒ A supplemental sample was taken to include additional
contract facilities that were misclassified during the
initial sample selection. An additional 10 facilities were
selected from among 24 reclassified facilities.

Subsequent state-level and facility-level enrollment efforts
determined 113 of these 446 facilities to be out-of-scope.
Facilities were out-of-scope under any of the following
conditions:

ƒƒ closed or were schedule to close prior to data
collection (35)

ƒƒ did not house youth for more than 90 days (49)
ƒƒ did not house state-placed youth (13) or adjudicated
youth (6)

ƒƒ merged with another enrolled facility (6) or was split
into two separate facilities (1)

ƒƒ housed only youth with a limited cognitive capacity who
were unable to self-consent or assent or complete the
survey (2)

ƒƒ no longer a juvenile corrections facility (1).
Of the remaining 333 eligible juvenile facilities, 4 lacked
consent for a sufficient number of youth to permit data
collection, and 3 were not visited due to issues related to
scheduling and burden.
Selection of youth

Rosters of adjudicated youth were provided by facilities
granting in loco parentis (ILP) consent 5 weeks prior to
data collection. Facilities granting other forms of consent
(either PGC or some combination of PGC and ILP)
provided a roster 9 weeks prior to data collection. Rosters
were updated weekly, up to 2 weeks prior to the collection,
to reflect youth who were subsequently admitted to or
discharged from each facility.
Interviewing capacity at each facility was assessed based
on the number of available days, interviewing rooms, and
interviewers. In facilities determined to have sufficient
capacity, all eligible youth were selected for the survey. In
other facilities, youth were randomly subsampled so the
number of youth did not exceed interviewing capacity.
A total of 22,944 youth were initially selected. Among these
individuals, 5,402 left prior to the interview team arriving
at the facility and 940 were excluded based on subsampling

within the facility. Once the discharges and excluded cases
were removed from the pool of selected youth, 16,602
youth remained eligible for the NSYC-2.
Approximately 26% of youth did not participate because
consent from the parent or guardian could not be
obtained, 8% refused to complete the interview, and 6%
were nonrespondents for other reasons (e.g., they did not
complete the entire interview, they were not at the facility
at the time of visit, the facility denied access, or they were
excluded due to extreme or inconsistent response patterns).
Weighting and nonresponse adjustments for facility and
national estimates

To generate facility estimates, each youth was assigned
an initial weight that corresponded to the inverse of the
probability of selection within each facility. A series of
adjustments was applied to the initial weight to compensate
for nonresponse. These adjustments were completed in
three steps:
1.  Adjustment cells were constructed based on each youth’s
most serious offense, race or Hispanic origin, age, sex,
and the number of days held in the facility.
2.  An adjustment required a minimum nonresponse cell
size of 10 responding youth. In many facilities, this
resulted in no nonresponse adjustment, as either the
facility had too few interviews (fewer than 20) to create
multiple cells or the differences between respondents
and nonrespondents were not significant. In facilities
where significant differences were observed, 2 to 4
nonresponse cells were created.
3.  After an initial nonresponse adjustment, the weights
within a facility were examined and trimmed to reduce
undue influence from a small number of respondents
with very large weights. If the highest weight was 4
times greater than the lowest weight in the facility, the
highest weights were trimmed and the difference in
weighted counts was distributed to the remaining youth.
After trimming, the high-to-low ratio in the final weight
would equal to 4.
To generate national estimates, each sampled facility was
assigned a weight that corresponded to the inverse of the
facility’s probability of selection into the sample, and the
weight was adjusted for facility nonresponse. The adjusted
facility weights were then multiplied by the youth weights
that resulted from the three-step process outlined above,
thereby producing a national-level youth weight.

Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2012 | June 2013

27

Calculating response rates

Selecting facilities for publication

A total of 8,845 youth completed the survey on sexual
victimization, and 996 completed the survey on drug
and alcohol use and treatment. After excluding 138
youth whose interviews were deleted due to extreme or
inconsistent responses in the sexual victimization survey,
the NSYC-2 achieved a weighted overall response rate
of 59% for all sampled youth. (See box on page 9 for
discussion of extreme and inconsistent response patterns.)

Facility-level estimates were published only if they met a
set of criteria to ensure that the estimates had minimum
reliability. The estimates were required to meet all of the
following criteria: (1) they were based on at least 15 youth
who completed the sexual victimization survey, (2) they
represented facilities with a 30% response rate or greater,
and (3) they had a minimum coefficient of variation of 30%
and were significantly precise to detect a high victimization
rate (i.e., if they had a hypothetical victimization rate of
25% or greater, the lower bound of the confidence interval
would be 35% higher than the national rate). (See Standard
errors and confidence intervals section below for discussion
of sampling precision.)

Separate response rates were calculated for each
participating facility. (See appendix table 1.) Within
each facility, a base weight was created for each youth in
the sexual victimization survey by taking the inverse of
each youth’s probability of selection. In most facilities,
youth selection probabilities were the same; however, in
facilities in which youth were subsampled or where rosters
contained duplicate records, selection probabilities varied.
An initial facility response rate was calculated by summing
the base weights for all youth who completed the sexual
victimization survey and dividing it by the sum of the base
weights for all sampled youth. Ineligible youth in each
facility were excluded.
A final response rate was calculated to account for deleted
interviews that contained extreme or inconsistent responses.
(See discussion on page 9.) This was achieved by multiplying
the initial facility response rate by an adjustment ratio. In
each facility, this ratio represented the sum of final weights
for all interviewed youth (excluding those with extreme or
inconsistent responses) divided by the sum of final weights
for all interviewed youth (including those with extreme or
inconsistent responses). This final adjusted response rate was
then multiplied by 100.
Calculations for Adobe Mountain School (Arizona) illustrate
the measurement of these weighted facility-level response
rates. This facility listed 284 youth on its roster. Among
those listed, 124 were subsampled out, and no interview was
attempted with them. Among the remaining 160 sampled
youth, 144 were sampled for the sexual victimization survey
and 16 for the survey of past drug and alcohol use and
treatment. Of the 144 eligible youth, 105 completed the
NSYC-2 sexual victimization survey (72.9%). After adjusting
for the probability of selection for each youth, the 105 youth
who completed the sexual victimization survey represented
the 284 youth in this facility. Five of the interviewed youth
(4.8%) provided extreme or three or more inconsistent
responses and were excluded. After adjusting for these cases,
the resulting facility response rate was 69.4% (0.729 times
0.952 times 100).

Based on these criteria, facility-level estimates were reported
for 157 (of the 326) participating facilities. (See appendix
tables 2, 3, 4, and 5 for facility estimates by type of sexual
victimization.) These facilities accounted for approximately
70% of the adjudicated youth covered in NSYC-2.
State-level estimates

State-level estimates were generated using a weighted average
of the facility-level rates. Except for 11 states in which one
participating facility did not meet the criteria for publication,
all published and unpublished state rates were used. In these
11 states, publishing a rate for the entire state, along with the
rates for the published facilities, would have made it possible
to derive the rate for the unpublished facility.
Four approaches were used to produce state estimates:
1.  In 14 states and the District of Columbia, facilitylevel estimates were published for all participating
facilities. A state-level rate was calculated by dividing
the combined weighted counts of youth reporting
sexual victimization in all facilities by the combined
weighted count of all youth in all of the participating
facilities. (These states included Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho,
Indiana, Maine, Mississippi, Nevada, Ohio, Oregon,
Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and
Wyoming.)
2.  In 11 states, facility-level estimates were published for
all participating facilities except one. A state-level rate
was calculated by dividing the combined weighted
counts of youth reporting sexual victimization in the
published facilities by the combined weighted counts
of all youth in the published facilities. (These states
included Alabama, Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Kansas,
Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, South Carolina,

Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2012 | June 2013

28

Tennesee, and Virginia. The excluded facility accounted
for 10% or less of the state population in all states except
Delaware and Nebraska.)
3.  In 17 states, one or more facilities had a published rate,
and two or more facilities did not have a published
rate. A state-level rate was estimated by calculating a
weighted average from the unpublished facilities and
combining it with the weighted average of the estimates
from published facilities. (These states included Alaska,
Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, North
Carolina, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah,
and Washington.)
4.  In six states, no facility-level estimates were published,
but all facilities together met the publication criteria.
A state-level rate was estimated by combining the data
from all unpublished facilities based on the original
probabilities of selection and weighting adjustments.
(These states included California, Massachusetts,
Maryland, New York, Oklahoma, and South Dakota.)
In two states (Connecticut and New Hampshire), no
facility-level estimates were published and all facilities
combined did not meet the publication criteria. In these
states, the NSYC-2 could not provide a state-level estimate.
Standard errors and confidence intervals

Survey estimates are subject to sampling error because they
are based on a sample rather than a complete enumeration.
Within each facility, the sampling error varies by the size
of the estimate, the number of completed interviews, and
the size of the facility. Due to the relatively small samples
within many of the selected facilities, it is especially
important to consider the possibility of sampling error
when interpreting the survey results.
Estimates of the standard errors for selected measures of
sexual victimization are presented in tables that provide
national-level estimates. These estimates may be used to
construct confidence intervals around the survey estimates
(e.g., numbers, percentages, and rates), as well as to test for
significant differences between the estimates.
For example, the 95%-confidence interval around
the percentage of male youth who reported sexual
victimization by another youth is approximately 2.2% plus
or minus 1.96 times 0.2% (or 1.8% to 2.6%). Based on
similarly conducted samples, 95% of the intervals would be
expected to contain the true (but unknown) percentage.

The standard errors may also be used to construct
confidence intervals around differences in the estimates.
The 95%-confidence interval comparing the percentage of
male youth (2.2%) and female youth (5.4%) who reported
sexual victimization by another youth may be calculated.
The confidence interval around the difference of 3.2% is
approximately plus or minus 1.96 times 0.82% (the square
root of the standard error of the difference). The standard
error of the difference is calculated by taking the square
root of the sum of each standard error squared (e.g., the
square root of (0.2)2 plus (0.8)2). Since the interval (1.6% to
4.8%) does not include zero, the difference between male
youth and female youth in the rate of sexual victimization
by other youth is considered statistically significant.
To express the possible variation due to sampling associated
with facility-level estimates, tables in this report provide
lower and upper bounds of the related 95%-confidence
intervals. Since many facility samples are small and the
estimates are close to zero, confidence intervals were
constructed using an alternative method developed by
E.B. Wilson. Computationally, 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%, and the upper bound is less than
or equal to 100%. It also provides confidence intervals for
facilities in which the survey estimates are zero (but other
similarly conducted surveys could yield non-zero estimates).
Exposure period

To calculate comparative rates of sexual victimization, the
facility provided the most recent admission date to the
current facility for each youth. If the admission date was
at least 12 months prior to the date of the survey, youth
were asked questions related to their experiences during
the last 12 months. If the admission date was less than 12
months prior to the interview, youth were asked about their
experiences since they arrived at the facility. The average
exposure period for sexual victimization among sampled
youth was 6.2 months.
Measuring sexual victimization

The NSYC-2 relied on the reporting of direct experience of
each youth, rather than youth reporting on the experience
of other youth. The strategy was to first ask if the youth had
engaged in any type of sexual activity at the facility within
the last 12 months or since they entered the facility, if they
had been in the facility for less than 12 months. These
questions were not specific to the perpetrator or whether
the sexual activity was coerced.

Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2012 | June 2013

29

The initial series of questions differed by the age of the
youth. Youth age 15 or older were administered questions
related to the touching of body parts in a sexual way,
involving oral, anal, or vaginal sex. Youth age 14 or younger
were asked less detailed questions about sexual activity.
Rather than referring to explicit body parts and acts, the
items had less explicit language (i.e., “private parts”). This
was done to avoid exposing younger respondents to explicit
sexual references. (For specific survey questions, see
appendix 1.)
Youth who reported sexual activity were then asked if the
activities occurred with other youth or with staff. They
were then asked questions about the presence and nature
of coercion (including use of physical force or threat of
physical force, use of other type of force or pressure, or
return for money, favors, protection, or other special
treatment) associated with the youth-on-youth sexual
activity. A separate but identical set of questions was asked
about coercion associated with staff-on-youth sexual
activity. (See appendix 2.)
If the respondent did not report any sexual contact in the
initial screening items, the ACASI survey administered
a series of questions that asked if the youth had been
coerced to engage in sexual activity. If a youth answered
affirmatively, he or she was asked if the event occurred with
another youth or with a staff member. Follow-up questions,
comparable to the initial screener questions, were asked of
those who reported victimization.
The ACASI survey presented additional questions
related to both youth-on-youth and staff-on-youth
sexual victimization. These questions collected further
information on the characteristics of the victimization,
such as time and location, number, race or Hispanic
origin, and sex of perpetrators; injuries sustained and
medical care received by the youth as a result of the assault;
characteristics of the relationship between youth and staff
perpetrators; and reporting of the assault to authorities and
action taken by leadership after the victimization.

B1e. Are the staff disrespectful?
B1f. Are the staff hard to get along with?
B1g. Are the staff mean?
B1h. Are the staff fun to be with?
“Yes” responses to items B1a, B1b, B1c, B1d, and B1h and
“no” responses to items B1e, B1f, and B1g were coded 1.
All other responses were coded 0. The response codes were
then summed to provide a count of the number of positive
opinions about the facility staff.
The number of positive opinions about the facility and
fairness of facility policies was based on seven true or false
items and one agree or disagree item:
B2a. Youth here are punished even when they don’t do
anything wrong.
B2b. Facility staff use force when they don’t really need to.
B2c. Problems between facility staff and youth here can
be worked out.
B2d. Something bad might happen to me if I file a
complaint against a staff member.
B2e. I usually deserve any punishment that I receive.
B2f. Punishments given are fair.
B2g. The staff treat the youth fairly.
B2i. There are enough staff to monitor what is going
on in this facility (strongly agree, somewhat agree,
somewhat disagree, strongly disagree).
“False” responses to items B2a, B2b, and B2d and “true”
responses to items B2c, B2e, B2f, and B2g were coded 1.
“Strongly agree” and “somewhat agree” responses to item
B2i were coded 1. All other responses were coded 0. The
response codes were then summed to provide a count of
the number of positive opinions about the facility and
fairness of facility policies.
The entire ACASI questionnaire (listed as the National
Survey of Youth in Custody-2) is available on the BJS
website at www.bjs.gov.

Measuring youth opinions about the facility staff and
fairness of facility policies

The NSYC-1 and NSYC-2 included eight yes or no items
that measured youth opinions about facility staff:
B1a. Are the facility staff good role models?
B1b. Are the facility staff friendly?
B1c. Do the staff seem to genuinely care about you?
B1d. Are the staff helpful?

Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2012 | June 2013

30

The 13 facilities classified as high-rate were examined using additional exclusion criteria for
extreme or inconsistent responses
The John G. Richards facility also would have dropped
out of the high-rate group if calculations had excluded
interviews with two or more inconsistencies (with
a mean of 15.8% and a lower bound of 10.2%) or if
calculations had excluded interviews based on one or
more inconsistencies (a mean of 8.6% and a lower bound
of 4.4%).

The impact of the choice of exclusion criteria on the
classification of high-rate facilities was examined
(table 17). The data suggest that 10 of the 13 facilities
would have remained in the high-rate group had
additional (more restrictive) exclusion criteria been
introduced.
One facility, John G. Richards (South Carolina), would have
dropped out of the high-rate category if the calculations
had excluded interviews in which youth reported a sexual
victimization incident but failed to respond when asked
how many times it had occurred or answered zero times.
While the facility rate would have remained high (15.8%),
the lower bound of the 95%-confidence interval (10.2%)
would have been less than 135% of the national mean
(less than 9.0% times 1.35, or 12.2%).

Of the remaining 12 facilities, 2 facilities (Paulding
Regional Youth Detention Center, Georgia, and
Birchwood, South Carolina) would have dropped out
only if interviews with any inconsistent response had
been excluded. The rate of sexual victimization in the
Paulding Regional Youth Detention Center would have
dropped from 32.1% to 5.0%, and the rate at Birchwood
from 29.2% to 4.6%. These two facilities had the smallest
Continued on next page

Table 17
Estimated rates of sexual victimization and lower bounds of the 95%-confidence intervals among high-rate facilities,
by exclusion criteria, National Survey of Youth in Custody, 2012

Facility name
All facilities - U.S. total
Paulding Reg. Yth. Det. Ctr. (GA)
Circleville Juv. Corr. Fac. (OH)
Birchwood (SC)
Eastman Yth. Dev. Campus (GA)
Scioto Juv. Corr. Fac. (OH)
Arkansas Juv. Assess. & Trtmt.
Ctr. (AR)f
Corsicana Res. Trtmt. Ctr. (TX)f
Eldora State Training School for
Boys (IA)
Illinois Yth. Ctr. Joliet (IL)
Augusta Yth. Dev. Campus (GA)
Sumter Yth. Dev. Campus (GA)
John G. Richards (SC)
Cuyahoga Hills Juv. Corr. Fac. (OH)

NSYC-2 final
estimates
Extreme responses or
3 or more outliersa
Lower
Percent
bound
9.5%
8.7%
32.1
21.7
30.3
24.4
29.2
20.6
24.4
20.7
23.2
18.1

Other estimates using additional exclusion criteria
Number of times
Reported other
was zero or missingb sexual contacts onlyc 2 or more outliersd
1 or more outliere
Lower
Lower
Lower
Lower
Percent bound
Percent bound
Percent bound
Percent bound
9.0%
8.3%
8.5%
7.8%
7.9%
7.2%
5.0%
4.5%
29.6
19.2
29.6
19.2
24.0
14.1
5.0
1.2*
29.2
23.4
29.2
23.4
27.0
21.1
19.2
13.0
29.2
21.0
26.1
17.8
22.7
14.5
10.5
4.6*
22.4
18.6
23.1
19.3
19.4
15.7
12.6
9.0
22.1
16.6
20.9
15.5
20.9
15.5
16.4
11.1

23.2
22.4

17.7
17.1

22.0
22.4

16.8
17.2

19.8
20.3

14.8
15.3

22.0
19.2

16.8
14.2

17.5
15.9

12.5
10.7

21.7
21.1
20.9
20.8
20.0
19.8

17.1
16.6
15.8
15.7
14.1
14.6

21.7
21.1
19.4
20.8
15.8
19.0

17.0
16.7
14.3
15.8
10.2*
13.8

19.4
20.4
19.4
18.9
20.0
19.0

14.7
16.0
14.3
14.1
14.1
13.8

20.6
18.2
19.4
18.9
15.8
19.0

15.9
14.0
14.3
14.1
10.2*
13.8

15.6
13.0
16.8
14.9
8.6
13.1

11.1
9.1
11.5
10.5
4.4*
8.3

Note: Additional exclusion criteria were designed to test if each facility remained in the high-rate category under various outlier scenarios related to data quality. (See
Methodology for discussion of checks for extreme and inconsistent responses.) For a facility to be classified as high rate, the lower bound of the facility’s 95%-confidence interval
must exceed 1.35 times the national average. With the introduction of additional exclusion criteria, the threshold of 12.8% for the lower bound dropped to 12.2% (for zero or
missing times), 11.5% (for exclusion of other sexual contacts only), 10.7% (for 2 or more outliers), and 6.8% (for 1 or more outlier).
*Facility would fall out of the high-rate group, based on the lower bound of its 95%-confidence interval.
aFinal estimates based on the exclusion of 138 interviews with at least 1 extreme response or 3 or more inconsistent responses.
bExclusion based on 1 or more extreme responses, 3 or more outliers, and youth who reported sexual victimization but failed to respond when asked “how many times”
or responded with zero.
cExclusion based on 1 or more extreme responses, 3 or more outliers, and youth who reported other sexual contacts only (e.g., kissing on the lips or other part of the body,
looking at private body parts, showing something sexual, such as pictures or a movie, and engaging in some other sexual contact that did not involve touching).
dExclusion based on 1 or more extreme responses and 2 or more outliers.
eExclusion based on 1 or more extreme responses and 1 or more outliers.
fFacility housed both males and females. Both were sampled at this facility.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Survey of Youth in Custody, 2012.

Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2012 | June 2013

31

Continued from previous page
number of respondents (fewer than 30) among the 13
high-rate facilities, and consequently were the most
sensitive to deleting interviews.
Consideration of other exclusion criteria did not change
the classification of the remaining 10 facilities (not shown
in table). These 10 remaining facilities would have been
classified as high-rate even if interviews were dropped
based on reports of an incident rate of more than one per

week since the admission date or based on a case-by-case
review of all items for internal consistency.
Overall, the data suggest that classifying the 13 facilities
as high-rate is robust. In choosing to exclude interviews
based on one or more extreme responses or three or
more inconsistent responses, some youth may still report
inconsistent information but their entire interview should
not be invalidated.

Appendix 1. Survey items measuring sexual activity within the facility during the past 12 months or since entering
the facility, if less than 12 months
Males, age 15 or older

C11. During the past 12 months,
have you rubbed another person’s
penis with your hand or has someone
rubbed your penis with their hand?
C12. During the past 12 months, have
you rubbed another person’s vagina
with your hand?
C13. During the past 12 months,
have you put your mouth on another
person’s penis or has someone put
their mouth on your penis?
C14. During the past 12 months, have
you put your mouth on someone’s
vagina?
C15. During the past 12 months,
have you put your penis, finger, or
something else inside someone else’s
rear end or has someone put their
penis, finger, or something else inside
your rear end?
C16. During the past 12 months,
have you put your penis, finger, or
something else inside someone’s
vagina?
C17. During the past 12 months,
have you had any other kind of sexual
contact with someone at this facility?

C17a.What kind of sexual contact was
that?
CHECK ALL THAT APPLY.
Kissing on the lips . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Kissing other parts of the body. . . . 2
Looking at private parts. . . . . . . . . . 3
Showing something sexual, such as
pictures or a movie. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Something else that did not involve
touching. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Something else that did involve
touching. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Females, age 15 or older

C18. During the past 12 months, have
you rubbed another person’s penis
with your hand?
C19. During the past 12 months, have
you rubbed someone else’s vagina
with your hand or has someone else
rubbed your vagina with their hand?
C20. During the past 12 months,
have you put your mouth on another
person’s penis?
C21. During the past 12 months, have
you put your mouth on someone
else’s vagina, or has someone put their
mouth on your vagina?

Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2012 | June 2013

C22. During the past 12 months, have
you put your finger or something else
inside someone else’s rear end or has
someone put their penis, finger, or
something else inside your rear end?
C23. During the past 12 months, have
you put your finger or something else
inside someone else’s vagina or has
someone put their penis, finger, or
something else inside your vagina?
C24. During the past 12 months,
have you had any other kind of sexual
contact with someone at this facility?
C24a.What kind of sexual contact was
that?
CHECK ALL THAT APPLY.
Kissing on the lips . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Kissing other parts of the body. . . . 2
Looking at private parts. . . . . . . . . . 3
Showing something sexual, such as
pictures or a movie. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Something else that did not involve
touching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Something else that did involve
touching. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

32

Appendix 1 (continued). Survey items measuring sexual activity within the facility during the past 12 months
or since entering the facility, if less than 12 months
All youth age 14 or younger

C1. The next questions are about
sexual contacts that happen in this
facility.
Sexual contacts are when someone
touches your private parts or you
touch someone else’s private parts in a
sexual way.
By private parts, we mean any part of
the body that would be covered by a
bathing suit.
C11. During the past 12 months, have
you rubbed anyone’s private parts
with your hand or has anyone rubbed
your private parts with their hand?
C12. During the past 12 months,
have you put your mouth on anyone’s
private parts or has anyone put their
mouth on your private parts?

C13a. During the past 12 months, has
anyone put part of their body inside
your private parts?
C14. During the past 12 months,
have you had any other kind of sexual
contact with someone at this facility?
C14a. What kind of sexual contact
was that?
CHECK ALL THAT APPLY.
Kissing on the lips . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Kissing other parts of the body. . . . 2
Looking at private parts. . . . . . . . . . 3
Showing something sexual, such as
pictures or a movie. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Something else that did not involve
touching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Something else that did involve
touching. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Survey items measuring with whom
the sexual activity occurred

C25. You’ve said that since you
have been at this facility, you [list of
specific activities]
Did (this/any of these) happen with a
youth at this facility?
C27. During the past 12 months,
which ones happened with a youth at
this facility? [list of specific activities]
C28. You’ve said that since you
have been at this facility, you [list of
specific activities]
Did (this/any of these) happen with a
member of the facility staff?
C30. During the past 12 months,
which ones happened with a youth at
this facility? [list of specific activities]

C13. During the past 12 months, have
you put any part of your body inside
anyone else’s private parts?

Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2012 | June 2013

33

Appendix 2. Survey items measuring pressure or nature of coercion
For incidents with youth

C31. During the past 12 months,
did (this/any of these) ever happen
because a youth at this facility used
physical force or threat of physical
force?
C34. During the past 12 months,
did (this/any of these) ever happen
because a youth at this facility forced
or pressured you in some other way
to do it?
C34a. How were you forced or
pressured in some other way?
CHECK ALL THAT APPLY.
Another youth threatened you with
harm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

C36. During the past 12 months, did
(this/any of these) ever happen with
a youth at this facility in return for
money, favors, protection, or other
special treatment?
For incidents with staff

C45. During the past 12 months,
did (this/any of these) ever happen
because a staff member used physical
force or threat of physical force?
C48. During the past 12 months,
did (this/any of these) ever happen
because a staff member forced or
pressured you in some other way to
do it?

Another youth threatened to get
you in trouble with other youth . . 2

C48a. How were you forced or
pressured in some other way?
CHECK ALL THAT APPLY.
A staff member threatened you with
harm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
A staff member threatened to get
you in trouble with other youth. . . 2
A staff member threatened to get
you in trouble with the staff . . . . . . 3
A staff member kept asking you to
do it . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
A staff member forced or pressured
you in some other way . . . . . . . . . . 5
C50. During the past 12 months, did
(this/any of these) ever happen with
a staff member in return for money,
favors, protection, or other special
treatment?

Another youth threatened to get
you in trouble with the staff . . . . . . 3
Another youth kept asking you to
do it. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Another youth forced or pressured
you in some other way. . . . . . . . . . . 5

Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2012 | June 2013

34

Appendix 3. Items checked for extreme and inconsistent response patterns
Items unrelated to reports of sexual
victimization

Items related to reports of sexual
victimization

1. Reported one of the following:

ƒƒ being admitted to the facility in the

10. Youth reported sexual contact
with a staff member, but the type of
activity was not consistent with the
sex of the perpetrator reported during
the interview.

ƒƒ being 8 feet tall or taller
ƒƒ weighing 500 pounds or more
ƒƒ having a Body Mass Index of either

11. Youth reported sexual assault by
another youth, but the type of activity
was not consistent with the sex of
the perpetrator reported during the
interview.

ƒƒ being admitted to the facility
before turning age 8
future

less than 15 or 50 or greater.

2. Youth “strongly agreed” with the
statement “that some of the questions
about sexual activity were hard to
understand.”
3. Youth reported being sexually
assaulted prior to admission to the
facility, but when asked “how many
times,” reported “0.”
4./5. Youth reported being physically
assaulted by staff/youth more than
3 times per day.
6./7. Youth reported being physically
assaulted by staff/youth, but when
asked “how many times,” responded
with “0.”
8./9. Youth reported being injured
by staff/youth, but when asked “how
many times,” responded with “0.”

12./13. Reports of injury resulting
from sexual assault by staff/youth
were not consistently reported in
different sections of the questionnaire.
14./15. Responses about reporting
a sexual assault by staff/youth to
the facility administrators were not
consistent across different questions
of the questionnaire.
16./17. Youth reported forced sexual
contact by staff/youth in one section,
but did not report specific types of
coercion in another section of the
questionnaire.
18./19. Youth reported having sexual
contact with staff or forced sexual
contact with youth, but did not
provide the specific type of activity
that occurred.1
1Response

choices added in the NSYC-2
questionnaire provided youth with the option
of selecting “pressured or hurt in some
other way.”

Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2012 | June 2013

20./21. Youth did not provide details
about a report of injury resulting from
forced sexual contact with staff/youth.
22./23. Youth reported sexual
penetration by staff/youth in one
section of the questionnaire but not in
another section.
24./25. Youth reported having sexual
contact with staff/youth, but when
asked “how many times,” responded
with “0.”
26./27. Youth reported sexual
contact with staff/youth in return
for money, favors, protection, or
special treatment at the time of sexual
contact in one section, but did not
report these in another section of the
questionnaire.
28. Youth reported being told of staff ’s
personal life or receiving special
treatment by staff in one section,
but reported the opposite in another
section of the questionnaire.
29. Youth reported not being told of
staff ’s personal life or not receiving
special treatment by staff in one
section, but reported the opposite in
another section of the questionnaire.
30. Youth reported an extreme
number of sexual assaults
(e.g., 999, 9999) or a number with
non-quantitative significance
(e.g., 69, 666).

35

Appendix table 1
Characteristics of juvenile facilities participating in the National Survey of Youth in Custody, 2012
Facility name
All facilities - U.S. total
Alabama
Mt. Meigs Campus
Troy University Group Homee
Vacca Campus
Alaska
Fairbanks Yth. Fac.f
Johnson Yth. Ctr.f
McLaughlin Yth. Ctr. Det. & Trainingf
Arizona
Adobe Mountain Schoold
Black Canyon Schoolf
Arkansas
Arkansas Juv. Assess. & Trtmt. Ctr.f,g
Colt Juv. Trtmt. Ctr.
Dermott Juv. Corr. Fac.
Garland Co. Juv. Det. Ctr.f,g
Harrisburg Juv. Trtmt. Ctr.
Jefferson Co. Juv. Det. Ctr.f,g
Lewisville Juv. Trtmt. Ctr.g
Mansfield Juv. Trtmt. Ctr.
Mansfield Juv. Trtmt. Ctr. for Girlse
Yell Co. Juv. Det. Ctr.f
California
N.A. Chaderjian Yth. Corr. Fac.
O.H. Close Yth. Corr. Fac.
Pine Grove Yth. Conservation Camp
Ventura Yth. Corr. Fac.d,f
Colorado
Betty Marler Yth. Srvcs. Ctr.e,g
Grand Mesa Yth. Srvcs. Ctr.f
Lookout Mtn. Yth. Srvcs. Ctr.
Mt. View Yth. Srvcs. Ctr.f
Platte Valley Yth. Srvcs. Ctr.f
Ridge View Acad.d,g
Spring Creek Yth. Srvcs. Ctr.f
Synergy Adolescent Trtmt. Prog.
Zebulon Pike Yth. Srvcs. Ctr.
Connecticut
Connecticut Juv. Training School
Delaware
Ferris School
Snowden Cottage
District of Columbia
New Beginnings Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Florida
Big Cypress Wilderness Inst.f,g
Brevard Group Trtmt. Homeg
Bristol Yth. Acad.
Britt Halfway House
Camp E-Nini-Hasseee,g
Challenge Juv. Res. Fac.g
Columbus Juv. Res. Fac.g
Cypress Creek Juv. Offender Corr. Ctr.
Dade Juv. Res. Fac.g

Number of respondentsa
All completed
Sexual victimization Response
NSYC-2 interviews survey
ratec
9,703
8,707
58.9%

Number of
sampled youth
16,500

Number of
ineligible youthb
6,444

148
2
56

15
3
14

98
2
48

88
2
44

66.2%
100
86.3

17
15
91

5
4
14

14
15
83

13
13
75

86.7%
100
91.5

160
62

184
55

110
55

100
49

69.4%
87.5

92
27
43
7
33
21
29
23
15
11

24
3
2
21
9
57
6
9
3
45

78
24
36
7
29
10
24
22
14
11

70
21
33
7
26
10
22
19
12
10

84.3%
87.5
84.6
100
89.7
52.6
81.5
95.0
92.3
100

281
219
62
230

70
23
16
118

60
60
15
55

51
53
14
49

20.2%
26.9
25.0
23.7

36
39
147
63
59
158
27
13
33

1
12
9
22
9
86
12
6
4

33
37
129
47
51
123
25
7
28

29
33
115
42
46
110
23
6
26

90.6%
94.3
87.1
75.0
86.8
77.5
92.0
50.0
86.7

105

20

16

15

16.0%

39
11

3
3

24
9

21
8

60.0%
80.0

46

15

27

24

57.1%

28
22
51
27
16
56
48
93
55

1
9
19
4
6
10
4
14
8

6
5
24
8
7
16
7
55
23

6
4
21
7
6
14
6
48
20

24.0%
20.0
46.7
29.2
42.9
28.0
14.0
57.1
40.8

Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2012 | June 2013

36

Appendix table 1 (continued)
Characteristics of juvenile facilities participating in the National Survey of Youth in Custody, 2012
Facility name
Daytona Juv. Res. Fac.
Duval Halfway House
Falkenburg Juv. Corr. Fac. - Mental Health
Florida Environmental Inst.g
Ft. Walton Adolescent Substance Abuse Prog.g
Gulf & Lake Acad.f,g
Hastings Comprehensive Mental Health Trtmt. Prog.g
JoAnn Bridges Acad.e
Kissimmee Juv. Corr. Fac.
Les Peters Halfway House
Marion Juv. Corr. Fac.
Milton Girls Juv. Res. Fac.e
Okaloosa Yth. Acad.
Okeechobee Intensive Halfway Houseg
Okeechobee Juv. Offender Corr. Ctr.
Okeechobee Yth. Dev. Ctr.g
Orange Yth. Acad.g
Palm Beach Juv. Corr. Fac.
Palmetto Yth. Acad.
Pensacola Boys Base
Polk Halfway Houseg
Thompson Acad.
Tiger Success Ctr.
Union Juv. Res. Fac.
Volusia Halfway House
WINGS for Lifee
Yth. Environmental Srvcs.g
Georgia
Aaron Cohn Reg. Yth. Det. Ctr.f
Albany Reg. Yth. Det. Ctr.f
Augusta Reg. Yth. Det. Ctr.
Augusta Yth. Dev. Campus
Bob Richards Reg. Yth. Det. Ctr.f
Crisp Yth. Det. Ctr.
Eastman Reg. Yth. Det. Ctr.
Eastman Yth. Dev. Campus
Gainesville Reg. Yth. Det. Ctr.f
Gwinnett Reg. Yth. Det. Ctr.f
Macon Reg. Yth. Det. Ctr.
Macon Yth. Dev. Campuse
Muscogee Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Paulding Reg. Yth. Det. Ctr.
Savannah Reg. Yth. Det. Ctr.f
Sumter Yth. Dev. Campus
Waycross Reg. Yth. Det. Ctr.f
Hawaii
Hawaii Yth. Corr. Fac.f
Idaho
Juv. Corr. Ctr. - Lewiston
Juv. Corr. Ctr. - Nampaf
Juv. Corr. Ctr. - St. Anthonyf
Three Springs of Mountain Homeg,h

Number of
sampled youth
22
21
59
14
43
66
88
20
31
18
37
56
72
27
83
116
43
111
47
20
22
131
22
18
18
10
33

Number of
ineligible youthb
8
12
7
2
4
17
13
4
3
12
8
8
13
6
9
27
10
5
6
2
3
39
4
1
7
3
4

Number of respondentsa
All completed
Sexual victimization Response
NSYC-2 interviews survey
ratec
7
6
30.0%
9
8
42.1
32
29
54.7
8
7
58.3
9
8
21.1
15
14
23.3
43
38
47.5
12
11
61.1
9
8
28.6
9
9
56.3
14
13
38.2
18
16
32.0
13
12
18.5
8
8
32.0
55
50
66.7
48
43
41.0
16
16
41.0
46
41
41.0
28
25
58.1
12
11
61.1
7
6
31.6
24
21
17.8
8
7
35.0
7
6
37.5
7
7
41.2
5
5
55.6
16
16
53.3

28
3
36
69
35
27
14
156
25
24
18
58
59
57
46
144
7

104
46
46
13
72
95
58
38
109
61
113
65
11
117
150
15
76

13
3
22
57
12
18
10
128
18
14
14
39
49
33
19
97
6

12
3
20
51
11
16
9
116
16
12
12
37
44
29
17
87
5

48.0%
100
60.6
82.3
34.4
64.0
75.0
82.9
72.7
57.1
75.0
69.8
83.0
56.9
41.5
67.4
83.3

53

7

42

37

78.7%

32
69
122
0

4
21
13
37

30
60
116
0

27
53
104
0

93.1%
85.5
94.5
0.0

Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2012 | June 2013

37

Appendix table 1 (continued)
Characteristics of juvenile facilities participating in the National Survey of Youth in Custody, 2012
Facility name
Illinois
Illinois Yth. Ctr. - Chicago
Illinois Yth. Ctr. - Harrisburgd
Illinois Yth. Ctr. - Jolietd
Illinois Yth. Ctr. - Kewaneed
Illinois Yth. Ctr. - St. Charles
Illinois Yth. Ctr. - Warrenvillee
Illinois Yth. Ctr. - Pere Marquette
Indiana
Camp Summit Boot Camp
Logansport Juv. Corr. Fac./Trtmt. Unit
Madison Juv. Corr. Fac.e
Pendleton Juv. Corr. Fac.d
South Bend Juv. Corr. Fac.
Iowa
Eldora State Training School for Boys
Girls State Training Schoolf
Woodlands Trtmt. Ctr.f,g
Woodward Acad.d,g
Kansas
Judge Riddel Boys Ranchg
Juv. Det. Ctr.f,g
Kansas Juv. Corr. Complexd,f
Larned Juv. Corr. Fac.
Shawnee Co. Juv. Det. Ctr.f,g
Kentucky
Adair Yth. Dev. Ctr.f
Audubon Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Cadet Leadership & Education Program
Green River Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Lake Cumberland Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Lincoln Village Yth. Dev. Ctr. & Reg. Juv. Det.f
London Group Home
Mayfield Yth. Dev. Ctr.
McCracken Reg. Juv. Det. Ctr.f
Morehead Yth. Dev. Ctr.f
Northern Kentucky Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Owensboro Trtmt. Ctr.
Warren Reg. Juv. Det.f
Louisiana
A. B. Horn Group Home, Harmony Ctr. Inc.g
Boys & Girls Villagesf,g
Bridge City Ctr. for Yth.
Christian Acresf,g
Jetson Corr. Ctr. for Yth.
Johnny Robinson Boys Homeg
Louisiana Methodist Children’s Homef,g
Rutherford Houseg
Swanson Ctr. for Yth.
Ware Yth. Ctr.f,g
Maine
Long Creek Yth. Dev. Ctr.f
Mtn. View Yth. Dev. Ctr.

Number of
sampled youth

Number of
ineligible youthb

Number of respondentsa
All completed
Sexual victimization Response
NSYC-2 interviews survey
ratec

58
164
168
161
87
41
14

47
188
107
82
57
20
26

41
117
129
127
65
26
11

37
102
115
115
59
23
10

71.2%
68.9
75.7
79.3
75.6
62.2
76.9

86
102
44
160
82

2
16
27
56
17

79
95
40
126
74

70
85
36
113
66

90.9%
92.4
90.0
78.5
89.2

96
12
16
160

7
1
0
74

76
10
16
137

69
9
14
122

80.2%
81.8
100
84.7

37
19
158
100
22

9
15
117
23
24

35
16
136
93
18

31
14
122
83
16

93.9%
82.4
85.9
92.2
80.0

23
30
20
20
27
26
7
30
6
29
34
24
5

7
9
0
11
8
0
1
2
10
5
3
1
19

18
22
20
20
23
19
7
24
6
27
31
24
5

16
19
18
18
21
18
6
22
5
24
28
22
5

76.2%
70.4
100
100
87.5
78.3
100
81.5
100
92.3
90.3
100
100

4
22
129
53
85
20
17
36
124
97

4
3
12
11
4
6
4
17
48
36

4
7
77
26
32
4
6
19
43
32

4
7
69
24
30
4
6
16
38
28

100%
35.0
59.5
50.0
39.5
22.2
37.5
50.0
34.2
32.2

69
57

4
13

57
44

52
38

83.9%
74.5

Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2012 | June 2013

38

Appendix table 1 (continued)
Characteristics of juvenile facilities participating in the National Survey of Youth in Custody, 2012
Number of
Facility name
sampled youth
Maryland
Backbone Mountain Yth. Ctr.
44
Baltimore City Juv. Justice Ctr.
40
Charles H. Hickey, Jr. School
13
Cheltenham Yth. Fac.
39
Green Ridge Yth. Ctr.
40
Meadow Mountain Yth. Ctr.
36
Savage Mountain Yth. Ctr.
32
Victor Cullen Ctr.
47
Massachusetts
Alliance Houseg
6
Bishop Ruocco House Trtmt. Ctr.e,g
5
Brewster Trtmt.
5
Ctr. for Human Dev. Adolescent Trtmt. Programg
12
Fay A. Rotenberg School e,g
7
Gandara Hispanic Group Home, Gandara Mental Health Ctr. g
8
Goss Secure Trtmt. #1
16
Goss Secure Trtmt. #2, Taunton Hospital
15
Judge Connelly Yth. Ctr.
11
Kennedy School, RFK Children’s Action Corps.
9
14
Phaneuf Ctr.g
Spectrum R.E.A.C.H. Programd
11
Springfield Secure Res. Trtmt. Prog.g
15
Westboro Reception
6
Westboro Secure Trtmt.
11
Worcester Secure Trtmt. Ctr.
9
Michigan
33
Bay Pines Ctr.f
Clinton Campusg
62
W.J. Maxey Boys Training School
32
Shawono Ctr.
25
Minnesota
Minnesota Corr. Fac. - Red Wingd
106
Minnesota Corr. Fac. - Togof
21
Southwestern Yth. Srvcs.g
16
Mississippi
Oakley Yth. Dev. Ctr.f
54
Missouri
Babler Lodge
7
Bissell Hall
13
Camp Avery
26
Datema House
6
Delmina Woods Yth. Fac.e
23
Discovery Halle
12
Ft. Bellefontaine Campus
25
Fulton Trtmt. Ctr.
27
Gentry Res. Trtmt. Ctr.
20
Girardot Ctr. for Yth. & Family
19
Green Gables Lodge
8
Hillsboro Trtmt. Ctr.
27
Hogan Street Reg. Yth. Ctr.
30
Montgomery City Yth. Ctr.
37
Mount Vernon Trtmt. Ctr.
30
Northwest Reg. Yth. Ctr.
25
New Madrid Bend Yth. Ctr.
17

Number of
ineligible youthb

Number of respondentsa
All completed
Sexual victimization Response
NSYC-2 interviews survey
ratec

21
25
29
59
9
17
15
10

10
4
1
1
10
13
5
14

9
3
1
1
9
12
4
12

23.1%
8.3
8.3
2.8
25.0
37.5
13.8
28.6

2
6
9
4
4
3
4
6
1
3
2
6
0
15
1
4

4
2
3
6
6
7
9
5
4
6
13
7
6
2
9
6

4
2
3
6
5
6
8
5
3
5
12
7
6
2
8
5

80.0%
50.0
75.0
54.5
83.3
85.7
53.3
35.7
33.3
62.5
92.3
70.0
42.9
40.0
80.0
62.5

4
16
12
2

22
12
23
9

20
10
21
9

66.7%
18.2
75.0
40.9

21
11
10

56
5
5

52
5
4

54.7%
26.3
28.6

0

47

42

87.5%

8
6
3
8
0
0
1
3
3
1
1
1
4
1
5
0
5

6
9
26
6
20
10
25
23
18
18
8
22
26
36
29
20
15

6
8
24
6
17
9
23
20
16
16
7
19
23
32
26
18
14

100%
66.7
100
100
85.0
81.8
100
83.3
88.9
94.1
100
79.2
85.2
97.0
96.3
78.3
93.3

Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2012 | June 2013

39

Appendix table 1 (continued)
Characteristics of juvenile facilities participating in the National Survey of Youth in Custody, 2012
Facility name
Northeast Community Trtmt. Ctr.
Rich Hill Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Riverbend Trtmt. Ctr.
Rosa Parks Ctr.e
Sierra-Osage Trtmt. Ctr.f
Spanish Lake Campus
Twin Rivers Campuse
W.E. Sears Yth. Ctr.
Watkins Mill Park Campf
Waverly Reg. Yth. Ctr.
Wilson Creek
Montana
Pine Hills Yth. Corr. Fac.
Yth. Transition Ctr.f
Nebraska
Yth. Rehab. & Trtmt. Ctr. - Genevae
Yth. Rehab. & Trtmt. Ctr. - Kearney
Nevada
Caliente Yth. Ctr.f
Nevada Yth. Training Ctr.
New Hampshire
John H. Sununu Yth. Srvcs. Ctr.f
Orion Houseg
New Jersey
Albert Elias Res. Community Home
D.O.V.E.S. Res. Community Homee
Essex Res. Community Home
Fresh Start
Juv. Female Secure Care & Intake Fac.e
Juv. Medium Security Fac.
New Jersey Training School & Intake Fac.
Ocean Res. Community Home
Southern Res. Community Home
Vineland Prep Acad.
Voorhees Res. Community Home
Warren Res. Community Home
New Mexico
Albuquerque Boys’ Ctr.
Camino Nuevo Yth. Ctr.f
J. Paul Taylor Ctr.
Yth. Diagnostic & Dev. Ctr. (Males)
New York
Brentwood Res. Ctr.e
Bronx Res. Ctr.f
Brookwood Secure Ctr.
Finger Lakes Res. Ctr.
Goshen Secure Ctr.f
Highland Res. Ctr.
Industry Res. Ctr.
Lansing Res. Ctr.
MacCormick Secure Ctr.
Middletown Res. Ctr.
Red Hook Res. Ctr.
Sgt. Henry Johnson Yth. Leadership Acad.
Staten Island Res. Ctr.

Number of respondentsa
All completed
Sexual victimization Response
NSYC-2 interviews survey
ratec
11
9
90.0%
19
17
100
23
22
95.7
8
7
100
19
17
89.5
20
19
86.4
14
13
81.3
47
42
91.3
51
45
90.0
38
34
91.9
9
8
100

Number of
sampled youth
12
19
26
8
21
25
17
51
56
41
9

Number of
ineligible youthb
0
3
2
2
0
1
3
6
8
1
7

64
7

13
4

25
2

23
2

39.7%
28.6

78
142

23
62

27
30

24
29

34.3%
22.7

116
79

28
9

47
37

42
33

40.4%
46.5

57
6

15
6

6
1

6
1

11.5%
16.7

8
5
11
13
16
66
194
23
18
28
14
20

6
1
14
8
6
50
109
12
12
43
2
1

7
5
7
8
7
21
80
14
7
17
6
16

6
5
6
7
6
19
72
12
6
15
6
14

85.7%
100
60.0
58.3
40.0
32.2
41.4
60.0
37.5
60.0
50.0
77.8

10
70
48
84

0
34
4
5

7
49
23
31

7
44
21
30

77.8%
69.8
48.8
39.0

16
20
123
64
62
76
40
16
24
29
16
26
14

2
5
14
22
6
27
26
10
3
3
6
5
11

0
0
27
2
12
9
1
0
1
2
1
2
0

0
0
22
2
12
8
1
0
1
2
1
2
0

0.0%
0.0
20.0
3.4
21.4
11.6
2.8
0.0
4.5
7.7
6.7
8.7
0.0

Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2012 | June 2013

40

Appendix table 1 (continued)
Characteristics of juvenile facilities participating in the National Survey of Youth in Custody, 2012
Number of
Facility name
sampled youth
North Carolina
C.A. Dillon Yth. Dev. Ctr.
75
Chatham Yth. Dev. Ctr.f
27
Dobbs Yth. Dev. Ctr.
25
Edgecombe Yth. Dev. Ctr.
25
Lenoir Yth. Dev. Ctr.
25
Stonewall Jackson Yth. Dev. Ctr.
91
North Dakota
10
Dakota Boys & Girls Ranch (Minot)f,g
North Dakota Yth. Corr. Ctr.f
48
13
Prairie Learning Ctr.f,g
Ohio
Circleville Juv. Corr. Fac.
95
Cuyahoga Hills Juv. Corr. Fac.d
144
Indian River Juv. Corr. Fac.
145
Scioto Juv. Corr. Fac.f
111
Oklahoma
Cedar Canyon g
15
Central Oklahoma Juv. Ctr.f
75
Foss Lake Adventure Program
13
Lawton Adventure Program
13
Southwest Oklahoma Juv. Ctr. (Manitou)
61
Tenkiller
11
Oregon
Camp Florence Yth. Transition Fac.
23
Camp Tillamook Yth. Transition Fac.
22
Eastern Oregon Yth. Corr. Fac.
52
Hillcrest Yth. Corr. Fac.
143
MacLaren Yth. Corr. Fac.
174
North Coast Yth. Corr. Fac.
48
Oak Creek Yth. Corr. Fac.e
50
RiverBend Yth. Transition Fac.
44
Rogue Valley Yth. Corr. Fac.
105
Tillamook Yth. Corr. Fac.
51
Pennsylvania
Cresson Secure Trtmt. Unitd
25
Loysville Yth. Dev. Ctr.
80
New Castle Yth. Dev. Ctr. Adolescent Sexual Offenders Program
19
New Castle Yth. Dev. Ctr. Secure Trtmt. Program
32
North Central Secure Trtmt.
55
North Central Secure Trtmt. Unit, Girls Program - Reed Buildinge
27
South Mountain Secure Trtmt. Unit
25
Yth. Forestry Camp #2
25
Yth. Forestry Camp #3
32
Rhode Island
Thomas C. Slater Training School for Yth.f
74
South Carolina
19
AMIkids Beaufortg
Birchwood
34
Camp Aspen
32
John G. Richards
57
Willow Lanee
9

Number of
ineligible youthb

Number of respondentsa
All completed
Sexual victimization Response
NSYC-2 interviews survey
ratec

19
0
4
6
4
22

40
13
9
6
7
42

35
11
8
6
7
38

52.2%
45.8
34.8
26.1
30.4
46.3

1
27
7

9
41
10

8
37
9

88.9
86.0%
90.0

9
54
31
52

76
102
117
75

66
89
105
69

77.6%
68.5
80.8
69.0

5
5
12
6
11
6

4
13
7
3
22
4

3
10
6
3
20
4

23.1%
14.9
50.0
25.0
36.4
40.0

2
1
5
27
17
4
4
11
8
2

21
20
51
125
138
43
44
36
101
49

19
18
45
114
122
38
39
32
90
44

90.5%
94.7
97.8
88.4
78.2
88.4
86.7
80.0
95.7
95.7

8
18
3
15
9
4
3
14
17

9
34
11
13
27
20
9
15
18

9
30
10
11
23
18
8
14
16

40.9%
41.7
55.6
37.9
46.9
75.0
36.4
60.9
57.1

39

43

39

59.1%

3
10
9
8
3

17
29
31
45
8

15
25
28
40
7

88.2%
83.3
96.6
76.9
87.5

Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2012 | June 2013

41

Appendix table 1 (continued)
Characteristics of juvenile facilities participating in the National Survey of Youth in Custody, 2012
Facility name
South Dakota
Adolescent Sexual Adjustment Programf,g
Chamberlain Acad.f,g
Excel Programe
Parkston Res. Trtmt. Programf,g
Patrick Henry Brady Acad.
Yth. Challenge Ctr.
Tennessee
John S. Wilder Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Mountain View Yth. Dev. Ctr.
New Visionse
Taft Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Woodland Hills Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Texas
Ayres House
Corsicana Res. Trtmt. Ctr.
Cottrell House
Evins Reg. Juv. Ctr.
Gainesville State Schoold
Giddings State Schoold
McFadden Ranch
McLennan Co. State Juv. Corr. Fac.d
Ron Jackson State Juv. Corr. Complex Unit Ie
Schaeffer House
Turman House
Willoughby Housee
Utah
Co. Res. Group Homeg
Decker Lake Yth. Ctr.
Millcreek Yth. Ctr.d,f
Odyssey House Adolescent Fac.f,g
Slate Canyon Yth. Ctr.
Turning Point Family Careg
Wasatch Yth. Ctr.
Yth. Health Associates (West, East, North Group Homes)
Vermont
Woodside Juv. Rehab. Ctr.f
Virginia
Beaumont Juv. Corr. Ctr.
Bon Air Juv. Corr. Ctr.f
Culpeper Juv. Corr. Ctr.f
Hanover Juv. Corr. Ctr.
Newport News Juv. Det.h
Washington
Canyon View Community Fac.
Echo Glen Children’s Ctr.f
Green Hill Schoold
Juv. Offender Basic Training Campf
Naselle Yth. Camp
Oakridge State Community Fac.
Parke Creek Trtmt. Ctr.
Ridgeview Group Home

Number of
sampled youth

Number of
ineligible youthb

Number of respondentsa
All completed
Sexual victimization Response
NSYC-2 interviews survey
ratec

24
9
13
17
38
37

2
9
8
2
22
11

16
5
4
6
11
11

14
4
3
5
9
10

63.6%
50.0
25.0
33.3
26.5
30.3

103
95
17
50
114

29
27
7
25
26

39
38
6
26
49

35
33
6
23
43

37.6%
38.8
37.5
51.1
42.2

15
119
17
138
160
160
41
160
103
13
17
14

2
0
11
2
134
137
9
168
15
4
6
3

13
85
12
79
117
120
32
116
89
13
11
14

11
76
10
70
106
106
29
106
84
12
11
12

84.6%
71.0
66.7
56.0
73.6
73.6
78.4
73.6
90.3
100
68.8
100

5
29
58
14
17
13
32
43

11
6
23
3
7
0
11
4

3
20
38
8
10
5
15
14

2
18
33
7
9
5
13
13

50.0%
69.2
63.5
58.3
60.0
41.7
46.4
33.3

17

5

16

15

93.8%

209
155
114
53
0

43
36
20
20
38

76
48
65
17
0

68
45
61
15
0

36.2%
32.4
59.2
31.3
0.0

6
153
179
8
96
14
8
6

10
23
67
17
26
3
12
4

3
41
79
2
40
10
3
2

3
37
69
2
35
9
3
2

50.0%
26.8
43.1
28.6
40.7
75.0
42.9
40.0

Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2012 | June 2013

42

Appendix table 1 (continued)
Characteristics of juvenile facilities participating in the National Survey of Youth in Custody, 2012
Facility name
West Virginia
Davis Stuart Lewisburg Main Campus Res. Prog.h
Kenneth Honey Rubenstein Juv. Ctr.
West Virginia Industrial Home for Yth.f
Wisconsin
Copper Lake Schoole
Lincoln Hills Schoold
Mendota Juv. Trtmt. Ctr.
Wyoming
Wyoming Boys’ School
Wyoming Girls’ Schoole

Number of
sampled youth

Number of
ineligible youthb

Number of respondentsa
All completed
Sexual victimization Response
NSYC-2 interviews survey
ratec

0
41
84

27
2
2

0
40
81

0
36
73

0.0
97.3%
96.1

22
165
29

4
145
5

19
123
23

17
110
21

85.0%
73.8
80.8

70
40

20
7

41
21

37
19

58.7%
52.8

Note: A total of 9,073 youth participated in NSYC-2. Approximately 10% (996) were randomly assigned to the survey on alcohol and drug use and treatment. Facilities housed males only
unless otherwise noted.
aNumber of adjudicated youth who participated in the survey. Includes 40 youth who reported on some of the sexual victimization questions but not all of them.
bYouth were considered ineligible if they were mentally or physically incapacitated, admitted to the facility within 2 weeks prior to the data collection period, transferred or released after
sample selection but before the data collection period, or excluded based on subsampling within the facility. (See Methodology.)
cResponse rate accounts for different probabilities of selection among youth and the exclusion of interviews with extreme or inconsistent responses. (See Methodology.)
dYouth subsampled after initial sample was selected.
eFacility housed females only.
fFacility housed both males and females. Both were sampled at this facility.
gFacility held state-placed youth, but was not state-owned or -operated.
hFacility was sampled but not visited due to issues related to scheduling and burden.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Survey of Youth in Custody, 2012.

Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2012 | May 2013

43

Appendix table 2
Percent of youth reporting sexual victimization, by facility, National Survey of Youth in Custody, 2012
Facility name
All facilities - U.S. total
Alabama
Mt. Meigs Campus
Vacca Campus
Alaska
McLaughlin Yth. Ctr. Det. & Trainingc
Arizona
Adobe Mountain Schoole
Black Canyon Schoolc,e
Arkansas
Arkansas Juv. Assess. & Trtmt. Ctr.c,d
Colt Juv. Trtmt. Ctr.
Dermott Juv. Corr. Fac.
Harrisburg Juv. Trtmt. Ctr.
Lewisville Juv. Trtmt. Ctr.d
Mansfield Juv. Trtmt. Ctr.
Californiaf
Colorado
Betty Marler Yth. Srvcs. Ctr.b,d
Grand Mesa Yth. Srvcs. Ctr.c
Lookout Mtn. Yth. Srvcs. Ctr.
Mt. View Yth. Srvcs. Ctr.c
Platte Valley Yth. Srvcs. Ctr.c,e
Ridge View Acad.d
Spring Creek Yth. Srvcs. Ctr.c
Zebulon Pike Yth. Srvcs. Ctr.
Connecticutf
Delaware
Ferris School
District of Columbia
New Beginnings Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Florida
Bristol Yth. Acad.
Cypress Creek Juv. Offender Corr. Ctr.
Falkenburg Juv. Corr. Fac. - Mental Health
Hastings Comprehensive Mental Health Trtmt. Fac.d
Okeechobee Juv. Offender Corr. Ctr.
Okeechobee Yth. Dev. Ctr.d
Palm Beach Juv. Corr. Fac.
Palmetto Yth. Acad.
Georgia
Augusta Reg. Yth. Det. Ctr.
Augusta Yth. Dev. Campus
Crisp Yth. Det. Ctr.
Eastman Yth. Dev. Campuse
Gainesville Reg. Yth. Det. Ctr.c
Macon Yth. Dev. Campusb
Muscogee Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Paulding Reg. Yth. Det. Ctr.e
Sumter Yth. Dev. Campuse
Hawaii
Hawaii Yth. Corr. Fac.c
Idaho
Juv. Corr. Ctr. - Lewiston
Juv. Corr. Ctr. - Nampac
Juv. Corr. Ctr. - St. Anthonyc

Percent of youth reporting any sexual victimization
95%-confidence interval
Weighted percenta
Lower bound
Upper bound
9.5%
8.7%
10.3%
12.2%
15.9

8.5%
11.3

17.1%
21.9

5.3%

3.5%

7.9%

10.1%
4.2

6.4%
2.2

15.7%
7.7

23.2%
19.0
12.1
7.7
9.1
5.3

17.7%
12.0
7.5
4.0
4.4
2.2

29.7%
28.9
18.9
14.2
17.9
12.0

17.2%
0.0
7.8
0.0
8.9
9.6
13.0
11.5

12.1%
0.0
5.7
0.0
5.6
6.3
8.7
6.8

23.9%
1.9
10.7
3.1
13.9
14.3
19.1
19.0

0.0%

0.0%

8.4%

0.0%

0.0%

8.5%

10.7%
4.7
4.2
6.0
7.6
2.6
16.2
0.0

3.2%
1.7
1.6
2.1
3.6
0.9
7.3
0.0

30.2%
12.4
10.8
15.9
15.5
7.6
32.1
8.2

5.0%
20.9
12.5
24.4
12.5
5.1
6.8
32.1
20.8

1.4%
15.8
5.1
20.7
5.4
2.2
3.8
21.7
15.7

16.8%
27.1
27.5
28.5
26.5
11.4
12.0
44.7
27.0

10.8%

6.3%

17.9%

3.7%
3.8
3.8

1.7%
1.9
2.7

8.0%
7.2
5.5

Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2012 | June 2013

44

Appendix table 2 (continued)
Percent of youth reporting sexual victimization, by facility, National Survey of Youth in Custody, 2012
Facility name
Illinois
Illinois Yth. Ctr. - Chicago
Illinois Yth. Ctr. - Harrisburg
Illinois Yth. Ctr. - Joliet
Illinois Yth. Ctr. - Kewanee
Illinois Yth. Ctr. - St. Charles
Illinois Yth. Ctr. - Warrenvilleb
Indiana
Camp Summit Boot Camp
Logansport Juv. Corr. Fac./Trtmt. Unit
Madison Juv. Corr. Fac.b
Pendleton Juv. Corr. Fac.e
South Bend Juv. Corr. Fac.
Iowa
Eldora State Training School for Boys
Woodward Acad.d
Kansas
Judge Riddel Boys Ranchd
Kansas Juv. Corr. Complexc
Larned Juv. Corr. Fac.
Shawnee Co. Juv. Det. Ctr.c,d
Kentucky
Adair Yth. Dev. Ctr.c
Audubon Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Cadet Leadership & Education Program
Green River Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Lake Cumberland Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Lincoln Village Yth. Dev. Ctr. & Reg. Juv. Det.c
Mayfield Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Morehead Yth. Dev. Ctr.c
Northern Kentucky Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Owensboro Trtmt. Ctr.
Louisiana
Bridge City Ctr. for Yth.
Christian Acresc,d
Jetson Corr. Ctr. for Yth.e
Swanson Ctr. for Yth.
Ware Yth. Ctr.c,d
Maine
Long Creek Yth. Dev. Ctr.c
Mtn. View Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Marylandf
Massachusettsf
Michigan
Bay Pines Ctr.c
W.J. Maxey Boys Training School
Minnesota
Minnesota Corr. Fac. - Red Wing
Mississippi
Oakley Yth. Dev. Ctr.c

Percent of youth reporting any sexual victimization
95%-confidence interval
Weighted percenta
Lower bound
Upper bound
13.5%
15.7
21.1
14.8
5.1
13.0

8.1%
10.5
16.6
11.0
2.7
6.1

21.7%
22.7
26.3
19.8
9.5
25.6

2.9%
9.4
8.3
13.5
13.6

1.6%
7.2
5.2
9.6
10.1

5.2%
12.2
13.2
18.6
18.2

21.7%
3.2

17.1%
1.7

27.2%
5.9

16.1%
15.7
12.0
12.5

11.5%
11.3
9.5
5.8

22.1%
21.4
15.2
24.9

12.5%
5.3
0.0
0.0
4.8
5.6
4.5
4.2
3.6
0.0

5.5%
1.6
0.0
0.0
1.8
1.8
1.6
1.8
1.5
0.0

25.9%
16.1
2.4
2.4
12.0
16.0
12.1
9.5
8.1
1.6

11.6%
0.0
4.4
2.6
0.0

7.4%
0.0
1.0
0.9
0.0

17.8%
8.4
17.9
7.8
9.7

2.0%
8.6

0.7%
4.5

5.1%
16.0

20.0%
11.1

10.8%
5.8

34.1%
20.4

4.6%

1.5%

13.1%

11.9%

7.9%

17.6%

Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2012 | June 2013

45

Appendix table 2 (continued)
Percent of youth reporting sexual victimization, by facility, National Survey of Youth in Custody, 2012
Facility name
Missouri
Camp Avery
Delmina Woods Yth. Fac.b
Ft. Bellefontaine Campus
Fulton Trtmt. Ctr.
Gentry Res. Trtmt. Ctr.
Girardot Ctr. for Yth. & Family
Hillsboro Trtmt. Ctr.
Hogan Street Reg. Yth. Ctr.
Montgomery City Yth. Ctr.e
Mount Vernon Trtmt. Ctr.
Northwest Reg. Yth. Ctr.
Rich Hill Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Riverbend Trtmt. Ctr.
Sierra-Osage Trtmt. Ctr.c
Spanish Lake Campus
W.E. Sears Yth. Ctr.
Watkins Mill Park Campc
Waverly Reg. Yth. Ctr.
Montana
Pine Hills Yth. Corr. Fac.
Nebraska
Yth. Rehab. & Trtmt. Ctr. - Genevab
Nevada
Caliente Yth. Ctr.c
Nevada Yth. Training Ctr.
New Hampshiref
New Jersey
New Jersey Training School & Intake Fac.
New Mexico
Camino Nuevo Yth. Ctr.c
J. Paul Taylor Ctr.
Yth. Diagnostic & Dev. Ctr. (Males)
New Yorkf
North Carolina
C.A. Dillon Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Stonewall Jackson Yth. Dev. Ctr.
North Dakota
North Dakota Yth. Corr. Ctr.c
Ohio
Circleville Juv. Corr. Fac.
Cuyahoga Hills Juv. Corr. Fac.
Indian River Juv. Corr. Fac.
Scioto Juv. Corr. Fac.c
Oklahomaf
Oregon
Camp Florence Yth. Transition Fac.
Camp Tillamook Yth. Transition Fac.
Eastern Oregon Yth. Corr. Fac.
Hillcrest Yth. Corr. Fac.
MacLaren Yth. Corr. Fac.
North Coast Yth. Corr. Fac.
Oak Creek Yth. Corr. Fac.b
RiverBend Yth. Transition Fac.
Rogue Valley Yth. Corr. Fac.
Tillamook Yth. Corr. Fac.e

Percent of youth reporting any sexual victimization
95%-confidence interval
Weighted percenta
Lower bound
Upper bound
12.5%
0.0
0.0
10.0
0.0
0.0
5.3
8.7
6.3
7.7
5.6
0.0
4.5
0.0
5.3
7.1
2.2
0.0

9.1%
0.0
0.0
4.7
0.0
0.0
1.7
4.4
3.7
4.6
1.9
0.0
2.0
0.0
1.9
4.4
0.9
0.0

17.0%
6.3
1.5
20.0
5.2
4.7
14.9
16.6
10.4
12.7
15.4
3.0
9.9
4.6
13.6
11.3
5.2
2.0

13.0%

5.4%

28.4%

4.2%

0.9%

17.7%

3.3%
21.3

0.7%
10.2

13.8%
39.4

5.3%

1.8%

14.8%

0.0%
10.5
0.0

0.0%
3.3
0.0

3.9%
29.0
9.6

5.7%
4.1

2.1%
1.4

14.8%
11.0

10.8%

6.1%

18.5%

30.3%
19.8
10.5
23.2

24.4%
14.6
7.6
18.1

36.9%
26.2
14.2
29.2

0.0%
5.6
13.3
11.6
10.7
15.8
7.7
0.0
13.5
11.6

0.0%
2.3
9.6
9.2
7.8
11.3
4.5
0.0
11.0
8.4

3.8%
12.8
18.3
14.6
14.4
21.7
12.8
3.4
16.4
15.8

Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2012 | June 2013

46

Appendix table 2 (continued)
Percent of youth reporting sexual victimization, by facility, National Survey of Youth in Custody, 2012
Facility name
Pennsylvania
Loysville Yth. Dev. Ctr.
North Central Secure Trtmt.
North Central Secure Trtmt. Unit, Girls Program - Reed Buildingb
Rhode Island
Thomas C. Slater Training School for Yth.c
South Carolina
AMIkids Beaufortd
Birchwood
Camp Aspen
John G. Richards
South Dakotaf
Tennessee
John S. Wilder Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Mountain View Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Taft Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Woodland Hills Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Texas
Corsicana Res. Trtmt. Ctr.
Evins Reg. Juv. Ctr.
Gainesville State School
Giddings State School
McFadden Ranch
McLennan Co. State Juv. Corr. Fac.
Ron Jackson State Juv. Corr. Complex Unit Ib
Utah
Decker Lake Yth. Ctr.
Millcreek Yth. Ctr.c
Vermont
Woodside Juv. Rehab. Ctr.c
Virginia
Beaumont Juv. Corr. Ctr.
Bon Air Juv. Corr. Ctr.c,e
Culpeper Juv. Corr. Ctr.c,e
Washington
Green Hill Schoole
Naselle Yth. Camp
West Virginia
Kenneth Honey Rubenstein Juv. Ctr.
West Virginia Industrial Home for Yth.c
Wisconsin
Copper Lake Schoolb
Lincoln Hills School
Mendota Juv. Trtmt. Ctr.
Wyoming
Wyoming Boys’ School
Wyoming Girls’ Schoolb

Percent of youth reporting any sexual victimization
95%-confidence interval
Weighted percenta
Lower bound
Upper bound
3.3%
0.0
0.0

0.8%
0.0
0.0

13.5%
12.8
7.5

5.1%

1.9%

12.8%

20.0%
29.2
3.6
20.0

11.6%
20.6
1.7
14.1

32.3%
39.5
7.2
27.6

19.5%
13.8
13.0
6.7

9.1%
5.5
5.7
2.7

37.0%
30.6
27.2
15.5

22.4%
8.6
15.1
13.3
0.0
6.1
10.8

17.1%
5.1
10.6
9.2
0.0
3.3
8.3

28.7%
14.2
21.0
19.0
4.0
10.9
14.0

16.7%
10.7

8.2%
4.7

30.9%
22.6

6.7%

3.1%

13.7%

15.4%
4.0
13.3

8.1%
1.1
8.5

27.3%
13.8
20.2

7.7%
1.4

3.4%
0.3

16.6%
6.0

11.1%
14.7

7.9%
11.8

15.4%
18.2

0.0%
7.3
4.8

0.0%
4.5
1.6

5.5%
11.7
13.1

3.0%
0.0

0.8%
0.0

10.6%
10.1

Note: Facilities housed males only unless otherwise noted. Facility estimates were listed if they met all of the following criteria: (1) based on at least 15 youth who completed the sexual
victimization survey, (2) the facility had a 30% response rate or greater, and (3) the estimates were sufficiently precise to detect a high rate (25% or greater) and had a minimum coefficient
of variation of 30%. (See Methodology for further discussion of reporting criteria.)
aWeighted percentage of youth reporting one or more incidents of sexual victimization involving another youth or facility staff in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if
less than 12 months.
bFacility housed females only.
cFacility housed both males and females. Both were sampled at this facility.
dFacility was locally or privately operated and held state-placed youth.
eDetail may not sum to total because not all youth provided complete data on all types of victimization.
fNone of the facilities met the criteria for publishing the sexual victimization rate. (See table 5 and appendix tables 6 and 7 for state-level estimates.)
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Survey of Youth in Custody, 2012.

47

Appendix table 3
Percent of youth reporting sexual victimization by another youth, by type of incident and facility, National Survey of Youth
in Custody, 2012

Facility name
All facilities - U.S. total
Alabama
Mt. Meigs Campus
Vacca Campus
Alaska
McLaughlin Yth. Ctr. Det. & Trainingc
Arizona
Adobe Mountain School
Black Canyon Schoolc
Arkansas
Arkansas Juv. Assess. & Trtmt. Ctr.c,d
Colt Juv. Trtmt. Ctr.
Dermott Juv. Corr. Fac.
Harrisburg Juv. Trtmt. Ctr.
Lewisville Juv. Trtmt. Ctr.d
Mansfield Juv. Trtmt. Ctr.
Californiae
Colorado
Betty Marler Yth. Srvcs. Ctr.b,d
Grand Mesa Yth. Srvcs. Ctr.c
Lookout Mtn. Yth. Srvcs. Ctr.
Mt. View Yth. Srvcs. Ctr.c
Platte Valley Yth. Srvcs. Ctr.c
Ridge View Acad.d
Spring Creek Yth. Srvcs. Ctr.c
Zebulon Pike Yth. Srvcs. Ctr.
Connecticute
Delaware
Ferris School
District of Columbia
New Beginnings Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Florida
Bristol Yth. Acad.
Cypress Creek Juv. Offender Corr. Ctr.
Falkenburg Juv. Corr. Fac. - Mental Health
Hastings Comprehensive Mental Health Trtmt. Fac.d
Okeechobee Juv. Offender Corr. Ctr.
Okeechobee Yth. Dev. Ctr.d
Palm Beach Juv. Corr. Fac.
Palmetto Yth. Acad.
Georgia
Augusta Reg. Yth. Det. Ctr.
Augusta Yth. Dev. Campus
Crisp Yth. Det. Ctr.
Eastman Yth. Dev. Campus
Gainesville Reg. Yth. Det. Ctr.c
Macon Yth. Dev. Campusb
Muscogee Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Paulding Reg. Yth. Det. Ctr.
Sumter Yth. Dev. Campus
Hawaii
Hawaii Yth. Corr. Fac.c

Percent of youth reporting any sexual victimization by another youtha
All youth-on-youth
Nonconsensual sexual acts
95%-confidence interval
95%-confidence interval
Weighted
Lower
Upper
Weighted
Lower
Upper
percent
bound
bound
percent
bound
bound
2.5%
2.1%
3.0%
1.7%
1.4%
2.0%
3.2%
7.0

1.6%
4.1

6.7%
11.6

1.8%
4.7

0.7%
2.4

4.3%
8.7

2.7%

1.5%

4.7%

2.7%

1.5%

4.7%

7.0%
2.0

4.0%
0.8

12.1%
4.9

6.0%
2.0

3.2%
0.8

10.9%
4.9

11.6%
4.8
3.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

8.1%
1.8
1.2
0.0
0.0
0.0

16.4%
11.9
7.6
3.3
4.6
3.8

8.6%
4.8
3.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

5.9%
1.8
1.2
0.0
0.0
0.0

12.4%
11.9
7.6
3.3
4.6
3.8

13.8%
0.0
1.7
0.0
4.4
2.5
8.7
11.5

9.2%
0.0
0.9
0.0
2.3
1.2
5.3
6.8

20.1%
1.9
3.3
3.1
8.4
5.2
14.0
19.0

6.9%
0.0
0.9
0.0
2.2
1.7
4.5
3.8

3.8%
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.9
0.7
2.2
1.5

12.3%
1.9
2.1
3.1
5.5
4.1
9.0
9.3

0.0%

0.0%

8.4%

0.0%

0.0%

8.4%

0.0%

0.0%

8.5%

0.0%

0.0%

8.5%

0.0%
0.0
0.0
3.0
3.1
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0%
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.0

12.5%
4.6
7.8
11.7
10.0
7.1
8.8
8.2

0.0%
0.0
0.0
3.0
3.1
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0%
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.0

12.5%
4.6
7.8
11.7
10.0
7.1
8.8
8.2

5.0%
0.0
0.0
0.8
6.3
2.9
0.0
0.0
2.3

1.4%
0.0
0.0
0.3
1.8
0.9
0.0
0.0
1.0

16.8%
2.0
10.0
2.2
19.2
9.0
2.3
6.4
5.3

0.0%
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.9
0.0
0.0
1.1

0.0%
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.3

8.5%
2.0
10.0
0.9
8.9
9.0
2.3
6.4
3.7

5.4%

2.5%

11.2%

5.4%

2.5%

11.2%

Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2012 | June 2013

48

Appendix Table 3 (continued)
Percent of youth reporting sexual victimization by another youth, by type of incident and facility, National Survey of Youth
in Custody, 2012

Facility name
Idaho
Juv. Corr. Ctr. - Lewiston
Juv. Corr. Ctr. - Nampac
Juv. Corr. Ctr. - St. Anthonyc
Illinois
Illinois Yth. Ctr. - Chicago
Illinois Yth. Ctr. - Harrisburg
Illinois Yth. Ctr. - Joliet
Illinois Yth. Ctr. - Kewanee
Illinois Yth. Ctr. - St. Charles
Illinois Yth. Ctr. - Warrenvilleb
Indiana
Camp Summit Boot Camp
Logansport Juv. Corr. Fac/Trtmt. Unit
Madison Juv. Corr. Fac.b
Pendleton Juv. Corr. Fac.
South Bend Juv. Corr. Fac.
Iowa
Eldora State Training School for Boys
Woodward Acad.d
Kansas
Judge Riddel Boys Ranchd
Kansas Juv. Corr. Complexc
Larned Juv. Corr. Fac.
Shawnee Co. Juv. Det. Ctr.c,d
Kentucky
Adair Yth. Dev. Ctr.c
Audubon Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Cadet Leadership & Education Program
Green River Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Lake Cumberland Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Lincoln Village Yth. Dev. Ctr. & Reg. Juv. Det.c
Mayfield Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Morehead Yth. Dev. Ctr.c
Northern Kentucky Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Owensboro Trtmt. Ctr.
Louisiana
Bridge City Ctr. for Yth.
Christian Acresc,d
Jetson Corr. Ctr. for Yth.
Swanson Ctr. for Yth.
Ware Yth. Ctr.c,d
Maine
Long Creek Yth. Dev. Ctr.c
Mtn. View Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Marylande
Massachusettse
Michigan
Bay Pines Ctr.c
W.J. Maxey Boys Training School
Minnesota
Minnesota Corr. Fac. - Red Wing

Percent of youth reporting any sexual victimization by another youtha
All youth-on-youth
Nonconsensual sexual acts
95%-confidence interval
95%-confidence interval
Weighted
Lower
Upper
Weighted
Lower
Upper
percent
bound
bound
percent
bound
bound
0.0%
1.9
1.9

0.0%
0.7
1.1

2.4%
4.7
3.3

0.0%
0.0
1.0

0.0%
0.0
0.5

2.4%
1.7
2.0

0.0%
1.0
1.8
5.4
0.0
13.0

0.0%
0.2
0.7
3.4
0.0
6.1

3.8%
3.8
4.2
8.6
2.2
25.6

0.0%
1.0
1.8
2.6
0.0
9.1

0.0%
0.2
0.7
1.3
0.0
3.6

3.8%
3.8
4.2
5.0
2.2
21.2

0.0%
1.2
8.3
1.8
0.0

0.0%
0.5
5.2
0.8
0.0

1.1%
2.6
13.2
4.1
1.2

0.0%
1.2
2.9
0.0
0.0

0.0%
0.5
1.2
0.0
0.0

1.1%
2.6
6.5
1.3
1.2

2.9%
1.6

1.4%
0.7

6.0%
3.8

1.4%
0.0

0.5%
0.0

4.0%
1.4

3.2%
4.1
1.2
6.3

1.4%
2.3
0.5
2.1

7.1%
7.2
2.7
16.9

3.2%
4.1
0.0
6.3

1.4%
2.3
0.0
2.1

7.1%
7.2
0.8
16.9

0.0%
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.5
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0%
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.6
0.0
0.0
0.0

7.6%
7.4
2.4
2.4
4.4
6.9
12.1
3.0
2.6
1.6

0.0%
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.5
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0%
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.6
0.0
0.0
0.0

7.6%
7.4
2.4
2.4
4.4
6.9
12.1
3.0
2.6
1.6

0.0%
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0%
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

2.6%
8.4
9.1
8.3
9.7

0.0%
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0%
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

2.6%
8.4
9.1
8.3
9.7

0.0%
5.8

0.0%
2.6

1.9%
12.4

0.0%
5.8

0.0%
2.6

1.9%
12.4

15.0%
3.7

7.3%
1.2

28.4%
11.1

0.0%
3.7

0.0%
1.2

7.6%
11.1

1.3%

0.3%

4.9%

0.0%

0.0%

4.8%

Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2012 | June 2013

49

Appendix Table 3 (continued)
Percent of youth reporting sexual victimization by another youth, by type of incident and facility, National Survey of Youth
in Custody, 2012

Facility name
Mississippi
Oakley Yth. Dev. Ctr.c
Missouri
Camp Avery
Delmina Woods Yth. Fac.b
Ft. Bellefontaine Campus
Fulton Trtmt. Ctr.
Gentry Res. Trtmt. Ctr.
Girardot Ctr. for Yth. & Family
Hillsboro Trtmt. Ctr.
Hogan Street Reg. Yth. Ctr.
Montgomery City Yth. Ctr.
Mount Vernon Trtmt. Ctr.
Northwest Reg. Yth. Ctr.
Rich Hill Yth. Dev.Ctr.
Riverbend Trtmt. Ctr.
Sierra-Osage Trtmt. Ctr.c
Spanish Lake Campus
W.E. Sears Yth. Ctr.
Watkins Mill Park Campc
Waverly Reg. Yth. Ctr.
Montana
Pine Hills Yth. Corr. Fac.
Nebraska
Yth. Rehab. & Trtmt. Ctr. - Genevab
Nevada
Caliente Yth. Ctr.c
Nevada Yth. Training Ctr.
New Hampshiree
New Jersey
New Jersey Training School & Intake Fac.
New Mexico
Camino Nuevo Yth. Ctr.c
J. Paul Taylor Ctr.
Yth. Diagnostic & Dev. Ctr. (Males)
New Yorke
North Carolina
C.A. Dillon Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Stonewall Jackson Yth. Dev. Ctr.
North Dakota
North Dakota Yth. Corr. Ctr.c
Ohio
Circleville Juv. Corr. Fac.
Cuyahoga Hills Juv. Corr. Fac.
Indian River Juv. Corr. Fac.
Scioto Juv. Corr. Fac.c
Oklahomae

Percent of youth reporting any sexual victimization by another youtha
All youth-on-youth
Nonconsensual sexual acts
95%-confidence interval
95%-confidence interval
Weighted
Lower
Upper
Weighted
Lower
Upper
percent
bound
bound
percent
bound
bound
4.8%

2.5%

9.0%

0.0%

0.0%

2.1%

0.0%
0.0
0.0
10.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.1
7.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.3
2.4
0.0
0.0

0.0%
0.0
0.0
4.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.5
4.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.9
1.0
0.0
0.0

1.4%
6.3
1.5
20.0
5.2
4.7
6.4
4.1
6.4
12.7
6.3
3.0
3.0
4.6
13.6
5.4
1.7
2.0

0.0%
0.0
0.0
5.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.1
7.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.3
2.4
0.0
0.0

0.0%
0.0
0.0
1.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.5
4.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.9
1.0
0.0
0.0

1.4%
6.3
1.5
13.4
5.2
4.7
6.4
4.1
6.4
12.7
6.3
3.0
3.0
4.6
13.6
5.4
1.7
2.0

8.7%

2.9%

23.1%

4.5%

1.0%

18.4%

4.2%

0.9%

17.7%

0.0%

0.0%

10.4%

3.3%
11.0

0.7%
3.8

13.8%
27.6

3.3%
5.5

0.7%
1.3

13.8%
20.9

0.0%

0.0%

5.2%

0.0%

0.0%

5.2%

0.0%
0.0
0.0

0.0%
0.0
0.0

3.9%
11.6
9.6

0.0%
0.0
0.0

0.0%
0.0
0.0

3.9%
11.6
9.6

0.0%
0.0

0.0%
0.0

5.8%
6.7

0.0%
0.0

0.0%
0.0

5.8%
6.7

8.1%

4.0%

15.8%

2.7%

1.1%

6.8%

3.0%
3.8
1.9
5.8

1.4%
1.9
0.9
3.2

6.4%
7.3
3.9
10.1

3.0%
3.8
1.0
5.8

1.4%
1.9
0.3
3.2

6.4%
7.3
2.6
10.1

Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2012 | June 2013

50

Appendix Table 3 (continued)
Percent of youth reporting sexual victimization by another youth, by type of incident and facility, National Survey of Youth
in Custody, 2012

Facility name
Oregon
Camp Florence Yth. Transition Fac.
Camp Tillamook Yth. Transition Fac.
Eastern Oregon Yth. Corr. Fac.
Hillcrest Yth. Corr. Fac.
MacLaren Yth. Corr. Fac.
North Coast Yth. Corr. Fac.
Oak Creek Yth. Corr. Fac.b
RiverBend Yth. Transition Fac.
Rogue Valley Yth. Corr. Fac.
Tillamook Yth. Corr. Fac.
Pennsylvania
Loysville Yth. Dev. Ctr.
North Central Secure Trtmt.
North Central Secure Trtmt. Unit, Girls Program - Reed Buildingb
Rhode Island
Thomas C. Slater Training School for Yth.c
South Carolina
AMIkids Beaufortd
Birchwood
Camp Aspen
John G. Richards
South Dakotae
Tennessee
John S. Wilder Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Mountain View Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Taft Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Woodland Hills Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Texas
Corsicana Res. Trtmt. Ctr.
Evins Reg. Juv. Ctr.
Gainesville State School
Giddings State School
McFadden Ranch
McLennan Co. State Juv. Corr. Fac.
Ron Jackson State Juv. Corr. Complex Unit Ib
Utah
Decker Lake Yth. Ctr.
Millcreek Yth. Ctr.c
Vermont
Woodside Juv. Rehab. Ctr.c
Virginia
Beaumont Juv. Corr. Ctr.
Bon Air Juv. Corr. Ctr.c
Culpeper Juv. Corr. Ctr.c
Washington
Green Hill School
Naselle Yth. Camp
West Virginia
Kenneth Honey Rubenstein Juv. Ctr.
West Virginia Industrial Home For Yth.c

Percent of youth reporting any sexual victimization by another youtha
All youth-on-youth
Nonconsensual sexual acts
95%-confidence interval
95%-confidence interval
Weighted
Lower
Upper
Weighted
Lower
Upper
percent
bound
bound
percent
bound
bound
0.0%
5.6
6.7
1.8
5.7
2.6
7.7
0.0
3.3
7.0

0.0%
2.3
4.4
1.0
3.9
1.1
4.5
0.0
2.2
4.6

3.8%
12.8
9.9
3.3
8.4
6.3
12.8
3.4
5.0
10.5

0.0%
5.6
4.4
0.9
4.1
2.6
7.7
0.0
2.2
7.0

0.0%
2.3
2.7
0.4
2.6
1.1
4.5
0.0
1.3
4.6

3.8%
12.8
7.3
2.2
6.6
6.3
12.8
3.4
3.7
10.5

0.0%
0.0
0.0

0.0%
0.0
0.0

7.8%
12.8
7.5

0.0%
0.0
0.0

0.0%
0.0
0.0

7.8%
12.8
7.5

0.0%

0.0%

4.9%

0.0%

0.0%

4.9%

6.7%
4.0
0.0
5.0

2.4%
1.4
0.0
2.3

17.0%
10.6
1.8
10.4

6.7%
0.0
0.0
2.5

2.4%
0.0
0.0
0.9

17.0%
4.2
1.8
7.0

0.0%
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0%
0.0
0.0
0.0

10.0%
10.3
8.7
6.6

0.0%
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0%
0.0
0.0
0.0

10.0%
10.3
8.7
6.6

7.9%
0.0
1.9
0.0
0.0
1.3
6.1

5.0%
0.0
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.3
4.2

12.2%
2.8
5.3
2.3
4.0
5.2
8.8

5.3%
0.0
1.9
0.0
0.0
1.3
4.9

3.0%
0.0
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.3
3.2

9.2%
2.8
5.3
2.3
4.0
5.2
7.4

5.6%
3.6

1.6%
0.9

17.2%
13.1

5.6%
3.6

1.6%
0.9

17.2%
13.1

0.0%

0.0%

3.7%

0.0%

0.0%

3.7%

4.8%
0.8
1.7

1.3%
0.2
0.5

16.3%
3.9
5.9

0.0%
0.8
1.7

0.0%
0.2
0.5

5.9%
3.9
5.9

0.9%
1.4

0.2%
0.3

3.9%
6.0

0.9%
1.4

0.2%
0.3

3.9%
6.0

0.0%
2.6

0.0%
1.6

1.4%
4.3

0.0%
2.6

0.0%
1.6

1.4%
4.3

Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2012 | June 2013

51

Appendix Table 3 (continued)
Percent of youth reporting sexual victimization by another youth, by type of incident and facility, National Survey of Youth
in Custody, 2012

Facility name
Wisconsin
Copper Lake Schoolb
Lincoln Hills School
Mendota Juv. Trtmt. Ctr.
Wyoming
Wyoming Boys’ School
Wyoming Girls’ Schoolb

Percent of youth reporting any sexual victimization by another youtha
All youth-on-youth
Nonconsensual sexual acts
95%-confidence interval
95%-confidence interval
Weighted
Lower
Upper
Weighted
Lower
Upper
percent
bound
bound
percent
bound
bound
0.0%
0.0
0.0

0.0%
0.0
0.0

5.5%
2.0
5.4

0.0%
0.0
0.0

0.0%
0.0
0.0

5.5%
2.0
5.4

0.0%
0.0

0.0%
0.0

5.1%
10.1

0.0%
0.0

0.0%
0.0

5.1%
10.1

Note: Excludes facilities in which there were no reports of sexual victimization of any type. Facilities housed males only unless otherwise noted. Facility estimates were listed if they met
all of the following criteria: (1) based on at least 15 youth who completed the sexual victimization survey, (2) the facility had a 30% response rate or greater, and (3) the estimates were
sufficiently precise to detect a high rate (25% or greater) and had a minimum coefficient of variation of 30%. (See Methodology for further discussion of reporting criteria.)
aWeighted percentage of youth reporting one or more incidents of sexual victimization involving another youth in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if less than 12
months.
bFacility housed females only.
cFacility housed both males and females. Both were sampled at this facility.
dFacility was locally or privately operated and held state-placed youth.
eNone of the facilities met the criteria for publishing the sexual victimization rate. (See table 5 and appendix tables 6 and 7 for state-level estimates.)
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Survey of Youth in Custody, 2012.

Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2012 | June 2013

52

Appendix table 4
Percent of youth reporting staff sexual misconduct, by type of incident and facility, National Survey of Youth in Custody, 2012

Facility name
All facilities - U.S. total
Alabama
Mt. Meigs Campus
Vacca Campus
Alaska
McLaughlin Yth. Ctr. Det. & Trainingc
Arizona
Adobe Mountain School
Black Canyon Schoolc
Arkansas
Arkansas Juv. Assess. & Trtmt. Ctr.c,d
Colt Juv. Trtmt. Ctr.
Dermott Juv. Corr. Fac.
Harrisburg Juv. Trtmt. Ctr.
Lewisville Juv. Trtmt. Ctr.d
Mansfield Juv. Trtmt. Ctr.
Californiae
Colorado
Betty Marler Yth. Srvcs. Ctr.b,d
Grand Mesa Yth. Srvcs. Ctr.c
Lookout Mtn. Yth. Srvcs. Ctr.
Mt. View Yth. Srvcs. Ctr.c
Platte Valley Yth. Srvcs. Ctr.c
Ridge View Acad.d
Spring Creek Yth. Srvcs. Ctr.c
Zebulon Pike Yth. Srvcs. Ctr.
Connecticute
Delaware
Ferris School
District of Columbia
New Beginnings Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Florida
Bristol Yth. Acad.
Cypress Creek Juv. Offender Corr. Ctr.
Falkenburg Juv. Corr. Fac. - Mental Health
Hastings Comprehensive Mental Health Trtmt. Prog.d
Okeechobee Juv. Offender Corr. Ctr.
Okeechobee Yth. Dev. Ctr.d
Palm Beach Juv. Corr. Fac.
Palmetto Yth. Acad.
Georgia
Augusta Reg. Yth. Det. Ctr.
Augusta Yth. Dev. Campus
Crisp Yth. Det. Ctr.
Eastman Yth. Dev. Campus
Gainesville Reg. Yth. Det. Ctr.c
Macon Yth. Dev. Campusb
Muscogee Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Paulding Reg. Yth. Det. Ctr.
Sumter Yth. Dev. Campus

Percent of youth reporting any staff sexual misconducta
All staff sexual misconduct
Sexual acts excluding touchingb
95%-confidence interval
95%-confidence interval
Weighted
Lower
Upper
Weighted
Lower
Upper
percent
bound
bound
percent
bound
bound
7.7%
7.0%
8.4%
6.9%
6.3%
7.6%
10.4%
13.6

7.0%
9.4

15.2%
19.3

9.5%
13.6

6.2%
9.4

14.2%
19.3

4.0%

2.5%

6.4%

2.7%

1.5%

4.7%

3.0%
2.1

1.2%
0.8

7.2%
5.0

2.0%
0.0

0.7%
0.0

5.8%
1.7

14.2%
14.3
12.1
7.7
9.1
5.3

10.4%
8.1
7.5
4.0
4.4
2.2

19.2%
23.9
18.9
14.2
17.9
12.0

10.2%
9.5
12.1
7.7
9.1
5.3

7.2%
4.8
7.5
4.0
4.4
2.2

14.3%
18.1
18.9
14.2
17.9
12.0

3.4%
0.0
7.0
0.0
4.3
7.9
4.3
7.7

1.4%
0.0
4.9
0.0
2.2
4.9
2.1
4.0

8.1%
1.9
9.8
3.1
8.2
12.5
8.6
14.3

3.4%
0.0
6.1
0.0
2.2
7.9
4.3
3.8

1.4%
0.0
4.4
0.0
0.9
4.9
2.1
1.5

8.1%
1.9
8.5
3.1
5.3
12.5
8.6
9.3

0.0%

0.0%

8.4%

0.0%

0.0%

8.4%

0.0%

0.0%

8.5%

0.0%

0.0%

8.5%

10.7%
4.7
4.2
6.0
7.6
2.6
16.2
0.0

3.2%
1.7
1.6
2.1
3.6
0.9
7.3
0.0

30.2%
12.4
10.8
15.9
15.5
7.6
32.1
8.2

10.7%
4.7
4.2
0.0
4.5
1.3
16.2
0.0

3.2%
1.7
1.6
0.0
1.7
0.3
7.3
0.0

30.2%
12.4
10.8
6.0
11.0
5.6
32.1
8.2

5.0%
20.9
12.5
23.5
6.3
5.1
6.8
31.0
18.3

1.4%
15.8
5.1
19.8
1.9
2.2
3.8
20.9
13.5

16.8%
27.1
27.5
27.7
19.1
11.4
12.0
43.4
24.3

5.0%
19.1
12.5
21.9
6.3
2.9
6.8
25.0
17.2

1.4%
14.1
5.1
18.2
1.9
0.9
3.8
15.1
12.5

16.8%
25.3
27.5
26.1
19.1
9.0
12.0
38.5
23.2

Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2012 | June 2013

53

Appendix table 4 (continued)
Percent of youth reporting staff sexual misconduct, by type of incident and facility, National Survey of Youth in Custody, 2012

Facility name
Hawaii
Hawaii Yth. Corr. Fac.c
Idaho
Juv. Corr. Ctr. - Lewiston
Juv. Corr. Ctr. - Nampac
Juv. Corr. Ctr. - St. Anthonyc
Illinois
Illinois Yth. Ctr. - Chicago
Illinois Yth. Ctr. - Harrisburg
Illinois Yth. Ctr. - Joliet
Illinois Yth. Ctr. - Kewanee
Illinois Yth. Ctr. - St. Charles
Illinois Yth. Ctr. - Warrenvilleb
Indiana
Camp Summit Boot Camp
Logansport Juv. Corr. Fac./Trtmt. Unit
Madison Juv. Corr. Fac.b
Pendleton Juv. Corr. Fac.
South Bend Juv. Corr. Fac.
Iowa
Eldora State Training School for Boys
Woodward Acad.d
Kansas
Judge Riddel Boys Ranchd
Kansas Juv. Corr. Complexc
Larned Juv. Corr. Fac.
Shawnee Co. Juv. Det. Ctr.c,d
Kentucky
Adair Yth. Dev. Ctr.c
Audubon Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Cadet Leadership & Education Program
Green River Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Lake Cumberland Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Lincoln Village Yth. Dev. Ctr. & Reg. Juv. Det.c
Mayfield Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Morehead Yth. Dev. Ctr.c
Northern Kentucky Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Owensboro Trtmt. Ctr.
Louisiana
Bridge City Ctr. for Yth.
Christian Acresc,d
Jetson Corr. Ctr. for Yth.
Swanson Ctr. for Yth.
Ware Yth. Ctr.c,d
Maine
Long Creek Yth. Dev. Ctr.c
Mtn. View Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Marylande
Massachusettse
Michigan
Bay Pines Ctr.c
W.J. Maxey Boys Training School

Percent of youth reporting any staff sexual misconducta
All staff sexual misconduct
Sexual acts excluding touchingb
95%-confidence interval
95%-confidence interval
Weighted
Lower
Upper
Weighted
Lower
Upper
percent
bound
bound
percent
bound
bound
5.4%

2.5%

11.2%

5.4%

2.5%

11.2%

3.7%
1.9
1.9

1.7%
0.7
1.1

8.0%
4.7
3.3

3.7%
1.9
1.0

1.7%
0.7
0.5

8.0%
4.7
2.1

13.5%
14.7
20.0
12.0
5.1
4.3

8.1%
9.9
15.6
8.6
2.7
1.2

21.7%
21.3
25.2
16.5
9.5
14.5

10.8%
13.9
19.1
10.3
5.1
4.3

6.1%
9.1
15.0
7.3
2.7
1.2

18.6%
20.5
24.1
14.3
9.5
14.5

2.9%
8.2
0.0
11.5
13.6

1.6%
6.2
0.0
7.9
10.1

5.2%
10.9
2.0
16.5
18.2

2.9%
8.2
0.0
8.9
10.8

1.6%
6.2
0.0
5.8
7.5

5.2%
10.9
2.0
13.5
15.2

18.8%
1.6

14.4%
0.7

24.2%
3.8

17.4%
1.6

13.1%
0.7

22.8%
3.8

12.9%
14.9
10.8
12.5

8.8%
10.5
8.4
5.8

18.5%
20.6
13.9
24.9

12.9%
14.0
9.6
12.5

8.8%
9.8
7.3
5.8

18.5%
19.8
12.6
24.9

12.5%
5.3
0.0
0.0
4.8
5.6
0.0
4.2
3.6
0.0

5.5%
1.6
0.0
0.0
1.8
1.8
0.0
1.8
1.5
0.0

25.9%
16.1
2.4
2.4
12.0
16.0
4.8
9.5
8.1
1.6

12.5%
5.3
0.0
0.0
4.8
5.6
0.0
0.0
3.6
0.0

5.5%
1.6
0.0
0.0
1.8
1.8
0.0
0.0
1.5
0.0

25.9%
16.1
2.4
2.4
12.0
16.0
4.8
3.0
8.1
1.6

11.6%
0.0
4.3
2.6
0.0

7.4%
0.0
0.9
0.9
0.0

17.8%
8.4
17.7
7.8
9.7

10.3%
0.0
4.3
2.6
0.0

6.3%
0.0
0.9
0.9
0.0

16.3%
8.4
17.7
7.8
9.7

2.0%
5.8

0.7%
2.6

5.1%
12.4

0.0%
5.8

0.0%
2.6

1.9%
12.4

5.0%
7.4

1.5%
3.3

15.8%
15.8

0.0%
7.4

0.0%
3.3

7.6%
15.8

Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2012 | June 2013

54

Appendix table 4 (continued)
Percent of youth reporting staff sexual misconduct, by type of incident and facility, National Survey of Youth in Custody, 2012

Facility name
Minnesota
Minnesota Corr. Fac. - Red Wing
Mississippi
Oakley Yth. Dev. Ctr.c
Missouri
Camp Avery
Delmina Woods Yth. Fac.b
Ft. Bellefontaine Campus
Fulton Trtmt. Ctr.
Gentry Res. Trtmt. Ctr.
Girardot Ctr. for Yth. & Family
Hillsboro Trtmt. Ctr.
Hogan Street Reg. Yth. Ctr.
Montgomery City Yth. Ctr.
Mount Vernon Trtmt. Ctr.
Northwest Reg. Yth. Ctr.
Rich Hill Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Riverbend Trtmt. Ctr.
Sierra-Osage Trtmt. Ctr.c
Spanish Lake Campus
W.E. Sears Yth. Ctr.
Watkins Mill Park Campc
Waverly Reg. Yth. Ctr.
Montana
Pine Hills Yth. Corr. Fac.
Nebraska
Yth. Rehab. & Trtmt. Ctr. - Genevab
Nevada
Caliente Yth. Ctr.c
Nevada Yth. Training Ctr.
New Hampshiree
New Jersey
New Jersey Training School & Intake Fac.
New Mexico
Camino Nuevo Yth. Ctr. c
J. Paul Taylor Ctr.
Yth. Diagnostic & Dev. Ctr. (Males)
New Yorke
North Carolina
C.A. Dillon Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Stonewall Jackson Yth. Dev. Ctr.
North Dakota
North Dakota Yth. Corr. Ctr.c
Ohio
Circleville Juv. Corr. Fac.
Cuyahoga Hills Juv. Corr. Fac.
Indian River Juv. Corr. Fac.
Scioto Juv. Corr. Fac.c
Oklahomae

Percent of youth reporting any staff sexual misconducta
All staff sexual misconduct
Sexual acts excluding touchingb
95%-confidence interval
95%-confidence interval
Weighted
Lower
Upper
Weighted
Lower
Upper
percent
bound
bound
percent
bound
bound
3.3%

0.8%

12.4%

3.3%

0.8%

12.4%

9.8%

6.1%

15.2%

9.8%

6.1%

15.2%

12.5%
0.0
0.0
5.0
0.0
0.0
5.3
8.7
3.1
0.0
5.6
0.0
4.5
0.0
0.0
4.8
2.2
0.0

9.1%
0.0
0.0
1.8
0.0
0.0
1.7
4.4
1.5
0.0
1.9
0.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
2.6
0.9
0.0

17.0%
6.3
1.5
13.4
5.2
4.7
14.9
16.6
6.4
2.1
15.4
3.0
9.9
4.6
5.2
8.4
5.2
2.0

8.3%
0.0
0.0
5.0
0.0
0.0
5.3
8.7
3.1
0.0
5.6
0.0
4.5
0.0
0.0
4.8
0.0
0.0

5.6%
0.0
0.0
1.8
0.0
0.0
1.7
4.4
1.5
0.0
1.9
0.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
2.6
0.0
0.0

12.2%
6.3
1.5
13.4
5.2
4.7
14.9
16.6
6.4
2.1
15.4
3.0
9.9
4.6
5.2
8.4
1.7
2.0

8.7%

2.9%

23.1%

8.7%

2.9%

23.1%

0.0%

0.0%

10.4%

0.0%

0.0%

10.4%

3.3%
15.9

0.7%
7.3

13.8%
31.0

3.3%
15.9

0.7%
7.3

13.8%
31.0

5.3%

1.8%

14.8%

5.3%

1.8%

14.8%

0.0%
10.5
0.0

0.0%
3.3
0.0

3.9%
29.0
9.6

0.0%
10.5
0.0

0.0%
3.3
0.0

3.9%
29.0
9.6

5.7%
4.1

2.1%
1.4

14.8%
11.0

5.7%
4.1

2.1%
1.4

14.8%
11.0

2.7%

1.1%

6.8%

0.0%

0.0%

2.5%

28.8%
16.0
9.5
18.8

22.9%
11.0
6.8
14.0

35.5%
22.7
13.2
24.9

27.3%
15.1
9.5
14.7

21.4%
10.4
6.8
10.4

34.0%
21.3
13.2
20.4

Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2012 | June 2013

55

Appendix table 4 (continued)
Percent of youth reporting staff sexual misconduct, by type of incident and facility, National Survey of Youth in Custody, 2012

Facility name
Oregon
Camp Florence Yth. Transition Fac.
Camp Tillamook Yth. Transition Fac.
Eastern Oregon Yth. Corr. Fac.
Hillcrest Yth. Corr. Fac.
MacLaren Yth. Corr. Fac.
North Coast Yth. Corr. Fac.
Oak Creek Yth. Corr. Fac.b
RiverBend Yth. Transition Fac.
Rogue Valley Yth. Corr. Fac.
Tillamook Yth. Corr. Fac.
Pennsylvania
Loysville Yth. Dev. Ctr.
North Central Secure Trtmt.
North Central Secure Trtmt. Unit, Girls Program Reed Buildingb
Rhode Island
Thomas C. Slater Training School for Yth.c
South Carolina
AMIkids Beaufortd
Birchwood
Camp Aspen
John G. Richards
South Dakotae
Tennessee
John S. Wilder Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Mountain View Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Taft Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Woodland Hills Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Texas
Corsicana Res. Trtmt. Ctr.
Evins Reg. Juv. Ctr.
Gainesville State School
Giddings State School
McFadden Ranch
McLennan Co. State Juv. Corr. Fac.
Ron Jackson State Juv. Corr. Complex Unit Ib
Utah
Decker Lake Yth. Ctr.
Millcreek Yth. Ctr.c
Vermont
Woodside Juv. Rehab. Ctr.c
Virginia
Beaumont Juv. Corr. Ctr.
Bon Air Juv. Corr. Ctr.c
Culpeper Juv. Corr. Ctr.c
Washington
Green Hill School
Naselle Yth. Camp
West Virginia
Kenneth Honey Rubenstein Juv. Ctr.
West Virginia Industrial Home for Yth.c

Percent of youth reporting any staff sexual misconducta
All staff sexual misconduct
Sexual acts excluding touchingb
95%-confidence interval
95%-confidence interval
Weighted
Lower
Upper
Weighted
Lower
Upper
percent
bound
bound
percent
bound
bound
0.0%
0.0
6.7
10.5
7.4
13.2
0.0
0.0
12.4
4.5

0.0%
0.0
4.4
8.2
5.1
8.9
0.0
0.0
9.9
2.7

3.8%
4.2
9.9
13.4
10.6
18.9
2.2
3.4
15.3
7.5

0.0%
0.0
2.2
10.5
6.6
13.2
0.0
0.0
11.2
4.5

0.0%
0.0
1.1
8.2
4.4
8.9
0.0
0.0
8.9
2.7

3.8%
4.2
4.5
13.4
9.8
18.9
2.2
3.4
14.1
7.5

3.3%
0.0

0.8%
0.0

13.5%
12.8

3.3%
0.0

0.8%
0.0

13.5%
12.8

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

7.5

5.1%

1.9%

12.8%

2.0%

0.5%

7.1%

20.0%
29.2
3.6
15.0

11.6%
20.6
1.7
9.9

32.3%
39.5
7.2
22.0

14.3%
26.1
3.6
15.0

7.2%
17.5
1.7
9.9

26.2%
37.0
7.2
22.0

19.5%
13.8
13.0
6.7

9.1%
5.5
5.7
2.7

37.0%
30.6
27.2
15.5

19.5%
13.8
13.0
6.7

9.1%
5.5
5.7
2.7

37.0%
30.6
27.2
15.5

18.4%
8.6
13.2
13.3
0.0
4.8
8.3

13.4%
5.1
8.9
9.2
0.0
2.5
6.1

24.8%
14.2
19.1
19.0
4.0
9.1
11.2

18.4%
8.6
13.2
9.6
0.0
4.8
6.0

13.4%
5.1
8.9
6.0
0.0
2.5
4.2

24.8%
14.2
19.1
15.0
4.0
9.1
8.7

11.1%
10.7

4.6%
4.7

24.4%
22.6

0.0%
10.7

0.0%
4.7

8.1%
22.6

6.7%

3.1%

13.7%

6.7%

3.1%

13.7%

10.6%
3.1
11.5

5.2%
0.7
7.1

20.4%
13.8
18.0

6.7%
3.1
10.0

3.7%
0.7
5.9

12.0%
13.8
16.5

6.7%
0.0

2.7%
0.0

15.6%
9.9

6.7%
0.0

2.7%
0.0

15.6%
9.9

11.1%
13.4

7.9%
10.6

15.4%
16.8

11.1%
12.1

7.9%
9.6

15.4%
15.1

7.5

Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2012 | June 2013

56

Appendix table 4 (continued)
Percent of youth reporting staff sexual misconduct, by type of incident and facility, National Survey of Youth in Custody, 2012

Facility name
Wisconsin
Copper Lake Schoolb
Lincoln Hills School
Mendota Juv. Trtmt. Ctr.
Wyoming
Wyoming Boys’ School
Wyoming Girls’ Schoolb

Percent of youth reporting any staff sexual misconducta
All staff sexual misconduct
Sexual acts excluding touchingb
95%-confidence interval
95%-confidence interval
Weighted
Lower
Upper
Weighted
Lower
Upper
percent
bound
bound
percent
bound
bound
0.0%
7.3
4.8

0.0%
4.5
1.6

5.5%
11.7
13.1

0.0%
7.3
4.8

0.0%
4.5
1.6

5.5%
11.7
13.1

3.0%
0.0

0.8%
0.0

10.6%
10.1

3.0%
0.0

0.8%
0.0

10.6%
10.1

Note: Excludes facilities in which there were no reports of sexual victimization of any type. Facilities housed males only unless otherwise noted. Facility estimates were listed if they met
all of the following criteria: (1) based on at least 15 youth who completed the sexual victimization survey, (2) the facility had a 30% response rate or greater, and (3) the estimates were
sufficiently precise to detect a high rate (25% or greater) and had a minimum coefficient of variation of 30%. (See Methodology for further discussion of reporting criteria.)
aWeighted percentage of youth 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.
bFacility housed females only.
cFacility housed both males and females . Both were sampled at this facility.
dFacility was locally or privately operated and held state-placed youth.
eNone of the facilities met the criteria for publishing the sexual victimization rate. (See table 5 and appendix tables 6 and 7 for state-level estimates.)
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Survey of Youth in Custody, 2012.

Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2012 | June 2013

57

Appendix table 5
Percent of youth reporting staff sexual misconduct excluding touching, by use of force and facility, National Survey of Youth
in Custody, 2012

Facility name
All facilities - U.S. total
Alabama
Mt. Meigs Campus
Vacca Campus
Alaska
McLaughlin Yth. Ctr. Det. & Trainingc
Arizona
Adobe Mountain School
Black Canyon Schoolc
Arkansas
Arkansas Juv. Assess. & Trtmt. Ctr.c,d
Colt Juv. Trtmt. Ctr.
Dermott Juv. Corr. Fac.
Harrisburg Juv. Trtmt. Ctr.
Lewisville Juv. Trtmt. Ctr.d
Mansfield Juv. Trtmt. Ctr.
Californiae
Colorado
Betty Marler Yth. Srvcs. Ctr.b,d
Grand Mesa Yth. Srvcs. Ctr.c
Lookout Mtn. Yth. Srvcs. Ctr.
Mt. View Yth. Srvcs. Ctr.c
Platte Valley Yth. Srvcs. Ctr.c
Ridge View Acad.d
Spring Creek Yth. Srvcs. Ctr.c
Zebulon Pike Yth. Srvcs. Ctr.
Connecticute
Delaware
Ferris School
District of Columbia
New Beginnings Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Florida
Bristol Yth. Acad.
Cypress Creek Juv. Offender Corr. Ctr.
Falkenburg Juv. Corr. Fac. - Mental Health
Hastings Comprehensive Mental Health Trtmt. Prog.d
Okeechobee Juv. Offender Corr. Ctr.
Okeechobee Yth. Dev. Ctr.d
Palm Beach Juv. Corr. Fac.
Palmetto Yth. Acad.
Georgia
Augusta Reg. Yth. Det. Ctr.
Augusta Yth. Dev. Campus
Crisp Yth. Det. Ctr.
Eastman Yth. Dev. Campus
Gainesville Reg. Yth. Det. Ctr.c
Macon Yth. Dev. Campusb
Muscogee Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Paulding Reg. Yth. Det. Ctr.
Sumter Yth. Dev. Campus
Hawaii
Hawaii Yth. Corr. Fac.c

Percent of youth reporting any staff sexual misconduct excluding touchinga
Force reported
No report of force
95%-confidence interval
95%-confidence interval
Weighted
Lower
Upper
Weighted
Lower
Upper
percent
bound
bound
percent
bound
bound
3.1%
2.7%
3.5%
4.3%
3.7%
4.9%
4.4%
4.5

2.2%
2.4

8.7%
8.5

3.8%
9.3

2.0%
5.9

6.9%
14.4

1.3%

0.6%

3.0%

1.3%

0.6%

3.0%

0.0%
0.0

0.0%
0.0

2.5%
1.7

2.0%
0.0

0.7%
0.0

5.8%
1.7

2.7%
9.5
3.0
7.7
4.5
5.3

1.4%
4.8
1.2
4.0
1.7
2.2

5.4%
18.1
7.6
14.2
11.8
12.0

8.9%
0.0
9.1
3.8
4.5
0.0

6.1%
0.0
5.2
1.5
1.7
0.0

12.8%
4.4
15.3
9.4
11.8
3.8

3.4%
0.0
1.7
0.0
2.2
3.7
0.0
3.8

1.4%
0.0
0.9
0.0
0.9
1.7
0.0
1.5

8.1%
1.9
3.3
3.1
5.3
7.9
2.7
9.3

0.0%
0.0
4.4
0.0
0.0
4.2
4.3
0.0

0.0%
0.0
2.9
0.0
0.0
2.3
2.1
0.0

2.7%
1.9
6.5
3.1
1.9
7.5
8.6
3.3

0.0%

0.0%

8.4%

0.0%

0.0%

8.4%

0.0%

0.0%

8.5%

0.0%

0.0%

8.5%

7.8%
3.3
2.1
0.0
1.4
0.0
13.5
0.0

1.7%
0.9
0.6
0.0
0.4
0.0
5.4
0.0

28.9%
11.6
7.8
6.0
4.5
7.1
30.0
8.2

2.9%
1.4
2.1
0.0
3.1
1.3
2.7
0.0

0.7%
0.4
0.6
0.0
0.9
0.3
0.9
0.0

11.5%
5.2
7.8
6.0
10.0
5.6
7.7
8.2

0.0%
11.8
12.5
12.3
6.3
2.9
2.8
7.1
10.3

0.0%
7.8
5.1
9.4
1.9
0.9
1.0
2.7
7.0

8.5%
17.3
27.5
16.0
19.1
9.0
7.3
17.6
15.0

5.0%
5.6
0.0
10.6
0.0
0.0
2.1
22.2
8.1

1.4%
3.1
0.0
7.9
0.0
0.0
0.8
12.8
5.1

16.8%
9.7
10.0
14.1
8.9
3.9
5.5
35.7
12.5

0.0%

0.0%

3.2%

2.8%

1.0%

7.8%

Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2012 | June 2013

58

Appendix table 5 (continued)
Percent of youth reporting staff sexual misconduct excluding touching, by use of force and facility, National Survey of Youth
in Custody, 2012

Facility name
Idaho
Juv. Corr. Ctr. - Lewiston
Juv. Corr. Ctr. - Nampac
Juv. Corr. Ctr. - St. Anthonyc
Illinois
Illinois Yth. Ctr. - Chicago
Illinois Yth. Ctr. - Harrisburg
Illinois Yth. Ctr. - Joliet
Illinois Yth. Ctr. - Kewanee
Illinois Yth. Ctr. - St. Charles
Illinois Yth. Ctr. - Warrenvilleb
Indiana
Camp Summit Boot Camp
Logansport Juv. Corr. Fac./Trtmt. Unit
Madison Juv. Corr. Fac.b
Pendleton Juv. Corr. Fac.
South Bend Juv. Corr. Fac.
Iowa
Eldora State Training School for Boys
Woodward Acad.d
Kansas
Judge Riddel Boys Ranchd
Kansas Juv. Corr. Complexc
Larned Juv. Corr. Fac.
Shawnee Co. Juv. Det. Ctr.c,d
Kentucky
Adair Yth. Dev. Ctr.c
Audubon Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Cadet Leadership & Education Program
Green River Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Lake Cumberland Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Lincoln Village Yth. Dev. Ctr. & Reg. Juv. Det.c
Mayfield Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Morehead Yth. Dev. Ctr.c
Northern Kentucky Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Owensboro Trtmt. Ctr.
Louisiana
Bridge City Ctr. for Yth.
Christian Acresc,d
Jetson Corr. Ctr. for Yth.
Swanson Ctr. for Yth.
Ware Yth. Ctr.c,d
Maine
Long Creek Yth. Dev. Ctr.c
Mtn. View Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Marylande
Massachusettse
Michigan
Bay Pines Ctr.c
W.J. Maxey Boys Training School
Minnesota
Minnesota Corr. Fac. - Red Wing

Percent of youth reporting any staff sexual misconduct excluding touchinga
Force reported
No report of force
95%-confidence interval
95%-confidence interval
Weighted
Lower
Upper
Weighted
Lower
Upper
percent
bound
bound
percent
bound
bound
0.0%
0.0
0.0

0.0%
0.0
0.0

2.4%
1.7
0.6

3.7%
1.9
1.0

1.7%
0.7
0.5

8.0%
4.7
2.1

5.4%
4.9
12.4
4.3
1.7
0.0

2.4%
2.6
9.0
2.6
0.6
0.0

11.9%
9.0
16.8
7.1
4.9
7.2

8.1%
8.9
6.2
6.0
5.1
4.3

4.1%
5.7
3.9
3.9
2.7
1.2

15.5%
13.6
9.6
9.1
9.5
14.5

1.4%
4.7
0.0
3.6
6.1

0.6%
3.2
0.0
1.7
3.6

3.3%
6.9
2.0
7.2
10.1

1.4%
4.7
0.0
5.5
4.6

0.6%
3.2
0.0
3.4
2.8

3.3%
7.0
2.0
8.7
7.5

5.8%
0.0

3.5%
0.0

9.5%
1.4

11.6%
0.8

8.3%
0.2

16.0%
2.7

3.2%
9.1
3.6
0.0

1.4%
6.2
2.3
0.0

7.1%
13.1
5.7
6.9

9.7%
9.9
6.0
12.5

6.2%
6.1
4.2
5.8

14.8%
15.7
8.6
24.9

6.3%
5.3
0.0
0.0
4.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

2.0%
1.6
0.0
0.0
1.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

17.8%
16.1
2.4
2.4
12.0
6.9
4.8
3.0
2.6
1.6

6.3%
5.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

2.0%
1.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

17.8%
16.1
2.4
2.4
4.4
16.0
4.8
3.0
2.6
1.6

2.9%
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

1.1%
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

7.2%
8.4
9.1
8.3
9.7

7.4%
0.0
4.4
2.6
0.0

4.1%
0.0
1.0
0.9
0.0

12.8%
8.4
17.9
7.8
9.7

0.0%
2.9

0.0%
0.9

1.9%
8.5

0.0%
2.9

0.0%
0.9

1.9%
8.5

0.0%
0.0

0.0%
0.0

7.6%
6.8

0.0%
7.4

0.0%
3.3

7.6%
15.8

0.0%

0.0%

4.8%

3.3%

0.8%

12.4%

Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2012 | June 2013

59

Appendix table 5 (continued)
Percent of youth reporting staff sexual misconduct excluding touching, by use of force and facility, National Survey of Youth
in Custody, 2012

Facility name
Mississippi
Oakley Yth. Dev. Ctr.c
Missouri
Camp Avery
Delmina Woods Yth. Fac.b
Ft. Bellefontaine Campus
Fulton Trtmt. Ctr.
Gentry Res. Trtmt. Ctr.
Girardot Ctr. for Yth. & Family
Hillsboro Trtmt. Ctr.
Hogan Street Reg. Yth. Ctr.
Montgomery City Yth. Ctr.
Mount Vernon Trtmt. Ctr.
Northwest Reg. Yth. Ctr.
Rich Hill Yth. Dev.Ctr.
Riverbend Trtmt. Ctr.
Sierra-Osage Trtmt. Ctr.c
Spanish Lake Campus
W.E. Sears Yth. Ctr.
Watkins Mill Park Campc
Waverly Reg. Yth. Ctr.
Montana
Pine Hills Yth. Corr. Fac.
Nebraska
Yth. Rehab. & Trtmt. Ctr. - Genevab
Nevada
Caliente Yth. Ctr.c
Nevada Yth. Training Ctr.
New Hampshiree
New Jersey
New Jersey Training School & Intake Fac.
New Mexico
Camino Nuevo Yth. Ctr.c
J. Paul Taylor Ctr.
Yth. Diagnostic & Dev. Ctr. (Males)
New Yorke
North Carolina
C.A. Dillon Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Stonewall Jackson Yth. Dev. Ctr.
North Dakota
North Dakota Yth. Corr. Ctr.c
Ohio
Circleville Juv. Corr. Fac.
Cuyahoga Hills Juv. Corr. Fac.
Indian River Juv. Corr. Fac.
Scioto Juv. Corr. Fac.c
Oklahomae

Percent of youth reporting any staff sexual misconduct excluding touchinga
Force reported
No report of force
95%-confidence interval
95%-confidence interval
Weighted
Lower
Upper
Weighted
Lower
Upper
percent
bound
bound
percent
bound
bound
2.4%

1.0%

6.0%

7.3%

4.3%

12.3%

0.0%
0.0
0.0
5.0
0.0
0.0
5.3
4.3
0.0
0.0
5.6
0.0
4.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0%
0.0
0.0
1.8
0.0
0.0
1.7
1.7
0.0
0.0
1.9
0.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

1.4%
6.3
1.5
13.4
5.2
4.7
14.9
10.9
1.7
2.1
15.4
3.0
9.9
4.6
5.2
1.7
1.7
2.0

8.3%
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.3
3.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.4
0.0
0.0

5.6%
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.7
1.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.1
0.0
0.0

12.2%
6.3
1.5
5.3
5.2
4.7
6.4
10.9
6.4
2.1
6.3
3.0
3.0
4.6
5.2
5.5
1.7
2.0

4.3%

1.0%

17.6%

4.3%

1.0%

17.7%

0.0%

0.0%

10.4%

0.0%

0.0%

10.4%

3.3%
14.2

0.7%
6.1

13.8%
29.7

0.0%
3.3

0.0%
1.2

7.1%
8.8

3.5%

0.8%

14.4%

5.3%

1.8%

14.8%

0.0%
7.4
0.0

0.0%
1.6
0.0

3.9%
27.5
9.6

0.0%
3.2
0.0

0.0%
0.8
0.0

3.9%
12.3
9.6

2.9%
2.0

0.7%
0.5

10.7%
8.2

5.7%
4.1

2.1%
1.4

14.8%
11.0

0.0%

0.0%

2.5%

0.0%

0.0%

2.5%

15.2%
2.6
0.0
9.0

10.6%
1.0
0.0
5.6

21.1%
6.7
1.0
14.1

15.2%
12.5
8.7
4.5

10.6%
8.6
6.3
2.3

21.1%
17.7
11.8
8.7

Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2012 | June 2013

60

Appendix table 5 (continued)
Percent of youth reporting staff sexual misconduct excluding touching, by use of force and facility, National Survey of Youth
in Custody, 2012

Facility name
Oregon
Camp Florence Yth. Transition Fac.
Camp Tillamook Yth. Transition Fac.
Eastern Oregon Yth. Corr. Fac.
Hillcrest Yth. Corr. Fac.
MacLaren Yth. Corr. Fac.
North Coast Yth. Corr. Fac.
Oak Creek Yth. Corr. Fac.b
RiverBend Yth. Transition Fac.
Rogue Valley Yth. Corr. Fac.
Tillamook Yth. Corr. Fac.
Pennsylvania
Loysville Yth. Dev. Ctr.
North Central Secure Trtmt.
North Central Secure Trtmt. Unit, Girls Program - Reed Buildingb
Rhode Island
Thomas C. Slater Training School for Yth.c
South Carolina
AMIkids Beaufortd
Birchwood
Camp Aspen
John G. Richards
South Dakotae
Tennessee
John S. Wilder Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Mountain View Yth. Dev.Ctr.
Taft Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Woodland Hills Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Texas
Corsicana Res. Trtmt. Ctr.
Evins Reg. Juv. Ctr.
Gainesville State School
Giddings State School
McFadden Ranch
McLennan Co. State Juv. Corr. Fac.
Ron Jackson State Juv. Corr. Complex Unit Ib
Utah
Decker Lake Yth. Ctr.
Millcreek Yth. Ctr.c
Vermont
Woodside Juv. Rehab. Ctr.c
Virginia
Beaumont Juv. Corr. Ctr.
Bon Air Juv. Corr. Ctr.c
Culpeper Juv. Corr. Ctr.c
Washington
Green Hill School
Naselle Yth. Camp
West Virginia
Kenneth Honey Rubenstein Juv. Ctr.
West Virginia Industrial Home for Yth.c

Percent of youth reporting any staff sexual misconduct excluding touchinga
Force reported
No report of force
95%-confidence interval
95%-confidence interval
Weighted
Lower
Upper
Weighted
Lower
Upper
percent
bound
bound
percent
bound
bound
0.0%
0.0
0.0
3.6
2.5
5.3
0.0
0.0
4.5
0.0

0.0%
0.0
0.0
2.1
1.3
2.8
0.0
0.0
3.1
0.0

3.8%
4.2
1.2
6.1
4.5
9.7
2.2
3.4
6.4
1.2

0.0%
0.0
2.2
6.3
4.1
7.9
0.0
0.0
7.9
4.7

0.0%
0.0
1.1
4.6
2.3
4.7
0.0
0.0
6.0
2.8

3.8%
4.2
4.5
8.6
7.1
13.0
2.2
3.4
10.2
7.7

0.0%
0.0
0.0

0.0%
0.0
0.0

7.8%
12.8
7.5

3.3%
0.0
0.0

0.8%
0.0
0.0

13.5%
12.8
7.5

0.0%

0.0%

4.9%

2.0%

0.5%

7.1%

6.7%
18.2
3.6
5.0

2.4%
11.0
1.7
2.3

17.0%
28.6
7.2
10.4

7.1%
4.5
0.0
10.0

2.6%
1.6
0.0
6.0

18.3%
12.1
1.8
16.3

6.5%
1.4
4.3
1.1

1.8%
0.3
1.1
0.3

21.2%
6.2
16.0
4.8

13.0%
12.4
8.7
5.6

5.0%
4.6
3.1
2.0

29.7%
29.6
21.9
14.5

9.3%
4.3
6.6
5.8
0.0
1.8
3.7

5.8%
2.0
3.8
2.9
0.0
0.7
2.3

14.8%
9.1
11.2
11.2
4.0
5.0
5.9

10.7%
4.3
7.5
5.8
0.0
3.9
1.2

7.2%
2.0
4.2
3.3
0.0
1.8
0.5

15.6%
9.0
13.2
10.0
4.0
8.1
2.8

0.0%
3.6

0.0%
0.9

8.1%
13.1

0.0%
7.1

0.0%
2.6

8.1%
18.0

0.0%

0.0%

3.7%

6.7%

3.1%

13.7%

1.0%
0.0
4.9

0.2%
0.0
2.3

4.3%
7.4
10.2

4.9%
3.1
6.8

2.4%
0.7
3.5

9.7%
13.8
12.7

2.6%
0.0

0.6%
0.0

10.6%
9.9

0.9%
0.0

0.2%
0.0

3.9%
9.9

2.8%
2.6

1.4%
1.6

5.5%
4.3

8.3%
9.5

5.6%
7.2

12.3%
12.2

Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2012 | June 2013

61

Appendix table 5 (continued)
Percent of youth reporting staff sexual misconduct excluding touching, by use of force and facility, National Survey of Youth
in Custody, 2012

Facility name
Wisconsin
Copper Lake Schoolb
Lincoln Hills School
Mendota Juv. Trtmt. Ctr.
Wyoming
Wyoming Boys’ School
Wyoming Girls’ Schoolb

Percent of youth reporting any staff sexual misconduct excluding touchinga
Force reported
No report of force
95%-confidence interval
95%-confidence interval
Weighted
Lower
Upper
Weighted
Lower
Upper
percent
bound
bound
percent
bound
bound
0.0%
2.7
0.0

0.0%
1.2
0.0

5.5%
6.1
5.4

0.0%
5.5
4.8

0.0%
3.1
1.6

5.5%
9.5
13.1

0.0%
0.0

0.0%
0.0

5.1%
10.1

3.0%
0.0

0.8%
0.0

10.6%
10.1

Note: Excludes facilities in which there were no reports of sexual victimization of any type. Facilities housed males only unless otherwise noted. Facility estimates were listed if they met
all of the following criteria: (1) based on at least 15 youth who completed the sexual victimization survey, (2) the facility had a 30% response rate or greater, and (3) the estimates were
sufficiently precise to detect a high rate (25% or greater) and had a minimum coefficient of variation of 30%. (See Methodology for further discussion of reporting criteria.)
aWeighted percentage of youth 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.
bFacility housed females only.
cFacility housed both males and females. Both were sampled at this facility.
dFacility was locally or privately operated and held state-placed youth.
eNone of the facilities met the criteria for publishing the sexual victimization rate. (See table 5 and appendix tables 6 and 7 for state-level estimates.)
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Survey of Youth in Custody, 2012.

Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2012 | June 2013

62

Appendix table 6
Characteristics of juvenile facilities used to provide state-level estimates, National Survey of Youth in Custody, 2012
Stateb
Totale
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

Number of
facilitiesc
312
2
3
2
10
4
8
1
1
36
17
1
3
6
5
4
4
13
10
2
8
16
4
3
1
28
1
1
2
12
3
9
6
3
4
6
10
9
1
4
6
4
12
8
1
3
8
2
3
2

Number of
sampled youth
15,969
204
123
222
301
792
562
39
46
1,644
806
53
223
679
474
284
317
281
587
126
291
160
152
143
54
637
64
78
195
416
202
460
268
71
495
188
712
320
74
142
138
362
957
211
17
478
470
125
216
110

Number of
ineligible youthd
6,124
29
23
239
179
227
155
3
15
312
1,189
7
38
501
118
82
173
76
145
17
185
70
34
42
0
83
13
23
37
264
43
112
55
35
146
45
81
91
39
30
54
107
491
65
5
99
162
4
154
27

Number of respondentsa
All completed
Sexual victimization
NSYC-2 interviews
survey
9,565
8,579
146
132
112
101
165
149
255
230
190
167
473
424
24
21
27
24
636
573
552
497
42
37
206
184
505
451
414
370
239
214
282
252
246
222
250
226
101
90
58
51
95
87
66
60
66
61
47
42
576
517
25
23
27
24
84
75
195
174
103
95
57
51
117
105
60
54
370
329
53
46
628
561
156
139
43
39
122
108
53
45
152
134
701
633
113
100
16
15
189
174
180
160
121
109
165
148
62
56

Response
ratee
59.9%
71.6
91.1
74.3
84.7
24.0
84.2
61.5
58.7
38.7
68.5
79.2
92.4
74.4
87.3
84.2
89.0
87.5
42.6
80.2
19.9
59.4
43.4
46.2
87.0
90.4
39.1
34.6
43.1
46.9
51.0
12.4
43.7
84.5
74.7
28.2
88.2
48.8
58.1
85.9
38.4
42.0
73.2
53.6
94.1
39.5
38.3
96.8
76.4
56.4

aNumber of adjudicated youth who participated in the survey and whose data were used to provide state-level estimates.
bData for Connecticut and New Hampshire were not reported due to insufficient data to provide state rates.
cExcludes 14 facilities that could not be included in the state-level rate due to data disclosure restrictions. (See Methodology for description of state-level estimation procedures.)
dYouth were considered ineligible if they were mentally or physically incapacitated, admitted to the facility within 2 weeks prior to the data collection period, transferred or released after
sample selection but before the data collection period, or excluded based on sub-sampling within the facility. (See Methodology.)
eResponse rate accounts for different probabilities of selection among youth and the exclusion of interviews with extreme or inconsistent responses. (See Methodology.)
fTotal differs from U.S. total because state-level estimates exclude interviews in 14 facilities due to data disclosure restrictions.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Survey of Youth in Custody, 2012.
63

Appendix table 7
Percent of youth reporting sexual victimization, by type of incident and state, National Survey of Youth in Custody, 2012

Statea
All states - U.S. total
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

Percent of youth reporting any victimization by another youth
95%-confidence interval
Weighted
Lower
Upper
percentb
bound
bound
2.5%
2.1%
3.0%
4.3
2.7
6.8
1.7
0.9
3.2
6.1
3.7
9.9
4.8
3.6
6.2
7.0
3.2
14.9
4.1
2.9
5.7
0.0
0.0
8.4
0.0
0.0
8.5
1.0
0.5
1.8
1.2
0.7
2.0
5.4
2.5
11.2
1.6
1.0
2.6
2.6
1.9
3.7
1.6
1.1
2.4
2.2
1.5
3.2
3.4
2.3
5.1
0.5
0.2
1.2
0.9
0.2
3.6
2.6
1.2
5.4
0.0
0.0
8.4
0.0
0.0
2.2
4.0
1.9
8.4
1.0
0.2
3.9
4.8
2.5
9.0
1.8
1.4
2.4
8.7
2.9
23.1
4.2
0.9
17.7
6.3
2.7
14.1
0.0
0.0
1.8
0.0
0.0
2.7
0.0
0.0
9.0
0.0
0.0
2.4
5.5
3.1
9.6
3.6
2.5
4.9
9.0
2.3
29.0
4.1
3.4
4.9
3.9
1.5
10.1
0.0
0.0
4.9
4.3
3.0
6.1
5.4
1.5
18.3
0.0
0.0
2.4
2.0
1.4
2.8
6.8
3.6
12.4
0.0
0.0
3.7
2.8
1.0
7.6
2.9
1.2
6.6
1.8
1.1
2.9
0.0
0.0
1.3
0.0
0.0
3.4

Percent of youth reporting any staff sexual misconduct
95%-confidence interval
Weighted
Lower
Upper
percentb
bound
bound
7.7%
7.0%
8.4%
11.3
8.5
14.8
2.6
1.5
4.4
2.9
1.3
6.0
10.1
8.4
12.2
14.8
9.7
22.1
5.5
4.3
7.0
0.0
0.0
8.4
0.0
0.0
8.5
4.5
3.1
6.6
15.0
13.0
17.3
5.4
2.5
11.2
2.2
1.5
3.2
13.7
11.8
15.8
8.7
7.2
10.3
6.2
2.7
13.5
13.5
10.9
16.7
3.4
2.5
4.7
4.3
2.9
6.3
3.7
2.0
6.7
4.8
1.2
17.0
0.0
0.0
2.2
6.4
2.4
16.0
2.5
0.6
9.8
9.8
6.1
15.2
2.4
1.9
3.0
8.7
2.9
23.1
0.0
0.0
10.4
8.2
4.1
15.6
6.2
3.3
11.4
2.5
0.8
7.1
0.0
0.0
9.0
4.2
2.1
8.3
1.8
0.7
4.7
17.1
14.6
20.0
9.4
4.7
17.8
7.4
6.5
8.5
4.3
2.4
7.8
5.1
1.9
12.8
17.0
14.4
19.8
0.0
0.0
6.8
13.0
8.5
19.5
10.2
8.4
12.4
5.3
2.8
9.6
6.7
3.1
13.7
8.4
5.3
13.2
4.6
2.4
8.7
12.7
10.7
14.9
6.5
4.2
9.8
1.9
0.5
6.9

aData for Connecticut and New Hampshire were not reported due to insufficient data to provide state rates. (See Methodology for estimation of state-level rates.)
bWeighted percentage of youth reporting one or more incidents of sexual victimization involving another youth or facility staff in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility,
if less than 12 months.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Survey of Youth in Custody, 2012.

Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2012 | June 2013

64

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