Doj Report on Sexual Abuse in Prisons and Jails 2008-2009
Download original document:
Document text
Document text
This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.
U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008-09 National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 Federal and State Prisons Local Jails Allen J. Beck, PhD, and Paige M. Harrison, BJS Statisticians Marcus Berzofsky, Rachel Caspar, and Christopher Krebs, PhD, RTI International August 2010, NCJ 231169 BJS Federal and State Prisons Local Jails Bureau of Justice Statistics James P. Lynch Director The Bureau of Justice Statistics is the statistics agency of the U.S. Department of Justice. James P. Lynch is director. BJS Website: www.bjs.usdoj.gov This compendium was written by Allen J. Beck, PhD, and Paige M. Harrison, BJS Statisticians, and Marcus Berzofsky, Rachel Caspar, and Christopher Krebs, PhD, RTI International. askbjs@usdoj.gov Paige M. Harrison, under the supervision of Allen J. Beck, was the project manager for the NIS-2. RTI, International staff, under a cooperative agreement and in collaboration with BJS, designed the survey, developed the questionnaires, and monitored the data collection and processing, including Rachel Caspar, Principal Investigator/ Instrumentation Task Leader; Christopher Krebs, Co-principal Investigator; Ellen Stutts, Co-principal Investigator and Data Collection Task Leader; Susan Brumbaugh, Logistics Task Leader; Jamia Bachrach, Human Subjects Task Leader; David Forvendel, Research Computing Task Leader; Ralph Folsom, Senior Statistician; and Marcus Berzofsky, Statistics Task Leader. Jill Duncan edited the report, Barbara Quinn designed and produced the report, and Jayne Robinson prepared the report for final printing under the supervision of Doris J. James. August 2010, NCJ 231169 2 August 2010 Contents Highlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Inmate-on-Inmate Victmization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 National Inmate Survey-2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Staff Sexual Misconduct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Incidents of Sexual Victimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Appendix 1. Survey items related to inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Facility Level Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Demographic Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Sexual History and Orientation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Appendix 2. Survey items related to staff sexual misconduct, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Criminal Justice Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Appendix 3. Follow-up questions for inmates reporting no sexual activity, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Predicted Victimization Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 List of Tables Table 1. Inmates reporting sexual victimization, by type of facility and incident, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Table 11. Multivariate logistic models of sexual victimization, by criminal justice status and history, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 . . . . . . . . . 17 Table 2. Facilities with high rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization, by type of facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Table 12. Final multivariate logistic models of sexual victimization in prisons and jails, by type of incident, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 . . . . . . . 18 Table 3. Facilities with high rates of staff sexual misconduct, by type of facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Table 13. Estimated and predicted rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization in high-rate prisons and jails, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Table 4. Facilities with low rates of any type of sexual victimization, by type of facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Table 5. Rates of sexual victimization in special correctional facilities, by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Table 6. Prevalence of sexual victimization, by type of incident and demographic inmate characteristic, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 . . . 12 Table 7. Multivariate logistic regression models of sexual victimization, by inmate demographic characteristic, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 . . . 13 Table 8. Prevalence of sexual victimization, by type of incident and sexual history, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Table 9. Multivariate logistic models of sexual victimization, by sexual history, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Table 10. Prevalence of sexual victimization, by type of incident and criminal justice status, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Table 14. Estimated and predicted rates of staff sexual misconduct in highrate prisons and jails, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Table 15. Experiences of victims of inmate-on-inmate victims of sexual victimization, by type of facility and sex, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 . . 21 Table 16. Circumstances surrounding inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization, by type of facility and sex, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 . . . . . . . . . 22 Table 17. Circumstances surrounding incidents of staff sexual misconduct, by type of facility and sex of victim, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 . . . . . 23 Table 18. Sex of perpetrator of staff sexual misconduct, by facility type and sex of victim, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Table 19. Sexual touching between inmates and staff during and not during strip searches and pat downs, by sex of victim, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 List of Appendix Tables Appendix Table 1. Characteristics of state and federal prisons and prevalence of sexual victimization, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 . . . . 34 Appendix Table 2. Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimization, by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 . . . . . . 41 Appendix Table 7. Percent of jail inmates reporting sexual victimization, by level of coercion, and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Appendix Table 3. Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimization by level of coercion, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 . . . . . . 47 Appendix Table 8. Percent of jail inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual contacts, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 Appendix Table 4. Percent of prison inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual contacts, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Appendix Table 9. Characteristics of special correctional facilities and prevalence of sexual victimization, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Appendix Table 5. Characteristics of jails and prevalence of sexual victimization, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 . . . . . . . . . . 59 Appendix Table 10. Wald F statistics for inmate risk characteristics in the final multivariate logistic models of sexual victimization in prisons and jails, by type of incident, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 Appendix Table 6. Percent of jail inmates reporting victimization, by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 4 August 2010 Highlights Prevalence of sexual victimization • Sexual activity with facility staff was reported by 2.9% of male prisoners and 2.1% of male jail inmates, compared to 2.1% of female prisoners and 1.5% of female jail inmates. • Rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization in prisons and jails were significantly higher among inmates who were white or multi-racial compared to blacks, inmates with a college degree or more (compared to those who had not completed high school), a sexual orientation other than heterosexual compared to heterosexual, and who had experienced a sexual victimization before coming to the facility compared to those who had not. • After controlling for multiple inmate characteristics, rates of reported staff sexual misconduct were lower among white inmates (compared to black inmates), lower among inmates ages 25 or older (compared to inmates ages 20 to 24), higher among inmates with a college degree (compared to those who had not completed high school), and higher among inmates who had experienced sexual victimization before coming to the facility (compared to those who had not). An estimated 4.4% of prison inmates and 3.1% of jail inmates reported experiencing one or more incidents of sexual victimization by another inmate or facility staff in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if less than 12 months. Nationwide, these percentages suggest that approximately 88,500 adults held in prisons and jails at the time of the survey had been sexually victimized. About 2.1% of prison inmates and 1.5% of jail inmates reported an incident involving another inmate. An estimated 1.0% of prison inmates and 0.8% of jail inmates said they had nonconsensual sex with another inmate (the most serious type of acts), including unwilling manual stimulation and oral, anal, or vaginal penetration. About 2.8% of prison inmates and 2.0% of jail inmates reported having had sex or sexual contact with staff. At least half of the inmates who experienced staff sexual misconduct (1.8% in prison and 1.1% in jail) said that they willingly had sex or sexual contact with staff. Facility rankings Eight male prisons, 2 female prisons, and 6 jails were identified as “high rate” facilities based on the prevalence of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization; 4 male prisons, 2 female prisons, and 5 jails were identified as “high rate” based on the prevalence of staff sexual misconduct. Each of these facilities had a lower bound of the 95%-confidence interval that was at least 55% higher than the average rate among comparable facilities. Seven male prisons, 4 female prisons, and 9 jails were identified as “low rate” facilities based on a small percentages of inmates reporting any sexual victimization by another inmate or staff and a low upper bound for the 95%-confidence interval around the rate. Among the 167 prisons and 286 jails in the survey, 6 prisons and 28 jails had no reported incidents of sexual victimization. Except for a 6.0% rate of sexual victimization in the U.S. Disciplinary Barracks (Leavenworth, KS), rates in the 5 surveyed facilities operated by ICE, 3 operated by the U.S. Military, and 2 facilities in Indian country were lower than average rates in state and federal prisons (4.4%) and jails (3.1%). Variations in victimization rates Circumstances surrounding victimization Among inmates who reported inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization, 13% of male prison inmates and 19% of male jail inmates said they were victimized within the first 24 hours after admission, compared to 4% of female inmates in prison and jail. Inmate-on-inmate victimization in prisons and jails was most commonly reported to have occurred between 6 pm and midnight: more than 40% of victims reported this time period. Most victims of staff sexual misconduct were males; most perpetrators were females. Among male victims of staff sexual misconduct, 69% of those in prison and 64% of those in jails reported sexual activity with female staff. An additional 16% of prison inmates and 18% of jail inmates reported sexual activity with both female and male staff. Among inmates who reported staff sexual misconduct, nearly 16% of male victims in prison and 30% of male victims in jail said they were victimized by staff within the first 24 hours, compared to 5% of female victims in prison and 4% of female victims in jail. Rates of reported sexual victimization varied among inmates: • Female inmates in prison (4.7%) or jail (3.1%) were more than twice as likely as male inmates in prison (1.9%) or jail (1.3%) to report experiencing inmateon-inmate sexual victimization. Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09 5 Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008-09 National Inmate Survey-2 B etween October 2008 and December 2009, BJS completed the second National Inmate Survey (NIS-2) in 167 state and federal prisons, 286 jails, and 10 special confinement facilities operated by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the U.S. Military, and correctional authorities in Indian country. The survey, conducted by RTI International (Research Triangle Park, NC), was administered to 81,566 inmates ages 18 or older, including 32,029 inmates in state and federal prisons, 48,066 in jails, 957 in ICE facilities, 399 in military facilities, and 115 in Indian country jails. The NIS-2 is part of the National Prison Rape Statistics Program, which collects administrative records of reported sexual violence, and allegations of sexual victimization directly from victims, through surveys of adult inmates in prisons and jails and surveys of youth held in juvenile correctional facilities. Administrative records have been collected annually since 2004. Reports by victims of sexual victimization have been collected since 2007. The NIS-2 survey consisted of an audio computer-assisted self-interview The Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-79) (PREA) requires the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) to carry out a comprehensive statistical review and analysis of the incidents and effects of prison rape for each calendar year. This report fulfills the requirements under Sec. 4(c)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act to provide a list of prisons and jails according to the prevalence of sexual victimization. 6 (ACASI) in which inmates, using a touch-screen, interacted with a computer-assisted questionnaire and followed audio instructions delivered via headphones. Some inmates (726) completed a short paper form. Most of these inmates were housed in administrative or disciplinary segregation or were considered too violent to be interviewed. The NIS-2 collects only allegations of sexual victimization. Because participation in the survey is anonymous and reports are confidential, the survey does not permit any follow-up investigation or substantiation of reported incidents through review. Some allegations in the NIS-2 may be untrue. At the same time, some inmates may remain silent about sexual victimization experienced in the facility, despite efforts of survey staff to assure inmates that their responses would be kept confidential. Although the effects may be offsetting, the relative extent of under reporting and false reporting in the NIS-2 is unknown. Incidents of Sexual Victimization 4.4% of prison inmates and 3.1% of jail inmates reported one or more incidents of sexual victimization Among the 76,459 inmates participating in the NIS-2 sexual victimization survey, 2,861 reported experiencing one or more incidents of sexual victimization in the past 12 months, or since admission to the facility, if less than 12 months. Because the NIS-2 is a sample survey, weights were applied for sampled facilities and inmates within facilities to produce national-level and facility-level estimates. The estimated number of prison and jail inmates experiencing sexual victimization totaled 88,500 (or 4.4% of all prison inmates and 3.1% of jail inmates, nationwide) (table 1). Among all state and federal inmates, 2.1% (or an estimated 30,100 prisoners) reported an incident involving another inmate, and 2.8% (41,200) reported an incident involving facility staff. Some prisoners (0.5%) reported sexual victimization by both another inmate and facility staff. About 1.5% of jail inmates (11,600) reported an incident with another inmate, and 2.0% (15,800) reported an incident with staff. Approximately 0.4% of jail inmates (3,400) reported being sexually victimized by both other inmates and staff. The NIS-2 screened for specific sexual activities in which inmates may have been involved during the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if less than 12 months. Inmates were then asked if they were forced or pressured to engage in these activities by another inmate or staff. (See appendices 1 through 3 for specific survey questions.) Reports of inmateon-inmate sexual victimization were classified as either nonconsensual sexual acts or abusive sexual contacts. Approximately 1.0% of prisoners and 0.8% of jail inmates said they were forced or pressured to have nonconsensual sex with another inmate, including manual stimulation and oral, anal, or vaginal penetration. An additional 1.0% of prison inmates and 0.7% of jail inmates said they had experienced one or more abusive sexual contacts only, or unwanted touching of specific body parts in a sexual way by another inmate. (See page 7 for definition of terms.) An estimated 1.7% of prison inmates and 1.5% of jail inmates August 2010 reported that they had sex or sexual contact unwillingly with staff as a result of physical force, pressure, or offers of special favors or privileges. An estimated 1.8% of all prison inmates and 1.1% of jail inmates reported they willingly had sex or sexual contact with staff. Regardless of whether an inmate reported being willing or unwilling, any sexual contact between inmates and staff is illegal; however, the difference may be informative when addressing issues of staff training, prevention, and investigation. Facility Level Rates NIS-2 provides a basis for identifying high rate and low rate facilities As required under the Prison Rape Elimination Act, the NIS-2 provides facility-level estimates of inmateon-inmate sexual victimization and staff sexual misconduct. Since these estimates are based on a sample of inmates rather than a complete enumeration, they are subject to sampling error. (See Methodology for description of sampling procedures.) The precision of each of the facility-level estimates can be calculated based on the estimated standard error. Typically, a 95%-confidence interval around each survey estimate is calculated by multiplying the standard error by 1.96 and then adding and subtracting the result from the sample estimate to create an upper and lower bound. This interval expresses the range of values that could result among 95% of the different samples that could be drawn. For small samples and estimates close to 0%, as is the case with facilitylevel estimates of sexual victimization by type of incident, the use of the standard error to construct the 95%-conBrown, L.D., Cai, T., and DasGupta, A. (2001). Interval Estimation for a Binomial Proportion. Statistical Science, 16(2), pp. 101-138. Wilson, E.B. (1927). Probable Inference, the Law of Succession, and Statistical Inference. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 22, pp. 209-212. 1 which the lower bound is constrained to be no less than 0%. It also provides confidence intervals for facilities in which the survey estimates are 0% (but other similarly conducted samples could yield non-zero estimates). fidence interval may not be reliable. An alternative method developed by Wilson has been shown to perform better than the traditional method.1 This method provides asymmetrical confidence intervals for facilities in Table 1 Inmates reporting sexual victimization, by type of facility and incident, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 Type of incident Total Inmate-on-inmate Number of victimsa Percent of inmates Prisons Prisons Jails Prisons Jails 4.4% 3.1% 0.3% 0.1% Jails 64,500 24,000 Standard errorsb 30,100 11,600 2.1% 1.5% 0.2% 0.1% Nonconsensual sexual acts 15,100 6,000 1.0 0.8 0.1 0.1 Abusive sexual contacts only 15,000 5,600 1.0 0.7 0.1 0.1 41,200 15,800 2.8% 2.0% 0.2% 0.1% 25,400 11,400 1.7% 1.5% 0.2% 0.1% 19,000 8,200 1.3 1.1 0.1 0.1 5,800 3,100 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.0 25,500 8,500 1.8% 1.1% 0.1% 0.1% Staff sexual misconduct Unwilling activity Excluding touching Touching only Willing activity Excluding touching Touching only 21,700 7,200 1.5 0.9 0.1 0.1 3,800 1,300 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 Note: Detail may not sum to total because inmates may report more than one type of victimization. They may also report victimization by both other inmates and staff. aEstimates of the number of victims nationwide are based on weighted data and rounded to the nearest 100. bStandard errors may be used to construct confidence intervals around each estimate. See Methodology for calculations. Definition of terms Sexual victimization—all types of sexual activity, e.g., oral, anal, or vaginal penetration; hand jobs; touching of the inmate’s buttocks, thighs, penis, breasts, or vagina in a sexual way; abusive sexual contacts; and both willing and unwilling sexual activity with staff. Nonconsensual sexual acts—unwanted contacts with another inmate or any contacts with staff that involved oral, anal, vaginal penetration, hand jobs, and other sexual acts. Abusive sexual contacts only—unwanted contacts with another inmate or any contacts with staff that involved touching of the inmate’s buttocks, thigh, penis, breasts, or vagina in a sexual way. Unwilling activity—incidents of unwanted sexual contacts with another inmate or staff. Willing activity—incidents of willing sexual contacts with staff. These contacts are characterized by the reporting inmates as willing; however, all sexual contacts between inmates and staff are legally nonconsensual. Staff sexual misconduct—includes all incidents of willing and unwilling sexual contact with facility staff and all incidents of sexual activity that involved oral, anal, vaginal penetration, hand jobs, blow jobs, and other sexual acts with facility staff. Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09 7 Although the NIS-2 provides facility-level estimates and measures of precision, it cannot provide an exact ranking for all facilities as required under PREA. Rates of inmate-oninmate sexual victimization and staff sexual misconduct differ across facilities, but the observed differences are not always statistically significant. To address PREA requirements, facilities have been categorized as having high rates or low rates based on criteria applied to the lower and upper bounds of the 95%-confidence interval for each facility. The criterion that the lower bound of the confidence interval be at least 55% higher than the average rate for comparable facilities was used to identify high rate male prisons, female prisons, and jails. The criterion that the upper bound of the confidence interval be lower than 65% of the average rate for comparable facilities was used to identify low rate facilities. To better identify variations among correctional facilities in rates of sexual victimization, prisons and jails are compared separately by type of sexual victimization. Though informative, an analysis of a single, overall prevalence rate of sexual victimization for each sampled facility would confound differing risk factors, circumstances, and underlying causes of victimization. For the same reasons, prisons are compared separately by the sex of inmates housed. The NIS-2 sample was designed to ensure a sufficient number of femaleonly prison facilities (35 facilities participated) and a sufficient number of female respondents (6,279 completed the survey) to allow for valid comparisons among female prisons. Only 2 of the 286 participating jails in NIS-2 housed only females; as a result, rates of sexual victimization in jails could not be compared separately by sex of inmate housed. Eight male prisons, 2 female prisons, and 6 jails were identified as having high rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization Among the 167 prisons and 286 jails surveyed in NIS-2, 8 male prisons, 2 female prisons, and 6 jails were designated as high rate facilities based on reports of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization (table 2). Each of these facilities had a rate of inmateon-inmate sexual victimization that was at least twice the national rate of 1.9% for male prisons, 4.8% for female prisons, and 1.5% for jails. Each had a 95%-confidence interval with a lower bound that was at least 55% higher than the average rate among comparable facilities. Selection of slightly lower criteria would have had only a minor impact on the list of facilities with high rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization. Lowering the criteria of the lower bound to at least 50% higher than the average comparable rate would not have increased the number of high rate facilities (16); lowering the criteria to 35% would have increased the number to 22 (including 10 male prisons, 2 female prisons, and 10 jails). Table 2 Facilities with high rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization, by type of facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 Any inmate-on-inmate incidenta 95%-confidence interval Facility name All prisons Male prisons Number of Response respondentsb rate Percentc 29,954 Upper bound 2.5% 71% 2.1% 1.7% 70% 1.9% 1.5% Hughes Unit (TX) 159 57 8.6 5.2 14.0 Allred Unit (TX) 161 55 7.6 4.4 12.9 Pontiac Corr. Ctr. (IL) 23,675 Lower bound 2.3% 96 32 6.9 3.0 15.0 Plainfield Corr. Fac. (IN) 181 69 6.1 3.3 11.0 Michael Unit (TX) 158 60 6.1 3.3 11.0 Maine State Prison - Warren (ME) 143 59 5.9 3.1 11.0 California Med. Fac. (CA) 258 60 5.8 3.7 9.1 181 62 5.5 3.0 9.9 78% 4.8% 4.0% Pleasant Valley State Prison (CA) Female prisons Taycheedah Corr. Inst. (WI)d Fluvanna Corr. Ctr. (VA)d All jails 6,279 171 75 11.9 199 79 11.4 45,126 5.9% 8.2 16.9 7.7 16.5 68% 1.5% 1.4% 1.7% Orleans Parish - South White Street Jail (LA)d 138 83 7.5 5.5 10.2 Madison Co. Det. Fac. (AL) 293 71 5.5 3.7 7.9 Miami-Dade Co. - Pre-trial Det. Ctr. (FL) 158 50 5.1 2.9 9.1 Houston Co. Jail (AL) 216 89 4.0 2.3 6.7 Jefferson Co. Jail (MO) 127 81 4.0 2.5 6.2 Madison Co. Det. Ctr. (IN) 158 78 3.9 2.5 6.1 Note: High rate facilities are those in which the lower bound of the 95%-confidence interval is larger than 1.55 times the average among prisons, by sex of inmates housed, and 1.55 times the average among all jail facilities. aPercent of inmates reporting one or more incidents of sexual victimization involving another inmate in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if less than 12 months. bNumber of inmates who responded to the sexual victimization survey. cWeights were applied so that inmates who responded accurately reflected the entire population of each facility on selected characteristics, including age, sex, race, time since admission, and sentence length. dFacility houses only female inmates. 8 August 2010 Among male prisons, Hughes Unit (Texas) recorded an inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization rate of 8.6%, and Allred Unit (Texas) recorded a rate of 7.6%. Among female prisons, Taycheedah Correctional Institution (Wisconsin) had a rate of 11.9%, and Fluvanna Correctional Center (Virginia) had a rate of 11.4%. Orleans Parish - South White Street Jail (Louisiana), a female-only facility, recorded an inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization rate of 7.5%, which was 5 times the average rate among jails nationwide. Madison County Detention Facility (Alabama) reported a rate of 5.5%. Four male prisons, 2 female prisons, and 5 jails were identified as having high rates of staff sexual misconduct Eleven facilities were identified as high rate facilities based on reports of staff sexual misconduct—4 male prisons, 2 female prisons, and 5 jails (table 3). Each had a confidence interval with a lower bound that was at least 55% higher than the national rate of male prisons (2.9%), female prisons (2.2%), and jails (2.0%). Selection of slightly lower criteria would have had only a minor impact on the list of facilities with high rates of staff sexual misconduct. Lowering the criteria of the lower bound to at least 50% higher than the average comparable rate would have increased the number of high rate facilities from 11 to 14 (including 5 male prisons, 2 female prisons, and 7 jails); lowering the criteria to 35% would have increased the number to 20 (including 6 male prisons, 2 female prisons, and 12 jails). In 3 state prisons, at least 8% of surveyed inmates reported incidents of staff sexual misconduct, including 8.2% of males in Crossroads Correctional Facility (Missouri), 8.1% of males in Attica Correctional Facility (New York), and 11.5% of females in Bayview Correctional Facility (New York). Two jails, Caroline County Jail (Maryland) with 10.0% and Eastern Shore Regional Jail (Virginia) with 9.9%, had rates of reported staff sexual misconduct that exceeded 8%. The reported use or threat of physical force to engage in sexual activity with staff was generally low among all prison and jail inmates (1.0%); however, at least 5% of the inmates in 2 state prisons and 2 jails said that they had been physically forced or threatened with force. Caroline County Jail (Maryland), with 10%, Table 3 Facilities with high rates of staff sexual misconduct, by type of facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 Any staff sexual misconducta Level of coercionb 95%-confidence interval Facility name All prisons Male prisons Number of respondentsc Response rate Percentd Lower bound Upper bound Physically forcede Pressuredf Without force or pressureg 29,954 71% 2.8% 2.5% 3.2% 1.0% 1.6% 1.8% 23,675 70% 2.9% 2.5% 3.3% 1.0% 1.6% 1.8% Crossroads Corr. Fac. (MO) 207 77 8.2 5.3 12.6 3.8 5.2 4.1 Attica Corr. Fac. (NY) 170 61 8.1 4.8 13.3 6.4 6.0 2.8 Elmira Corr. Fac. (NY) 167 63 7.7 4.5 12.7 2.5 7.1 1.3 Ferguson Unit (TX) 236 82 7.6 4.7 11.9 1.1 3.1 5.8 2.2% 1.6% 1.8% 0.6% Female prisons Bayview Corr. Fac. (NY) Fluvanna Corr. Ctr. (VA) All jails 6,279 96 199 45,126 78% 2.9% 0.8% 73 11.5 8.3 15.6 6.5 10.8 0.6 79 6.0 3.7 9.5 1.5 4.3 2.4 68% 2.0% 1.9% 2.2% 1.0% 1.3% 1.1% Caroline Co. Jail (MD) 32 46 10.0 3.2 27.4 10.0 7.9 7.9 Eastern Shore Regional Jail (VA) 27 49 9.9 4.3 21.5 2.6 2.6 9.9 Clallam Co. Corr. Fac. (WA) 75 71 6.1 3.4 10.6 5.2 5.0 2.0 Orleans Co. Jail (NY) 55 82 5.6 3.5 8.9 0.0 0.0 5.6 268 86 5.5 3.6 8.3 2.0 1.7 3.8 Cook Co. Jail - Division 6 (IL) Note: High rate facilities are those in which the lower bound of the 95%-confidence interval is larger than 1.55 times the average among prisons, by sex of inmates housed, and 1.55 times the average among all jail facilities. aPercent of inmates reporting one or more incidents of sexual victimization involving facility staff in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if less than 12 months. bDetail may not sum total because an inmate may report more than one incident or level of coercion. cNumber of inmates who responded to the sexual victimization survey. dWeights were applied so that inmates who responded accurately reflected the entire population of each facility on selected characteristics, including age, sex, race, time since admission, and sentence length. ePhysical force or threat of physical force. fIncludes incidents in which the perpetrator, without using force, pressured the inmate or made the inmate feel they had to participate. gIncludes incidents in which staff offered favors or privileges in exchange for sex or sexual contact and incidents in which the inmate reported they willingly had sex or sexual contact with staff. Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09 9 had the highest percentage of inmates reporting physical force or threat force by staff, followed by Bayview Correctional Facility (New York) and Attica Correctional Facility (New York), with 6.5% and 6.4%, respectively. An estimated 1.6% of prison inmates and 1.3% of jail inmates also reported being coerced by facility staff without any use or threat of force, including being pressured or made to feel they had to have sex or sexual contact. In 6 of the 11 facilities with high rates of staff sexual misconduct, at least 5% of the inmates reported such pressure by staff. Among state prisoners, the highest rates were reported by female inmates (10.8%) in the Bayview Correctional Facility (New York) and by male inmates (7.1%) in the Elmira Correctional Facility (New York). Among jail inmates, the highest rates were reported by inmates in the Caroline County Jail (7.9%). Seven male prisons, 4 female prisons, and 9 jails were identified as “low rate” for sexual victimization overall Six prisons and 28 jails had no reported incidents of sexual victimization of any kind. (See appendix tables 1 and 5.) However, estimates of the number of inmates who experienced a sexual victimization in each of these facilities are also subject to sampling error and could vary if a different group of inmates had been interviewed. Although the lower bound of the 95%-confidence interval in each of these facilities is 0%, the upper bound varies depending on the number of completed interviews in each facility. Combining reports of inmate-oninmate sexual victimization and staff sexual misconduct, 7 male prisons and 4 female prisons were designated as low rate facilities. These designations were based on their low rate of sexual victimization overall and the upper bound of their 95%-confidence interval that was less than 65% of the average rate among male and female prisons (table 4). Four of these 10 facilities had no reported incidents of sexual victimization; 7 had at least one inmate who reported a sexual victimization. C. Moore Transfer Facility (Texas), with a reported sexual victimization rate of 0.4%, had a confidence interval with the lowest upper bound (1.9%) among male prisons. Halbert Substance Abuse Felony Punishment Facility (Texas), with reported sexual rate of 0.9%, had a confidence interval with the lowest upper bound (2.5%) among female prisons. Nine jails were designated as low rate facilities based on the upper bound of the 95%-confidence interval that was less than 65% of the average for jails nation- Table 4 Facilities with low rates of any type of sexual victimization, by type of facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 Inmates reporting any sexual victimizationa 95%-confidence interval Facility name All prisons Male prisons Number of respondentsb Response rate Percentc Lower bound Upper bound 29,954 71% 4.4% 3.9% 5.0% 23,675 70% 4.3% 3.8% 4.9% C. Moore Transfer Fac. (TX) 184 72 0.4 0.1 1.9 Elkton Fed. Corr. Inst. (BOP) 176 64 0.0 0.0 2.1 Morgantown Fed. Corr. Inst. (BOP) 159 65 0.0 0.0 2.4 Centinela State Prison (CA) 143 52 0.0 0.0 2.6 Maximum Security Fac. (RI) 115 55 0.6 0.1 2.7 Northern Nevada Corr. Ctr. (NV) 206 82 0.8 0.2 2.9 242 84 1.1 0.4 3.1 78% 6.0% 5.0% 7.3% Corr. Reception Ctr. (OH) Female prisons 6,279 Halbert Substance Abuse Felony Punishment Fac. (TX) 229 97 0.9 0.3 2.5 Bridgeport Pre-Parole Fac. (TX)d 128 88 0.0 0.0 2.9 56 81 1.3 0.5 3.4 190 77 1.4 0.5 3.9 68% 3.1% 2.9% 3.3% Swannanoa Corr. Ctr. for Women (NC) Lincoln Corr. Ctr. (IL) All jails 45,126 Hinds Co. Penal Farm (MS) 164 80 0.5 0.2 1.6 Lake Co. - Adult Max. Security Det. Ctr. (OH) 120 70 0.5 0.1 1.6 Tulsa Co. - David L. Moss Criminal Justice Ctr. (OK) 216 59 0.4 0.1 1.8 Lake Co. - Hill Road Corr. Fac. (CA) 111 57 0.5 0.2 1.9 Nassau Co. Det. Fac. (FL) 168 87 0.7 0.2 1.9 Bristol Co. - New Bedford Fac. (MA) 124 75 0.7 0.2 1.9 Lenawee Co. Jail (MI) 141 76 0.9 0.4 2.0 Carson City Jail (NV) 136 77 0.8 0.3 2.0 Coweta Co. Prison (GA) 184 91 0.0 0.0 2.0 Note: Low rate facilities are those in which the upper bound of the 95%-confidence interval is lower than 0.65 times the average among prisons, by sex of inmates housed, and 0.65 times the average among all jail facilities. aPercent of inmates reporting one or more incidents of sexual victimization involving another inmate or facility staff in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if less than 12 months. bNumber of inmates who responded to the sexual victimization survey. cWeights were applied so that inmates who responded accurately reflected the entire population of each facility on selected characteristics, including age, sex, race, time since admission, and sentence length. dPrivately operated facility. August 2010 wide. Hinds County Penal Farm (Mississippi) and Lake County - Adult Maximum Security Detention Center (Ohio), both with a 0.5% overall sexual victimization rate, had confidence intervals with the lowest upper bounds (1.6%). Low rates of sexual victimization were reported in military, Indian country, and ICE facilities The NIS-2 also surveyed 10 special confinement facilities including 5 ICE facilities, 3 military facilities, and 2 Indian country jails. (See Methodology for sample description.) Except for a 6.0% overall rate of sexual victimization in the U.S. Disciplinary Barracks (Leavenworth, KS), rates in these facilities were lower than the average rates in state and federal prisons (4.4%) and jails (3.1%). (Not shown. See appendix table 9.) Reports of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization were highest in the El Paso Processing Center (Texas), operated by ICE; however, its rate of 2.1% equaled the average rate among prisoners nationwide (table 5). The U.S. Disciplinary Barracks, which is operated by the U.S. Army and holds the most serious offenders under military jurisdiction, had a rate of staff sexual misconduct (5.6%) that was double the average of prisons nationwide (2.8%). Gila River Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (Arizona), the largest jail in Indian country, had no reports of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization and one report of staff sexual misconduct (1%). Table 5 Rates of sexual victimization in special correctional facilities, by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 Any inmate-on-inmate incident Facility name Number of completed interviews Any staff sexual misconduct 95%-confidence interval Percenta Lower bound Upper bound 95%-confidence interval Percenta Lower bound Upper bound Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facilities Eloy Det. Ctr. (AZ)b,c 241 0.0% 0.0% 1.6% 0.7% 0.2% 2.4% Stewart Det. Ctr. (GA)c 138 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.9 0.2 4.5 Elizabeth Contract Det. Fac. (NJ)b,c 100 0.8 0.3 2.7 0.0 0.0 3.7 El Paso Processing Ctr. (TX)b 250 2.1 1.1 4.0 0.2 0.1 1.0 South Texas Det. Complex (TX)b 164 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 2.3 Military facilities Marine Corps Base Brig, Camp Pendleton (CA) 105 0.5% 0.2% 1.6% 0.5% 0.2% 1.6% Naval Consolidated Brig, Miramar (CA)b 125 1.4 0.5 3.5 1.5 0.6 3.9 U.S. Disciplinary Barracks, Leavenworth (KS) 149 0.4 0.1 1.7 5.6 3.3 9.5 Gila River DOC and Rehab. (AZ)b 97 0.0% 0.0% 3.8% 1.0% 0.4% 2.6% Navajo Nation - Window Rock (AZ) 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tribal jails 27.8 27.8 aWeighted percent of inmates reporting one or more incidents of sexual victimization involving another inmate or facility staff in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if less than 12 months. bFacility houses both males and females; both were sampled at this facility. cPrivately operated facility. Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09 11 Demographic Characteristics Rates of reported sexual victimization varied across demographic categories of prison and jail inmates Rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization among prison inmates were higher among females (4.7%) than males (1.9%), higher among whites (3.0%) or multi-racial (4.4%) than among blacks (1.3%), higher among inmates with a college degree (3.4%) than among inmates who had not completed high school (2.0%), and lower among currently married inmates (1.3%) than among inmates who never married or who were widowed, divorced, or separated (2.2%) (table 6). Similar patterns of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization were reported by jail inmates. Females (3.1%), whites (1.5%), and inmates with a college degree reported higher rates of victimization (2.9%) than males (1.3%), blacks (1.2%), and inmates who had not completed high school (1.3%). Rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization were unrelated to age among state and federal prisoners, but were lower among jail inmates in older age categories (ages 35 to 44, 45 to 54, and 55 or older) than among inmates ages 20 to 24. Patterns of staff sexual misconduct were different—with reports of staff sexual misconduct being higher among males in prisons (2.9%) and jails (2.1%) than among females in prisons (2.1%) and jails (1.5%), and higher among black inmates in prisons (3.2%) and jails (2.4%) than among white inmates in prisons (2.3%) and jails (1.5%). In both prisons and jails, rates of reported staff sexual misconduct were lower among inmates in the oldest age categories (ages 45 to 54 and ages 55 or older) compared to inmates ages 20 to 24. 12 Table 6 Prevalence of sexual victimization, by type of incident and inmate demographic characteristic, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 Prison inmates reporting sexual victimizationa Demographic characteristic Number of inmatesb Inmate-on- Staff sexual inmate misconduct Jail inmates reporting sexual victimizationa Number of Inmate-oninmatesb inmate Staff sexual misconduct Sex Male* Female 1,357,100 1.9% 2.9% 678,100 1.3% 2.1% 100,600 4.7** 2.1** 99,100 3.1** 1.5** Race/Hispanic origin Whitec 456,800 3.0%** 2.3%** 271,900 1.5%** 1.5%** Blackc* 565,400 1.3 3.2 279,000 1.2 2.4 Hispanic 304,400 1.4 2.4** 158,500 1.5 1.9 Otherc,d 43,600 2.7 2.9 17,300 1.9 2.4 Two or more racesd 72,100 4.4** 4.3 43,000 3.1** 3.5** 18-19 27,800 1.6% 3.9% 51,400 2.1% 2.7% 20-24* 182,800 2.1 3.5 162,500 1.9 2.9 25-34 482,500 2.2 3.4 255,400 1.5 2.3** 35-44 406,400 2.3 2.7 173,200 1.2** 1.4** 45-54 259,000 1.8 2.1** 105,800 1.2** 1.1** 98,400 1.5 0.9** 28,700 0.9** 0.7** Less than high school* 867,200 2.0% 2.9% 422,500 1.3% 1.9% High school graduate 275,600 1.9 2.2** 179,600 1.5 2.0 Some collegee 220,800 2.2 2.7 126,600 1.6 2.1 College degree or more 88,800 3.4** 3.8 45,500 2.9** 3.4** Married* 249,900 1.3% 2.0% 138,000 1.2% 2.2% Widowed, divorced, or separated 398,700 2.2** 2.1 184,000 1.6 1.6** Never married 781,300 2.2** 3.3** 445,800 1.6 2.1 1st quartile* 350,200 2.4% 3.0% 265,500 1.8% 1.9% 2nd quartile 360,400 2.1 2.6 191,600 1.3** 1.9 3rd quartile 324,500 1.9 2.6 140,000 1.1** 2.0 4th quartile 390,900 1.7** 2.6 163,600 1.5 2.2 Age 55 or older Education Marital status Weightf *Comparison group. **Difference with comparison group is significant at the 95%-confidence level. aPercent of inmates reporting one or more incidents of sexual victimization involving another inmate or facility staff in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if less than 12 months. bEstimated number of inmates at midyear 2008 in prisons and jails represented by NIS-2, excluding inmates under age 18. Estimates have been rounded to the nearest 100. cExcludes persons of Hispanic or Latino origin. dIncludes American Indians, Alaska Natives, Asians, Native Hawaiians, and other Pacific Islanders. eIncludes persons with an associate degree. fWeight quartiles are defined by sex. Men: 1st quartile—60 to 168 lbs., 2nd quartile—169 to 186 lbs., 3rd quartile—187 to 209 lbs., 4th quartile—210 to 700 lbs. Women: 1st quartile—65 to 144 lbs., 2nd quartile—145 to 166 lbs., 3rd quartile—167 to 194 lbs., 4th quartile—195 to 450 lbs. August 2010 These variations in rates of sexual victimization among demographic groups are statistically independent and largely unexplained by covariation with other demographic characteristics. Multivariate logistic regression was used to determine which demographic characteristics are statistically significant for predicting a sexual victimization, while simultaneously controlling for the effects of other inmate demographic characteristics. (See Methodology for discussion of logistic regression.) Results are displayed in terms of their conditional predicted probability, which represents the probability that an inmate with a particular characteristic has experienced a given sexual victimization outcome conditional on the inmate having the mean value for all other predictors in the model (table 7). For example, based on models with demographic characteristics only, a female prison inmate has a 3.8% chance of being sexually victimized by another inmate, while a male inmate has a 1.6% chance (given that the inmates are at the mean of the joint distribution of race or Hispanic origin, education level, and marital status).2 2 These estimates represent the expected risk of victimization for an inmate, conditional on the inmate belonging to a particular group (defined by each characteristic in the final model) and having the mean value on all of the other characteristics in the model. For characteristics that are categorical (which is the case for every variable in the NIS-2 logistic regression models), the mean value is a weighted value of the joint distribution of all other characteristics in the respective model. See Research Triangle Institute (2008). SUDAAN Language Manual Release 10.0. Research Triangle Park, NC, Section 4.8.3, pp. 209-211 Table 7 Multivariate logistic regression models of sexual victimization, by inmate demographic characteristic, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 Predicted percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimizationa Demographic characteristic Inmate-oninmate Staff sexual misconduct Predicted percent of jail inmates reporting sexual victimizationa Inmate-oninmate Staff sexual misconduct Sex Male* 1.6% 2.5% 1.2% 1.8% Female 3.8** 1.8** 2.8** 1.2** Whiteb 2.8%** 2.1% 1.3% 1.4%** Blackb* 1.2 2.7 1.1 2.1 Hispanic 1.3 2.1 1.4 1.7** Otherb,c 2.4** 2.6 1.5 2.2 Two or more racesb 4.0** 4.0** 2.7** 3.1** 18-19 -- 3.4% 2.0% 2.7% 20-24* -- 3.0 1.8 2.9 25-34 -- 3.0 1.3** 2.1 35-44 -- 2.5 1.0** 1.3** 45-54 -- 1.9** 1.0** 1.0** 55 or older -- 0.8** 0.7** 0.5** Less than high school* 1.7% 2.5% 1.1% 1.6% High school graduate 1.6 1.7** 1.4 1.7 Some colleged 1.8 2.5 1.4 2.0** College degree or more 2.8** 4.5** 2.8** 4.0** Married* 1.1% 1.8% -- -- Widowed, divorced, or separated 1.6 2.2 -- -- Never married 2.1** 2.8** -- -- 1st quartile* -- -- 1.5% -- 2nd quartile -- -- 1.1** -- 3rd quartile -- -- 1.0** -- 4th quartile -- -- 1.4 -- Race/Hispanic origin Age Education Marital status Weighte --Characteristic deleted from model when Wald statistic was not significant at the 95%-confidence level. *Comparison group. **Difference with comparison group is significant at the 95%-confidence level. (See Methodology for tests of significance.) aConditional predicted percent of inmates reporting one or more incidents of sexual victimization involving another inmate or facility staff in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if less than 12 months. bExcludes persons of Hispanic or Latino origin. cIncludes American Indians, Alaska Natives, Asians, Native Hawaiians, and other Pacific Islanders. dIncludes persons with an associate degree. eWeight quartiles are defined by sex. Men: 1st quartile—60 to 168 lbs., 2nd quartile—169 to 186 lbs., 3rd quartile—187 to 209 lbs., 4th quartile—210 to 700 lbs. Women: 1st quartile—65 to 144 lbs., 2nd quartile—145 to 166 lbs., 3rd quartile—167 to 194 lbs., 4th quartile—195 to 450 lbs. Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09 13 Based on four separate models, each representing the type of sexual victimization in prison and jail, variations by sex, race, Hispanic origin, and education remain statistically significant. Except for reports of inmate-oninmate sexual victimization in prison, older inmates (ages 45 and older in prison and ages 35 and older in jails) still have lower rates of sexual victimization, after controlling for the effects of the other demographic characteristics. Among prison inmates, never married inmates remain somewhat more likely than married inmates to report sexual victimization; however, among jail inmates, there are no differences by marital status. Sexual History and Orientation Large differences in sexual victimization were found among inmates based on their sexual orientation and past sexual experiences Inmates with a sexual orientation other than heterosexual reported significantly higher rates of inmate-oninmate sexual victimization and staff sexual misconduct: Among heterosexual state and federal prisoners, an estimated 1.3% reported being sexually victimized by another inmate, and 2.5% reported being victimized by staff (table 8). In contrast, among prison inmates with a sexual orientation other than heterosexual (including bisexual, homosexual, gay or lesbian, or other), 11.2% reported being sexually victimized by another inmate, and 6.6% reported being sexually victimized by staff. Similar differences were reported among jail inmates, with heterosexual inmates reporting lower rates of inmate-on-inmate victimization (1.1%) and staff sexual misconduct (1.9%) than nonheterosexual inmates (7.2% and 3.5%, respectively). Inmates who had experienced sexual victimization before coming to the facility were also more likely than inmates with no sexual Table 8 Prevalence of sexual victimization, by type of incident, inmate sexual history, and orientation, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 Sexual orientation and history Prison inmates reporting sexual victimizationa Number of Inmate-onStaff sexual inmatesb inmate misconduct Jail inmates reporting sexual victimizationa Number of Inmate-onStaff sexual inmatesb inmate misconduct Sexual orientation Heterosexual* 1,316,000 1.3% 2.5% 706,000 1.1% 1.9% 114,300 11.2** 6.6** 52,900 7.2** 3.5** 0-1* 229,800 1.4% 2.4% 121,600 1.2% 1.3% 2-4 181,500 2.3** 2.1 108,800 1.6 1.6 5-10 248,500 2.5** 2.0 141,700 1.5 1.5 11-20 227,600 1.8 2.5 125,200 1.1 1.6 21 or more 509,200 2.2** 3.6** 247,000 1.8** 3.1** Yes 177,000 11.0%** No* 1,280,400 Bi-sexual, homosexual, or other Number of sexual partners Prior sexual victimization 0.8 8.7%** 100,100 7.4%** 6.1%** 2.0 676,900 0.6 1.4 *Comparison group. **Difference with comparison group is significant at the 95%-confidence level. aPercent of inmates reporting one or more incidents of sexual victimization involving another inmate or facility staff in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if less than 12 months. bEstimated number of inmates at midyear 2008 in prisons and jails represented by NIS-2, excluding inmates under age 18. Estimates have been rounded to the nearest 100. 14 August 2010 victimization history to report incidents of sexual victimization involving other inmates and staff. Among inmates who had experienced sexual victimization before coming to the facility, 11.0% of prisoners and 7.4% of jail inmates reported having been sexually assaulted by another inmate at the current facility. An estimated 8.7% of prisoners and 6.1% of jail inmates who had experienced sexual victimization before coming to the facility reported sexual activity with staff. Prison and jail inmates with 21 or more sexual partners prior to coming to the current facility reported higher rates of staff sexual misconduct than inmates with 1 or no prior sexual partners. Variations in rates of sexual victimization among groups of inmates based on their sexual orientation and past sexual experiences overlapped somewhat. After simultaneously controlling for the effects of these characteristics, the regression models reveal that variations in inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization remain associated with sexual orientation and prior sexual victimization, but are not associated with the number of past sexual partners (table 9). Except for reports of staff sexual misconduct in jails, an inmate’s sexual orientation remained an impor- tant predictor of victimization. In all models, inmates who had experienced sexual victimization before coming to the facility were more likely than inmates with no sexual victimization history to report incidents of sexual victimization. Table 9 Multivariate logistic models of sexual victimization, by inmate sexual history and orientation, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 Predicted percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimizationa Sexual orientation and history Inmate-on-inmate Staff sexual misconduct Predicted percent of jail inmates reporting sexual victimizationa Inmate-on-inmate Staff sexual misconduct Sexual orientationb Heterosexual* 0.9% 2.2% 0.8% -- Bi-sexual, homosexual, or other 4.0** 3.6** 2.4** -- 0-1* -- 2.6% -- 1.3% 2-4 -- 1.7 -- 1.5 5-10 -- 1.6 -- 1.2 11-20 -- 2.1 -- 1.4 21 or more -- 3.0 -- 2.6** Number of sexual partners Prior sexual victimization Yes 7.3%** 7.4%** 5.7%** 5.5%** No* 0.8 1.9 0.6 1.4 --Characteristic deleted from model when Wald statistic was not significant at the 95%-confidence level. *Comparison group. **Difference with comparison group is significant at the 95%-confidence level. aConditional predicted percent of inmates reporting one or more incidents of sexual victimization involving another inmate or facility staff in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if less than 12 months. bInmates were asked to report if they considered themselves to be heterosexual or straight, bisexual, homosexual, gay, or lesbian, or other. Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09 15 Criminal Justice Status Inmates held for a violent sexual offense reported higher rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization than inmates held for other offenses An estimated 4.6% of violent sex offenders in prison and 3.9% of violent sex offenders in jail reported being sexually victimized by another inmate in the last 12 months or since admission to the facility, if less than 12 months (table 10). These rates were higher than those reported by inmates held for other offenses. Among state and federal prisoners, rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization were— higher among prison inmates serving a long sentence (2.9% with a sentence of 20 or more years and 3.8% with a sentence to life or death) than among inmates serving a sentence of 1 to 5 years (1.5%). higher among prison inmates who had served 5 years or more in prison prior to coming to the current facility (2.6%) than among inmates who had not served any prior time (1.6%). higher among prison inmates who had been at their current facility for 5 years or more (3.3%) than among inmates who had been admitted in the last month (1.4%). Among jail inmates, rates of inmateon-inmate sexual victimization— were higher among first time offenders (2.0%) than among those who had been arrested 2 to 3 times in the past (1.3%) or 4 to 10 times in the past (1.4%). increased with the length of time served in the current facility, rising from 0.9% among inmates who had been at the facility for less than a month to 1.7% among inmates in jail for 1 to 5 months, to 2.0% among inmates in jail for 6 to 11 months, and to 2.3% among those in jail for 1 to 5 years. 16 Table 10 Prevalence of sexual victimization, by type of incident and inmate criminal justice status and history, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 Criminal justice status and history Prison inmates reporting sexual victimizationa Jail inmates reporting sexual victimizationa Number of Inmate-on- Staff sexual prison inmatesb inmate misconduct Number of Inmate-on- Staff sexual jail inmatesb inmate misconduct Most serious offense Violent sexual offense* 198,000 4.6% 2.8% 36,500 3.9% 2.8% Other violent offense 435,500 2.2** 4.0** 121,600 1.8** 3.0 Property 260,700 2.5** 3.0 169,000 1.9** 2.3 Drug 344,300 0.6** 1.4** 179,700 1.0** 1.8 Other 157,300 1.6** 2.3 209,000 1.2** 1.5** 76,500 1.6% 0.9%** -- -- -- 1-5 years* 405,400 1.5 1.9 -- -- -- 5-10 years 326,200 1.9** 2.8** -- -- -- 10-20 years 285,300 1.6 2.3 -- -- -- 20 years or more 196,400 2.9** 4.1** -- -- -- Life/death 130,900 3.8** 4.6** -- -- -- 0 months* 292,600 1.6% 2.1% 220,000 1.7% 1.5% 1-5 months 169,200 2.0 2.2 156,700 1.7 1.6 6-11 months 135,600 2.1 1.4 76,200 1.5 1.9 1-5 years 425,800 1.8 2.6 187,600 1.2** 2.3** 5 years or more 405,700 2.6** 3.8** 126,800 1.4 2.9** 1 time* 192,100 2.1% 2.1% 82,000 2.0% 2.0% 2-3 times 424,200 2.1 2.7** 215,900 1.3** 1.7 4-10 times 525,800 1.9 2.8** 291,500 1.4** 1.8 11 or more times 281,800 2.1 2.8 174,600 1.6 2.8** Less than 1 month* 105,000 1.4% 1.6% 264,200 0.9% 1.5% 1-5 months 418,400 1.6 2.6 354,700 1.7** 2.0** 6-11 months 259,500 2.1 2.7** 97,100 2.0** 3.0** 1-5 years 512,600 2.2 2.8** 58,000 2.3** 3.3** 5 years or more 161,500 3.3** 2.8** 2,600 5.4 3.5 Sentence length Less than 1 year Time in a correctional facility prior to current facility Number of times arrested Time since admission --Not calculated. *Comparison group. **Difference with comparison group is significant at the 95%-confidence level. aPercent of inmates reporting one or more incidents of sexual victimization involving another inmate or facility staff in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if less than 12 months. bEstimated number of inmates at midyear 2008 in prisons and jails represented by NIS-2, excluding inmates under age 18. Estimates have been rounded to the nearest 100. August 2010 Rates of staff sexual misconduct also varied among inmates based on their criminal justice status and history Among state and federal prisoners, inmates with a long sentence, inmates who had served 5 years or more in prison prior to coming to the current facility, and inmates who had served 5 years or more at the current facility were more likely to report experiencing staff sexual misconduct than inmates with a sentence of 1 to 5 years, inmates who had not served any prior time, and inmates who had been admitted in the last month. Among jail inmates, the rates of reported staff misconduct increased with time served in the current facility and were higher among inmates who had previously served time in a correctional facility for 1 year or more. Based on controls for the criminal justice status variables and past history variables, the regression models reveal that rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization remain higher for violent sex offenders in prison and jail. A violent sex offender has a 4.4% chance of experiencing sexual victimization by another inmate in prison and 3.1% chance of being sexually victimized by another inmate in jail. Inmate-oninmate sexual victimization rates for inmates held for other offenses are significantly lower (table 11). In each of the regression models for jails, rates of sexual victimization remain associated with an inmate’s time since admission and prior time served in a correctional facility. Jail inmates who had served longer (i.e., 6 months to 5 years in the current facility and 6 months or more in other facilities) had statistically significant higher rates of staff sexual misconduct than jail inmates who had served less time (i.e., less than one month in the current facility and no time in other facilities in the past). Table 11. Multivariate logistic models of sexual victimization, by inmate criminal justice status and history, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 Predicted percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimizationa Inmate characteristic Inmate-oninmate Staff sexual misconduct Predicted percent of jail inmates reporting sexual victimizationa Inmate-oninmate Staff sexual misconduct Most serious offense Violent sexual offense* 4.4% 2.5% 3.1% 2.4% Other violent offense 1.8** 3.1 1.5** 2.4 Property 2.5** 2.9 1.7** 2.2 Drug 0.6** 1.4** 0.9** 1.7 Other 1.5** 2.5 1.1** 1.5** -- Sentence lengthb Less than 1 year 1.7 1.1** -- 1-5 years* 1.4 2.0 -- -- 5-10 years 1.7 2.6 -- -- 10-20 years 1.2 2.1 -- -- 20 years or more 2.0 3.5** -- -- Life/death 2.8** 3.6** -- -- 0 months* 1.3% 2.0% 1.5% 1.4% 1-5 months 1.5 2.1 1.8 1.8 6-11 months 1.8** 1.4 1.3 1.9** 1-5 years 1.6 2.5 1.0** 2.2** 5 years or more 2.0** 3.2** 1.1 2.5** 1 time* -- -- 1.5% 2.3% 2-3 times -- -- 1.0** 1.8 4-10 times -- -- 1.3 1.6** 11 or more times -- -- 1.6 2.3 Less than 1 month* -- -- 0.8% 1.5% 1-5 months -- -- 1.6** 1.9 6-11 months -- -- 1.8** 2.4** 1-5 years -- -- 2.0** 2.7** 5 years or more -- -- 4.9** 3.2 Time in a correctional facility prior to current facility Number of times arrested Time since admission --Characteristic deleted from model when Wald statistic was not significant at the 95%-confidence level. *Comparison group. **Difference with comparison group is significant at the 95%-confidence level. aConditional predicted percent of inmates reporting one or more incidents of sexual victimization involving another inmate or facility staff in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if less than 12 months. bSentence length is the total maximum sentence to prison for all sentences for which an inmate was currently serving. Sentence length for jail inmates is not included in the models. Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09 17 Predicted Victimization Rates Sexual victimization among high rate facilities only partially explained by variations in risk among inmates held The variations in rates of sexual victimization among inmates grouped by demographic characteristics, sexual orientation and history, and criminal justice status and history provide a basis for predicting the probability of victimization for each inmate. The final multivariate logistic regression models summarize the net contribution of each characteristic to the predicted probability of victimization, by type of victimization in prison and jail (table 12). Because the effects of each characteristic overlap, the estimated conditional probabilities are smaller than those in previous regression models. However, the net effects of sexual orientation and prior sexual victimization remain the largest among all characteristics in predicting inmateon-inmate victimization in prison and jail. An inmate’s race (black), age (ages 20 through 24), and education (college degree or more) are found to increase the probability of experiencing staff sexual misconduct, controlling for other factors. Taking into account the effects of sexual history and orientation and criminal justice status and history, female inmates have lower rates of sexual victimization than male inmates in both prison and jail and for both types of victimization. Predicted rates of sexual victimization at the facility level have been calculated by combining all of the inmate-level characteristics into a final logistic regression model for each type of sexual victimization. Based on the predicted conditional probabilities of victimization of each inmate (derived from the multivariate logistic regression models) and the distribution of inmates in each facility, predicted 18 Table 12 Final multivariate logistic models of sexual victimization in prisons and jails, by type of incident, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 Predicted percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimizationa Inmate characteristic Inmate-oninmate Predicted percent of jail inmates reporting sexual victimizationa Staff sexual misconduct Inmate-oninmate Staff sexual misconduct Demographic characteristics Sex Male* 0.9% 1.9% 0.7% 1.4% Female 0.7** 0.6** 0.5** 0.5** Whiteb 1.1% 1.4%** -- 0.9%** Blackb* 0.8 2.2 -- 1.6 Hispanic 0.8 1.6** -- 1.3 Otherb,c 1.2 1.7 -- 1.5 Two or more racesb 1.4** 2.3 -- 1.7 18-19 -- 4.7% 1.2% 2.7% 20-24* -- 3.4 1.0 2.5 25-34 -- 2.3** 0.7** 1.5** Race/Hispanic origin Age 35-44 -- 1.6** 0.5** 0.8** 45-54 -- 1.2** 0.5** 0.6** 55 or older -- 0.4** 0.3** 0.4** -- 1.8% 0.6% 1.1% Education Less than high school* High school graduate -- 1.5 0.8 1.3** Some colleged -- 1.8 0.7 1.4 College degree or more -- 2.9** 1.4** 3.0** -- Marital status Married* 0.7% -- -- Widowed, divorced, or separated 0.8 -- -- -- Never married 1.0** -- -- -- Weighte 1st quartile* -- -- 0.9% -- 2nd quartile -- -- 0.6** -- 3rd quartile -- -- 0.6** -- 4th quartile -- -- 0.7 -- Heterosexual* 0.8% 1.7% 0.6% -- Bi-sexual, homosexual, or other 3.4** 3.1** 2.3** -- Sexual orientation/history characteristics Sexual orientation Number of sexual partners 0-1* -- 2.1% -- 1.2% 2-4 -- 1.5 -- 1.3 5-10 -- 1.3 -- 1.0 11-20 -- 1.5 -- 1.0 21 or more -- 2.2 -- 1.7** Prior sexual victimization Yes 5.8%** 6.8%** 5.1%** 5.7%** No* 0.7 1.4 0.5 1.0 August 2010 Table 12 (continued) Final multivariate logistic models of sexual victimization in prisons and jails, by type of incident, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 Predicted percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimizationa Inmate characteristic Inmate-oninmate Predicted percent of jail inmates reporting sexual victimizationa Staff sexual misconduct Inmate-oninmate Staff sexual misconduct Criminal justice status/history characteristics Most serious offense Violent sexual offense* 1.5% 1.5% 0.9% -- Other violent offense 1.0** 2.0 0.7 -- Property 1.4 2.3** 0.8 -- Drug 0.4** 1.2 0.5** -- Other 1.0 2.1 0.7 -- Less than 1 year 0.9% 0.7% -- -- 1-5 years* 0.8 1.4 -- -- 5-10 years 1.0 1.8 -- -- 10-20 years 0.7 1.6 -- -- 20 years or more 1.2 2.9** -- -- Life/death 1.3 3.0** -- -- rates of sexual victimization have been calculated for each of the high rate facilities. These predicted rates take into account the underlying inmate risk factors and the variations in the distribution of inmates within each of the facilities. At the facility level, the difference between the predicted rate and observed rate represents the percent not accounted for by variations in inmate characteristics. (See Methodology for facility-level calculations.) Logistic regression models Sentence lengthf Time in a correctional facility prior to current facility 0 months* -- 1.7% -- 0.9% 1-5 months -- 1.6 -- 1.1 6-11 months -- 1.0** -- 1.2 1-5 years -- 1.7 -- 1.5** 5 years or more -- 2.3 -- 1.9** 1 time* -- -- 1.0% 1.5% 2-3 times -- -- 0.6** 1.2 4-10 times -- -- 0.6** 1.1 11 or more times -- -- 0.8 1.7 Number of times arrested Time since admission Less than 1 month* -- -- 0.4% 1.0% 1-5 months -- -- 0.8** 1.3** 6-11 months -- -- 1.0** 1.7** 1-5 years -- -- 1.2** 1.9** 5 years or more -- -- 3.4** 2.6 Note: See appendix table 10 for Wald statistics and tests of significance for each inmate characteristic. --Characteristic deleted from model when Wald statistic was not significant at the 95%-confidence level. *Comparison group. **Difference with comparison group is signficant at 95%-confidence level. (See Methodology for tests of significance.) aConditional predicted percent of inmates reporting one or more incidents of sexual victimization involving another inmate or facility staff in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if less than 12 months. bExcludes persons of Hispanic or Latino origin. cIncludes American Indians, Alaska Natives, Asians, Native Hawaiians, and other Pacific Islanders. dIncludes persons with an associate degree. eWeight quartiles are defined by sex. Men: 1st quartile - 60 to 168 lbs.; 2nd quartile - 169 to 186 lbs.; 3rd quartile - 187 to 209 lbs.; 4th quartile - 210 to 700 lbs. Women: 1st quartile - 65 to 144 lbs.; 2nd quartile - 145 to 166 lbs.; 3rd quartile - 167 to 194 lbs.; 4th quartile: 195 to 450 lbs. Multivariate logistic regression estimation is a modeling technique used to determine what characteristics are statistically significant for predicting a dichotomous outcome (e.g., victimized or not victimized) while controlling for all the other characteristics in the model. NIS-2 used this technique to determine what inmate-level characteristics were significant predictors of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization and staff sexual misconduct. In each of the logistic regression models, the conditional predicted probability represents the probability that an inmate with a particular characteristic has experienced sexual victimization (by type) conditional on the inmate having the mean value for all other predictors in the model. For example, based on demographic characteristics only, a female prison inmate has a 3.8% chance of being victimized by another inmate given that she was at the mean of the joint distribution of race or Hispanic origin, education level, and marital status. (See table 7 and note 2 on page 13.) (See Methodology for full discussion on logistic regression models.) fSentence length is the total maximum sentence to prison for all sentences for which an inmate was currently serving. Sentence length for jail inmates is not included in the models. Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09 19 Among high rate male prisons, the observed rate of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization was 6.7%, while the predicted rate was 3.6% (table 13). Among high rate female prisons, the observed rate was 11.6%, while the predicted rate was 8.0%. Among high rate jails, the observed rate was 4.9%, while the predicted rate was 1.9%. Similar patterns are found for rates of staff sexual misconduct among the high rate facilities. In the 4 high rate male prisons, the observed rate of staff sexual misconduct was 7.8%, while the predicted rate was 4.1% (table 14). In the 2 high rate female prisons, the observed rate was 8.1%, while the predicted rate was 2.6%. In the 5 high rate jails, the observed rate was 7.4%, while the predicted rate was 2.6%. These data suggest that rates among the 16 facilities with high rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization and the 11 facilities with high rates of staff sexual misconduct are only partially explained by variation in inmate demographic characteristics, sexual orientation and past sexual experience, Table 13 Estimated and predicted rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization in high-rate prisons and jails, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 and criminal justice status and history. Differences between the observed and predicted rates were statistically significant at the 95% level of confidence in only 3 of the 16 facilities with high rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization and in 1 of the 11 facilities with high rates of staff sexual misconduct. However, the tests for statistical significance within each facility were limited by the small number of surveyed inmates for whom the predicted and observed rates of victimization differed. When the Table 14 Estimated and predicted rates of staff sexual misconduct in high-rate prisons and jails, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 Percent of inmates reporting staff sexual misconduct Percent of inmates reporting inmate-oninmate sexual vicimization Facility name Estimateda Predictedb Difference High rate prisons 6.7% 3.6% 3.1%** Crossroads Corr. Fac. (MO) Hughes Unit (TX) 8.6 5.1 3.5 Attica Corr. Fac. (NY) Allred Unit (TX) 7.6 3.8 3.8 Elmira Corr. Fac. (NY) Pontiac Corr. Ctr. (IL) 6.9 2.6 4.4 Ferguson Unit (TX) Plainfield Corr. Fac. (IN) 6.1 3.3 2.8 Michael Unit (TX) 6.1 5.7 0.4 Fluvanna Corr. Ctr. (VA)c Maine State Prison - Warren (ME) 5.9 4.8 1.1 Bayview Corr. Fac. (NY)c California Med. Fac. (CA) 5.8 2.7 3.1** Pleasant Valley State Prison (CA) 5.5 2.1 3.4** Caroline Co. Jail (MD) 11.6% 8.0% 3.6%** Taycheedah Corr. Inst. (WI)c 11.9 8.8 Fluvanna Corr. Ctr. (VA)c 11.4 Facility name High rate prisons Male prisons Female prisons High rate jails Orleans Parish - South White Street Jail (LA)c Estimateda Predictedb 7.8% 4.1% 3.7%** 8.2 4.8 3.4 8.1 4.1 4.0 7.7 3.9 3.8 7.6 3.9 3.7 8.1% 2.6% 5.5%** 6.0 2.9 3.1 11.5 2.1 9.4** Male prisons 4.9% 7.5 Female prisons High rate jails 2.6% 4.8%** 10.0 3.1 6.9 Eastern Shore Regional Jail (VA) 9.9 3.1 6.8 3.1 Clallam Co. Corr. Fac. (WA) 6.1 1.9 4.1 7.3 4.1 Orleans Co. Jail (NY) 5.6 1.9 3.7 1.9% 3.1%** Cook Co. Jail - Division 6 (IL) 5.5 2.8 2.7 3.3 4.3 Madison Co. Det. Fac. (AL) 5.5 1.8 3.7** Miami-Dade Co. - Pre-trial Det. Ctr. (FL) 5.1 1.9 3.2 Houston Co. Jail (AL) 4.0 1.9 2.1 Jefferson Co. Jail (MO) 4.0 1.0 3.0 Madison Co. Det. Ctr. (IN) 3.9 1.6 2.4 Note: High rate facilities are those in which the lower bound of the 95%-confidence interval is larger than 1.55 times the average among prisons, by sex of inmates housed, and 1.55 times the average among all jail facilities. 7.4% Difference Note: High rate facilities are those in which the lower bound of the 95%-confidence interval is larger than 1.55 times the average among prisons, by sex of inmates housed, and 1.55 times the average among all jail facilities. **Significant at the 95%-confidence level. aPercent of inmates reporting one or more incidents of sexual victimization in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if less than 12 months. bConditional predicted percent of inmates (based on the final multivariate logistic models in table 12) reporting one or more incidents of sexual victimization involving another inmate or facility staff in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if less than 12 months. cFacility houses only female inmates. **Significant at the 95% confidence level. aPercent of inmates reporting one or more incidents of sexual victimization in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if less than 12 months. bConditional predicted percent of inmates (based on the final multivariate logistic models in table 12) reporting one or more incidents of sexual victimization involving another inmate or facility staff in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if less than 12 months. cFacility houses only female inmates. 20 August 2010 number of inmates in all high rate male prisons, female prisons, and jails were combined, the differences were found to be statistically significant. With the exception of 2 facilities—the Michael Unit (in Texas) and Maine State Prison - Warren—the differences between the observed and predicted rates were large relative to the average rates of sexual victimization among male prisons, female prisons, and jails nationwide. Inmate-on-Inmate Victimization Reports of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization differed among males and females by type of facility Among inmates who reported inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization in state and federal prisons— Males (16%) were more likely than females (6%) to have been victimized 11 or more times in the last 12 months, or since admission if less than 12 months (table 15). Table 15 Experiences of victims of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization, by type of facility and sex of victim, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 Victims in prison Experiences Number of victims Victims in jail Male* Female Male* Female 25,312 4,774 8,611 3,023 Number of incidentsa 1 35.2% 41.6% 35.8% 55.8%** 2 18.1 27.1 15.4 16.0 3 to 5 16.7 15.9 10.5 13.1 6 to 10 13.8 10.0 18.0 5.8** 11 or more 16.2 5.5** 20.3 9.4** Persuaded/talked into it 46.7% 53.8% 43.3% 38.1% Bribed/blackmailed 41.7 25.7** 47.9 19.1** Given drugs 18.5 9.5** 25.5 4.4** Offered protection 38.6 18.9** 39.9 18.3** Offered to settle debt 13.7 4.0** 19.3 6.2** Threatened with harm/weapon 48.1 29.5** 57.5 16.2** Physically held down/restrained 24.3 23.3 40.5 19.7** Physically harmed/injured 18.1 13.0 31.9 8.8** 24.7% 10.8%** 42.5% 16.0%** 23.8% 15.9%** 37.1% 17.0%** White 38.9% 36.5% 46.2% 35.0% Black 64.6 60.4 59.2 60.6 American Indian/Native Alaskan 7.4 7.5 17.0 5.6** Other 6.3 5.7 20.0 3.9** 4.2%** 36.0% 6.3%** Type of pressure or forceb Victimized by more than one perpetrator Yes Males were more likely than females to report having been bribed or blackmailed to take part in the sexual activity (42% compared to 26%), offered protection (39% compared to 19%), or threatened with harm or a weapon (48% compared to 30%). Males were more likely than females to report more than one perpetrator (25% compared to 11%), that the perpetrator was of Hispanic or Latino origin (24% compared to 16%), and that one or more incidents were initiated by a gang (20% compared to 4%). Among victims of inmate-oninmate sexual violence in jails— Females were more likely than males to have been victimized only once (56% compared to 36%) and less likely to have been victimized 11 or more times (9% compared to 20%). Males were more likely than females to report all forms of pressure or force (except for being persuaded or talked into it). Males were more likely than females to report more than one perpetrator (43% compared to 16%), that the perpetrator was of Hispanic or Latino origin (37% compared to 17%), and that one or more incidents were initiated by a gang (36% compared to 6%). Hispanic/Latino origin of perpetrator(s) Yes Race of perpetrator(s)b Was any incident initiated by a gang? Yes 19.9% *Comparison group. **Significant at the 95%-confidence level, when compared to male victims. aIncludes the number of sexual acts (i.e., hand job, oral/vaginal/anal sex) reported by inmate in the last 12 months or since admission to the facility, if less than 12 months. bDetail sums to more than 100% because some inmates reported more than one incident or reported more than one type of pressure or force during an incident. Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09 21 Inmate-on-inmate victimization occurred most often in the victim’s cell between 6 pm and midnight Among inmates who reported inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization, males were much more likely than females to experience sexual victimization by another inmate within the first 24 hours after admission. Among inmates reporting victimization by another inmate, 13% of male prison inmates and 19% of male jail inmates said they were victimized within the first 24 hours, compared to 4% of female inmates in prison and jail (table 16). In both prisons and jails inmateon-inmate victimization was most commonly reported to have occurred between 6 pm and midnight. More than 40% of male and female victims reported this time period. In both prisons and jails inmateon-inmate victimization was most commonly reported to have occurred in the victim’s cell or sleeping area. Among victims in prison, more than half of the male and female victims reported an incident in their cell. Among victims in jail, 63% of male victims and 43% of female victims reported at least one incident occurred in their cell or sleeping area. Among inmates who reported inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization in jail, 37% of males reported being injured, compared to 8% of females. In prison, males and females were almost equally as likely to report being injured (21% and 17%, respectively) during the sexual victimization. Male and female inmates who victims in prison, anal or vaginal tearing was reported by nearly 10% of males and 6% of females. Among victims in jails, anal or vaginal tearing was reported by 21% of males and 3% of females. experienced inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization in prisons and jails most commonly reported sustaining bruises, scratches, cuts, and other minor injuries. Among Table 16 Circumstances surrounding inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization, by type of facility and sex of victim, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 Victims in prison Circumstance Number of victims Male* 25,312 Victims in jail Female Male* Female 4,774 8,611 3,023 When first happeneda Within 24 hours of admission 13.1% 4.1%** 19.2% 1 to 3 days 12.3 6.4** 18.4 16.9 4.3%** 4 to 30 days 25.3 23.8 33.5 39.9 More than 30 days 49.4 65.7** 28.9 39.0 29.7% 17.0%** 30.6% 12.0%** Time of dayb 6 am to noon Noon to 6 pm 34.7 32.3 37.6 28.4 6 pm to midnight 47.4 52.0 44.9 42.4 Midnight to 6 am 28.4 32.1 40.9 20.0** Where occurredb In victim’s cell/sleeping area 51.1% 53.4% 62.8% 43.2%** In other inmate’s cell/room 33.2 26.8 41.8 31.4 Elsewhere in the facility Closet/locked office 13.4% 14.4% 19.8% 2.3%** Workshop/kitchen 19.2 17.1 14.6 1.9** Shower/bathroom 29.5 33.9 27.4 13.3** Classroom/library 11.2 Yard/recreation area 21.8 On the stairs 11.0 Off facility groundsc 3.2** 24.2 11.5 3.2** 15.7 9.6 5.3** 13.6 2.9** 4.8 3.7 13.3 3.3** 20.7% 17.2% 37.2% 8.2%** 4.6 1.0** 9.5 1.4** Ever injuredb Yes Knife/stab wound Broken nose 3.9 1.4 12.9 0.4** Anal/vaginal tearing 9.7 6.3 21.2 2.8** Chipped teeth 5.7 2.6 19.7 2.1** Internal injuries 7.1 2.2** 16.0 1.3** Knocked unconscious 8.6 3.2** 21.2 0.7** Bruises, scratches, cuts 14.1 15.2 30.7 7.5** 23.6% 18.4% 31.3% 15.4%** Ever report an incident Yes *Comparison group. **Significant at the 95%-confidence level, when compared to male victims. aInmate report of when the first victimization at the facility occurred. bDetail sums to more than 100% because some inmates reported more than one victimization. cIncludes in a bus, van, or car and at a courthouse, temporary holding facility, or medical facility. 22 August 2010 Staff Sexual Misconduct Most victims of staff sexual misconduct in prisons and jails reported at least one incident that involved pressure, force, or threat of force Among victims in prison, male victims of staff sexual misconduct (64%) were more likely than female victims (30%) to report incidents that involved no pressure or force (table 17). A similar pattern was reported by victims in jail, with an estimated 56% of male victims and 31% of female victims reporting one or more incidents that involved no pressure or force by staff. Nearly 82% of the female victims in prison said they were pressured by staff to engage in sexual activity, compared to 55% of male victims in prison. In both prisons and jails, male victims were more likely than female victims to report that the first incident of staff sexual misconduct occurred within the first 24 hours following admission to the facility. Nearly 16% of male victims in prison and 30% of the male victims in jail said they were victimized within the first 24 hours, compared to 5% of the female victims in prison and 4% of female victims in jail. In prisons, both male and female victims reported that the staff sexual misconduct was most likely to have occurred in a closet or locked office, the victim’s cell or sleeping area, or the shower or bathroom area. In jails, 45% of male victims and 24% of female victims identified a closet or locked office as the most common area in which the staff sexual misconduct occurred. Among victims of staff sexual misconduct in jail, 17% of male victims and 8% of female victims reported they had been injured during the incident. Among victims of staff sexual been injured by staff; however, the difference was not statistically significant. misconduct in prison, 9% of males and 19% of females said they had Table 17 Circumstances surrounding incidents of staff sexual misconduct, by type of facility and sex of victim, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 Victims in prison Circumstance Number of victims Male* Female 39,121 2,123 Victims in jails Male* 14,334 Female 1,485 Number of incidentsa 1 24.9% 32.1% 23.9% 38.9%** 2 20.5 19.2 21.9 26.2 3 to 5 17.4 19.3 13.3 19.0 6 to 10 16.7 15.5 14.2 10.1 11 or more 20.5 13.9 26.7 5.8** Type of coercion or forceb Without pressure or force 64.1% 29.8%** 56.3% 31.0%** Pressured 54.8 81.9** 61.7 70.1 Force/threat of force 35.4 38.8 51.4 47.4 When first happenedc Within 24 hours of admission 15.8% 1 to 3 days 11.3 13.8 5.0%** 30.4% 14.6 19.9 4.2%** 4 to 30 days 25.7 12.6** 27.8 42.4 More than 30 days 47.2 68.5** 27.2 33.4 6 am to noon 34.3% 31.1% 31.1% 32.9% Noon to 6 pm 32.5 32.9 27.8 18.9 6 pm to midnight 34.8 29.5 34.6 16.5** Midnight to 6 am 36.8 29.1 52.2 35.3** 36.2% 32.4% 39.1% 21.1%** Closet/locked office 51.6% 44.3% 44.6% 24.3%** Workshop/kitchen 31.7 36.8 23.0 9.6** Shower/bathroom 30.6 28.2 29.1 7.3** Classroom/library 17.5 7.6** 18.7 9.2** Yard/recreation area 12.7 9.3 13.2 Other common aread 19.9 19.8 22.4 13.1 11.6 Time of dayb Where occurredb In victim’s cell/sleeping area Elsewhere in the facility Off facility groundse 7.0 2.8** 15.0 9.3% 19.2% 17.4% 34.7%** 20.6% 11.9 Ever injured Yes 7.5%** Ever report an incident Yes 20.6% 19.6% *Comparison group. **Significant at the 95%-confidence level, when compared to male victims. aNumber of reported willing and unwilling incidents of sexual misconduct. bDetail sums to more than 100% because some inmates reported more than one victimization. cBased only on victims reporting incidents involving force, threat of force, or pressure. dIncludes another inmate’s cell/room and stairs. eIncludes in a bus, van, or car and at a courthouse, temporary holding facility, or medical facility. Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09 23 Most victims and perpetrators of staff sexual misconduct were of the opposite sex Among the 39,121 male prison inmates who had been victims of staff sexual misconduct, 69% reported sexual activity with female staff; an additional 16% reported sexual activity with both female and male staff (table 18). In comparison, among the 2,123 female prison inmates who had been victimized, 72% reported that the staff perpetrator was male; an additional 19% reported both male and female staff. Similar patterns of staff sexual misconduct were reported by jail inmates. Nearly two-thirds of the male jail inmates who had been victimized said the staff perpetrator was female (64%). About the same percentage (63%) of female victims said the perpetrator was a male staff member at the jail. Reports of staff sexual misconduct were linked to strip searches and pat downs Victims of staff sexual misconduct were asked if they touched a facility staff person’s body or had their body touched in a sexual way. Regardless of whether they had wanted it to occur or not, nearly two-thirds of all victims of staff sexual misconduct in prison and jail reported at least one incident of sexual touching. An estimated 38,270 inmates reported such touching in the last 12 months or since admission to the facility, if less than 12 months 24 (table 19). At least 4 of every 10 of these victims said that this had happened at least once as part of a strip search or a pat down. Among victims of sexual touching, male inmates (43%) were as likely as female inmates (40%) to report staff sexual misconduct as part of a strip search or pat down. The majority of victims said they had also touched staff or been touched by staff in a sexual way outside of a strip search or pat down. An estimated 86% of male victims and 91% of female victims in prisons and jails said that this had happened at least once outside of a strip search or pat down. Table 18 Sex of perpetrator of staff sexual misconduct, by facility type and sex of victim, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 Victims in prison Number of victims Victims in jail Male* Female Male* Female 39,121 2,123 14,334 1,485 Sex of perpetrator(s) Male only 14.9% Female only 68.8 Both male and female 16.3 71.8%** 18.2% 62.6%** 9.3** 64.3 27.7** 17.5 9.8 18.9 Note: Sex of staff perpetrator was reported for 69% of prison inmates and 66% of jail inmates reporting staff sexual misconduct. *Comparison group. **Significant at the 95%-confidence level, when compared to male victims. Table 19 Sexual touching between inmates and staff during and not during strip searches and pat downs, by sex of victim, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 Prison and jail inmates reporting staff sexual touchinga Number of victims All Male Female 38,270 35,887 2,383 All incidentsb Part of strip search/pat down 42.7% 42.9% 40.0% Strip search 30.8 30.8 30.0 Pat down 36.4 36.3 36.7 86.1% 85.8% 90.8% Not during strip search 78.4 78.0 84.1 Not during pat down 75.7 75.7 77.2 Not part of a strip search/pat down aInmates being touched or touching a facility staff’s body “in a sexual way.” bDetail sums to more than 100% because some inmates reported more than one victimization. August 2010 Appendix 1. Survey items related to inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 Males E16. During the last 12 months, did another inmate use physical force to touch your butt, thighs, or penis in a sexual way? E17. During the last 12 months, did another inmate, without using physical force, pressure you or make you feel that you had to let them touch your butt, thighs, or penis in a sexual way? E22. During the last 12 months, did another inmate use physical force to make you give or receive a hand job? E23. During the last 12 months, did another inmate, without using physical force, pressure you or make you feel that you had to give or receive a hand job? E26. During the last 12 months, did another inmate use physical force to make you give or receive oral sex or a blow job? E33. During the last 12 months, did another inmate, without using physical force, pressure you or make you feel that you had to have anal sex? E25. During the last 12 months, did another inmate, without using physical force, pressure you or make you feel that you had to give or receive oral sex? E34. During the last 12 months, did another inmate use physical force to make you have any type of sex or sexual contact other than sexual touching, hand jobs, oral sex or blow jobs, or anal sex? E28. During the last 12 months, did another inmate use physical force to make you have vaginal sex? E35. During the last 12 months, did another inmate, without using physical force, pressure you or make you feel that you had to have any type of sex or sexual contact other than sexual touching, hand jobs, oral sex or blow jobs, or anal sex? Females E18. During the last 12 months, did another inmate use physical force to touch your butt, thighs, breasts, or vagina in a sexual way? E27. During the last 12 months, did another inmate, without using physical force, pressure you or make you feel that you had to give or receive oral sex or a blow job? E19. During the last 12 months, did another inmate, without using physical force, pressure you or make you feel that you had to let them touch your butt, thighs, breasts, or vagina in a sexual way? E32. During the last 12 months, did another inmate use physical force to make you have anal sex? E24. During the last 12 months, did another inmate use physical force to make you give or receive oral sex? Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09 E29. During the last 12 months, did another inmate, without using physical force, pressure you or make you feel that you had to have vaginal sex? E32. During the last 12 months, did another inmate use physical force to make you have anal sex? E33. During the last 12 months, did another inmate, without using physical force, pressure you or make you feel that you had to have anal sex? E34. During the last 12 months, did another inmate use physical force to make you have any type of sex or sexual contact other than sexual touching, oral sex, vaginal sex, or anal sex? E35. During the last 12 months, did another inmate, without using physical force, pressure you or make you feel that you had to have any type of sex or sexual contact other than sexual touching, oral sex, vaginal sex, or anal sex? 25 Appendix 2. Survey items related to staff sexual misconduct, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 These next questions are about the behavior of staff at this facility during the last 12 months. By staff we mean the employees of this facility and anybody who works as a volunteer in this facility. G4. During the last 12 months, have any facility staff pressured you or made you feel that you had to let them have sex or sexual contact with you? G5. During the last 12 months, have you been physically forced by any facility staff to have sex or sexual contact? G7. During the last 12 months, have any facility staff offered you favors or special privileges in exchange for sex or sexual contact? G2. During the last 12 months, have you willingly had sex or sexual contact with any facility staff? G11. [IF G2 OR G4 OR G5 OR G7 = Yes] During the last 12 months, which of the following types of sex or sexual contact did you have with a facility staff person? G11a. You touched a facility staff person’s body or had your body touched in a sexual way. G11b. You gave or received a hand job. G11c. You gave or received oral sex or a blow job. G11d. You had vaginal sex. G11e. You had anal sex. Appendix 3. Follow-up questions for inmates reporting no sexual activity, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 Follow-up questions for inmates reporting no sexual activity in the screener questions for sexual activity with inmates: [If Female] During the last 12 months, did another inmate use physical force, pressure you, or make you feel that you had to have oral, vaginal, or anal sex? LCM1. During the last 12 months, did another inmate use physical force, pressure you, or make you feel that you had to have any type of sex or sexual contact? LCM4. [If Male] How long has it been since another inmate in this facility used physical force, pressured you, or made you feel that you had to have oral or anal sex? LCM2. How long has it been since another inmate in this facility used physical force, pressured you, or made you feel that you had to have any type of sex or sexual contact? 1. Within the past 7 days 2. More than 7 days ago but within the past 30 days 3. More than 30 days ago but within the past 12 months 4. More than 12 months ago 5. This has not happened to me at this facility LCM3. [If Male] During the last 12 months, did another inmate use physical force, pressure you, or make you feel that you had to have oral or anal sex? 26 [If Female] How long has it been since another inmate in this facility used physical force, pressured you, or made you feel that you had to have oral, vaginal, or anal sex? Follow-up questions for inmates reporting no sexual activity in the screener questions for sexual activity with staff: LCM5. During the last 12 months, have you had any sex or sexual contact with staff in this facility whether you wanted to have it or not? LCM6. How long has it been since you had any sex or sexual contact with staff in this facility whether you wanted to or not? 1. W ithin the past 7 days 2. M ore than 7 days ago but within the past 30 days 3. M ore than 30 days ago but within the past 12 months 4. M ore than 12 months ago 5. Th is has not happened to me at this facility LCM7. [If Male] In the last 12 months, did you have oral, vaginal, or anal sex with any staff at this facility whether you wanted to or not? [If Female] In the last 12 months, did you have oral, vaginal, or anal sex with any staff at this facility whether you wanted to or not? LCM8. [If Male] How long has it been since you had oral, vaginal, or anal sex with any staff at this facility whether you wanted to or not? [If Female] How long has it been since you had oral, vaginal, or anal sex with any staff at this facility whether you wanted to or not? August 2010 Methodology T he National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 (NIS-2) was conducted in 167 state and federal prisons between October 13, 2008, and March 11, 2009; 286 jails between January 20, 2009, and August 13, 2009; and 10 special (military, Indian country, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)) facilities between May 11, 2009, and December 17, 2009. The data were collected by RTI International under a cooperative agreement with the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). The NIS-2 comprised two questionnaires—a survey of sexual victimization and a survey of past drug and alcohol use and treatment. Inmates were randomly assigned to receive one of the questionnaires so that at the time of the interview the content of the survey remained unknown to facility staff and the interviewers. A total of 81,566 inmates participated in the survey, including 32,029 inmates in state and federal prisons, 48,066 inmates in jails, 399 inmates in military facilities, 115 inmates in Indian country jails, and 957 inmates in facilities operated by ICE. The interviews, which averaged 25 minutes in length, used computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI) and audio computer-assisted self-interviewing (ACASI) data collection methods. For approximately the first two minutes, survey interviewers conducted a personal interview using CAPI to obtain background information and date of admission to the facility. For the remainder of the interview, respondents interacted with a computer-administered questionnaire using a touch-screen and synchronized audio instructions delivered via headphones. Respondents completed the ACASI portion of the interview in private, with the interviewer either leaving the room or moving away from the computer. A shorter paper questionnaire was made available for inmates who were unable to come to the private interviewing room or interact with the computer. The paper form was completed by 496 prison inmates (or 1.5% of all prison interviews), 226 jail inmates (0.5%), and 4 military inmates (1%). Most of these inmates were housed in administrative or disciplinary segregation or were considered too violent to be interviewed. No inmates in Indian country or ICE facilities completed the paper questionnaire. Before the interview, inmates were informed verbally and in writing that participation was voluntary and that all information provided would be held in confidence. Interviews were conducted in either English (98% in prisons, 95% in jails, 40% in ICE facilities, and 100% in military and Indian country facilities) or Spanish (2% in prisons, 5% in jails, and 60% in ICE facilities). Selection of state and federal prisons A sample of 171 state and federal prisons was drawn to produce a sample representing approximately 10% of the 1,260 state and 192 federal adult confinement facilities identified in the 2005 Census of State and Federal Adult Correctional Facilities. The 2005 census was a complete enumeration of state prisons, including all publicly operated and privately operated facilities under contract to state correctional authorities. The NIS-2 was restricted to confinement facilities—institutions in which fewer than 50% of the inmates were regularly permitted to leave, unaccompanied by staff, for work, study, or treatment. Such facilities included prisons, penitentiaries, prison hospitals, prison farms, boot camps, and centers for reception, classification, or alcohol and drug treatment. The NIS-2 excluded community-based facilities, such as halfway houses, group homes, and work release centers. Based on estimates from 2008 National Prisoner Statistics, the prisons in the study universe held an estimated 1,267,400 state and 190,300 federal inmates age 18 or older on June 30, 2008. State and federal confinement facilities were sequentially sampled with probabilities of selection proportionate to size (as measured by the number of inmates held in state prisons on December 30, 2005, and in federal prisons on September 28, 2006). Facilities on the sampling frame were stratified by gender of inmates housed. The measures of size for facilities that participated in NIS-1 in 2007 were reduced to lower their probability of selection in NIS-2. (See page 32 for a listing of NIS-1 reports.) Within each stratum, facilities on the sampling frame were first sorted by region, state, and public or private operation. The sample size for facilities housing only female inmates was set to 36 facilities to ensure a sufficient number of women and allow for meaningful analyses of sexual victimization by gender. Facilities were sampled ensuring that at least one facility in every state was selected. Federal facilities were grouped together and treated like a state for sampling purposes. The remaining facilities were selected from each region with probabilities proportionate to size. Of the 171 selected prison facilities, 4 were deemed ineligible and excluded from the survey for the following reasons: Albion Correctional Facility (NY)—Ongoing litigation. Robert Scott Correctional Facility (MI)—Ongoing litigation. Dinwiddie Correctional Unit (VA)—Closed prior to the start of data collection. Waseca FCI (BOP)—Transitioned from holding males to females during the data collection period (treated as a closed facility). Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09 27 All other selected prison facilities participated fully in the survey. Selection of inmates within prisons The number of inmates sampled in each facility varied based on 6 criteria: an expected sexual victimization prevalence rate of 4%. a desired level of precision based on a standard error of 1.75%. a projected 70% response rate among selected inmates. a 5% chance among participating inmates of not receiving the sexual victimization questionnaire. an adjustment factor of 1.75 to account for the complex survey design. the size of the facility. A roster of inmates was obtained just prior to the start of interviewing at each facility. Inmates under age 18 and inmates expected to be released prior to data collection were deleted from the roster. Each eligible inmate was assigned a random number and sorted in ascending order. Inmates were selected from the list up to the expected number of inmates determined by the sampling criteria. A total of 46,189 prison inmates were selected. After selection, 1,302 ineligible inmates were excluded—936 (2%) were released or transferred to another facility before interviewing began, 246 (0.5%) were mentally or physically unable to be interviewed, 13 (0.02%) were under age 18 or their age could not be obtained during the interview process, 11 (0.02%) were selected in error (i.e., an inmate was incorrectly listed on the facility roster), and 96 (0.2%) were on unsupervised work release or only served time on weekends. Of all selected eligible prison inmates, 23% refused to participate in the survey, 2% were not available to be interviewed (e.g., in court, in medical segregation, determined by the facility to be too violent to be interviewed, or restricted from participation by another legal jurisdiction), and 2% were not interviewed due to survey logistics (e.g., language barriers, releases, or transfers to another facility after interviewing began). Overall, 32,029 prison inmates participated in the survey, yielding a response rate of 71%. Approximately 95% of the participating inmates (29,954) received the sexual assault survey. (See appendix table 1 for the number of participating inmates in each prison facility.) Selection of jail facilities A sample of 320 jails was drawn to represent approximately 10% of the 3,007 jail facilities identified in the Census of Jail Inmates, 2005. The 2005 census was a complete 28 enumeration of all jail jurisdictions, including all publicly operated and privately operated facilities under contract to jail authorities. The NIS-2 was restricted to jails that had five or more inmates on June 30, 2005. Based on estimates from the Annual Survey of Jails, 2008, these jails held an estimated 777,200 inmates age 18 or older on June 30, 2008. Jail facilities were sequentially sampled with probabilities of selection proportionate to size (as measured by the number of inmates held on June 30, 2005). Eight facilities that were unable to participate in NIS-1 were selected with certainty, while the measures of size of facilities that participated in NIS-1 were reduced to give them a lower probability of selection. The remaining facilities were stratified such that facilities in each of the 10 largest jail jurisdictions were placed into strata; all other facilities were placed in a single stratum. Within the large jurisdiction stratum, 3 facilities were selected from the 5 largest jurisdictions with probability proportionate to size, and 2 facilities were selected from the next 5 largest jurisdictions with probability proportion to size. Facilities in the second stratum were first sorted by region, state, and public or private operation. Facilities were sampled to ensure that at least one jail facility in every state was selected. The remaining jail facilities were selected from each region with probabilities proportionate to size. Of the 320 selected jails in NIS-2, 10 facilities refused to participate: Baldwin Co. Corrections Center (AL) Marengo Co. Detention Center (AL) Merced Co. Jail (CA) Columbia Co. Detention Center (FL) Pike Co. Law Enforcement Center (IN) Flathead Co. Detention Center (MT) Rutherford Co. Jail (NC) Monmouth Co. Correctional Institution (NJ) Hildalgo Co. Detention Center (TX) Kenosha Co. Jail (WI). Nine facilities were unable to participate due to lack of space, staffing shortages, or construction, but expect to be included in NIS-3 (to be conducted in 2011). Fifteen facilities were determined to be ineligible: 7 had closed, 4 were community-based facilities, 2 had fewer than 5 inmates, and 2 were prisons. All other selected jail facilities participated fully in the survey. Selection of inmates within jails The number of inmates sampled in each facility varied based on 6 criteria: an expected prevalence rate of sexual victimization of 3%. a desired level of precision based on a standard error of 1.4%. a projected 65% response rate among selected inmates. August 2010 a 5% chance among participating inmates of not receiving the sexual victimization questionnaire. an adjustment factor of 1.75 to account for the complex survey design. a pre-arraignment adjustment factor equal to 1 in facilities where the status was known for all inmates and less than 1 in facilities where only the overall proportion of inmates who were pre-arraigned was known. A roster of inmates was obtained just prior to the start of interviewing at each facility. Inmates under age 18 and inmates who had not been arraigned were removed from the roster. Each eligible inmate was assigned a random number and sorted in ascending order. Inmates were selected from the list up to the expected number of inmates determined by the sampling criteria. Due to the dynamic nature of jail populations, a second roster of inmates was obtained on the first day of data collection. Eligible inmates who appeared on the second roster but who had not appeared on the initial roster were identified. These inmates had been arraigned since the initial roster was created or were newly admitted to the facility and arraigned. A random sample of these new inmates was chosen using the same probability of selection used to sample from the first roster. A total of 81,306 jail inmates was selected. After selection, an additional 9,490 ineligible inmates were excluded—7,844 (9.7%) were released or transferred to another facility before interviewing began, 455 (0.6%) were mentally or physically unable to be interviewed, 144 (0.2%) were under age 18 or their age could not be obtained during the interview process, 308 (0.4%) were selected in error (i.e., an inmate was incorrectly listed on the facility roster), and 739 (0.9%) were on unsupervised work release or only served time on weekends. Of all selected inmates, 17% refused to participate in the survey, 4% were not available to be interviewed (e.g., in court, in medical segregation, determined by the facility to be too violent to be interviewed, or restricted from participation by another legal jurisdiction), and 8% were not interviewed due to survey logistics (e.g., language barriers, releases, and transfers to another facility after interviewing began). Overall, 48,066 jail inmates participated in the survey, yielding a response rate of 68%. Approximately 95% of the participating inmates (45,126) received the sexual assault survey. (See appendix table 5 for the number of participating inmates in each jail facility.) Selection of special confinement facilities A sample of 11 special facilities was drawn to represent the inmate populations in military, Indian country, and ICE facilities. Three military, 3 Indian country, and 5 ICE facilities were included. The selected military facilities were the largest Army, Navy, and Marine facilities, including the U.S. Disciplinary Barracks (Leavenworth, KS), the Naval Consolidated Brig. (Miramar, CA), and the Marine Corps Base Brig. (Camp Pendleton, CA). The selected Indian country facilities were the three largest facilities identified in the 2007 Survey of Jails in Indian Country. One facility, Tohono O’odham Detention Center (AZ) was undergoing major renovations to accommodate increased capacity and could not participate in the survey during the data collection period. This facility will be included in the NIS-3 data collection. The Navajo Department of Corrections Window Rock (AZ), participated in the survey but held fewer inmates in 2009 (14) than reported in the 2007 survey (99). The 5 ICE facilities were sequentially sampled from the 22 facilities run by ICE with probabilities of selection proportionate to size (as measured by the number of persons held at yearend 2008). Facilities were sorted by region and state. Selection of inmates in special confinement facilities For purposes of inmate selection, military facilities were treated as prisons, and Indian country and ICE facilities were treated like jails. The assumptions used to determine the sample size within a prison or jail and the corresponding selection procedures were used. However, in ICE facilities, a second sample of newly admitted inmates was not drawn due to an inability to identify new inmates on the ICE rosters. In addition, inmates in ICE facilities who did not speak English or Spanish were defined as ineligible for the study. Overall, 2,494 inmates were selected, including 546 in military facilities, 161 in Indian country facilities, and 1,787 in ICE facilities. After selection, 409 ineligible inmates were excluded—225 (9%) were released or transferred to another facility before interviewing began, 10 (0.4%) were mentally or physically unable to be interviewed, 4 (0.2%) were on unsupervised work release, and 170 (7%) in ICE facilities did not speak English or Spanish. A total of 16 inmates were excluded in military facilities, 15 in Indian country facilities, and 378 in ICE facilities. Of all selected inmates in special facilities, 16% refused to participate in the survey, 0.2% were not available to be interviewed (e.g., in court, in medical segregation, determined by the facility to be too violent to be interviewed, or restricted from participation by another legal jurisdiction), and 7% were not interviewed due to survey logistics (e.g., language barriers, releases, and transfers to another facility after interviewing began). Overall, 1,471 inmates participated in the survey (399 Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09 29 in military, 115 in Indian country, and 957 in ICE facilities), yielding a response rate of 71% (75% in military, 79% in Indian country, and 68% in ICE facilities). Approximately 95% of the participating inmates (1,379) received the sexual assault survey (379 in military, 107 in Indian country, and 893 in ICE facilities). (See appendix table 9 for the number of participating inmates in each special confinement facility.) Weighting and non-response adjustments Responses from interviewed inmates were weighted to provide national-level and facility-level estimates. Each interviewed inmate was assigned an initial weight corresponding to the inverse of the probability of selection within each sampled facility. A series of adjustment factors was applied to the initial weight to minimize potential bias due to non-response and to provide national estimates. Bias occurs when the estimated prevalence is different from the actual prevalence for a given facility. In each facility, bias could result if the random sample of inmates did not accurately represent the facility population. Bias could also result if the non-respondents were different from the respondents. Post-stratification and non-response adjustments were made to the data to compensate for these two possibilities. These adjustments included— 1. calibration of the weights of the responding inmates within each facility so that the estimates accurately reflected the facility’s entire population in terms of known demographic characteristics. These characteristics included distributions by inmate age, sex, race, time since admission, and sentence length. This adjustment ensures that the estimates better reflect the entire population of the facility and not just the inmates who were randomly sampled. 2. calibration of the weights so that the weight from a non-responding inmate is assigned to a responding inmate with similar demographic characteristics. This adjustment ensures that the estimates accurately reflect the full sample, rather than only the inmates who responded. For each inmate, these adjustments were based on a generalized exponential model, developed by Folsom and Singh, and applied to the sexual assault survey respondents.3 A final ratio adjustment to each inmate weight was made to provide national-level estimates for the total number of inmates ages 18 or older who were held at midyear 2008. These ratios represented the estimated number of inmates by sex (from BJS’s 2008 Annual Survey of Jails and 2008 National Prisoner Statistics, Midyear) divided by the 3 Folsom, Jr., R.E., and A.C. Singh, (2002). “The Generalized Exponential Model for Sampling Weight Calibration for Extreme Values, Nonresponse, and Poststratification,” Proceedings of the American Statistical Association, Section on Survey Research Methods, pp. 598-603. 30 number of inmates by sex in the NIS-2 after calibration for sampling and non-response. The national estimates for state prisons were 1,178,916 males and 88,518 females; for federal prisons, 178,153 males and 12,120 females; and for jails (with an average daily population of 6 or more inmates), 678,136 males and 99,096 females. Final ratio adjustments were not applied to inmate weights in military, Indian country, and ICE facilities. Estimates for special confinement facilities were made at the facility level only. Standard errors and tests of significance The NIS-2 is statistically unable to provide an exact ranking for all facilities as required under PREA. As with any survey, the NIS estimates are subject to error arising from the fact that they are based on a sample rather than a complete enumeration. Within each facility, the estimated sampling error varies by the size of the estimate, the number of completed interviews, and the size of the facility. A common way to express this sampling variability is to construct a 95%-confidence interval around each survey estimate. Typically, multiplying the standard error by 1.96 and then adding or subtracting the result from the estimate produces the confidence interval. This interval expresses the range of values that could result among 95% of the different samples that could be drawn. For small samples and estimates close to 0%, as is the case with sexual victimization in most prisons and jails, the use of the standard error to construct the 95%-confidence interval may not be reliable. An alternative developed by Wilson has been shown to perform better than the traditional method when constructing a confidence interval. (See note 1 on page 7.) This method produces an asymmetrical confidence interval around the facility estimates in which the lower bound is constrained to be greater than or equal to 0%. It also provides confidence intervals for facilities in which the survey estimates are zero (but other similarly conducted surveys could yield non-zero estimates). (See tables 2, 4, and 5 and appendix tables 5, 6, 8, and 9.) When applied to large samples, the traditional and the Wilson confidence intervals are nearly identical. As a result, the tables that show national estimates display traditional standard errors. (See table 1.) The traditional standard errors have also been used to compare estimates of sexual victimization among selected groups of inmates that have been defined by type of incident, demographic subgroup, sexual history, and criminal justice status. (See tables 6 through 12 and tables 15 through 19.) To facilitate the analysis, rather than provide the detailed estimates for every standard error, differences in the estimates of sexual victimization for subgroups in these tables have been tested and notated for significance at the 95%-level confidence. August 2010 For example, the difference in the rate of inmate-oninmate sexual victimization among female prisoners (4.7%), compared to male prisoners (1.9%), is statistically significant at the 95% level of confidence (table 6). In all tables providing detailed comparisons, statistically significant differences at the 95% level of confidence or greater have been designated with two asterisks (**). Exposure period To calculate comparative rates of sexual victimization, respondents were asked to provide the most recent date of admission to the current facility. If the date of admission was at least 12 months prior to the date of the interview, inmates were asked questions related to their experiences during the past 12 months. If the admission date was less than 12 months prior to the interview, inmates were asked about their experiences since they had arrived at the facility. The average exposure period of inmates participating in the sexual victimization survey was— 9.0 months for federal prisoners 7.9 months for state prisoners 3.4 months for jail inmates 8.4 months for inmates in military facilities 3.0 months for inmates in ICE facilities 4.4 months for inmates in Indian country facilities. Measurement of sexual victimization The survey of sexual victimization relied on inmates reporting their direct experience, rather than inmates reporting on the experience of other inmates. Questions related to inmate-on-inmate sexual activity were asked separately from questions related to staff sexual misconduct. (For specific survey questions see appendices 1 and 2.) The ACASI survey began with a series of questions that screened for specific sexual activities without restriction, including both wanted and unwanted sex and sexual contacts with other inmates. To fully measure all sexual activities, questions related to the touching of body parts in a sexual way were followed by questions related to manual stimulation and questions related to acts involving oral, anal, and vaginal sex. The nature of coercion (including use of physical force, pressure, and other forms of coercion) was measured for each type of reported sexual activity. ACASI survey items related to staff sexual misconduct were asked in a different order. Inmates were first asked about being pressured or being made to feel they had to have sex or sexual contact with the staff and then asked about being physically forced. In addition, inmates were asked if any facility staff had offered favors or special privileges in exchange for sex. Finally, inmates were asked if they willingly had sex or sexual contact with staff. All reports of sex or sexual contact between an inmate and facility staff, regardless of the level of coercion, were classified as staff sexual misconduct. The ACASI survey included additional questions related to both inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization and staff sexual misconduct. These questions, known as latent class measures, were included to assess the reliability of the survey questionnaire. After being asked detailed questions, all inmates were asked a series of general questions to determine if they had experienced any type of unwanted sex or sexual contact with another inmate or had any sex or sexual contact with staff. (See appendix 3.) The entire ACASI questionnaire (listed as the National Inmate Survey-2) and the shorter paper and pencil survey form (PAPI) are available on the BJS web site at <http://bjs.ojp.usdoj. gov/index.cfm?ty=dcdetail&iid=278>. Interviews checked for inconsistent response patterns Once data collection was completed, individual response patterns were assessed to identify interviewer error, interviews that had been completed in too short of time, and incomplete interviews. In 133 interviews, the interviewers administered sex-specific survey items inconsistent with the sex of the inmate. In 208 interviews, the inmate either failed to complete enough questions to be considered a completed interview or completed the survey in too short of time. These interviews were excluded from the calculations of sexual victimization. Interviews were also examined for inconsistent response patterns. A list of 18 indicators were developed based on inmate characteristics (e.g., education, age, marital status, and time since admission) and items related to victimization (e.g., number of times, injuries, willing contact with staff, sex of staff perpetrator, and reporting of victimization). Indicators compared responses to initial questions with responses to detailed follow up questions. The results were combined into a count of the total number of inconsistent responses for each inmate. Overall, the results revealed very high levels of consistency in survey responses. Of 45,126 completed interviews of jail inmates, 94.4% had no inconsistent responses, 5.2% had 1, and 0.4% had 2 or more. Of 29,954 completed interviews of prison inmates, 93.6% had no inconsistent responses, 5.9% had one, and 0.5% had two or more. Definition of terms Sexual victimization—all types of sexual activity, e.g., oral, anal, or vaginal penetration; hand jobs; touching of the inmate’s buttocks, thighs, penis, breasts, or vagina in a sexual way; abusive sexual contacts; and both willing and unwilling sexual activity with staff. Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09 31 Nonconsensual sexual acts—unwanted contacts with another inmate or any contacts with staff that involved oral, anal, vaginal penetration, hand jobs, and other sexual acts. Abusive sexual contacts only—unwanted contacts with another inmate or any contacts with staff that involved touching of the inmate’s buttocks, thigh, penis, breasts, or vagina in a sexual way. Unwilling activity—incidents of unwanted sexual contacts with another inmate or staff. Willing activity—incidents of willing sexual contacts with staff. These contacts are characterized by the reporting inmates as willing; however, all sexual contacts between inmates and staff are legally nonconsensual. Staff sexual misconduct—includes all incidents of willing and unwilling sexual contact with facility staff and all incidents of sexual activity that involved oral, anal, vaginal penetration, hand jobs, blow jobs, and other sexual acts with facility staff. Logistic regression models Multivariate logistic regression estimation is a modeling technique used to determine what characteristics are statistically significant for predicting a dichotomous outcome (e.g., victimized or not victimized) while controlling for all the other characteristics in the model. NIS-2 used this technique to determine what inmate-level characteristics were significant predictors of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization and staff sexual misconduct. For each outcome, inmate-level characteristics were divided into 3 categories: demographic characteristics, sexual orientation and history, and criminal justice status and history. For each category a logistic model was iteratively run under a backwards selection technique until only predictors that were significant at the 95% level of confidence remained (tables 7, 9, 11). Each reduced model was then combined to provide 4 models (for each type of sexual victimization and facility type). Backwards selection was conducted on each of the combined models until only predictors significant at the 95% level of confidence remained. Results for each model are displayed in terms of their conditional predicted probability (table 12). In each of the logistic regression models, the conditional predicted probability represents the probability that an inmate with a particular characteristic has experienced sexual victimization (by type) conditional on the inmate having the mean value for all other predictors in the model. For example, based on demographic characteristics only, a female prison inmate has a 3.8% chance of being victimized by another inmate given that she was at the mean of the joint distribution of race or Hispanic origin, education level, and marital status. (See table 7 and note 2 on page 13.) 32 Predicting facility-level rates of sexual victimization Estimates of the expected rate of inmate-on-inmate and staff sexual misconduct in each high rate prison and jail were calculated based on the characteristics of the inmates housed in the facility and the estimated rates of victimization associated with each characteristic. For each level of a characteristic, the logistic models provide an estimate of the odds that an inmate was sexually victimized given that the inmate had that characteristic. (For presentation purposes, these odds have been converted into conditional probabilities.) Overall, the predicted odds that a particular inmate has been victimized is the sum of the odds that correspond to that inmate’s set of characteristics. For example, the inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization model for prison inmates consists of 7 inmate characteristics: sex, race or Hispanic origin, marital status, sexual orientation, prior sexual assault status, most serious offense, and sentence length. The model provides estimates of the odds for each level of each of these characteristics. The odds of victimization for an inmate who is male, white, never married, heterosexual, with no prior sexual assault, held for a property offense, and sentenced to 1 to 5 years in prison is the sum of the individual odds for each of those characteristics. Once the overall odds for an inmate has been calculated, it can be converted to a probability. A predicted facility-level victimization rate is the weighted average of probabilities for all inmates in the facility. This weighted average in each high rate facility was calculated by summing across all inmates the product of the inmate’s probability of victimization and the adjusted inmate sampling weights and dividing it by the eligible inmate population in the survey. Five BJS reports on sexual victimization in prisons and jails: Sexual Violence Reported by Correctional Authorities, 2004 (NCJ 210333) Sexual Violence Reported by Correctional Authorities, 2005 (NCJ 214646) Sexual Violence Reported by Correctional Authorities, 2006 (NCJ 218914) Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007 (NCJ 219414) Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007 (NCJ 221946) An overview of all of the BJS prison rape collections: PREA Data Collection Activities, 2010 (NCJ 230448) These reports are available online at <http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/>. BJS August 2010 Appendix Table 1 Characteristics of state and federal prisons and prevalence of sexual victimization, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 Inmates reporting sexual victimizationa 95%-confidence rateb Facility name Total Number of inmates in custodyc Respondents to sexual victimization surveyd Response ratee Percentf Lower bound Upper bound 275,442 29,954 71% 4.4% 3.9% 0.1% Alabama Bibb Corr. Fac. 1,922 261 95% 4.4% 2.7% William Donaldson Corr. Fac. 1,631 206 77 8.8 5.7 7.2% 276 104 72% 2.1% 0.8% 5.7% Arizona State Prison Complex - Lewis 5,237 201 69% 1.9% 0.7% 4.8% Arizona State Prison Complex - Tucsonh 3,728 233 82 3.5 1.8 6.6 Diagnostic Unitg 454 118 82% 4.8% 2.4% McPherson Uniti 745 224 93 California Corr. Ctr. 3,686 190 67% 1.4% 0.5% California Inst. for Womeni 1,924 186 73 6.1 3.4 10.5 13.2 Alaska Fairbanks Corr. Ctr.g Arizona Arkansas 10.3 7.2 9.5% 14.5 California 4.0% California Med. Fac. 3,067 258 60 9.0 6.2 12.7 Centinela State Prison 5,064 143 52 0.0 0.0 2.6 Central California Women’s Fac.i 4,121 184 63 5.2 2.8 9.6 Chuckawalla Valley State Prison 3,195 193 70 3.6 1.8 7.2 Deuel Vocational Inst. 3,821 197 55 2.6 1.2 5.6 Folsom State Prison 4,005 161 56 1.5 0.5 4.4 High Desert State Prison 3,895 153 55 3.5 1.7 7.4 Los Angeles County State Prison 4,835 218 74 3.9 2.1 7.3 North Kern State Prison 5,459 210 67 2.5 1.1 5.7 Pleasant Valley State Prison 5,097 181 62 6.0 3.3 10.5 Salinas Valley State Prison 4,014 162 57 4.8 2.1 10.4 Valley State Prison for Womeni 4,086 216 72 8.2 5.1 13.0 Wasco State Prison-Reception Ctr. 5,855 221 72 1.9 0.7 4.7 2,481 204 71% 7.5% 4.5% 12.1% Corrigan-Radgowski Corr. Ctr. 1,604 172 65% 3.0% 1.3% 6.9% Osborn Corr. Inst. 1,937 190 67 4.0 2.1 7.3 York Corr. Fac.i 1,281 192 74 7.4 4.6 11.9 1,166 207 85% 2.5% 1.3% 4.9% Colorado Sterling Corr. Fac. Connecticut Delaware Sussex Corr. Inst. Florida Century Corr. Inst. & Work Camp 1,775 208 78% 1.9% 0.8% 4.6% Gadsden Corr. Fac.i,j 1,516 208 81 2.4 1.0 5.3 Hernando Corr. Inst.i 423 183 90 6.5 4.2 9.9 Indian River Corr. Inst. 469 163 95 2.0 1.0 3.9 Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09 33 Appendix Table 1 (continued) Characteristics of state and federal prisons and prevalence of sexual victimization, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 Inmates reporting sexual victimizationa 95%-confidence rateb Respondents to sexual victimization surveyd Response ratee Percentf Lower bound Upper bound 865 186 78% 6.7% 4.1% 10.5% Liberty Corr. Inst. & Work Camp 1,554 229 90 2.0 0.9 4.4 Lowell Corr. Inst., Annex, & Work Campi 2,464 240 85 4.5 2.7 7.5 980 225 90 1.6 0.6 4.2 Okeechobee Corr. Inst. 1,655 241 88 6.1 3.9 9.5 Reception and Med. Ctr. & Reception and Med. Ctr.-West Unith 2,618 259 72 1.7 0.7 4.2 South Florida Reception Ctr. & South Unit 1,477 237 81 1.8 0.8 4.0 Dodge State Prison 1,228 220 86% 2.5% 1.2% 5.4% Dooly State Prison 1,686 215 79 2.7 1.3 5.6 Pulaski State Prisoni 1,185 239 91 6.1 3.9 9.5 Washington State Prison 1,500 227 86 2.8 1.3 5.6 Wheeler Corr. Fac.j 1,747 232 86 3.1 1.7 5.7 1,138 146 58% 4.8% 2.1% 10.9% 278 100 61 5.0 2.5 9.8 Idaho Corr. Fac.j 1,484 212 76% 2.3% 1.1% 5.1% Idaho State Corr. Inst. 1,208 213 69 6.0 3.5 10.2% East Moline Corr. Ctr. 1,126 208 81% 1.4% 0.5% 3.7% Illinois River Corr. Ctr. Facility name Number of inmates in custodyc Florida (continued) Lancaster Corr. Inst. & Work Camp Moore Haven Corr. Fac.j Georgia Hawaii Oahu Community Corr. Ctr.g Women’s Community Corr. Ctr.i Idaho Illinois 1,973 194 73 1.3 0.5 3.7 Lincoln Corr. Ctr.i 986 190 77 1.4 0.5 3.9 Pontiac Corr. Ctr. 1,074 96 32 12.1 6.3 21.8 Plainfield Corr. Fac. 1,473 181 69% 7.5% 4.3% 12.7% Putnamville Corr. Fac. 2,431 189 69 8.1 4.9 12.9 Westville Corr. Fac. 3,315 168 58 5.7 3.1 10.2 Indiana Iowa Iowa Corr. Inst. - Womeni Newton Corr. Fac. 601 191 85% 7.7% 5.0% 11.7% 1,188 170 72 5.7 3.1 10.1 297 97 57% 9.0% 5.1% 15.4% 648 173 80% 9.6% 6.1% 14.8% 1,076 158 63 6.1 3.4 10.5 Kansas Larned Corr. Mental Health Fac. Kentucky Kentucky Corr. Inst. for Womeni Luther Luckett Corr. Complex 34 August 2010 Appendix Table 1 (continued) Characteristics of state and federal prisons and prevalence of sexual victimization, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 Inmates reporting sexual victimizationa 95%-confidence rateb Number of inmates in custodyc Respondents to sexual victimization surveyd Response ratee Percentf Lower bound Upper bound 1,558 226 84% 5.3% 3.2% 8.7% 915 237 93 4.1 2.4 7.0 1,027 229 90 7.5 5.0 11.0 867 143 59% 9.9% 6.0% 15.8% 593 169 80% 5.0% 2.8% 8.8% 1,086 152 63 3.8 1.8 7.8 208 85 53% 3.8% 1.6% 8.7% 1,211 176 69% 6.3% 3.7% 10.5% 590 143 63 4.2 2.1 8.2 Muskegon Corr. Fac. 1,300 176 66 11.4 6.2 20.0 Richard A. Handlon Corr. Fac. 1,241 209 79 7.3 4.5 11.6 Minnesota Corr. Fac. - Rush City 987 165 65% 7.3% 4.4% 11.9% Minnesota Corr. Fac. - Shakopeei 515 146 69 8.3 4.9 13.9 Mississippi State Penitentiary 3,817 266 93% 7.5% 4.9% 11.3% South Mississippi Corr. Inst. 3,028 252 87 5.7 3.5 9.0 Crossroads Corr. Fac. 1,416 207 77% 9.4% 6.2% 13.9% Fulton Reception & Diagnostic Ctr. 1,481 217 81 1.7 0.7 4.0 Women’s Eastern Reception, Diagnostic, & Corr. Ctr.i 1,959 218 82 8.7 5.7 13.2 1,389 201 78% 10.6% 7.2% 15.5% 313 103 67% 2.9% 1.3% 6.6% 1,327 206 82% 0.8% 0.2% 2.9% 347 104 54% 5.1% 2.5% 10.1% Bayside State Prison - Ancora Unit 344 133 74% 1.7% 0.6% 4.6% Edna Mahan Corr. Fac. for Womeni 912 177 76 4.5 2.5 8.0 Facility name Louisiana Avoyelles Corr. Ctr. C. Paul Phelps Corr. Ctr. Louisiana Corr. Inst. for Womeni Maine Maine State Prison - Warren Maryland Jessup Pre-Release Unit Maryland Corr. Inst. - Jessup Massachusetts Massachusetts Corr. Inst. - Plymouth Michigan Earnest C. Brooks Corr. Fac. Mid-Michigan Corr. Fac. Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Montana State Prison Nebraska Diagnostic & Evaluation Ctr. Nevada Northern Nevada Corr. Ctr.g New Hampshire Lakes Region Fac. New Jersey Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09 35 Appendix Table 1 (continued) Characteristics of state and federal prisons and prevalence of sexual victimization, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 Inmates reporting sexual victimizationa 95%-confidence rateb Number of inmates in custodyc Respondents to sexual victimization surveyd Response ratee Percentf Lower bound Upper bound 682 166 78% 3.1% 1.4% 6.7% Attica Corr. Fac. 2,170 170 61% 8.0% 4.8% 13.2% Facility name New Mexico Southern New Mexico Corr. Fac. New York Bare Hill Corr. Fac. 1,675 209 81 7.8 4.9 12.2 Bayview Corr. Fac.i 137 96 73 14.6 11.1 19.1 Cape Vincent Corr. Fac. 850 178 73 1.0 0.3 3.3 Clinton Corr. Fac. 2,854 200 70 4.7 2.6 8.6 Coxsackie Corr. Fac. 1,035 204 80 5.7 3.5 9.2 Elmira Corr. Fac. 1,763 167 63 9.8 6.2 15.2 Walkill Corr. Fac. 591 163 72 3.2 1.5 6.8 Brown Creek Corr. Inst. 908 170 70% 1.8% 0.7% 4.6% Guilford Corr. Ctr. 165 47 55 0.0 0.0 7.6 Pender Corr. Inst. 753 156 67 1.8 0.7 4.7 93 56 81 1.3 0.5 3.4 828 134 57 6.9 3.9 11.9 Dakota Women’s Corr. & Rehab. Ctr.i 110 77 78% 3.0% 1.6% 5.5% James River Corr. Ctr. 411 160 82 2.9 1.3 6.3 Corr. Reception Ctr. 1,648 242 84% 1.1% 0.4% 3.1% Lebanon Corr. Inst. 2,653 231 81 5.6 3.4 9.3 Mansfield Corr. Inst. 2,443 186 68 4.4 2.3 8.3 Ohio Reformatory for Womeni 2,514 233 82 7.7 5.0 11.7 Southeastern Corr. Inst. 1,672 144 52 5.3 2.7 9.9 1,133 189 71% 9.2% 5.9% 13.9% 803 104 42 7.9 4.3 14.1 1,071 208 83% 7.1% 4.4% 11.3% 3,387 233 85% 1.2% 0.3% 4.4% North Carolina Swannanoa Corr. Ctr. for Womeni Warren Corr. Ctr. North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Davis Corr. Fac.j Mack H. Alford Corr. Ctr. Oregon Coffee Creek Corr. Fac.i Pennsylvania Camp Hill State Corr. Inst. Coal Township State Corr. Inst. 1,903 221 80 3.9 2.1 7.1 Cresson State Corr. Inst. 1,576 238 89 5.6 3.5 9.0 433 115 55% 0.6% 0.1% 2.7% Rhode Island Maximum Security Fac. 36 August 2010 Appendix Table 1 (continued) Characteristics of state and federal prisons and prevalence of sexual victimization, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 Inmates reporting sexual victimizationa 95%-confidence rateb Facility name Number of inmates in custodyc Respondents to sexual victimization surveyd Response ratee Percentf Lower bound Upper bound South Carolina Goodman Corr. Inst.i 189 92 64% 3.1% 1.4% 6.7% Ridgeland Corr. Inst. 1,265 221 84 6.2 3.9 9.8 661 177 76 1.4 0.6 3.6 1,465 169 65% 6.1% 3.2% 11.2% 2,444 222 79% 5.6% 3.4% 9.3% Allred Unit 3,637 161 55% 10.9% 7.0% 16.7% Beto Unit 3,322 216 76 7.3 4.6 11.4 200 128 88 0.0 0.0 2.9 C. Moore Transfer Fac. 1,195 184 72 0.4 0.1 1.9 Coffield Unit 4,121 226 76 4.8 2.6 8.5 844 161 70 3.1 1.4 6.5 Crain Uniti 1,679 175 67 4.5 2.4 8.2 Ferguson Unit 2,370 236 83 8.5 5.4 13.2 598 229 97 0.9 0.3 2.5 Hobby Uniti 1,372 240 93 5.5 3.5 8.6 Hughes Unit 2,866 159 57 10.2 6.5 15.8 Jester Unit III 1,079 187 73 2.2 0.9 5.3 Lindsey State Jailj 1,022 199 82 1.8 0.8 4.4 Michael Unit 3,154 158 60 9.1 5.6 14.7 620 128 58 10.5 6.5 16.4 Neal Unit 1,681 179 68 4.3 2.2 8.1 Plane State Jaili 2,022 229 86 2.8 1.2 6.1 Smith Unit 2,067 160 59 5.5 2.9 10.0 Telford Unit 2,767 189 65 7.7 4.7 12.4 1,329 201 75% 2.3% 1.1% 4.8% 145 96 80% 6.2% 4.0% 9.3 Fluvanna Corr. Ctr.i 1,223 199 79% 14.3% 10.2% 19.6% Haynesville Corr. Ctr. 1,118 165 68 2.5 1.1 5.4 Lawrenceville Corr. Ctr.j 1,547 196 72 3.8 1.9 7.6 Trenton Corr. Inst. South Dakota Mike Durfee State Prison & Trusty Unit Tennessee West Tennessee State Penitentiary Texas Bridgeport Pre-Parole Fac.i,j Cole State Jail Halbert Substance Abuse Felony Punishment Fac.i Mountain View Uniti Utah Central Utah Corr. Fac. Vermont Northwest State Corr. Fac. Virginia Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09 37 Appendix Table 1 (continued) Characteristics of state and federal prisons and prevalence of sexual victimization, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 Inmates reporting sexual victimizationa 95%-confidence rateb Number of inmates in custodyc Respondents to sexual victimization surveyd Response ratee Percentf Lower bound Upper bound 2,122 180 70% 3.4% 1.7% 6.8% 836 193 85 6.0 3.6 9.9 991 121 52% 6.8% 3.6% 12.4% 1,552 200 63% 1.0% 0.3% 3.3% New Lisbon Corr. Inst. 983 108 43 2.5 0.9 6.9 Taycheedah Corr. Inst.i 679 171 75 12.9 9.1 18.0 1,239 113 44 5.1 2.3 10.9 210 117 78% 2.8% 1.5% 5.3% 89 55 69% 0.0% 0.0% 6.5% 2,564 230 78 0.7 0.1 3.4 Facility name Washington Airway Heights Corr. Ctr. Washington Corr. Ctr. for Womeni West Virginia Mount Olive Corr. Complex Wisconsin Dodge Corr. Inst.h Waupun Corr. Inst. Wyoming Wyoming Honor Farm Federal Facilities (Bureau of Prisons) Big Sandy - Camp Brooklyn Metropolitan Det. Ctr.g Bryan Fed. Prison Campi 931 183 72 2.3 1.0 5.2 Carswell Fed. Med. Ctr.i 1,547 154 59 4.8 2.5 9.2 Coleman I U.S. Penitentiary 1,678 147 54 5.0 2.3 10.3 Coleman Medium Fed. Corr. Inst.h 1,600 179 66 0.7 0.1 3.6 Danbury Fed. Corr. Inst.i 1,210 192 76 1.4 0.4 4.6 Elkton Fed. Corr. Inst. 2,076 176 64 0.0 0.0 2.1 915 206 61 1.9 0.8 4.5 Fairton Fed. Corr. Inst. 1,354 171 67 1.6 0.5 5.5 Florence Fed. Corr. Inst. 1,190 76 30 1.4 0.3 7.3 Forrest City Low Fed. Corr. Inst. 1,923 204 75 1.6 0.6 4.3 624 156 71 0.9 0.2 4.2 Morgantown Fed. Corr. Inst. 1,034 159 65 0.0 0.0 2.4 Oakdale Fed. Corr. Inst. 1,188 197 75 1.0 0.2 4.8 Petersburg Medium Fed. Corr. Inst. 1,903 143 55 3.8 1.7 8.5 Englewood Fed. Corr. Inst. Jesup-Fed. Satellite Low 38 August 2010 Appendix Table 1 (continued) Characteristics of state and federal prisons and prevalence of sexual victimization, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 Inmates reporting sexual victimizationa 95%-confidence rateb Number of inmates in custodyc Respondents to sexual victimization surveyd Response ratee Percentf Lower bound Upper bound Schuylkill Fed. Corr. Inst. 1,312 160 64% 2.2% 0.8% 5.5% Texarkana Fed. Corr. Inst. 1,333 131 53 1.2 0.2 6.0 Victorville U.S. Penitentiary 1,641 130 50 2.4 0.8 6.5 Facility name Federal Facilities (Bureau of Prisons) (continued) aIncludes all types of sexual victimization, including oral, anal, or vaginal penetration, hand jobs, touching of the inmate’s butt, thighs, penis, breasts, or vagina in a sexual way, and other sexual acts occurring in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if shorter. bIndicates that different samples in the same facility would yield prevalence rates falling between the lower and upper bound estimates 95 out of 100 times. cNumber of inmates in custody on day when the facility provided the sample roster. dNumber of respondents completing the sexual victimization survey. (See Methodology.) eResponse rate is equal to the number of respondents divided by the number of eligible sampled inmates times 100 percent. fWeights were applied so that inmates who responded accurately reflected the entire population of each facility on select characteristics, including age, sex, race, time served, and sentence length. (See Methodology.) gFacility houses both males and females; both were sampled at this facility. hFacility houses both males and females; only males were sampled at this facility. iFemale facility. jPrivately operated facility. Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09 39 Appendix Table 2 Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimization, by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 Inmate-on-inmatea Staff sexual misconducta 95%-confidence intervalb Facility name Total Percent victimizedc Lower bound Upper bound 95%-confidence intervalb Percent victimizedc Lower bound Upper bound 2.1% 1.7% 2.5% 2.8% 2.5% 3.2% Bibb Corr. Fac. 3.3% 1.9% 5.7% 1.8% 0.8% 3.9% William Donaldson Corr. Fac. 4.8 2.7 8.4 4.9 2.7 8.5 1.1% 0.3% 4.1% 1.1% 0.3% 4.1% Alabama Alaska Fairbanks Corr. Ctr.d Arizona Arizona State Prison Complex - Lewis 0.7% 0.1% 3.8% 1.9% 0.7% 4.8% Arizona State Prison Complex - Tucsone 0.8 0.2 3.1 2.6 1.2 5.5 Diagnostic Unitd 1.9% 0.7% 5.5% 2.9% 1.2% 7.1% McPherson Unitf 7.7 5.0 4.4 2.5 7.4 Arkansas 11.6 California California Corr. Ctr. 0.0% 0.0% 2.0% 1.4% 0.5% 4.0% California Inst. for Womenf 4.3 2.2 8.3 2.2 0.9 5.3 California Med. Fac. 5.8 3.7 9.1 3.6 2.0 6.2 Centinela State Prison 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.0 2.6 Central California Women’s Fac.f 3.3 1.5 7.1 3.2 1.4 7.2 Chuckawalla Valley State Prison 2.8 1.2 6.4 1.9 0.8 4.9 Deuel Vocational Inst. 1.8 0.7 4.5 1.3 0.4 3.6 Folsom State Prison 0.7 0.1 3.8 1.5 0.5 4.4 High Desert State Prison 3.0 1.3 6.8 0.9 0.3 3.3 Los Angeles County State Prison 2.0 0.8 5.0 2.5 1.1 5.3 5.7 North Kern State Prison 0.0 0.0 1.8 2.5 1.1 Pleasant Valley State Prison 5.5 3.0 9.9 1.9 0.7 5.5 Salinas Valley State Prison 2.4 0.9 6.2 2.4 0.7 8.1 Valley State Prison for Womenf 6.8 4.0 11.1 4.7 2.4 9.0 Wasco State Prison-Reception Ctr. 0.5 0.1 2.7 1.9 0.7 4.7 3.5% 1.7% 7.0% 6.2% 3.5% 10.7% Colorado Sterling Corr. Fac. Connecticut Corrigan-Radgowski Corr. Ctr. 0.8% 0.2% 2.7% 2.2% 0.8% 6.1% Osborn Corr. Inst. 2.7 1.3 5.6 1.3 0.5 3.6 York Corr. Fac.f 6.4 3.8 10.6 2.2 0.9 5.3 1.7% 0.8% 0.8% 0.2% 2.7% Delaware Sussex Corr. Inst. 3.8% Florida Century Corr. Inst. & Work Camp 0.5% 0.1% 2.5% 1.9% 0.8% 4.6% Gadsden Corr. Fac.f,g 2.0 0.8 4.8 0.4 0.1 2.0 Hernando Corr. Inst.f 5.5 3.4 8.8 1.5 0.7 3.5 Indian River Corr. Inst. 0.0 0.0 2.3 2.0 1.0 3.9 Lancaster Corr. Inst. & Work Camp 2.7 1.4 5.4 3.9 2.1 7.4 Liberty Corr. Inst. & Work Camp 0.7 0.2 2.2 1.3 0.5 3.7 Lowell Corr. Inst., Annex, & Work Campf 3.5 1.9 6.3 2.0 0.9 4.3 Moore Haven Corr. Fac.g 1.1 0.3 3.3 1.1 0.4 3.5 40 August 2010 Appendix Table 2 (continued) Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimization, by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 Inmate-on-inmatea Staff sexual misconducta 95%-confidence intervalb Facility name Percent victimizedc Lower bound Upper bound 95%-confidence intervalb Percent victimizedc Lower bound Upper bound Florida (continued) Okeechobee Corr. Inst. 1.6% 0.7% 3.8% 4.9% 3.0% 8.1% Reception and Med. Ctr. & Reception and Med. Ctr.-West Unite 0.5 0.1 2.4 1.7 0.7 4.3 South Florida Reception Ctr. & South Unit 1.3 0.5 3.5 0.5 0.1 1.5 Dodge State Prison 0.0% 0.0% 1.7% 2.5% 1.2% 5.4% Dooly State Prison 0.8 0.2 2.7 2.7 1.3 5.6 Georgia Pulaski State Prisonf 6.1 3.9 9.5 0.3 0.1 1.5 Washington State Prison 0.5 0.1 2.4 2.3 1.0 5.0 Wheeler Corr. Fac.g 0.7 0.2 2.5 2.4 1.2 4.7 Oahu Community Corr. Ctr.d 4.6% 1.9% 10.7% 0.5% 0.1% 1.6% Women’s Community Corr. Ctr.f 3.8 1.7 8.0 2.9 1.2 6.9 Idaho Corr. Fac.g 0.5% 0.1% 2.4% 2.3% 1.1% 5.1% Idaho State Corr. Inst. 2.5 1.1 5.5 4.0 2.0 7.7 East Moline Corr. Ctr. 0.4% 0.1% 1.8% 1.0% 0.3% 3.2% Illinois River Corr. Ctr. 0.8 0.2 2.8 0.5 0.1 2.5 Lincoln Corr. Ctr.f 0.7 0.2 2.1 0.7 0.1 3.4 Pontiac Corr. Ctr. 6.9 3.0 15.0 5.7 2.1 14.2 Plainfield Corr. Fac. 6.1% 3.3% 11.0% 2.2% 0.8% Putnamville Corr. Fac. 3.3 1.5 6.8 6.5 3.7 11.2 Westville Corr. Fac. 3.0 1.3 6.8 4.5 2.3 8.7 Iowa Corr. Inst. - Womenf 7.3% 4.7% 11.3% 1.5% 0.5% 4.7% Newton Corr. Fac. 3.7 1.8 7.2 2.0 0.7 5.8 3.7% 1.5% 9.0% 6.3% 3.3% 11.6% Kentucky Corr. Inst. for Womenf 7.3% 4.4% 11.9% 2.3% 0.8% 6.1% Luther Luckett Corr. Complex 1.2 0.3 4.1 5.7 3.1 Avoyelles Corr. Ctr. 1.7% 0.7% 4.0% 4.0% 2.2% 7.2% C. Paul Phelps Corr. Ctr. 0.7 0.2 2.2 3.4 1.9 6.2 Louisiana Corr. Inst. for Womenf 5.7 3.6 8.9 1.8 0.8 4.0 Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana 6.0% Iowa Kansas Larned Corr. Mental Health Fac. Kentucky 10.1 Louisiana Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09 41 Appendix Table 2 (continued) Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimization, by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 Inmate-on-inmatea Staff sexual misconducta 95%-confidence intervalb Facility name Percent victimizedc Lower bound Upper bound 95%-confidence intervalb Percent victimizedc Lower bound Upper bound Maine Maine State Prison - Warren 5.9% 3.1% 11.0% 4.9% 2.4% 9.7% Jessup Pre-Release Unit 0.0% 0.0% 2.2% 5.0% 2.8% 8.8% Maryland Corr. Inst. - Jessup 1.0 0.2 4.8 2.8 1.3 6.1 0.8% 0.2% 3.3% 3.0% 1.1% 8.0% Earnest C. Brooks Corr. Fac. 2.2% 0.8% 5.8% 4.9% 2.7% 8.7% Mid-Michigan Corr. Fac. 2.9 1.3 6.6 1.3 0.4 4.1 Muskegon Corr. Fac. 4.8 2.6 8.6 6.7 2.5 16.3 Richard A. Handlon Corr. Fac. 4.7 2.5 8.7 4.4 2.3 8.1 Minnesota Corr. Fac. - Rush City 2.9% 1.3% 6.3% 5.2% 2.8% 9.5% Minnesota Corr. Fac. - Shakopeef 8.3 4.9 0.4 0.1 2.0 Mississippi State Penitentiary 1.9% 0.9% 4.1% 5.9% 3.6% 9.5% South Mississippi Corr. Inst. 0.6 0.2 2.2 5.0 3.0 8.3 Crossroads Corr. Fac. 2.3% 1.0% 5.1% 8.2% 5.3% 12.6% Fulton Reception & Diagnostic Ctr. 0.3 0.1 1.6 1.7 0.7 4.0 Women’s Eastern Reception, Diagnostic, & Corr. Ctr.f 7.7 4.9 11.9 1.5 0.5 4.0 3.8% 2.0% 7.2% 7.2% 4.4% 11.5% 1.9% 0.7% 5.3% 1.9% 0.7% 5.3% 0.8% 0.2% 2.9% 0.0% 0.0% 1.8% 1.1% 0.3% 4.9% 4.0% 1.8% 8.6% Bayside State Prison - Ancora Unit 0.0% 0.0% 2.8% 1.7% 0.6% 4.6% Edna Mahan Corr. Fac. for Womenf 3.6 1.8 6.9 1.9 0.8 4.6 2.2% 0.8% 5.7% 1.9% 0.7% 5.0% Attica Corr. Fac. 0.6% 0.1% 2.9% 8.1% 4.8% 13.3% Bare Hill Corr. Fac. 1.2 0.4 3.2 6.6 4.0 10.9 Maryland Massachusetts Massachusetts Corr. Inst - Plymouth Michigan Minnesota 13.9 Mississippi Missouri Montana Montana State Prison Nebraska Diagnostic & Evaluation Ctr. Nevada Northern Nevada Corr. Ctr.d New Hampshire Lakes Region Fac. New Jersey New Mexico Southern New Mexico Corr. Fac. New York 42 August 2010 Appendix Table 2 (continued) Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimization, by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 Inmate-on-inmatea Staff sexual misconducta 95%-confidence intervalb Facility name Percent victimizedc Lower bound Upper bound 95%-confidence intervalb Percent victimizedc Lower bound Upper bound New York (continued) Bayview Corr. Fac.f 4.6% 2.9% 7.3% 11.5% 8.3% 15.6% Cape Vincent Corr. Fac. 1.0 0.3 3.3 0.0 0.0 2.1 Clinton Corr. Fac. 0.3 0.1 1.8 4.4 2.3 8.2 Coxsackie Corr. Fac. 1.4 0.6 3.4 4.6 2.6 7.8 Elmira Corr. Fac. 3.0 1.3 6.7 7.7 4.5 12.7 Walkill Corr. Fac. 0.0 0.0 2.3 3.2 1.5 6.8 North Carolina Brown Creek Corr. Inst. 0.5% 0.1% 2.6% 1.2% 0.4% 3.9% Guilford Corr. Ctr. 0.0 0.0 7.6 0.0 0.0 7.6 Pender Corr. Inst. 0.5 0.1 2.6 1.3 0.4 4.0 Swannanoa Corr. Ctr. for Womenf 1.3 0.5 3.4 0.0 0.0 6.4 Warren Corr. Ctr. 2.2 0.8 6.1 5.9 3.2 10.5 North Dakota Dakota Women’s Corr. & Rehab. Ctr.f 2.2% 1.1% 4.6% 0.8% 0.3% 2.1% James River Corr. Ctr. 1.6 0.7 3.7 1.3 0.3 5.0 0.4% 0.1% 2.2% 0.7% 0.2% 2.3% Ohio Corr. Reception Ctr. Lebanon Corr. Inst. 3.7 1.9 7.1 2.9 1.4 5.7 Mansfield Corr. Inst. 1.5 0.5 4.3 2.9 1.3 6.4 Ohio Reformatory for Womenf 5.2 3.0 8.8 3.1 1.5 6.2 Southeastern Corr. Inst. 1.7 0.6 4.6 4.2 2.0 8.6 Davis Corr. Fac.g 3.9% 1.9% 8.0% 6.1% 3.6% 10.1% Mack H. Alford Corr. Ctr. 5.2 2.5 4.8 2.2 10.2 5.5% 3.3% 1.6% 0.5% Oklahoma 10.4 Oregon Coffee Creek Corr. Fac.f 9.3% 4.4% Pennsylvania Camp Hill State Corr. Inst. 0.3% 0.1% 1.8% 1.2% 0.3% 4.4% Coal Township State Corr. Inst. 2.6 1.3 5.5 1.7 0.7 4.1 Cresson State Corr. Inst. 2.5 1.2 5.1 3.9 2.2 6.8 0.6% 0.1% 2.7% 0.0% 0.0% 3.3% 4.0% Rhode Island Maximum Security Fac. South Carolina Goodman Corr. Inst.f 3.1% 1.4% 6.7% 0.0% 0.0% Ridgeland Corr. Inst. 2.2 1.0 4.8 4.8 2.8 8.1 Trenton Corr. Inst. 0.0 0.0 2.1 1.4 0.6 3.6 3.7% 1.6% 8.0% 2.4% 0.9% 6.5% 1.8% 0.7% 4.5% 5.2% 3.0% 8.7% Allred Unit 7.6% 4.4% 12.9% 5.6% 2.9% 10.4% Beto Unit 3.1 1.5 6.2 6.0 3.6 9.9 Bridgeport Pre-Parole Fac.f,g 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.0 0.0 2.9 South Dakota Mike Durfee State Prison & Trusty Unit Tennessee West Tennessee State Penitentiary Texas Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09 43 Appendix Table 2 (continued) Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimization, by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 Inmate-on-inmatea Staff sexual misconducta 95%-confidence intervalb Facility name Percent victimizedc Lower bound Upper bound 95%-confidence intervalb Percent victimizedc Lower bound Upper bound Texas (continued) C. Moore Transfer Fac. 0.0% 0.0% 2.0% 0.4% 0.1% 1.9% Coffield Unit 1.7 0.6 4.8 3.2 1.6 6.3 Cole State Jail 1.4 0.4 4.3 1.7 0.6 4.5 Crain Unitf 3.1 1.4 6.4 2.7 1.2 6.0 Ferguson Unit 1.2 0.3 4.7 7.6 4.7 11.9 Halbert Substance Abuse Felony Punishment Fac.f 0.9 0.3 2.5 0.0 0.0 1.6 Hobby Unitf 4.3 2.6 7.2 2.0 0.9 4.3 Hughes Unit 8.6 5.2 14.0 3.1 1.3 7.1 Jester Unit III 2.2 0.9 5.3 0.0 0.0 2.0 Lindsey State Jailg 0.0 0.0 1.9 1.9 0.8 4.5 Michael Unit 6.1 3.3 11.0 4.8 2.5 9.2 Mountain View Unitf 9.2 5.6 14.7 4.3 2.0 9.1 Neal Unit 1.8 0.7 4.3 2.9 1.3 6.5 Plane State Jailf 2.8 1.2 6.1 0.1 0.0 0.6 Smith Unit 1.2 0.3 4.0 4.3 2.1 8.6 Telford Unit 4.6 2.4 8.4 5.5 3.1 9.8 1.6% 0.7% 3.9% 0.7% 0.2% 2.3% 2.3% 1.1% 4.7% 3.9% 2.3% 6.4% Fluvanna Corr. Ctr.f 11.4% 7.7% 16.5% 6.0% 3.7% 9.5% Haynesville Corr. Ctr. 1.0 0.3 3.4 1.5 0.5 4.0 Lawrenceville Corr. Ctr.g 0.8 0.2 4.0 3.0 1.4 6.3 Airway Heights Corr. Ctr. 1.8% 0.7% 4.4% 2.2% 0.9% 5.3% Washington Corr. Ctr. for Womenf 5.5 3.2 9.3 1.3 0.4 4.0 3.1% 1.2% 7.5% 5.5% 2.7% 11.0% Dodge Corr. Inst.e 0.0% 0.0% 1.9% 1.0% 0.3% 3.3% New Lisbon Corr. Inst. 0.7 0.1 3.8 2.5 0.9 6.9 Taycheedah Corr. Inst.f 11.9 8.2 16.9 1.5 0.6 3.9 3.1 1.2 8.0 2.5 0.8 7.1 1.5% 0.6% 3.5% 1.4% 0.6% 3.4% Utah Central Utah Corr. Fac. Vermont Northwest State Corr. Fac. Virginia Washington West Virginia Mount Olive Corr. Complex Wisconsin Waupun Corr. Inst. Wyoming Wyoming Honor Farm 44 August 2010 Appendix Table 2 (continued) Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimization, by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 Inmate-on-inmatea Staff sexual misconducta 95%-confidence intervalb Facility name Percent victimizedc Lower bound Upper bound 95%-confidence intervalb Percent victimizedc Lower bound Upper bound Federal Facilities (Bureau of Prisons) Big Sandy - Camp 0.0% 0.0% 6.5% 0.0% 0.0% 6.5% Brooklyn Metropolitan Det. Ctr.d 0.7 0.1 3.4 0.0 0.0 1.6 Bryan Fed. Prison Campf 1.7 0.6 4.4 0.6 0.1 2.7 Carswell Fed. Med. Ctr.f 3.6 1.7 7.6 1.9 0.6 5.5 Coleman I U.S. Penitentiary 1.7 0.5 5.7 3.3 1.3 8.1 Coleman Medium Fed. Corr. Inst.e 0.7 0.1 3.6 0.0 0.0 2.1 2.0 Danbury Fed. Corr. Inst.f 1.4 0.4 4.6 0.0 0.0 Elkton Fed. Corr. Inst. 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.0 2.1 Englewood Fed. Corr. Inst. 1.6 0.6 4.2 0.3 0.1 1.4 Fairton Fed. Corr. Inst. 0.6 0.1 3.0 1.0 0.2 5.0 7.3 Florence Fed. Corr. Inst. 0.0 0.0 4.8 1.4 0.3 Forrest City Low Fed. Corr. Inst. 0.0 0.0 1.8 1.6 0.6 4.3 Jesup-Fed. Satellite Low 0.9 0.2 4.2 0.0 0.0 2.4 Morgantown Fed. Corr. Inst. 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.0 2.4 Oakdale Fed. Corr. Inst. 0.0 0.0 1.9 1.0 0.2 4.8 Petersburg Medium Fed. Corr. Inst. 3.1 1.3 7.6 3.0 1.2 7.7 Schuylkill Fed. Corr. Inst. 0.8 0.2 2.6 1.4 0.4 4.9 Texarkana Fed. Corr. Inst. 0.0 0.0 2.8 1.2 0.2 6.0 Victorville U.S. Penitentiary 0.7 0.1 3.5 1.7 0.5 5.7 Note: Detail may sum to more than total victimization rate because victims may have reported both inmate-on-inmate and staff-on-inmate sexual victimization. aIncludes all types of sexual victimization, including oral, anal, or vaginal penetration, hand jobs, touching of the inmate’s butt, thighs, penis, breasts, or vagina in a sexual way, and other sexual acts occurring in the past 12 months, or since admission to the facility, if shorter. bIndicates that different samples in the same facility would yield prevalence rates falling between the lower and upper bound estimates 95 out of 100 times. cWeights were applied so that inmates who responded accurately reflected the entire population of each facility on select characteristics, including age, sex, race, time served, and sentence length. (See Methodology.) cStandard errors may be used to construct confidence intervals around the survey estimates. (See Methodology.) dFacility houses both males and females; both were sampled at this facility. eFacility houses both males and females; only males were sampled at this facility. fFemale facility. gPrivately operated facility. Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09 45 Appendix Table 3 Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimization by level of coercion, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 Inmate-on-inmatea Staff sexual misconducta Physically forcedb Pressuredc Physically forcedb Pressuredc 1.3% 1.6% 1.0% 1.6% 1.8% Bibb Corr. Fac. 1.9% 2.7% 0.3% 1.3% 1.1% William Donaldson Corr. Fac. 2.9 3.9 1.4 1.5 4.5 1.1% 0.0% 1.1% 1.1% 0.0% Arizona State Prison Complex - Lewis 0.0% 0.7% 1.4% 1.9% 0.4% Arizona State Prison Complex - Tucsonf 0.3 0.5 0.4 1.7 2.3 Diagnostic Unite 1.9% 1.9% 0.7% 0.0% 2.2% McPherson Unitg 4.7 7.2 2.3 3.6 2.4 0.9% Facility name Total Without force or pressured Alabama Alaska Fairbanks Corr. Ctr.e Arizona Arkansas California California Corr. Ctr. 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 0.5% California Inst. for Womeng 2.8 3.6 1.6 1.1 1.3 California Med. Fac. 3.9 4.1 1.7 2.5 1.1 Centinela State Prison 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Central California Women’s Fac.g 1.9 2.9 1.1 3.2 0.2 Chuckawalla Valley State Prison 0.6 2.8 1.2 1.6 1.0 Deuel Vocational Inst. 1.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.9 Folsom State Prison 0.7 0.7 1.1 1.1 0.8 High Desert State Prison 2.6 1.7 0.4 0.4 0.5 Los Angeles County State Prison 1.1 2.0 1.6 1.8 1.0 North Kern State Prison 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.9 2.5 Pleasant Valley State Prison 1.9 5.5 0.6 0.6 1.3 Salinas Valley State Prison 1.6 1.9 0.5 0.8 1.6 Valley State Prison for Womeng 5.0 6.5 1.3 3.6 2.0 Wasco State Prison-Reception Ctr. 0.5 0.5 1.3 1.0 1.0 2.6% 2.7% 3.1% 5.0% 3.7% Colorado Sterling Corr. Fac. Connecticut Corrigan-Radgowski Corr. Ctr. 0.0% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 2.3% Osborn Corr. Inst. 0.7 2.4 0.4 0.8 1.3 York Corr. Fac.g 4.0 4.1 1.1 2.2 0.4 0.6% 1.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% Delaware Sussex Corr. Inst. Florida Century Corr. Inst. & Work Camp 0.5% 0.5% 0.0% 1.5% 1.4% Gadsden Corr. Fac.g,h 1.4 0.6 0.0 0.4 0.0 Hernando Corr. Inst.g 3.6 4.5 0.4 1.0 1.2 Indian River Corr. Inst. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 1.3 Lancaster Corr. Inst. & Work Camp 1.9 1.7 1.1 2.0 2.4 Liberty Corr. Inst. & Work Camp 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 Lowell Corr. Inst., Annex, & Work Campg 2.4 3.1 1.3 1.3 1.2 Moore Haven Corr. Fac.h 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.1 1.1 Okeechobee Corr. Inst. 1.6 0.8 2.3 2.4 3.4 46 August 2010 Appendix Table 3 (continued) Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimization by level of coercion, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 Inmate-on-inmatea Staff sexual misconducta Physically forcedb Pressuredc Physically forcedb Pressuredc Reception and Med. Ctr. & Reception and Med. Ctr.West Unitf 0.0% 0.5% 0.3% 0.7% 1.0% South Florida Reception Ctr. & South Unit 1.0 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.3 Dodge State Prison 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 1.0% 2.5% 2.2 Facility name Without force or pressured Florida (continued) Georgia Dooly State Prison 0.8 0.5 0.0 0.5 Pulaski State Prisong 4.1 4.4 0.0 0.3 0.0 Washington State Prison 0.5 0.0 0.4 0.4 1.9 Wheeler Corr. Fac.h 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.3 2.4 Oahu Community Corr. Ctr.e 3.3% 3.3% 0.2% 0.3% 0.0% Women’s Community Corr. Ctr.g 1.7 2.7 0.0 2.9 1.0 Hawaii Idaho Idaho Corr. Fac.h 0.5% 0.5% 0.9% 1.0% 1.9% Idaho State Corr. Inst. 1.7 2.5 1.3 1.3 1.9 Illinois East Moline Corr. Ctr. 0.4% 0.4% 0.5% 1.0% 0.0% Illinois River Corr. Ctr. 0.4 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.5 Lincoln Corr. Ctr.g 0.7 0.3 0.0 0.7 0.0 Pontiac Corr. Ctr. 5.0 4.4 0.8 3.4 2.5 5.0% 4.3% 1.2% 2.2% 0.0% Indiana Plainfield Corr. Fac. Putnamville Corr. Fac. 1.6 2.7 1.4 1.8 4.7 Westville Corr. Fac. 1.4 2.3 0.7 1.8 4.5 Iowa Iowa Corr. Inst. - Womeng 3.4% 5.4% 0.4% 1.5% 1.5% Newton Corr. Fac. 2.3 2.0 0.7 0.3 1.0 0.0% 3.7% 2.5% 3.4% 2.9% Kansas Larned Corr. Mental Health Fac. Kentucky Kentucky Corr. Inst. for Womeng 5.1% 6.0% 0.7% 2.3% 0.7% Luther Luckett Corr. Complex 1.2 1.2 2.1 4.2 3.9 Louisiana Avoyelles Corr. Ctr. 1.7% 1.3% 2.2% 3.1% 1.8% C. Paul Phelps Corr. Ctr. 0.4 0.7 0.3 1.3 2.1 Louisiana Corr. Inst. for Womeng 2.4 4.9 1.3 1.8 0.0 2.7% 5.3% 1.6% 1.7% 2.9% Maine Maine State Prison - Warren Maryland Jessup Pre-Release Unit 0.0% 0.0% 2.4% 3.1% 3.8% Maryland Corr. Inst. - Jessup 1.0 1.0 0.6 0.6 2.8 0.0% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 3.0% 1.4% 2.2% 1.9% 2.4% 2.8% Massachusetts Massachusetts Corr. Inst - Plymouth Michigan Earnest C. Brooks Corr. Fac. Mid-Michigan Corr. Fac. 1.4 2.9 0.8 0.8 0.5 Muskegon Corr. Fac. 0.7 4.8 1.1 1.1 5.6 Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09 47 Appendix Table 3 (continued) Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimization by level of coercion, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 Inmate-on-inmatea Staff sexual misconducta Physically forcedb Pressuredc Physically forcedb Pressuredc 2.9% 2.7% 1.6% 3.6% 1.6% Minnesota Corr. Fac. - Rush City 1.9% 1.8% 2.8% 3.5% 3.9% Minnesota Corr. Fac. - Shakopeeg 5.5 6.8 0.4 0.4 0.0 Mississippi State Penitentiary 1.2% 1.5% 1.9% 1.9% 5.9% South Mississippi Corr. Inst. 0.4 0.3 1.0 3.1 2.8 Facility name Without force or pressured Michigan (continued) Richard A. Handlon Corr. Fac. Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Crossroads Corr. Fac. 1.7% 1.7% 3.8% 5.2% 4.1% Fulton Reception & Diagnostic Ctr. 0.3 0.0 0.8 1.0 1.7 Women’s Eastern Reception, Diagnostic, & Corr. Ctr.g 4.9 6.6 0.5 1.0 0.5 3.6% 1.4% 1.7% 4.7% 5.9% 1.0% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.0% 0.3% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.0% Bayside State Prison - Ancora Unit 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 0.7% Edna Mahan Corr. Fac. for Womeng 1.8 3.6 1.1 1.9 0.6 2.2% 0.9% 1.5% 0.9% 1.3% Attica Corr. Fac. 0.6% 0.6% 6.4% 6.0% 2.8% 4.8 Montana Montana State Prison Nebraska Diagnostic & Evaluation Ctr. Nevada Northern Nevada Corr. Ctr.e New Hampshire Lakes Region Fac. New Jersey New Mexico Southern New Mexico Corr. Fac. New York Bare Hill Corr. Fac. 0.4 1.2 1.7 2.8 Bayview Corr. Fac.g 3.0 4.6 6.5 10.8 0.6 Cape Vincent Corr. Fac. 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Clinton Corr. Fac. 0.0 0.3 0.7 1.6 3.1 Coxsackie Corr. Fac. 1.4 1.4 2.9 4.1 1.1 Elmira Corr. Fac. 1.5 3.0 2.5 7.1 1.3 Walkill Corr. Fac. 0.0 0.0 2.3 2.3 0.9 North Carolina Brown Creek Corr. Inst. 0.0% 0.5% 0.6% 0.0% 0.6% Guilford Corr. Ctr. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 Pender Corr. Inst. 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.6 Swannanoa Corr. Ctr. for Womeng 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Warren Corr. Ctr. 1.2 1.8 2.0 2.8 5.1 North Dakota Dakota Women’s Corr. & Rehab. Ctr.g 2.2% 2.2% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0% James River Corr. Ctr. 1.6 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 48 August 2010 Appendix Table 3 (continued) Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimization by level of coercion, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 Inmate-on-inmatea Facility name Physically forcedb Pressuredc Staff sexual misconducta Physically forcedb Pressuredc Without force or pressured Ohio Corr. Reception Ctr. 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0.3% 0.4% Lebanon Corr. Inst. 2.3 3.2 1.0 1.0 2.3 Mansfield Corr. Inst. 1.5 1.5 0.6 0.7 2.2 Ohio Reformatory for Womeng 2.3 4.7 0.5 3.1 0.3 Southeastern Corr. Inst. 1.1 1.7 0.7 3.0 3.6 Oklahoma Davis Corr. Fac.h 3.1% 3.3% 2.3% 3.5% 4.0% Mack H. Alford Corr. Ctr. 4.7 3.3 1.7 2.6 4.8 2.6% 3.5% 0.3% 1.6% 0.5% Oregon Coffee Creek Corr. Fac.g Pennsylvania Camp Hill State Corr. Inst. 0.3% 0.3% 0.0% 0.3% 0.8% Coal Township State Corr. Inst. 1.1 1.9 1.7 1.4 0.3 Cresson State Corr. Inst. 1.1 2.2 1.8 3.3 0.8 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Rhode Island Maximum Security Fac. South Carolina Goodman Corr. Inst.g 0.0% 3.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Ridgeland Corr. Inst. 0.7 2.2 1.1 1.4 4.4 Trenton Corr. Inst. 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.9 0.5 2.7% 3.7% 0.7% 0.8% 0.9% 1.2% 1.8% 1.2% 1.2% 4.7% Allred Unit 6.8% 3.9% 3.2% 3.7% 3.2% 5.6 South Dakota Mike Durfee State Prison & Trusty Unit Tennessee West Tennessee State Penitentiary Texas Beto Unit 1.8 3.1 1.0 1.9 Bridgeport Pre-Parole Fac.g,h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C. Moore Transfer Fac. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 Coffield Unit 1.7 0.4 0.9 1.4 2.3 0.5 Cole State Jail 1.4 0.7 1.2 0.5 Crain Unitg 1.9 2.2 0.5 1.1 1.6 Ferguson Unit 0.0 1.2 1.1 3.1 5.8 Halbert Substance Abuse Felony Punishment Fac.g 0.5 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 Hobby Unitg 3.2 1.9 1.1 0.8 0.4 Hughes Unit 5.9 6.5 1.1 2.6 1.7 0.0 Jester Unit III 1.3 2.2 0.0 0.0 Lindsey State Jailh 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.9 1.5 Michael Unit 3.1 6.1 1.7 3.2 2.8 Mountain View Unitg 5.0 7.1 2.1 3.7 0.7 1.7 Neal Unit 1.4 1.4 0.5 1.7 Plane State Jailg 1.7 2.4 0.0 0.1 0.0 Smith Unit 0.6 1.2 2.6 2.6 1.7 Telford Unit 3.1 3.9 2.2 1.3 4.2 Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09 49 Appendix Table 3 (continued) Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimization by level of coercion, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 Inmate-on-inmatea Facility name Staff sexual misconducta Physically forcedb Pressuredc Physically forcedb Pressuredc Without force or pressured 1.6% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 2.3% 0.8% 1.9% 2.0% Utah Central Utah Corr. Fac. Vermont Northwest State Corr. Fac. Virginia Fluvanna Corr. Ctr.g 5.9% 9.5% 1.5% 4.3% 2.4% Haynesville Corr. Ctr. 0.5 0.5 0.0 1.5 0.9 Lawrenceville Corr. Ctr.h 0.8 0.8 0.6 1.1 1.7 Airway Heights Corr. Ctr. 1.4% 1.8% 1.6% 2.2% 1.1% Washington Corr. Ctr. for Womeng 3.2 4.9 0.8 0.8 1.3 1.9% 1.2% 2.7% 2.4% 3.5% Washington West Virginia Mount Olive Corr. Complex Wisconsin Dodge Corr. Inst.f 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% New Lisbon Corr. Inst. 0.7 0.7 0.0 1.9 1.3 Taycheedah Corr. Inst.g 3.9 10.8 1.0 0.5 0.6 Waupun Corr. Inst. 1.3 3.1 0.5 0.5 2.5 0.7% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 1.4% Wyoming Wyoming Honor Farm Federal Facilities (Bureau of Prisons) Big Sandy - Camp 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Brooklyn Metropolitan Det. Ctr.e 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 Bryan Fed. Prison Campg 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 Carswell Fed. Med. Ctr.g 1.9 2.4 1.2 1.0 0.0 Coleman I U.S. Penitentiary 1.7 1.7 1.4 1.6 1.2 Coleman Medium Fed. Corr. Inst.f 0.7 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 Danbury Fed. Corr. Inst.g 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Elkton Fed. Corr. Inst. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Englewood Fed. Corr. Inst. 1.1 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.3 Fairton Fed. Corr. Inst. 0.6 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Florence Fed. Corr. Inst. 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 1.4 Forrest City Low Fed. Corr. Inst. 0.0 0.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 Jesup-Fed. Satellite Low 0.9 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 Morgantown Fed. Corr. Inst. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Oakdale Fed. Corr. Inst. 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 Petersburg Medium Fed. Corr. Inst. 1.6 3.1 0.4 2.3 1.1 50 August 2010 Appendix Table 3 (continued) Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimization by level of coercion, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 Inmate-on-inmatea Facility name Physically forcedb Pressuredc Staff sexual misconducta Physically forcedb Pressuredc Without force or pressured Federal Facilities (Bureau of Prisons) (continued) Schuylkill Fed. Corr. Inst. 0.0% 0.8% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% Texarkana Fed. Corr. Inst. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 Victorville U.S. Penitentiary 0.0 0.7 1.0 1.7 0.7 Note: Detail may sum to more than total victimization rate because victims may report on more than one incident involving different levels of coercion. aIncludes all types of sexual victimization, including oral, anal, or vaginal penetration, hand jobs, touching of the inmate’s butt, thighs, penis, breasts, or vagina in a sexual way, and other sexual acts occurring in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if shorter. bPhysical force or threat of physical force reported. cIncludes incidents in which the perpetrator, without using force, pressured the inmate or made the inmate feel that they had to participate. (See Methodology.) dIncludes incidents in which the staff offered favors or privileges in exchange for sex or sexual contact and incidents in which the inmate reported that they willingly had sex or sexual contact with staff. eFacility houses both males and females; both were sampled at this facility. fFacility houses both males and females; only males were sampled in this facility. gFemale facility. hPrivately operated facility. Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09 51 Appendix Table 4 Percent of prison inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual contacts, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 Nonconsensual sexual actsa Abusive sexual contacts onlyb 95%-confidence intervalc Facility name Total Percent victimizedd Lower bound Upper bound 3.1% 2.7% 3.5% 95%-confidence intervalc Percent victimizedd 1.3% Lower bound 1.1% Upper bound 1.6% Alabama Bibb Corr. Fac. 2.4% 1.2% 4.6% 2.0% 1.0% 4.2% William Donaldson Corr. Fac. 4.9 2.8 8.5 3.9 2.0 7.3 2.1% 0.8% 5.7% 0.0% 0.0% 3.6% Arizona State Prison Complex - Lewis 1.9% 0.7% 4.8% 0.0% 0.0% 1.9% Arizona State Prison Complex - Tucsonf 2.6 1.2 5.5 0.8 0.2 3.1 Diagnostic Unite 4.8% 2.4% 9.5% 0.0% 0.0% 3.2% McPherson Unitg 4.5 2.6 7.7 5.7 3.5 9.2 California Corr. Ctr. 0.9% 0.2% 3.1% 0.5% 0.1% 2.9% California Inst. for Womeng 2.7 1.2 6.0 3.4 1.6 7.2 Alaska Fairbanks Corr. Ctr.e Arizona Arkansas California California Med. Fac. 3.9 2.3 6.6 5.1 3.1 8.2 Centinela State Prison 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.0 2.6 Central California Women’s Fac.g 3.3 1.4 7.3 1.9 0.8 4.9 Chuckawalla Valley State Prison 2.7 1.2 6.1 0.9 0.3 3.3 Deuel Vocational Inst. 1.7 0.7 4.2 0.9 0.3 3.4 Folsom State Prison 0.4 0.1 2.1 1.1 0.3 4.0 High Desert State Prison 2.6 1.1 6.2 0.9 0.2 3.5 Los Angeles County State Prison 3.4 1.7 6.6 0.5 0.1 2.7 North Kern State Prison 2.5 1.1 5.7 0.0 0.0 1.8 Pleasant Valley State Prison 4.6 2.4 8.5 1.4 0.4 5.0 3.8 Salinas Valley State Prison 3.5 1.2 9.4 1.3 0.4 Valley State Prison for Womeng 5.3 2.8 9.7 2.9 1.4 6.0 Wasco State Prison-Reception Ctr. 1.9 0.7 4.7 0.0 0.0 1.7 6.2% 3.5% 10.7% 1.3% 0.4% 3.6% Corrigan-Radgowski Corr. Ctr. 1.8% 0.6% 5.1% 1.2% 0.3% 4.4% Osborn Corr. Inst. 2.6 1.2 5.4 1.4 0.5 3.9 York Corr. Fac.g 2.6 1.2 5.6 4.9 2.6 8.8 2.5% 1.3% 4.9% 0.0% 0.0% 1.8% Century Corr. Inst. & Work Camp 1.9% 0.8% 4.6% 0.0% 0.0% 1.8% Gadsden Corr. Fac.g,h 0.4 0.1 2.0 2.0 0.8 4.8 Hernando Corr. Inst.g 3.2 1.7 6.0 3.3 1.8 5.9 Indian River Corr. Inst. 1.2 0.5 2.9 0.7 0.2 2.3 Lancaster Corr. Inst. & Work Camp 4.3 2.4 7.8 2.3 1.1 4.9 Colorado Sterling Corr. Fac. Connecticut Delaware Sussex Corr. Inst. Florida Liberty Corr. Inst. & Work Camp 1.5 0.6 3.7 0.5 0.1 2.5 Lowell Corr. Inst., Annex, & Work Campg 3.2 1.7 5.9 1.3 0.5 3.2 Moore Haven Corr. Fac.h 1.6 0.6 4.2 0.0 0.0 1.7 52 August 2010 Appendix Table 4 (continued) Percent of prison inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual contacts, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 Nonconsensual sexual actsa Abusive sexual contacts onlyb 95%-confidence intervalc Facility name Percent victimizedd Lower bound Upper bound 4.4% 2.6% 7.3% 95%-confidence intervalc Percent victimizedd Lower bound Upper bound Florida (continued) Okeechobee Corr. Inst. 1.8% 0.7% 4.2% Reception and Med. Ctr. & Reception and Med. Ctr.-West Unitf 1.4 0.5 4.0 0.3 0.1 1.4 South Florida Reception Ctr. & South Unit 0.9 0.3 2.5 0.8 0.2 3.0 Dodge State Prison 2.0% 0.8% 4.7% 0.5% 0.1% 2.5% 1.5 Georgia Dooly State Prison 2.4 1.1 5.3 0.3 0.1 Pulaski State Prisong 2.7 1.4 5.1 3.5 1.8 6.4 Washington State Prison 2.3 1.0 5.0 0.5 0.1 2.4 Wheeler Corr. Fac.h 2.5 1.3 4.9 0.6 0.2 2.1 Oahu Community Corr. Ctr.e 3.5% 1.3% 9.0% 1.3% 0.2% 6.3% Women’s Community Corr. Ctr.g 4.0 1.8 8.4 1.1 0.3 4.3 Hawaii Idaho Idaho Corr. Fac.h 2.3% 1.1% Idaho State Corr. Inst. 6.0 3.5 5.1% 10.2 0.0% 0.0% 1.8% 0.0 0.0 1.8 Illinois East Moline Corr. Ctr. 1.4% 0.5% 3.7% 0.0% 0.0% 1.8% Illinois River Corr. Ctr. 1.3 0.5 3.7 0.0 0.0 1.9 Lincoln Corr. Ctr.g 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.4 0.5 3.9 Pontiac Corr. Ctr. 7.4 3.4 15.6 4.6 1.5 13.4 Indiana Plainfield Corr. Fac. 3.3% 1.4% 4.3% 2.0% 8.8% Putnamville Corr. Fac. 5.7 3.2 10.1 7.2% 2.4 0.9 5.7 Westville Corr. Fac. 4.8 2.5 9.2 0.9 0.3 3.3 Iowa Iowa Corr. Inst. - Womeng 4.3% 2.4% 7.5% 3.4% 1.7% 6.6% Newton Corr. Fac. 3.4 1.5 7.5 2.3 1.0 5.2 5.3% 2.6% 10.5% 3.7% 1.5% 9.0% Kentucky Corr. Inst. for Womeng 2.8% 1.2% 6.4% 6.8% 3.9% 11.4% Luther Luckett Corr. Complex 5.1 2.7 9.4 1.0 0.3 3.4 Kansas Larned Corr. Mental Health Fac. Kentucky Louisiana Avoyelles Corr. Ctr. 4.0% 2.2% 7.1% 1.3% 0.5% 3.6% C. Paul Phelps Corr. Ctr. 2.9 1.5 5.4 1.3 0.5 3.2 Louisiana Corr. Inst. for Womeng 2.5 1.3 5.0 4.9 3.0 8.0 9.3% 5.5% 15.1% 0.6% 0.1% 3.0% Maine Maine State Prison - Warren Maryland Jessup Pre-Release Unit 4.3% 2.3% 7.9% 0.7% 0.2% 3.0% Maryland Corr. Inst. - Jessup 3.8 1.8 7.8 0.0 0.0 2.5 3.0% 1.1% 8.0% 0.8% 0.2% 3.3% Massachusetts Massachusetts Corr. Inst - Plymouth Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09 53 Appendix Table 4 (continued) Percent of prison inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual contacts, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 Nonconsensual sexual actsa Abusive sexual contacts onlyb 95%-confidence intervalc Facility name Percent victimizedd Lower bound Upper bound 5.0% 2.7% 9.0% 95%-confidence intervalc Percent victimizedd Lower bound Upper bound Michigan Earnest C. Brooks Corr. Fac. 1.3% 0.4% 3.5% Mid-Michigan Corr. Fac. 3.4 1.6 7.1 0.8 0.2 3.6 Muskegon Corr. Fac. 7.0 4.1 11.8 4.4 1.1 15.3 Richard A. Handlon Corr. Fac. 5.0 2.8 8.7 2.3 0.9 5.6 Minnesota Corr. Fac. - Rush City 3.1% 1.4% 6.8% 4.2% 2.1% 8.0% Minnesota Corr. Fac. - Shakopeeg 4.6 2.0 10.1 3.7 2.0 6.9 Minnesota Mississippi Mississippi State Penitentiary 7.0% 4.5% 10.8% 0.5% 0.1% 1.8% South Mississippi Corr. Inst. 4.5 2.7 7.7 1.1 0.4 3.2 Missouri Crossroads Corr. Fac. 7.1% 4.4% 11.3% 2.2% 1.0% 5.0% Fulton Reception & Diagnostic Ctr. 1.7 0.7 4.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 Women’s Eastern Reception, Diagnostic, & Corr. Ctr.g 2.0 0.8 4.8 6.8 4.2 10.8 7.8% 4.9% 12.2% 2.9% 1.4% 6.0% 1.9% 0.7% 5.3% 1.0% 0.2% 3.8% 0.8% 0.2% 2.9% 0.0% 0.0% 1.8% 4.0% 1.8% 8.6% 1.1% 0.3% 4.9% Bayside State Prison - Ancora Unit 1.7% 0.6% 4.6% 0.0% 0.0% 2.8% Edna Mahan Corr. Fac. for Womeng 0.9 0.3 3.0 3.6 1.8 6.9 1.7% 0.6% 4.6% 1.5% 0.5% 4.5% Montana Montana State Prison Nebraska Diagnostic & Evaluation Ctr. Nevada Northern Nevada Corr. Ctr.e New Hampshire Lakes Region Fac. New Jersey New Mexico Southern New Mexico Corr. Fac. New York Attica Corr. Fac. 2.7% 1.1% 5.3% 2.8% 9.6% Bare Hill Corr. Fac. 6.0 3.5 10.2 6.8% 1.8 0.7 4.3 Bayview Corr. Fac.g 10.2 7.3 14.2 4.4 2.6 7.3 Cape Vincent Corr. Fac. 0.4 0.1 2.1 0.6 0.1 2.8 Clinton Corr. Fac. 3.1 1.4 6.6 1.6 0.6 4.1 Coxsackie Corr. Fac. 3.3 1.9 5.9 2.4 1.1 5.3 Elmira Corr. Fac. 8.0 4.8 13.0 1.8 0.6 5.0 Walkill Corr. Fac. 0.9 0.3 2.9 2.3 0.9 5.9 North Carolina Brown Creek Corr. Inst. 1.2% 0.4% 3.9% 0.5% 0.1% 2.6% Guilford Corr. Ctr. 0.0 0.0 7.6 0.0 0.0 7.6 Pender Corr. Inst. 1.1 0.4 3.6 0.7 0.1 3.2 Swannanoa Corr. Ctr. for Womeng 0.0 0.0 6.4 1.3 0.5 3.4 Warren Corr. Ctr. 3.5 1.8 7.0 3.4 1.4 8.1 54 August 2010 Appendix Table 4 (continued) Percent of prison inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual contacts, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 Nonconsensual sexual actsa Abusive sexual contacts onlyb 95%-confidence intervalc 95%-confidence intervalc Percent victimizedd Lower bound Upper bound Dakota Women’s Corr. & Rehab. Ctr.g 2.1% 1.0% 4.3% 0.9% 0.3% 2.5% James River Corr. Ctr. 0.4 0.1 1.6 2.5 1.0 5.9 0.7% 0.2% 2.3% 0.4% 0.1% 2.2% Facility name Percent victimizedd Lower bound Upper bound North Dakota Ohio Corr. Reception Ctr. Lebanon Corr. Inst. 3.6 2.0 6.6 2.0 0.8 5.0 Mansfield Corr. Inst. 1.9 0.7 5.3 2.5 1.1 5.6 Ohio Reformatory for Womeng 3.2 1.6 6.1 4.5 2.5 7.9 Southeastern Corr. Inst. 5.3 2.7 9.9 0.0 0.0 2.6 Oklahoma Davis Corr. Fac.h 6.9% 4.1% 11.4% 2.3% 1.0% 5.0% Mack H. Alford Corr. Ctr. 5.1 2.4 10.4 2.8 1.0 7.8 2.3% 1.0% 4.8% 2.7% 8.4% Oregon Coffee Creek Corr. Fac.g 5.4% Pennsylvania Camp Hill State Corr. Inst. 1.2% 0.3% 4.4% 0.0% 0.0% 1.6% Coal Township State Corr. Inst. 2.3 1.0 5.0 1.6 0.7 4.0 Cresson State Corr. Inst. 3.6 2.0 6.5 2.0 0.9 4.4 0.6% 0.1% 2.7% 0.0% 0.0% 3.2% 1.1% 0.3% 3.8% 2.0% 0.8% 5.2% Rhode Island Maximum Security Fac. South Carolina Goodman Corr. Inst.g Ridgeland Corr. Inst. 5.3 3.1 8.7 0.9 0.3 3.1 Trenton Corr. Inst. 0.9 0.3 2.7 0.5 0.1 2.4 4.5% 2.1% 9.5% 1.6% 0.6% 4.4% 5.6% 3.4% 9.3% 0.0% 0.0% 1.7% South Dakota Mike Durfee State Prison & Trusty Unit Tennessee West Tennessee State Penitentiary Texas Allred Unit 6.5% 3.7% 11.2% 4.4% 2.0% 9.2% Beto Unit 6.0 3.6 9.8 1.3 0.5 3.7 Bridgeport Pre-Parole Fac.g,h 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.0 0.0 2.9 C. Moore Transfer Fac. 0.4 0.1 1.9 0.0 0.0 2.0 Coffield Unit 3.6 1.8 6.8 1.2 0.3 4.4 Cole State Jail 0.5 0.1 2.4 2.6 1.1 5.9 Crain Unitg 2.6 1.1 5.8 1.9 0.8 4.6 Ferguson Unit 7.3 4.4 11.9 1.2 0.5 3.2 Halbert Substance Abuse Felony Punishment Fac.g 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.9 0.3 2.5 Hobby Unitg 2.3 1.1 4.6 3.2 1.7 5.8 Hughes Unit 3.9 1.9 7.7 6.4 3.5 11.3 Jester Unit III 1.2 0.4 3.8 1.0 0.3 3.7 Lindsey State Jailh 1.5 0.6 4.1 0.3 0.1 1.6 Michael Unit 7.6 4.4 12.8 1.5 0.4 5.2 Mountain View Unitg 4.8 2.4 9.4 5.6 2.9 10.6 Neal Unit 2.9 1.3 6.5 1.4 0.5 3.7 Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09 55 Appendix Table 4 (continued) Percent of prison inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual contacts, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 Nonconsensual sexual actsa Abusive sexual contacts onlyb 95%-confidence intervalc Facility name Percent victimizedd Lower bound Upper bound 95%-confidence intervalc Percent victimizedd Lower bound Upper bound Texas (continued) Plane State Jailg 0.0% 0.0% 1.6% 2.8% 1.2% 6.1% Smith Unit 2.3 0.9 5.6 3.2 1.4 7.3 Telford Unit 7.3 4.3 11.9 0.4 0.1 2.4 1.1% 0.4% 2.9% 1.2% 0.5% 3.4% 6.2% 4.0% 9.3% 0.0% 0.0% 3.9% Utah Central Utah Corr. Fac. Vermont Northwest State Corr. Fac. Virginia Fluvanna Corr. Ctr.g 10.5% 7.0% 15.4% 3.8% 2.0% 7.2% Haynesville Corr. Ctr. 1.5 0.6 4.1 1.0 0.3 3.2 Lawrenceville Corr. Ctr.h 2.6 1.1 5.9 1.2 0.3 4.1 Airway Heights Corr. Ctr. 2.0% 0.8% 4.8% 1.5% 0.5% 4.1% Washington Corr. Ctr. for Womeng 4.2 2.2 7.8 1.8 0.8 4.3 6.0% 3.0% 11.5% 0.8% 0.1% 3.9% Washington West Virginia Mount Olive Corr. Complex Wisconsin Dodge Corr. Inst.f 1.0% 0.3% 3.3% 0.0% 0.0% 1.9% New Lisbon Corr. Inst. 2.5 0.9 6.9 0.0 0.0 3.4 Taycheedah Corr. Inst.g 6.5 4.0 10.3 6.4 3.7 10.8 Waupun Corr. Inst. 5.1 2.3 10.9 0.0 0.0 3.3 2.8% 1.5% 5.3% 0.0% 0.0% 3.2% Wyoming Wyoming Honor Farm Federal Facilities (Bureau of Prisons) Big Sandy - Camp 0.0% 0.0% 6.5% 0.0% 0.0% 6.5% Brooklyn Metropolitan Det. Ctr.e 0.7 0.1 3.4 0.0 0.0 1.6 Bryan Fed. Prison Campg 0.6 0.1 2.7 1.7 0.6 4.4 Carswell Fed. Med. Ctr.g 2.0 0.7 5.5 2.9 1.2 6.6 Coleman I U.S. Penitentiary 5.0 2.3 10.3 0.0 0.0 2.5 Coleman Medium Fed. Corr. Inst.f 0.7 0.1 3.6 0.0 0.0 2.1 Danbury Fed. Corr. Inst.g 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.4 0.4 4.6 Elkton Fed. Corr. Inst. 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.0 2.1 Englewood Fed. Corr. Inst. 0.5 0.1 2.3 1.4 0.5 3.8 Fairton Fed. Corr. Inst. 1.0 0.2 5.0 0.6 0.1 3.0 Florence Fed. Corr. Inst. 1.4 0.3 7.3 0.0 0.0 4.8 Forrest City Low Fed. Corr. Inst. 1.6 0.6 4.3 0.0 0.0 1.8 Jesup-Fed. Satellite Low 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.9 0.2 4.2 Morgantown Fed. Corr. Inst. 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.0 2.4 Oakdale Fed. Corr. Inst. 1.0 0.2 4.8 0.0 0.0 1.9 Petersburg Medium Fed. Corr. Inst. 3.4 1.4 8.1 0.4 0.1 2.4 56 August 2010 Appendix Table 4 (continued) Percent of prison inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual contacts, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 Nonconsensual sexual actsa Abusive sexual contacts onlyb 95%-confidence intervalc Facility name Percent victimizedd Lower bound Upper bound 95%-confidence intervalc Percent victimizedd Lower bound Upper bound Federal Facilities (Bureau of Prisons) Schuylkill Fed. Corr. Inst. 2.2 0.8 5.5 0.0 0.0 2.3 Texarkana Fed. Corr. Inst. 1.2% 0.2% 6.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.8% Victorville U.S. Penitentiary 2.4 0.8 6.5 0.0 0.0 2.9 Note: Detail may not sum to total percent victimized within facility due to rounding. aIncludes all inmates who reported unwanted contacts with another inmate or unwilling contacts with staff that involved oral sex, anal sex, vaginal sex, handjobs, and other sexual acts occurring in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if shorter. bIncludes all inmates who reported unwanted contacts with another inmate or unwilling contacts with staff that involved touching of the inmate’s butt, thighs, penis, breasts, or vagina in a sexual way occurring in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if shorter. cIndicates that different samples in the same facility would yield prevalence rates falling between the lower and upper bound estimates 95 out of 100 times. dWeights were applied so that inmates who responded accurately reflected the entire population of each facility on select characteristics, including age, sex, race, time served, and sentence length. (See Methodology.) eFacility houses both males and females; both were sampled at this facility. fFacility houses both males and females; only males were sampled at this facility. gFemale facility. hPrivately operated facility. Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09 57 Appendix Table 5 Characteristics of jails and prevalence of sexual victimization, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 Inmates reporting sexual victimizationa 95%-confidence intervalb Facility name Total Number of inmates in custodyc 224,484 Respondents to sexual victimization surveyd Response ratee Percentf Lower bound Upper bound 45,126 68% 3.1% 2.9% 3.3% Alabama Chilton Co. Jail 152 98 86% 3.5% 2.2% Houston Co. Jail 528 216 89 7.4 5.0 5.6% 10.7 Madison Co. Det. Fac. 890 293 71 7.2 5.1 9.9 Montgomery Co. Det. Fac. 567 243 90 3.1 1.9 5.1 Russell Co. Jail 323 174 86 3.2 1.9 5.3 Maricopa Co. - Durango Jail 2,178 281 83% 3.0% 1.7% 5.4% 4.0 Arizona Maricopa Co. - Tent City Jail 970 254 84 1.9 0.9 Maricopa Co. - Towers Jail 992 237 77 6.2 3.9 9.9 Mohave Co. Jail 515 190 77 4.8 3.0 7.5 1,890 260 77 1.0 0.4 2.7 35 25 93% 0.0% 0.0% 13.3% Faulkner Co. Det. Ctr. 191 129 84 3.5 2.3 5.2 Garland Co. Adult Det. Ctr. 261 130 74 5.8 3.7 9.1 43 34 92 0.0 0.0 10.2 523 186 76% 2.7% 1.4% 5.3% Pima Co. Adult Det. Ctr. Arkansas Drew Co. Det. Fac. Sharp Co. Det. Ctr. California Butte Co. Jail Fresno Co. - Main Jail, North Annex, & South Annex 3,268 231 55 4.9 2.8 8.5 Kern Co. - Lerdo Min. Security Fac. 615 230 85 2.4 1.3 4.6 Lake Co. - Hill Road Corr. Fac. 233 111 57 0.5 0.2 1.9 Los Angeles Co. - Pitchess Det. Ctr. - East Fac. 2,033 251 75 3.8 2.0 7.1 Los Angeles Co. - Pitchess Det. Ctr. - North Fac. 1,240 212 66 1.0 0.3 3.7 Los Angeles Co. - Men’s Central Jail 5,512 234 53 5.0 2.4 10.0 Madera Co. Jail 430 164 64 4.9 3.0 8.1 Mendocino Co. Jail 336 160 69 2.8 1.3 5.9 Monterey Co. Jail 1,082 198 65 3.7 1.9 7.3 Orange Co. - Central Jail Complex 2,675 236 72 3.0 1.6 5.8 732 224 76 2.2 1.1 4.4 Orange Co. - J.A. Musick Fac. Riverside Co. - Robert Presley Det. Ctr. 1,250 162 51 4.7 2.4 9.0 Riverside Co. - Southwest Det. Ctr. 1,164 191 58 3.1 1.4 6.6 Sacramento Co. - Main Jail 2,688 258 68 5.4 3.3 8.9 San Bernardino Co. - Central Det. Ctr 1,059 211 70 0.7 0.2 2.2 San Bernardino Co. - West Valley Det. Ctr. 3,180 320 44 5.1 3.3 7.7 San Diego Co. - Central Det. Fac. 11.1 1,077 174 56 6.7 4.0 San Diego Co. - Descanso Det. Fac. 340 141 73 1.8 0.9 3.7 San Francisco Co. - County Jail #8 413 123 73 6.0 3.8 9.3 San Joaquin Co. Jail 1,699 215 66 2.8 1.2 6.3 San Mateo Co. - Maguire Corr. Fac. 1,033 177 64 1.6 0.6 4.1 17.8 Santa Cruz Co. - Blaine Street Fac.g 17 13 82 7.7 3.1 Solano Co. - Sentenced Det. Fac. 360 118 67 0.7 0.2 2.7 Sonoma Co. - North Det. Fac. 323 166 81 1.6 0.8 3.2 58 August 2010 Appendix Table 5 (continued) Characteristics of jails and prevalence of sexual victimization, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 Inmates reporting sexual victimizationa 95%-confidence intervalb Facility name Number of inmates in custodyc Respondents to sexual victimization surveyd Response ratee Percentf Lower bound Upper bound Colorado Adams Co. Det. Fac. 1,548 214 65% 1.1% 0.5% 2.6% Arapahoe Co. Jail 1,293 227 67 2.8 1.3 5.7 El Paso Co. - Criminal Justice Ctr. 1,603 251 63 1.7 0.7 4.1 Jefferson Co. Jail 1,179 239 69 1.4 0.6 3.3 94 66 73 3.3 1.6 6.8 3,136 167 46% 6.0% 3.1% 11.0% Logan Co. Jail District of Columbia D.C. Dept of Corr. - Central Det. Fac. & Corr. Treatment Fac. Florida Bay Co. Jail 801 226 79% 2.3% 1.1% 4.7% Broward Co. - Joseph V. Conte Fac. 1,362 234 75 3.5 1.8 6.4 Broward Co. - Main Jail 1,602 181 57 4.6 2.5 8.2 767 209 74 4.5 2.7 7.5 1,071 237 77 3.2 1.7 5.7 534 140 59 3.2 1.5 6.8 91 60 73 2.2 0.8 5.9 454 167 66 1.7 0.7 3.9 Broward Co. - North Broward Bureau Broward Co. - Paul Rein Det. Fac. Charlotte Co. Jail Hardee Co. Jail Highlands Co. Jail Hillsborough Co. - Falkenburg Road Jail Jacksonville - James I. Montgomery Corr. Ctr. 2,697 250 68 2.1 0.9 4.5 600 250 93 2.1 1.1 3.9 3.9 Marion Co. Jail 1,516 270 80 1.8 0.8 Miami-Dade Co. - Metro West Det. Ctr. 2,389 233 66 1.7 0.7 4.2 Miami-Dade Co. - Pre-trial Det. Ctr. 1,780 158 50 7.8 4.9 12.2 5.5 Monroe Co. Det. Ctr. 611 192 81 2.9 1.5 Nassau Co. Det. Fac. 271 168 87 0.7 0.2 1.9 Okaloosa Co. Jail 525 224 83 2.6 1.4 4.5 Osceola Co. Jail 1,257 207 69 1.0 0.3 3.4 Palm Beach Co. - Main Det. Ctr. 2,103 218 63 2.4 1.1 4.9 5.7 804 239 85 3.4 2.0 Polk Co. - Central County Jail Pinellas Co. Med. Security Fac. 1,033 226 63 1.6 0.7 4.0 St. Lucie Co. Main Jail 1,458 268 79 2.5 1.2 5.1 Volusia Co. Branch Jail 1,030 248 80 2.2 1.1 4.7 218 148 85 3.3 2.1 5.0 Walton Co. Jail Georgia Atlanta City Jail 1,071 188 71% 4.5% 2.4% 8.2% Bulloch Co. Jail 416 210 93 5.0 3.4 7.3 Chatham Co. Det. Ctr. 1,960 255 64 1.4 0.6 3.3 438 182 83 1.5 0.7 3.2 Clayton Co. Jail 1,828 248 78 1.6 0.8 3.5 Cobb Co. - Jail & Prison Unit 2,630 276 84 2.1 0.9 4.6 211 184 91 0.0 0.0 2.0 3,713 263 76 4.3 2.5 7.4 Clarke Co. Jail Coweta Co. Prison Dekalb Co. Jail Fulton Co. - Alpharetta Annex 50 33 81 0.0 0.0 10.4 Gilmer Co. Jail 125 54 54 0.0 0.0 6.6 Houston Co. Jail 579 186 75 1.9 0.9 4.1 Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09 59 Appendix Table 5 (continued) Characteristics of jails and prevalence of sexual victimization, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 200-09 Inmates reporting sexual victimizationa 95%-confidence intervalb Facility name Number of inmates in custodyc Respondents to sexual victimization surveyd Response ratee Percentf Lower bound Upper bound Georgia (continued) Jackson Co. Jail 163 84 63% 0.0% 0.0% Jasper Co. Jail 30 19 79 0.0 0.0 16.8 4.4% Lowndes Co. Jail 805 243 81 2.3 1.2 4.4 Muscogee Co. Prison 592 232 86 2.2 1.1 4.2 Richmond Co. - Charles B. Webster Det. Ctr. 696 219 80 3.2 1.7 5.7 Roswell City Jail 40 9 53 0.0 0.0 29.9 Turner Co. Jail 48 21 65 0.0 0.0 15.5 Ware Co. Jail 387 212 93 4.1 2.7 6.1 Canyon Co. Jail 475 194 76% 3.5% 2.0% 6.0% Madison Co. Jail 78 40 56 1.1 0.3 3.9 Cook Co. Jail - Division 1 1,175 265 81% 5.2% 3.3% 8.0% Idaho Illinois Cook Co. Jail - Division 6 1,026 268 86 6.4 4.4 9.3 Cook Co. Jail - Division 9 864 195 65 5.0 2.9 8.5 DuPage Co. Jail 855 215 71 3.6 2.0 6.3 LaSalle Co. Jail 210 118 77 3.9 2.3 6.5 Vermilion Co. Jail 225 143 86 3.1 1.9 5.0 Winnebago Co. Jail 842 204 69 4.3 2.5 7.5 102 72 85% 1.3% 0.6% 3.0% Indiana Boone Co. Jail Brown Co. Jail Madison Co. Det. Ctr. Marion Co. Jail IIh 40 22 77 0.0 0.0 14.9 312 158 78 5.5 3.8 8.0 1,378 218 67 3.4 1.7 7.0 Pulaski Co. Jail 107 88 95 1.9 1.2 2.8 Vigo Co. Jail 318 148 80 6.5 4.3 9.6 Black Hawk Co. Jail 224 140 78% 2.7% 1.6% 4.4% Linn Co. Corr. Ctr. 305 126 58 4.1 2.0 8.0 Butler Co. Jail 216 121 71% 3.9% 2.4% 6.4% Johnson Co. - New Century Adult Det. Ctr. 313 112 64 2.4 1.0 5.5 Iowa Kansas Rice Co. Jail 45 13 38 0.0 0.0 22.8 1,405 187 69 2.1 1.0 4.6 Campbell Co. Det. Ctr. 379 184 77% 2.7% 1.5% 4.8% Floyd Co. Det. Ctr. 170 87 64 3.2 1.4 7.0 Franklin Co. Regional Jail 306 110 71 0.0 0.0 3.4 Henderson Co. Det. Ctr. 554 177 69 1.5 0.6 3.7 Jessamine Co. Det. Ctr. 137 46 44 0.0 0.0 7.7 Sedgwick Co. Jail Kentucky Louisville Metro Dept. of Corr. - Community Corr. Ctr. Louisville Metro Dept. of Corr. - Metro Corr. Fac. Warren Co. Regional Jail 60 204 88 56 2.8 1.3 5.9 1,782 225 68 2.0 0.9 4.3 535 192 71 3.3 1.7 6.1 August 2010 Appendix Table 5 (continued) Characteristics of jails and prevalence of sexual victimization, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 Inmates reporting sexual victimizationa 95%-confidence intervalb Facility name Number of inmates in custodyc Respondents to sexual victimization surveyd Response ratee Percentf Lower bound Upper bound Louisiana Calcasieu Parish Corr. Ctr. 1,244 253 77% 2.6% 1.3% 5.4% Morehouse Parish Det. Ctr. 231 176 93 1.1 0.6 2.2 Natchitoches Det. Ctr. 438 201 88 1.3 0.6 2.5 Orleans Parish - Conchetta Jail 442 141 62 3.2 1.5 6.8 Orleans Parish - Old Parish Prison 997 263 72 3.1 1.7 5.6 Orleans Parish - South White Street Jailg 209 138 83 8.9 6.7 11.7 Orleans Parish - Templeman Phase III 914 201 57 5.1 3.0 8.5 Orleans Parish - Templeman Phase V 286 116 54 3.5 2.0 6.2 Ouachita Parish Corr. Fac. 944 256 92 5.2 3.3 8.1 Richland Parish Det. Ctr. 673 270 96 2.8 1.7 4.7 Webster Parish - Bayou Dorcheat Corr. Ctr. 411 203 94 1.7 0.8 3.5 161 93 66% 4.8% 2.5% 9.0% 6.4% Maine Kennecec Co. Jail Maryland Allegany Co. Det. Ctr. Baltimore Co. Det. Ctr. Caroline Co. Jail Cecil Co. Det. Ctr. Prince George’s Co. Corr. Ctr. 146 56 47% 0.0% 0.0% 1,424 159 52 4.0 1.9 8.1 86 32 46 10.0 3.2 27.4 257 117 54 2.7 1.4 5.3 1,264 228 70 3.5 1.9 6.4 1,212 229 51% 3.0% 1.6% 5.5% 199 124 75 0.7 0.2 1.9 Massachusetts Bristol Co. - Dartmouth Fac. Bristol Co. - New Bedford Fac. Hampshire Co. - Jail & House of Corr. 299 158 82 1.0 0.4 2.4 Suffolk Co. House of Corr. 1,799 216 65 4.2 2.0 8.4 Worcester Co. Jail & House of Corr. 1,166 204 67 1.5 0.6 4.0 Michigan Barry Co. Jail Jackson Co. - Chanter Road Corr. Fac. Kent Co. Corr. Fac. 54 36 76% 0.0% 0.0% 9.6% 208 119 69 3.6 2.0 6.4 1,185 215 71 3.8 2.1 6.9 Lenawee Co. Jail 267 141 76 0.9 0.4 2.0 Muskegon Co. Jail 395 195 88 2.9 1.6 5.1 Saginaw Co. Jail 501 158 63 3.0 1.5 5.8 1,606 254 74 2.3 1.1 4.7 Wayne Co. - Andrew C. Baird Det. Fac. Minnesota Beltrami Co. Jail 125 37 48% 2.9% 0.7% 10.7% Morrison Co. Jail 79 39 67 4.2 1.8 9.5 Sherburne Co. Jail 501 128 49 2.3 0.9 5.6 423 213 92% 2.0% 1.1% 3.6% 60 46 86 2.1 1.0 4.7 271 164 80 0.5 0.2 1.6 66 39 73 3.5 1.2 9.3 425 211 87 4.7 3.0 7.2 Mississippi Bolivar Co. Jail Copiah Co. Det. Ctr. Hinds Co. Penal Farm Issaquena Co. Corr. Fac. Jackson Co. Jail Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09 61 Appendix Table 5 (continued) Characteristics of jails and prevalence of sexual victimization, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 Inmates reporting sexual victimizationa 95%-confidence intervalb Facility name Number of inmates in custodyc Respondents to sexual victimization surveyd Response ratee Percentf Lower bound Upper bound Mississippi (continued) 16 12 93% 0.0% 0.0% 24.3% Rankin Co. Jail Lee. Co. Work Ctr. 409 182 72 6.0 3.6 9.7 Winston-Choctaw Co. Regional Corr. Fac. 327 188 87 3.4 2.1 5.6 1,065 231 70% 5.4% 3.4% 8.5% Missouri Jackson Co. Det. Ctr. Jefferson Co. Jail 218 127 81 5.5 3.7 7.9 Joplin City Jail 73 29 82 2.5 1.0 6.3 Lincoln Co. Jail 188 94 66 3.3 1.7 6.4 St. Louis - Med. Security Inst. & City Justice Ctr. 789 150 57 5.8 3.4 9.6 Buffalo Co. Jail 76 40 75% 0.0% 0.0% Dodge Co. Jail 39 18 49 0.0 0.0 17.6 1,321 196 58 4.0 1.9 8.0 Nebraska Douglas Co. Corr. Ctr. 8.8% Nevada Carson City Jail North Las Vegas Det. Ctr. 228 136 77% 0.8% 0.3% 2.0% 1,031 213 66 1.1 0.3 3.4 337 151 72% 2.8% 1.3% 6.3% New Hampshire Rockingham Co. Jail & House of Corr. New Jersey Atlantic Co. - Gerard L. Gormley Justice Fac. 1,088 139 46 2.5 0.7 8.8 Camden Co. Jail 1,771 184 55% 2.8% 1.2% 6.2% Essex Co. Corr. Fac. 3,470 254 55 3.5 1.8 6.5 Passaic Co. Jail 1,357 262 82 0.4 0.1 2.1 217 76 43 1.0 0.2 3.8 Chaves Co. Det. Ctr. 255 152 79% 3.3% 2.0% 5.6% Lea Co. Det. Fac. 281 36 15 0.0 0.0 9.6 85 60 78 1.7 0.7 4.3 Columbia Co. Jail 105 62 73% 2.6% 1.2% 5.6% Livingston Co. Jail 93 53 72 2.6 1.1 5.8 1,478 200 61 2.7 0.9 8.1 Sussex Co. - Walter Keogh Dwyer Corr. Fac. New Mexico Roosevelt Co. Det. Ctr. New York Monroe Co. Jail Nassau Co. Corr. Ctr. New York City - Eric M. Taylor Ctr. New York City - Manhattan Det. Ctr. 538 154 54 4.1 2.2 7.5 1,503 198 63 2.6 1.1 5.7 985 126 33 4.8 2.3 9.6 1,019 171 43 4.4 2.4 7.9 442 149 65 1.7 0.7 4.1 Orleans Co. Jail 75 55 82 5.6 3.5 8.9 Wayne Co. Jail 137 92 78 4.2 2.6 6.7 New York City - Vernon C. Bain Ctr. Onondaga Co. Penitentiary 62 August 2010 Appendix Table 5 (continued) Characteristics of jails and prevalence of sexual victimization, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 Inmates reporting sexual victimizationa 95%-confidence intervalb Facility name Number of inmates in custodyc Respondents to sexual victimization surveyd Response ratee Percentf Lower bound Upper bound North Carolina Alamance Co. Jail 533 206 59% 4.0% 2.4% 6.5% Davidson Co. Jail 234 147 80 1.8 1.0 3.1 Durham Co. Jail 654 220 78 5.2 3.3 8.2 Johnston Co. Jail 236 123 69 0.0 0.0 3.0 McDowell Co. Jail 83 58 82 2.8 1.2 6.4 Orange Co. Jail 182 83 65 0.0 0.0 4.4 Rowan Co. Jail 274 128 63 5.2 2.9 9.0 Wilson Co. Jail 204 68 41 4.5 1.9 9.8 Ashtabula Co. Jail 105 51 57% 0.0% 0.0% 7.0% Clermont Co. Jail 342 170 82 1.8 0.9 3.6 73 44 87 0.0 0.0 8.0 285 120 70 0.5 0.1 1.6 Ohio Hamilton Co. - Talbert House - Turning Point Treatment Ctr. Lake Co. - Adult Max. Security Det. Ctr. 1,052 189 61 1.4 0.5 3.8 Pickaway Co. Jail Montgomery Co. Jail 149 104 78 1.6 0.8 3.2 Wood Co. Justice Ctr. 167 81 63 3.6 1.4 9.3 Muskogee Co. Jail 336 141 69% 1.9% 0.8% 4.2% Oklahoma Co. Jail Oklahoma 2,618 281 66 4.5 2.6 7.7 Pawnee Co. Jail 27 14 60 0.0 0.0 21.5 Texas Co. Jail 72 44 86 0.0 0.0 8.0 1,552 216 59 0.4 0.1 1.8 Deschutes Co. Jail 263 139 76% 3.2% 1.9% Polk Co. Jail 148 76 78 8.0 5.3 Tulsa Co. - David L. Moss Criminal Justice Ctr. Oregon 5.5% 12.0 Pennsylvania Allegheny Co. Jail 3,044 216 60% 2.7% 1.2% 5.9% Centre Co. Corr. Fac. 232 116 68 4.1 2.4 6.9 Chester Co. Prison 965 241 73 1.1 0.5 2.6 Dauphin Co. Prison 913 239 72 3.7 2.1 6.3 Lackawanna Co. Prison 860 231 73 3.5 1.8 6.6 Lawrence Co. Corr. Fac. Lehigh Co. Prison Lycoming Co. Prison Monroe Co. Corr. Fac. 232 103 61 3.9 2.0 7.5 1,207 247 75 2.7 1.4 5.1 231 56 26 4.4 1.9 10.2 376 157 71 0.8 0.3 2.4 Philadelphia City - Det. Ctr. & Prison Health Services Unit 2,818 165 49 4.0 2.0 7.7 Philadelphia City - House of Corr. 1,765 207 60 2.5 1.1 5.5 Philadelphia City - Industrial Corr. Ctr. 1,170 212 69 6.5 4.2 10.1 69 42 72 3.0 1.0 8.7 521 132 52 2.0 0.8 5.2 Tioga Co. Jail Westmoreland Co. Prison Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09 63 Appendix Table 5 (continued) Characteristics of jails and prevalence of sexual victimization, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 Inmates reporting sexual victimizationa 95%-confidence intervalb Facility name Number of inmates in custodyc Respondents to sexual victimization surveyd Response ratee Percentf Lower bound Upper bound South Carolina Georgetown Co. Det. Ctr. Greenville Co. Det. Fac. 229 81 48% 3.9% 1.4% 10.5% 1,094 245 68 1.4 0.4 4.5 Horry Co. - J. Reuben Long Det. Ctr. 695 226 76 4.6 2.6 8.0 Lancaster Co. Det. Ctr. 181 85 57 2.6 1.0 6.3 1,048 219 71 3.4 1.8 6.3 382 108 49 2.3 0.8 6.6 1 0 100% : : : Bedford Co. Jail 168 105 84% 1.2% 0.5% Crockett Co. Jail 40 30 84 4.4 1.8 10.0 618 138 60 2.8 1.2 6.1 Richland Co. Det. Ctr. York Co. Moss Justice Ctr. South Dakota Faulk Co. Jaili Tennessee Davidson Co. - Criminal Justice Ctr. Davidson Co. - Metro Det. Fac.h 2.8% 1,066 259 80 4.3 2.6 6.9 Hamilton Co. Jail 582 211 75 1.2 0.5 2.9 Putnam Co. Jail 246 127 70 0.7 0.2 2.3 Silverdale Penal Farmh 946 233 76 4.0 2.3 7.0 White Co. Jail 142 96 82 3.3 2.1 5.3 Texas Collin Co. Min. Security Fac. 112 71 79% 4.4% 2.5% 7.6% Dallas Co. - North Tower 3,118 241 65 1.9 0.8 4.9 Dallas Co. - West Tower 1,529 176 51 4.2 2.2 7.8 Ector Co. Jail 554 112 42 1.9 0.7 5.1 Ellis Co. Jail 367 157 72 2.4 1.2 4.8 Fort Bend Co. Jail 796 190 62 1.6 0.7 3.7 Harris Co. Jail 5,122 260 67 2.4 1.1 5.1 Harris Co. Jail - Baker Street 4,929 279 70 4.6 2.8 7.6 Henderson Co. Jail 288 106 54 2.5 0.9 6.9 Hood Co. Jail 179 129 87 4.5 3.2 6.2 Hunt Co. Criminal Justice Ctr. 385 144 74 1.4 0.6 3.7 Lubbock Co. Jail 814 134 49 1.4 0.4 4.4 Newton Co. Corr. Ctr.h 866 247 81 0.7 0.2 2.3 1,021 245 81 2.1 1.0 4.4 496 157 65 3.4 1.7 6.6 Nueces Co. Jail Smith Co. Jail - Min. & Med. Security Fac. Tarrant Co. Corr. Ctr. 2,005 179 54 5.2 2.9 9.2 Tarrant Co. - Green Bay Fac. 1,035 164 51 3.7 1.6 8.1 Terry Co. Jail 147 91 75 1.2 0.4 3.5 Van Zandt Co. Jail 168 106 82 0.0 0.0 3.5 Walker Co. Jail 154 74 57 5.4 2.8 10.1 Webb Co. Jail 604 152 57 2.0 0.8 5.0 Wichita Co. Jail 217 112 66 3.4 1.6 7.0 Utah Salt Lake Co. Jail 2,168 294 81% 3.9% 2.2% 6.6% Uintah Co. Jail 114 41 55 0.0 0.0 8.6 Utah Co. Jail 798 239 86 1.7 0.8 3.5 64 August 2010 Appendix Table 5 (continued) Characteristics of jails and prevalence of sexual victimization, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 Inmates reporting sexual victimizationa 95%-confidence intervalb Facility name Number of inmates in custodyc Respondents to sexual victimization surveyd Response ratee Percentf Lower bound Upper bound Virginia Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail 572 171 66% 4.8% 2.7% 8.4% Alexandria City Det. Ctr. 485 98 42 1.7 0.5 5.2 1,068 117 36 2.6 0.9 6.7 Eastern Shore Regional Jail Chesapeake Corr. Ctr. 68 27 49 9.9 4.3 21.5 Fairfax Co. - Adult Det. Ctr. 1,168 197 61 2.3 1.1 4.9 Hampton Roads Regional Jail 1,303 214 66 5.3 3.1 8.8 Loudoun Co. - Adult Det. Ctr. 251 81 50 3.3 1.5 7.1 Middle Peninsula Regional Security Ctr. Norfolk City Jail Northwestern Regional Adult Det. Ctr. Page Co. Jail 124 74 73 6.5 3.9 10.5 1,547 178 52 1.4 0.5 3.9 509 168 70 1.1 0.4 3.3 49 23 67 0.0 0.0 14.3 Roanoke City Jail 851 188 69 5.2 3.0 8.8 Southside Regional Jail 217 89 55 2.6 0.9 6.9 132 75 71% 8.4% 5.2% 13.1% Washington Clallam Co. Corr. Fac. King Co. Corr. Fac. 1,639 229 64 5.5 3.2 9.2 Pierce Co. Det. and Corr. Ctr. - New Jail & Main Jail 1,592 207 60 2.0 0.8 4.8 Spokane Co. - Geiger Corr. Ctr. 444 172 68 3.5 2.0 6.1 Spokane Co. Jail 703 179 65 2.8 1.5 5.4 431 147 63% 6.4% 4.1% 9.9% 130 56 56% 2.9% 1.1% 7.3% West Virginia Southwestern Regional Jail Wisconsin Chippewa Co. Jail 1,039 100 51 4.2 1.9 9.1 LaCrosse Co. Jail Dane Co. Jail 236 91 48 5.2 2.5 10.5 Ozaukee Co. Jail 176 104 70 1.9 0.9 4.1 1,019 184 67 3.3 1.6 6.9 323 147 69% 4.8% 3.0% 7.7% Racine Co. Jail Wyoming Natrona Co. Det. Ctr. :Not available. aIncludes all types of sexual victimization, including oral, anal, or vaginal penetration, hand jobs, touching of the inmate’s butt, thighs, penis, breasts, or vagina in a sexual way, and other sexual acts occurring in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if shorter. bIndicates that different samples in the same facility would yield prevalence rates falling between the lower and upper bound estimates 95 out of 100 times. cNumber of inmates in the facility on the day of the roster plus any new inmates admitted prior to the first day of data collection. dNumber of respondents consenting to the sexual victimization survey on NIS. (See Methodology.) eResponse rate is equal to the number of respondents divided by the number of eligible inmates sampled times 100 percent. fWeights were applied so that inmates who responded accurately reflected the entire population of each facility on select characteristics, including age, sex, race, time served, and sentence length. (See Methodology.) gFemale facility. hPrivately operated facility. iSole inmate at time of visit received the alternative questionnaire—no sexual victimization data available for this facility. Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09 65 Appendix Table 6 Percent of jail inmates reporting victimization, by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 Inmate-on-inmatea Staff sexual misconducta 95%-confidence intervalb Facility name Total Percent victimizedc Lower bound Upper bound 95%-confidence intervalb Percent victimizedc Lower bound Upper bound 1.5% 1.4% 1.7% 2.0% 1.9% 2.2% Chilton Co. Jail 1.0% 0.4% 2.2% 3.5% 2.2% 5.6% Houston Co. Jail 4.0 2.3 6.7 4.4 2.7 7.0 Madison Co. Det. Fac. 5.5 3.7 7.9 1.7 0.9 3.3 Montgomery Co. Det. Fac. 2.7 1.6 4.6 1.7 0.8 3.3 Russell Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 2.2 3.2 1.9 5.3 Maricopa Co. - Durango Jail 1.5% 0.7% 3.3% 1.5% 0.6% 3.5% Maricopa Co. - Tent City Jail 1.4 0.6 3.2 0.5 0.1 2.2 Maricopa Co. - Towers Jail 1.9 0.8 4.5 5.1 3.0 8.7 Mohave Co. Jail 2.6 1.3 5.0 2.6 1.4 4.6 Pima Co. Adult Det. Ctr. 0.6 0.2 2.1 0.4 0.1 1.9 Drew Co. Det. Fac. 0.0% 0.0% 13.3% 0.0% 0.0% 13.3% Faulkner Co. Det. Ctr. 2.8 1.7 4.4 1.5 0.8 2.9 Garland Co. Adult Det. Ctr. 3.3 1.8 6.0 4.3 2.5 7.2 Sharp Co. Det. Ctr. 0.0 0.0 10.2 0.0 0.0 10.2 Butte Co. Jail 0.7% 0.2% 2.7% 2.7% 1.4% 5.3% Fresno Co. - Main Jail, North Annex, & South Annex 2.5 1.1 5.3 2.8 1.4 5.7 Kern Co. - Lerdo Min. Security Fac. 1.9 0.9 3.8 2.0 1.0 4.0 Lake Co. - Hill Road Corr. Fac. 0.5 0.2 1.9 0.5 0.2 1.9 Los Angeles Co. - Pitchess Det. Ctr. - East Fac. 1.3 0.4 4.2 3.3 1.6 6.5 Los Angeles Co. - Pitchess Det. Ctr. - North Fac. 0.8 0.2 3.6 0.3 0.1 1.4 Los Angeles Co. - Men’s Central Jail 3.0 1.1 7.5 2.4 0.9 6.2 Madera Co. Jail 2.9 1.5 5.6 2.8 1.4 5.5 Mendocino Co. Jail 1.7 0.7 4.3 1.8 0.7 4.6 Monterey Co. Jail 2.6 1.2 5.7 2.5 1.0 5.9 Orange Co. - Central Jail Complex 2.4 1.1 5.0 1.6 0.6 3.9 Orange Co. - J.A. Musick Fac. 0.9 0.3 2.6 1.9 0.9 4.0 Riverside Co. - Robert Presley Det. Ctr. 2.0 0.8 4.8 4.1 2.0 8.2 Riverside Co. - Southwest Det. Ctr. 2.8 1.2 6.3 1.3 0.3 4.8 Sacramento Co. - Main Jail 2.4 1.2 5.0 3.5 1.8 6.5 San Bernardino Co. - Central Det. Ctr 0.4 0.1 1.7 0.4 0.1 1.7 San Bernardino Co. - West Valley Det. Ctr. 2.4 1.3 4.5 3.2 1.9 5.4 San Diego Co. - Central Det. Fac. 3.4 1.6 7.1 3.4 1.7 6.7 San Diego Co. - Descanso Det. Fac. 0.5 0.1 1.6 1.3 0.5 3.1 San Francisco Co. - County Jail #8 2.8 1.4 5.4 3.2 1.7 5.9 San Joaquin Co. Jail 1.1 0.3 4.2 1.7 0.6 4.5 Alabama Arizona Arkansas California San Mateo Co. - Maguire Corr. Fac. 0.5 0.1 2.5 1.1 0.3 3.3 Santa Cruz Co. - Blaine Street Fac.d 0.0 0.0 22.8 7.7 3.1 17.8 Solano Co. - Sentenced Det. Fac. 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.7 0.2 2.8 Sonoma Co. - North Det. Fac. 1.0 0.4 2.3 0.6 0.2 2.0 66 August 2010 Appendix Table 6 (continued) Percent of jail inmates reporting victimization, by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 Inmate-on-inmatea Staff sexual misconducta 95%-confidence intervalb Facility name Percent victimizedc Lower bound Upper bound 95%-confidence intervalb Percent victimizedc Lower bound Upper bound Colorado Adams Co. Det. Fac. 0.8% 0.3% 2.1% 0.6% 0.2% 2.0% Arapahoe Co. Jail 1.1 0.4 3.0 1.7 0.6 4.5 El Paso Co. - Criminal Justice Ctr. 1.0 0.3 3.2 0.7 0.2 2.4 Jefferson Co. Jail 1.0 0.4 2.7 0.7 0.2 2.3 Logan Co. Jail 3.3 1.6 6.8 2.0 0.7 5.5 3.1% 1.3% 7.0% 5.5% 2.8% 10.5% Bay Co. Jail 0.4% 0.1% 1.7% 2.3% 1.1% 4.7% Broward Co. - Joseph V. Conte Fac. 0.9 0.3 3.1 2.6 1.2 5.2 Broward Co. - Main Jail 1.8 0.7 4.5 3.2 1.6 6.5 Broward Co. - North Broward Bureau 2.5 1.2 5.1 2.5 1.3 4.9 Broward Co. - Paul Rein Det. Fac. 0.7 0.2 2.2 2.8 1.5 5.2 Charlotte Co. Jail 0.9 0.2 4.0 2.3 0.9 5.3 Hardee Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 6.0 2.2 0.8 5.9 Highlands Co. Jail 1.2 0.4 3.5 1.7 0.7 3.9 Hillsborough Co. - Falkenburg Road Jail 1.3 0.4 3.7 1.3 0.5 3.4 Jacksonville - James I. Montgomery Corr. Ctr. 1.3 0.5 2.9 1.2 0.5 2.7 Marion Co. Jail 1.4 0.6 3.4 0.7 0.2 2.4 Miami-Dade Co. - Metro West Det. Ctr. 0.7 0.2 2.3 1.4 0.5 3.8 Miami-Dade Co. - Pre-trial Det. Ctr. 5.1 2.9 9.1 3.5 1.8 6.7 Monroe Co. Det. Ctr. 1.5 0.6 3.5 1.5 0.6 3.5 Nassau Co. Det. Fac. 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.7 0.2 1.9 Okaloosa Co. Jail 0.4 0.1 1.6 2.6 1.4 4.5 Osceola Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 1.8 1.0 0.3 3.4 Palm Beach Co. - Main Det. Ctr. 1.6 0.6 3.9 1.2 0.4 3.2 Pinellas Co. Med. Security Fac. 2.3 1.2 4.3 1.5 0.7 3.3 Polk Co. - Central County Jail 1.6 0.7 4.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 St. Lucie Co. Main Jail 1.8 0.8 4.3 0.7 0.2 2.2 Volusia Co. Branch Jail 1.4 0.6 3.7 1.2 0.5 3.0 Walton Co. Jail 0.6 0.2 1.7 3.3 2.1 5.0 Atlanta City Jail 3.2% 1.6% 6.3% 1.7% 0.6% 4.7% Bulloch Co. Jail 2.4 1.4 4.2 4.6 3.0 6.8 Chatham Co. Det. Ctr. 0.3 0.1 1.4 1.1 0.4 3.0 Clarke Co. Jail 0.5 0.1 1.9 0.9 0.4 2.4 Clayton Co. Jail 0.7 0.2 2.4 0.9 0.3 2.3 Cobb Co. - Jail & Prison Unit 1.2 0.4 3.3 1.2 0.4 3.3 Coweta Co. Prison 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 Dekalb Co. Jail 3.5 1.9 6.4 1.5 0.6 3.7 Fulton Co. - Alpharetta Annex 0.0 0.0 10.4 0.0 0.0 10.4 Gilmer Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 6.6 0.0 0.0 6.6 Houston Co. Jail 0.5 0.1 2.2 1.4 0.6 3.2 District of Columbia D.C. Dept of Corr. - Central Det. Fac. & Corr. Treatment Fac. Florida Georgia Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09 67 Appendix Table 6 (continued) Percent of jail inmates reporting victimization, by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 Inmate-on-inmatea Staff sexual misconducta 95%-confidence intervalb Facility name Percent victimizedc Lower bound Upper bound 95%-confidence intervalb Percent victimizedc Lower bound Upper bound Georgia (continued) Jackson Co. Jail 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Jasper Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 16.8 4.4% 0.0 0.0 16.8 4.4% Lowndes Co. Jail 0.7 0.2 2.2 1.8 0.9 3.6 Muscogee Co. Prison 0.0 0.0 1.6 2.2 1.1 4.2 Richmond Co. - Charles B. Webster Det. Ctr. 2.3 1.1 4.5 1.5 0.6 3.5 Roswell City Jail 0.0 0.0 29.9 0.0 0.0 29.9 Turner Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 15.5 0.0 0.0 15.5 Ware Co. Jail 3.2 2.0 5.0 0.9 0.4 2.1 Canyon Co. Jail 0.8% 0.3% 2.3% 3.0% 1.6% 5.4% Madison Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 8.8 1.1 0.3 3.9 Cook Co. Jail - Division 1 1.8% 0.9% 3.5% 4.3% 2.6% 7.1% Cook Co. Jail - Division 6 2.2 1.1 4.3 5.5 3.6 8.3 Cook Co. Jail - Division 9 2.0 0.8 4.9 3.0 1.5 5.9 DuPage Co. Jail 2.0 0.9 4.4 2.0 0.9 4.1 LaSalle Co. Jail 2.3 1.1 4.8 3.9 2.3 6.5 Vermilion Co. Jail 3.1 1.9 5.0 0.6 0.2 1.5 Winnebago Co. Jail 2.1 0.9 4.6 3.2 1.7 5.9 Boone Co. Jail 1.3% 0.6% 3.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.1% Brown Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 14.9 0.0 0.0 Madison Co. Det. Ctr. 3.9 2.5 6.1 2.7 1.6 4.5 Marion Co. Jail IIe 0.5 0.1 2.4 3.4 1.7 7.0 Pulaski Co. Jail 1.0 0.6 1.8 0.9 0.5 1.5 Vigo Co. Jail 3.8 2.2 6.4 4.8 2.9 7.7 Black Hawk Co. Jail 1.4% 0.7% 2.8% 1.9% 1.1% 3.4% Linn Co. Corr. Ctr. 3.4 1.5 7.3 0.7 0.2 2.5 Butler Co. Jail 1.6% 0.8% 3.5% 3.1% 1.8% 5.3% Johnson Co. - New Century Adult Det. Ctr. 2.0 0.8 5.2 0.4 0.1 1.4 Rice Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 22.8 0.0 0.0 22.8 Sedgwick Co. Jail 1.1 0.4 3.1 1.3 0.5 3.6 Campbell Co. Det. Ctr. 1.1% 0.4% 2.8% 2.7% 1.5% 4.8% Floyd Co. Det. Ctr. 1.9 0.6 6.1 1.3 0.5 3.1 Franklin Co. Regional Jail 0.0 0.0 3.4 0.0 0.0 3.4 Henderson Co. Det. Ctr. 0.0 0.0 2.1 1.5 0.6 3.7 Jessamine Co. Det. Ctr. 0.0 0.0 7.7 0.0 0.0 7.7 Louisville Metro Dept. of Corr. - Community Corr. Ctr. 0.9 0.3 3.2 2.8 1.3 5.9 Louisville Metro Dept. of Corr. - Metro Corr. Fac. 0.6 0.2 2.1 1.6 0.7 3.9 Warren Co. Regional Jail 1.2 0.4 3.6 2.0 1.0 4.3 Idaho Illinois Indiana 14.9 Iowa Kansas Kentucky 68 August 2010 Appendix Table 6 (continued) Percent of jail inmates reporting victimization, by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 Inmate-on-inmatea Staff sexual misconducta 95%-confidence intervalb Facility name Percent victimizedc Lower bound Upper bound 95%-confidence intervalb Percent victimizedc Lower bound Upper bound Louisiana Calcasieu Parish Corr. Ctr. 1.6% 0.7% 3.6% 1.5% 0.5% 4.0% Morehouse Parish Det. Ctr. 0.6 0.2 1.4 1.1 0.6 2.2 Natchitoches Det. Ctr. 1.0 0.4 2.2 0.6 0.2 1.6 Orleans Parish - Conchetta Jail 2.1 0.9 4.9 1.8 0.6 5.2 Orleans Parish - Old Parish Prison 1.1 0.4 2.7 2.1 1.0 4.4 Orleans Parish - South White Street Jaild 7.5 5.5 10.2 2.4 1.3 4.2 Orleans Parish - Templeman Phase III 3.4 1.8 6.2 3.5 1.8 6.6 Orleans Parish - Templeman Phase V 0.6 0.2 2.2 3.5 2.0 6.2 Ouachita Parish Corr. Fac. 2.9 1.6 5.4 2.2 1.1 4.3 Richland Parish Det. Ctr. 2.8 1.7 4.7 0.4 0.1 1.4 Webster Parish - Bayou Dorcheat Corr. Ctr. 1.7 0.8 3.5 0.6 0.2 2.0 3.8% 1.7% 7.9% 4.1% 1.9% 8.3% Allegany Co. Det. Ctr. 0.0% 0.0% 6.4% 0.0% 0.0% 6.4% Baltimore Co. Det. Ctr. 0.5 0.1 2.7 3.5 1.6 7.5 Caroline Co. Jail 7.9 2.0 26.6 10.0 3.2 27.4 Cecil Co. Det. Ctr. 2.0 0.9 4.4 2.2 1.0 4.8 Prince George’s Co. Corr. Ctr. 1.2 0.4 3.5 2.9 1.5 5.7 Bristol Co. - Dartmouth Fac. 1.6% 0.7% 3.4% 1.4% 0.5% 3.6% Bristol Co. - New Bedford Fac. 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.7 0.2 1.9 Hampshire Co. - Jail & House of Corr. 0.5 0.1 1.5 0.6 0.2 1.8 Suffolk Co. House of Corr. 1.8 0.7 4.4 3.7 1.7 7.8 Worcester Co. Jail & House of Corr. 1.5 0.6 4.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 Barry Co. Jail 0.0% 0.0% 9.6% 0.0% 0.0% 9.6% Jackson Co. - Chanter Road Corr. Fac. 1.2 0.4 3.5 2.4 1.2 4.7 Kent Co. Corr. Fac. 3.0 1.5 5.9 2.0 0.8 4.5 Lenawee Co. Jail 0.4 0.1 1.3 0.9 0.4 2.0 Muskegon Co. Jail 1.3 0.5 3.1 1.6 0.8 3.4 Saginaw Co. Jail 1.7 0.7 4.0 1.8 0.8 4.3 Wayne Co. - Andrew C. Baird Det. Fac. 0.4 0.1 2.0 2.3 1.1 4.7 Beltrami Co. Jail 0.0% 0.0% 9.4% 2.9% 0.7% 10.7% Morrison Co. Jail 2.1 0.6 6.6 4.2 1.8 9.5 Sherburne Co. Jail 1.4 0.5 4.3 1.6 0.5 4.8 Bolivar Co. Jail 0.0% 0.0% 1.8% 2.0% 1.1% 3.6% Copiah Co. Det. Ctr. 2.1 1.0 4.7 2.1 1.0 4.7 Hinds Co. Penal Farm 0.5 0.2 1.6 0.5 0.2 1.6 Issaquena Co. Corr. Fac. 3.5 1.2 9.3 0.0 0.0 9.0 Jackson Co. Jail 2.3 1.2 4.1 2.4 1.3 4.4 Maine Kennecec Co. Jail Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09 69 Appendix Table 6 (continued) Percent of jail inmates reporting victimization, by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 Inmate-on-inmatea Staff sexual misconducta 95%-confidence intervalb Facility name Percent victimizedc Lower bound Upper bound 95%-confidence intervalb Percent victimizedc Lower bound Upper bound Mississippi (continued) Lee. Co. Work Ctr. 0.0 0.0 24.3 0.0% 0.0% 24.3% Rankin Co. Jail 1.5 0.7 3.4 4.9 2.8 8.5 Winston-Choctaw Co. Regional Corr. Fac. 0.6 0.2 1.9 3.4 2.1 5.6 Jackson Co. Det. Ctr. 2.2% 1.1% 4.7% 3.2% 1.8% 5.7% Jefferson Co. Jail 4.0 2.5 6.2 1.5 0.7 2.9 Joplin City Jail 0.0 0.0 11.7 2.5 1.0 6.3 Lincoln Co. Jail 2.0 0.9 4.5 2.6 1.2 5.7 St. Louis - Med. Security Inst. & City Justice Ctr. 0.5 0.1 2.1 5.3 3.1 9.1 Buffalo Co. Jail 0.0% 0.0% 8.8% 0.0% 0.0% Dodge Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 17.6 0.0 0.0 17.6 Douglas Co. Corr. Ctr. 1.0 0.3 3.8 3.7 1.7 7.8 Carson City Jail 0.8% 0.3% 2.0% 0.8% 0.3% 2.0% North Las Vegas Det. Ctr. 0.0 0.0 1.8 1.1 0.3 3.4 0.0% 0.0% 2.5% 2.8% 1.3% 6.3% Atlantic Co. - Gerard L. Gormley Justice Fac. 1.8% 0.4% 8.7% 0.7% 0.1% 3.5% Camden Co. Jail 0.6 0.1 3.2 2.2 0.9 5.3 Essex Co. Corr. Fac. 1.9 0.8 4.6 2.1 1.0 4.7 Passaic Co. Jail 0.4 0.1 2.1 0.0 0.0 1.4 Sussex Co. - Walter Keogh Dwyer Corr. Fac. 0.0 0.0 4.8 1.0 0.2 3.8 Chaves Co. Det. Ctr. 1.6% 0.7% 3.6% 1.7% 0.9% 3.2% Lea Co. Det. Fac. 0.0 0.0 9.6 0.0 0.0 9.6 Roosevelt Co. Det. Ctr. 0.0 0.0 6.0 1.7 0.7 4.3 Columbia Co. Jail 1.1% 0.4% 3.2% 1.5% 0.5% 4.3% Livingston Co. Jail 1.3 0.4 4.0 2.6 1.1 5.8 Monroe Co. Jail 0.4 0.1 2.2 2.3 0.6 8.0 Nassau Co. Corr. Ctr. 2.2 1.0 4.8 2.5 1.1 5.4 New York City - Eric M. Taylor Ctr. 0.8 0.3 2.8 1.7 0.6 4.8 New York City - Manhattan Det. Ctr. 1.2 0.4 4.1 3.5 1.5 8.1 New York City - Vernon C. Bain Ctr. 1.4 0.5 3.7 4.1 2.2 7.5 Onondaga Co. Penitentiary 0.5 0.1 2.2 1.2 0.4 3.4 Orleans Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 6.5 5.6 3.5 8.9 Wayne Co. Jail 1.0 0.4 2.6 3.1 1.8 5.4 Missouri Nebraska 8.8% Nevada New Hampshire Rockingham Co. Jail & House of Corr. New Jersey New Mexico New York 70 August 2010 Appendix Table 6 (continued) Percent of jail inmates reporting victimization, by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 Inmate-on-inmatea Staff sexual misconducta 95%-confidence intervalb Facility name Percent victimizedc Lower bound Upper bound 95%-confidence intervalb Percent victimizedc Lower bound Upper bound North Carolina Alamance Co. Jail 1.8% 0.9% 3.4% 2.6% 1.4% 4.9% Davidson Co. Jail 1.8 1.0 3.1 0.5 0.2 1.4 Durham Co. Jail 2.3 1.1 5.0 2.9 1.6 5.0 Johnston Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 McDowell Co. Jail 2.8 1.2 6.4 0.0 0.0 6.2 Orange Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 4.4 0.0 0.0 4.4 Rowan Co. Jail 1.3 0.4 4.3 5.2 2.9 9.0 Wilson Co. Jail 1.6 0.4 6.3 4.5 1.9 9.8 Ashtabula Co. Jail 0.0% 0.0% 7.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.0% Clermont Co. Jail 1.2 0.5 2.7 1.2 0.5 2.9 Hamilton Co. - Talbert House - Turning Point Treatment Ctr. 0.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 8.0 Lake Co. - Adult Max. Security Det. Ctr. 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.5 0.1 1.6 Montgomery Co. Jail 1.4 0.5 3.8 0.0 0.0 2.0 Pickaway Co. Jail 0.8 0.3 2.1 0.8 0.3 2.0 Wood Co. Justice Ctr. 3.6 1.4 9.3 0.8 0.2 2.5 Muskogee Co. Jail 1.9% 0.8% 4.2% 1.3% 0.5% 3.6% Oklahoma Co. Jail 3.2 1.6 6.3 1.5 0.7 3.2 Pawnee Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 21.5 0.0 0.0 21.5 Texas Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 8.0 Tulsa Co. - David L. Moss Criminal Justice Ctr. 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.4 0.1 1.8 Deschutes Co. Jail 2.0% 1.0% 3.9% 2.0% 1.0% 4.0% Polk Co. Jail 3.0 1.5 6.1 5.1 3.0 8.5 Allegheny Co. Jail 2.1% 0.8% 5.3% 0.6% 0.2% 2.2% Centre Co. Corr. Fac. 0.7 0.2 2.4 3.4 1.9 6.0 Chester Co. Prison 1.1 0.5 2.6 0.0 0.0 1.6 Dauphin Co. Prison 1.3 0.5 3.1 2.9 1.6 5.4 Lackawanna Co. Prison 2.7 1.3 5.7 0.8 0.3 2.3 Lawrence Co. Corr. Fac. 2.2 0.9 5.5 2.9 1.3 6.1 Lehigh Co. Prison 1.1 0.4 2.9 2.0 0.9 4.2 Lycoming Co. Prison 1.6 0.5 5.0 3.7 1.4 9.4 Monroe Co. Corr. Fac. 0.8 0.3 2.4 0.0 0.0 2.4 Philadelphia City - Det. Ctr. & Prison Health Services Unit 1.2 0.3 4.0 3.5 1.6 7.1 Philadelphia City - House of Corr. 1.2 0.4 4.0 1.3 0.5 3.5 Philadelphia City - Industrial Corr. Ctr. 2.5 1.2 5.0 4.0 2.3 7.1 Tioga Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 8.4 3.0 1.0 8.7 Westmoreland Co. Prison 1.6 0.5 4.8 1.3 0.4 4.1 Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09 71 Appendix Table 6 (continued) Percent of jail inmates reporting victimization, by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 Inmate-on-inmatea Staff sexual misconducta 95%-confidence intervalb Facility name Percent victimizedc Lower bound Upper bound 95%-confidence intervalb Percent victimizedc Lower bound Upper bound South Carolina Georgetown Co. Det. Ctr. 0.8% 0.2% 3.1% 3.2% 0.9% 10.1% Greenville Co. Det. Fac. 1.0 0.2 4.3 0.4 0.1 1.7 Horry Co. - J. Reuben Long Det. Ctr. 2.0 1.0 4.1 3.1 1.4 6.5 Lancaster Co. Det. Ctr. 0.9 0.3 3.2 2.6 1.0 6.3 Richland Co. Det. Ctr. 1.0 0.3 3.0 3.4 1.8 6.3 York Co. Moss Justice Ctr. 1.0 0.2 4.2 1.3 0.3 5.5 : : : : : : Bedford Co. Jail 0.0% 0.0% 3.5% 1.2% 0.5% 2.8% Crockett Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 11.4 4.4 1.8 Davidson Co. - Criminal Justice Ctr. 0.6 0.1 2.6 2.8 1.3 6.2 Davidson Co. - Metro Det. Fac.e 0.4 0.1 1.8 4.3 2.6 6.9 Hamilton Co. Jail 0.4 0.1 1.8 1.2 0.5 2.9 Putnam Co. Jail 0.7 0.2 2.3 0.0 0.0 3.0 Silverdale Penal Farme 1.7 0.8 4.0 2.7 1.4 5.5 White Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 3.8 3.4 2.1 5.4 Collin Co. Min. Security Fac. 1.7% 0.7% 4.3% 2.8% 1.4% 5.4% Dallas Co. - North Tower 1.0 0.3 3.3 1.0 0.3 3.6 Dallas Co. - West Tower 1.0 0.3 3.4 3.2 1.5 6.7 Ector Co. Jail 1.3 0.4 4.4 1.4 0.4 4.6 Ellis Co. Jail 0.5 0.1 1.7 1.9 0.8 4.3 Fort Bend Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.6 0.7 3.7 Harris Co. Jail 2.4 1.1 5.1 0.9 0.3 2.7 Harris Co. Jail - Baker Street 3.9 2.2 6.7 1.0 0.4 2.9 Henderson Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 3.5 2.5 0.9 6.9 Hood Co. Jail 2.2 1.3 3.5 3.8 2.6 5.4 Hunt Co. Criminal Justice Ctr. 0.8 0.2 2.9 1.4 0.6 3.7 Lubbock Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 2.8 1.4 0.4 4.4 Newton Co. Corr. Ctr.e 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.7 0.2 2.3 Nueces Co. Jail 1.7 0.8 3.9 1.3 0.5 3.3 Smith Co. Jail - Min. & Med. Security Fac. 1.1 0.4 3.1 2.8 1.3 5.8 Tarrant Co. Corr. Ctr. 2.6 1.1 5.7 3.0 1.4 6.4 Tarrant Co. - Green Bay Fac. 1.9 0.6 6.4 2.9 1.2 7.2 Terry Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 4.1 1.2 0.4 3.5 Van Zandt Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 3.5 0.0 0.0 3.5 Walker Co. Jail 4.0 1.9 8.2 2.7 1.1 6.6 Webb Co. Jail 0.8 0.2 3.4 1.3 0.4 3.8 Wichita Co. Jail 3.4 1.6 7.0 0.0 0.0 3.3 Salt Lake Co. Jail 2.0% 1.0% 4.1% 2.2% 1.0% 4.5% Uintah Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 8.6 0.0 0.0 8.6 Utah Co. Jail 1.2 0.5 2.9 0.4 0.1 1.8 South Dakota Faulk Co. Jail Tennessee 10.0 Texas Utah 72 August 2010 Appendix Table 6 (continued) Percent of jail inmates reporting victimization, by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 Inmate-on-inmatea Staff sexual misconducta 95%-confidence intervalb Facility name Percent victimizedc Lower bound Upper bound 95%-confidence intervalb Percent victimizedc Lower bound Upper bound Virginia Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail 2.4% 1.1% 5.5% 2.8% 1.4% 5.6% Alexandria City Det. Ctr. 1.7 0.5 5.2 0.9 0.2 4.0 Chesapeake Corr. Ctr. 0.3 0.1 1.6 2.6 0.9 6.7 Eastern Shore Regional Jail 0.0 0.0 12.5 9.9 4.3 21.5 Fairfax Co. - Adult Det. Ctr. 1.5 0.5 4.2 0.8 0.3 2.1 Hampton Roads Regional Jail 1.3 0.5 3.6 4.0 2.2 7.1 Loudoun Co. - Adult Det. Ctr. 1.0 0.3 3.5 3.3 1.5 7.1 Middle Peninsula Regional Security Ctr. 2.2 0.8 6.0 4.3 2.5 7.2 Norfolk City Jail 0.9 0.3 3.1 1.1 0.3 3.6 Northwestern Regional Adult Det. Ctr. 0.4 0.1 1.8 0.7 0.2 2.9 Page Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 14.3 0.0 0.0 14.3 Roanoke City Jail 3.7% 1.9% 7.0% 2.7% 1.3% 5.5% Southside Regional Jail 0.0 0.0 4.1 2.6 0.9 6.9 Clallam Co. Corr. Fac. 4.4% 2.2% 8.3% 6.1% 3.4% 10.6% King Co. Corr. Fac. 2.3 1.0 5.0 3.3 1.6 6.5 Pierce Co. Det. and Corr. Ctr. - New Jail & Main Jail 1.6 0.6 4.3 0.4 0.1 2.2 Spokane Co. - Geiger Corr. Ctr. 2.2 1.1 4.5 1.8 0.9 3.8 Spokane Co. Jail 1.4 0.6 3.5 1.8 0.8 4.1 3.6% 2.1% 6.4% 2.8% 1.4% 5.5% Chippewa Co. Jail 1.5% 0.4% 5.3% 1.4% 0.4% 5.0% Dane Co. Jail 2.1 0.8 5.9 3.0 1.1 8.0 LaCrosse Co. Jail 3.3 1.5 7.3 4.1 1.7 9.1 Ozaukee Co. Jail 0.9 0.3 2.6 1.0 0.3 2.9 Racine Co. Jail 1.5 0.5 4.5 2.5 1.1 5.7 2.2% 1.1% 4.2% 3.0% 1.7% 5.5% Washington West Virginia Southwestern Regional Jail Wisconsin Wyoming Natrona Co. Det. Ctr. Note: Detail may sum to more than total victimization rate because victims may have reported both inmate-on-inmate and staff-on-inmate sexual victimization. :Not available. aIncludes all types of sexual victimization, including oral, anal, or vaginal penetration, hand jobs, touching of the inmate’s butt, thighs, penis, breasts, or vagina in a sexual way, and other sexual acts occurring in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if shorter. bIndicates that different samples in the same facility would yield prevalence rates falling between the lower and upper bound estimates 95 out of 100 times. cWeights were applied so that inmates who responded accurately reflected the entire population of each facility on select characteristics, including age, sex, race, time served, and sentence length. (See Methodology.) dFemale facility. ePrivately operated facility. Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09 73 Appendix Table 7 Percent of jail inmates reporting sexual victimization, by level of coercion, and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 Inmate-on-inmatea Facility name Physically forcedb Pressuredc Total 1.0% 1.1% Chilton Co. Jail 1.0% Houston Co. Jail 2.6 Madison Co. Det. Fac. Staff sexual misconducta Physically forcedb Pressuredc Without force or pressured 1.0% 1.3% 1.1% 0.0% 3.5% 3.5% 1.0% 3.1 2.5 2.8 3.7 3.4 4.1 1.0 1.0 0.4 Montgomery Co. Det. Fac. 2.4 1.8 0.6 1.3 0.7 Russell Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 2.1 2.7 1.6 Maricopa Co. - Durango Jail 1.2% 1.2% 0.7% 0.8% 1.1% Maricopa Co. - Tent City Jail 1.1 0.9 0.5 0.5 0.0 Maricopa Co. - Towers Jail 0.0 1.9 3.1 4.3 1.9 Mohave Co. Jail 2.2 0.9 1.6 1.6 1.4 Pima Co. Adult Det. Ctr. 0.0 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 Drew Co. Det. Fac. 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Faulkner Co. Det. Ctr. 2.0 1.3 0.8 0.7 0.0 Garland Co. Adult Det. Ctr. 2.6 2.3 1.9 1.9 2.4 Sharp Co. Det. Ctr. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Butte Co. Jail 0.7% 0.7% 0.6% 1.6% 2.4% Fresno Co. - Main Jail, North Annex, & South Annex 1.4 1.1 1.1 2.8 0.8 Kern Co. - Lerdo Min. Security Fac. 1.4 0.9 2.0 1.6 0.0 Lake Co. - Hill Road Corr. Fac. 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Los Angeles Co. - Pitchess Det. Ctr. - East Fac. 1.3 1.3 1.9 2.9 0.8 Los Angeles Co. - Pitchess Det. Ctr. - North Fac. 0.0 0.8 0.3 0.3 0.3 Los Angeles Co. - Men’s Central Jail 1.9 3.0 1.6 2.4 0.0 Madera Co. Jail 0.7 2.7 1.3 1.1 2.8 Mendocino Co. Jail 0.8 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.8 Monterey Co. Jail 1.7 1.3 0.0 2.5 0.8 Orange Co. - Central Jail Complex 1.6 2.1 1.1 1.6 0.5 Orange Co. - J.A. Musick Fac. 0.5 0.9 1.4 0.9 1.0 Riverside Co. - Robert Presley Det. Ctr. 2.0 2.0 2.2 3.6 1.5 Riverside Co. - Southwest Det. Ctr. 2.2 2.8 0.0 1.0 0.3 Sacramento Co. - Main Jail 0.9 2.0 0.8 1.7 2.4 San Bernardino Co. - Central Det. Ctr. 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.4 San Bernardino Co. - West Valley Det. Ctr. 1.4 2.0 1.8 1.9 1.4 San Diego Co. - Central Det. Fac. 1.7 3.0 2.4 2.0 1.1 San Diego Co. - Descanso Det. Fac. 0.0 0.5 0.6 1.3 0.0 San Francisco Co. - County Jail #8 0.2 2.6 1.7 2.8 0.8 San Joaquin Co. Jail 0.0 1.1 1.1 0.6 0.6 San Mateo Co. - Maguire Corr. Fac. 0.5 0.0 1.1 1.1 0.0 Santa Cruz Co. - Blaine Street Fac.e 0.0 0.0 7.7 0.0 7.7 Solano Co. - Sentenced Det. Fac. 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.7 0.0 Sonoma Co. - North Det. Fac. 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.6 0.0 Alabama Arizona Arkansas California 74 August 2010 Appendix Table 7 (continued) Percent of jail inmates reporting sexual victimization, by level of coercion, and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-0 Inmate-on-inmatea Facility name Physically forcedb Pressuredc Staff sexual misconducta Physically forcedb Pressuredc Without force or pressured Colorado Adams Co. Det. Fac. 0.8% 0.2% 0.3% 0.6% 0.0% Arapahoe Co. Jail 1.1 0.8 1.3 1.3 0.4 El Paso Co. - Criminal Justice Ctr. 1.0 1.0 0.4 0.0 0.4 Jefferson Co. Jail 1.0 0.0 0.7 0.7 0.0 Logan Co. Jail 2.0 3.3 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.2% 1.4% 3.6% 4.4% 0.9% Bay Co. Jail 0.0% 0.4% 1.0% 1.0% 2.3% Broward Co. - Joseph V. Conte Fac. 0.3 0.9 1.4 1.1 1.1 Broward Co. - Main Jail 0.8 1.5 1.6 0.6 1.0 Broward Co. - North Broward Bureau 2.1 1.0 1.8 2.2 1.2 Broward Co. - Paul Rein Det. Fac. 0.3 0.7 1.8 2.3 1.2 Charlotte Co. Jail 0.0 0.9 1.0 0.7 1.2 Hardee Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 Highlands Co. Jail 1.2 1.2 1.7 1.7 1.2 Hillsborough Co. - Falkenburg Road Jail 0.8 1.3 0.6 0.6 1.3 Jacksonville - James I. Montgomery Corr. Ctr. 0.3 0.9 0.4 0.4 0.4 Marion Co. Jail 1.4 1.1 0.7 0.7 0.4 Miami-Dade Co. - Metro West Det. Ctr. 0.3 0.7 0.3 0.9 0.8 Miami-Dade Co. - Pre-trial Det. Ctr. 2.2 3.7 2.0 2.0 2.0 Monroe Co. Det. Ctr. 0.9 0.9 1.1 1.5 1.0 Nassau Co. Det. Fac. 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 Okaloosa Co. Jail 0.4 0.0 1.3 0.9 1.7 Osceola Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.5 Palm Beach Co. - Main Det. Ctr. 1.6 1.2 0.0 0.0 1.2 Pinellas Co. Med. Security Fac. 1.0 2.0 0.7 0.8 0.4 Polk Co. - Central County Jail 1.4 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 St. Lucie Co. Main Jail 0.7 1.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 Volusia Co. Branch Jail 0.4 1.4 0.8 0.4 0.8 Walton Co. Jail 0.6 0.6 1.4 1.4 2.5 Atlanta City Jail 0.0% 3.2% 0.0% 0.9% 0.9% Bulloch Co. Jail 1.5 2.4 1.0 2.2 2.9 Chatham Co. Det. Ctr. 0.3 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.8 Clarke Co. Jail 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.9 0.5 Clayton Co. Jail 0.7 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.3 Cobb Co. - Jail & Prison Unit 0.7 1.2 0.9 0.9 0.8 Coweta Co. Prison 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Dekalb Co. Jail 2.2 3.5 1.1 1.5 0.3 Fulton Co. - Alpharetta Annex 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Gilmer Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Houston Co. Jail 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.9 1.0 District of Columbia D.C. Dept of Corr. - Central Det. Fac. & Corr. Treatment Fac. Florida Georgia Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09 75 Appendix Table 7 (continued) Percent of jail inmates reporting sexual victimization, by level of coercion, and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-0 Inmate-on-inmatea Facility name Physically forcedb Pressuredc Staff sexual misconducta Physically forcedb Pressuredc Without force or pressured Georgia (continued) Jackson Co. Jail 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Jasper Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lowndes Co. Jail 0.7 0.1 0.6 1.0 0.8 Muscogee Co. Prison 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.3 0.9 Richmond Co. - Charles B. Webster Det. Ctr. 1.9 2.0 0.5 0.4 0.5 Roswell City Jail 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Turner Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ware Co. Jail 1.8 1.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 Canyon Co. Jail 0.8% 0.3% 1.5% 1.5% 2.1% Madison Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 Cook Co. Jail - Division 1 1.8% 1.2% 0.6% 0.9% 3.7% Cook Co. Jail - Division 6 1.6 1.5 2.0 1.7 3.8 Cook Co. Jail - Division 9 1.5 2.0 1.0 1.6 1.4 DuPage Co. Jail 1.5 1.5 1.7 1.1 0.6 LaSalle Co. Jail 2.3 1.2 2.7 3.9 0.8 Vermilion Co. Jail 3.1 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.0 Winnebago Co. Jail 1.5 1.5 1.6 2.6 0.9 Boone Co. Jail 1.3% 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Brown Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Madison Co. Det. Ctr. 3.5 2.7 1.1 1.0 1.6 Marion Co. Jail IIf 0.5 0.5 2.0 2.8 3.4 Pulaski Co. Jail 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 Vigo Co. Jail 2.6 3.1 2.7 2.0 3.4 Black Hawk Co. Jail 1.4% 1.4% 0.6% 1.9% 0.0% Linn Co. Corr. Ctr. 1.3 3.4 0.0 0.7 0.0 Butler Co. Jail 0.8% 1.6% 3.1% 2.4% 0.8% Johnson Co. - New Century Adult Det. Ctr. 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 Rice Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sedgwick Co. Jail 1.1 0.7 0.9 1.0 0.0 Campbell Co. Det. Ctr. 1.1% 1.1% 1.6% 2.7% 0.0% Floyd Co. Det. Ctr. 1.9 0.0 0.6 0.7 0.6 Franklin Co. Regional Jail 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Henderson Co. Det. Ctr. 0.0 0.0 0.8 1.5 0.5 Jessamine Co. Det. Ctr. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Louisville Metro Dept. of Corr. - Community Corr. Ctr. 0.9 0.9 1.8 1.8 1.9 Louisville Metro Dept. of Corr. - Metro Corr. Fac. 0.3 0.3 0.3 1.6 0.5 Warren Co. Regional Jail 0.4 1.2 1.1 0.9 1.1 Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky 76 August 2010 Appendix Table 7 (continued) Percent of jail inmates reporting sexual victimization, by level of coercion, and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-0 Inmate-on-inmatea Facility name Physically forcedb Pressuredc Staff sexual misconducta Physically forcedb Pressuredc Without force or pressured Louisiana Calcasieu Parish Corr. Ctr. 1.3% 1.2% 0.8% 1.5% 0.4% Morehouse Parish Det. Ctr. 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 1.1 Natchitoches Det. Ctr. 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 Orleans Parish - Conchetta Jail 2.1 2.1 1.8 1.1 0.0 Orleans Parish - Old Parish Prison 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.0 2.1 Orleans Parish - South White Street Jaile 5.4 4.5 0.7 1.7 0.7 Orleans Parish - Templeman Phase III 3.4 1.2 0.5 1.4 2.5 Orleans Parish - Templeman Phase V 0.6 0.6 1.2 2.9 1.8 Ouachita Parish Corr. Fac. 2.1 1.8 1.4 1.9 1.3 Richland Parish Det. Ctr. 2.4 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.4 Webster Parish - Bayou Dorcheat Corr. Ctr. 1.7 1.3 0.6 0.0 0.6 3.1% 1.4% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1% Allegany Co. Det. Ctr. 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Baltimore Co. Det. Ctr. 0.5 0.0 0.7 1.4 2.1 Caroline Co. Jail 7.9 7.9 10.0 7.9 7.9 Cecil Co. Det. Ctr. 1.5 1.3 0.9 1.5 2.2 Prince George’s Co. Corr. Ctr. 0.6 0.6 1.0 2.2 1.5 Bristol Co. - Dartmouth Fac. 1.1% 1.1% 0.9% 0.9% 0.5% Bristol Co. - New Bedford Fac. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 Hampshire Co. - Jail & House of Corr. 0.0 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 Suffolk Co. House of Corr. 1.8 0.7 2.6 3.2 2.3 Worcester Co. Jail & House of Corr. 0.5 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Barry Co. Jail 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Jackson Co. - Chanter Road Corr. Fac. 1.2 0.0 1.6 2.4 0.8 Kent Co. Corr. Fac. 2.6 0.4 1.0 1.6 0.8 Lenawee Co. Jail 0.4 0.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 Muskegon Co. Jail 1.3 0.4 0.5 1.0 1.2 Saginaw Co. Jail 1.7 1.2 1.8 1.8 0.7 Wayne Co. - Andrew C. Baird Det. Fac. 0.4 0.0 1.5 1.5 2.3 Beltrami Co. Jail 0.0% 0.0% 2.9% 2.9% 0.0% Morrison Co. Jail 2.1 2.1 4.2 4.2 4.2 Sherburne Co. Jail 1.4 0.8 0.0 1.6 0.0 Bolivar Co. Jail 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.5% 2.0% Copiah Co. Det. Ctr. 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 0.0 Hinds Co. Penal Farm 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.0 Issaquena Co. Corr. Fac. 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Jackson Co. Jail 2.3 1.2 1.6 1.6 1.2 Maine Kennecec Co. Jail Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09 77 Appendix Table 7 (continued) Percent of jail inmates reporting sexual victimization, by level of coercion, and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-0 Inmate-on-inmatea Facility name Physically forcedb Pressuredc Staff sexual misconducta Physically forcedb Pressuredc Without force or pressured Mississippi (continued) Lee. Co. Work Ctr. 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Rankin Co. Jail 1.5 1.0 2.4 3.0 1.5 Winston-Choctaw Co. Regional Corr. Fac. 0.0 0.6 2.3 2.2 2.2 Jackson Co. Det. Ctr. 2.2% 1.1% 0.8% 1.5% 1.6% Jefferson Co. Jail 3.3 1.5 0.7 0.7 0.7 Joplin City Jail 0.0 0.0 2.5 2.5 0.0 Lincoln Co. Jail 2.0 2.0 1.3 2.6 1.3 City of St. Louis - Med. Security Inst. & City Justice Ctr. 0.5 0.5 2.6 3.3 2.2 Buffalo Co. Jail 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Dodge Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Douglas Co. Corr. Ctr. 0.3 0.8 1.2 1.4 2.7 Carson City Jail 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% City of North Las Vegas Det. Ctr. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.4 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 2.8% 0.0% Camden Co. Jail 0.6% 0.6% 0.7% 1.0% 1.8% Essex Co. Corr. Fac. 1.6 0.9 0.8 1.2 2.0 Atlantic Co. - Gerard L. Gormley Justice Fac. 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 Passaic Co. Jail 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sussex Co. - Walter Keogh Dwyer Corr. Fac. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Chaves Co. Det. Ctr. 1.0% 1.6% 0.6% 1.1% 1.7% Lea Co. Det. Fac. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Roosevelt Co. Det. Ctr. 0.0 0.0 1.7 1.7 0.0 Columbia Co. Jail 0.0% 1.1% 1.5% 1.5% 0.0% Livingston Co. Jail 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 Monroe Co. Jail 0.4 0.4 1.7 1.7 0.6 Nassau Co. Corr. Ctr. 0.6 1.7 1.6 1.9 0.0 New York City - Eric M. Taylor Ctr. 0.4 0.5 1.2 0.9 0.0 New York City - Manhattan Det. Ctr. 1.2 1.2 1.4 1.7 0.5 New York City - Vernon C. Bain Ctr. 0.8 1.1 2.1 4.1 1.3 Onondaga Co. Penitentiary 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.7 Orleans Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.6 Wayne Co. Jail 1.0 0.0 3.1 3.1 1.1 Missouri Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire Rockingham Co. Jail & House of Corr. New Jersey New Mexico New York 78 August 2010 Appendix Table 7 (continued) Percent of jail inmates reporting sexual victimization, by level of coercion, and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-0 Inmate-on-inmatea Facility name Physically forcedb Pressuredc Staff sexual misconducta Physically forcedb Pressuredc Without force or pressured North Carolina Alamance Co. Jail 1.8% 0.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.6% Davidson Co. Jail 1.8 1.8 0.5 0.5 0.0 Durham Co. Jail 1.8 0.6 0.5 0.5 2.3 Johnston Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 McDowell Co. Jail 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Orange Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Rowan Co. Jail 0.0 1.3 0.4 3.5 1.3 Wilson Co. Jail 1.6 1.6 3.3 4.5 3.3 Ashtabula Co. Jail 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Clermont Co. Jail 1.2 0.6 1.2 0.6 0.0 Hamilton Co. - Talbert House - Turning Point Treatment Ctr. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lake Co. - Adult Max. Security Det. Ctr. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 Montgomery Co. Jail 1.1 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pickaway Co. Jail 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 Wood Co. Justice Ctr. 0.8 3.6 0.8 0.8 0.8 Muskogee Co. Jail 1.1% 1.3% 0.0% 0.5% 1.3% Oklahoma Co. Jail 2.7 1.6 1.2 0.8 0.2 Pawnee Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Texas Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tulsa Co. - David L. Moss Criminal Justice Ctr. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 Deschutes Co. Jail 1.5% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 0.0% Polk Co. Jail 3.0 3.0 3.2 2.4 3.0 Allegheny Co. Jail 1.2% 2.1% 0.6% 0.3% 0.3% Centre Co. Corr. Fac. 0.7 0.0 1.5 2.2 1.2 Chester Co. Prison 0.5 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Dauphin Co. Prison 0.8 1.3 1.0 1.6 2.6 Lackawanna Co. Prison 0.5 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.8 Lawrence Co. Corr. Fac. 1.0 2.2 1.9 2.9 0.8 Lehigh Co. Prison 0.7 0.8 0.8 1.2 1.2 Lycoming Co. Prison 1.6 0.8 2.2 2.3 1.4 Monroe Co. Corr. Fac. 0.6 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 Philadelphia City - Det. Ctr. & Prison Health Services Unit 0.0 1.2 1.3 1.0 1.7 Philadelphia City - House of Corr. 0.5 0.7 0.4 0.8 0.9 Philadelphia City - Industrial Corr. Ctr. 2.1 1.6 2.3 2.1 3.3 Tioga Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 Westmoreland Co. Prison 0.0 1.6 0.0 1.3 0.4 Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09 79 Appendix Table 7 (continued) Percent of jail inmates reporting sexual victimization, by level of coercion, and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-0 Inmate-on-inmatea Facility name Physically forcedb Staff sexual misconducta Pressuredc Physically forcedb Pressuredc Without force or pressured South Carolina Georgetown Co. Det. Ctr. 0.0% 0.8% 2.7% 2.7% 0.4% Greenville Co. Det. Fac. 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 Horry Co. - J. Reuben Long Det. Ctr. 0.9 2.0 2.7 2.1 0.5 Lancaster Co. Det. Ctr. 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.6 Richland Co. Det. Ctr. 1.0 0.5 0.5 1.9 2.4 York Co. Moss Justice Ctr. 1.0 1.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 : : : : : Bedford Co. Jail 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.2% Crockett Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 4.4 4.4 4.4 South Dakota Faulk Co. Jail Tennessee Davidson Co. - Criminal Justice Ctr. 0.6 0.6 0.0 1.2 1.6 Davidson Co. - Metro Det. Fac.f 0.4 0.4 1.9 1.9 3.1 Hamilton Co. Jail 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.9 0.8 Putnam Co. Jail 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Silverdale Penal Farmf 0.7 1.7 2.1 1.9 1.6 White Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 0.7 1.6 2.5 Collin Co. Min. Security Fac. 1.7% 0.0% 1.3% 1.5% 0.0% Dallas Co. - North Tower 1.0 0.0 0.3 0.7 0.0 Dallas Co. - West Tower 1.0 1.0 2.1 1.0 2.8 Ector Co. Jail 0.0 1.3 0.9 0.5 1.4 Ellis Co. Jail 0.0 0.5 1.4 1.4 0.5 Fort Bend Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 Harris Co. Jail 2.4 1.5 0.9 0.9 0.7 Harris Co. Jail - Baker Street 1.4 3.1 0.7 1.0 0.0 Henderson Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 1.3 Hood Co. Jail 2.2 2.2 2.3 3.1 2.2 Hunt Co. Criminal Justice Ctr. 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.6 Lubbock Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.6 0.8 Newton Co. Corr. Ctr.f 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 Nueces Co. Jail 1.3 1.2 0.4 0.8 0.5 Smith Co. Jail - Min. & Med. Security Fac. 1.1 0.5 1.4 1.9 2.0 Tarrant Co. Corr. Ctr. 1.5 2.2 1.5 1.9 2.2 Tarrant Co. - Green Bay Fac. 1.2 1.9 2.3 1.9 0.5 Terry Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 Van Zandt Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Walker Co. Jail 4.0 4.0 0.0 1.4 1.3 Webb Co. Jail 0.8 0.0 0.6 0.6 1.3 Wichita Co. Jail 0.6 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 Salt Lake Co. Jail 1.3% 1.7% 0.4% 0.7% 1.8% Uintah Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Utah Co. Jail 0.3 0.9 0.0 0.4 0.0 Texas Utah 80 August 2010 Appendix Table 7 (continued) Percent of jail inmates reporting sexual victimization, by level of coercion, and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-0 Inmate-on-inmatea Facility name Physically forcedb Pressuredc Staff sexual misconducta Physically forcedb Pressuredc Without force or pressured Virginia Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail 0.4% 2.0% 1.3% 1.1% 1.7% Alexandria City Det. Ctr. 1.7 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 Chesapeake Corr. Ctr. 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 2.6 Eastern Shore Regional Jail 0.0 0.0 2.6 2.6 9.9 Fairfax Co. - Adult Det. Ctr. 1.5 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.3 Hampton Roads Regional Jail 0.5 0.8 1.0 2.0 3.1 Loudoun Co. - Adult Det. Ctr. 1.0 1.0 2.2 1.0 1.1 Middle Peninsula Regional Security Ctr. 2.2 0.0 2.1 2.1 3.4 Norfolk City Jail 0.9 0.9 1.1 1.1 1.1 Northwestern Regional Adult Det. Ctr. 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.7 Page Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Roanoke City Jail 3.3 1.9 1.2 2.2 2.2 Southside Regional Jail 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 Clallam Co. Corr. Fac. 4.4% 2.0% 5.2% 5.0% 2.0% King Co. Corr. Fac. 1.0 2.3 1.1 2.8 0.4 Pierce Co. Det. and Corr. Ctr. - New Jail & Main Jail 1.6 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.4 Spokane Co. - Geiger Corr. Ctr. 1.5 1.8 1.0 1.4 1.4 Spokane Co. Jail 1.4 0.9 0.9 1.3 0.5 2.6% 1.4% 2.2% 2.2% 1.7% Chippewa Co. Jail 1.5% 0.0% 1.4% 1.4% 0.0% Dane Co. Jail 1.6 2.1 1.0 1.9 2.1 LaCrosse Co. Jail 3.3 3.3 4.1 4.1 2.1 Ozaukee Co. Jail 0.9 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 Racine Co. Jail 1.5 1.5 1.3 1.9 0.7 1.0% 2.2% 2.1% 2.5% 1.0% Washington West Virginia Southwestern Regional Jail Wisconsin Wyoming Natrona Co. Det. Ctr. :Not available. aIncludes all types of sexual victimization, including oral, anal, or vaginal penetration, hand jobs, touching of the inmate’s butt, thighs, penis, breasts, or vagina in a sexual way, and other sexual acts occurring in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if shorter. bPhysical force or threat of physical force reported. cIncludes incidents in which the perpetrator, without using force, pressured the inmate or made the inmate feel that they had to participate. (See Methodology.) dIncludes incidents in which the staff offered favors or privileges in exchange for sex or sexual contact and incidents in which the inmate reported that they willingly had sex or sexual contact with staff. eFemale facility. fPrivately operated facility. Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09 81 Appendix Table 8 Percent of jail inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual contacts, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 Nonconsensual sexual actsa Abusive sexual contacts onlyb 95%-confidence intervalc Facility name Total Percent victimizedd 2.0% Lower bound Upper bound 1.8% 2.2% 95%-confidence intervalc Percent victimizedd 1.1% Lower bound Upper bound 1.0% 1.2% Alabama Chilton Co. Jail 1.9% 1.1% 3.4% 1.6% 0.7% 3.4% Houston Co. Jail 4.5 2.7 7.2 2.9 1.5 5.4 Madison Co. Det. Fac. 2.7 1.6 4.7 4.4 2.9 6.7 Montgomery Co. Det. Fac. 2.0 1.1 3.7 1.1 0.5 2.4 Russell Co. Jail 1.1 0.6 2.3 2.1 1.0 4.1 Maricopa Co. - Durango Jail 1.8% 0.8% 3.9% 1.2% 0.5% 2.9% Maricopa Co. - Tent City Jail 0.4 0.1 1.7 1.5 0.7 3.5 Maricopa Co. - Towers Jail 4.3 2.3 7.7 2.0 0.9 4.1 Mohave Co. Jail 4.4 2.7 7.1 0.4 0.1 1.4 Pima Co. Adult Det. Ctr. 0.7 0.2 2.2 0.3 0.1 1.7 Drew Co. Det. Fac. 0.0% 0.0% 13.3% 0.0% 0.0% 13.3% Faulkner Co. Det. Ctr. 1.1 0.6 2.2 2.3 1.4 3.9 Garland Co. Adult Det. Ctr. 4.2 2.4 7.1 1.7 0.7 3.8 Sharp Co. Det. Ctr. 0.0 0.0 10.2 0.0 0.0 10.2 Arizona Arkansas California Butte Co. Jail 2.7% 1.4% 5.3% 0.0% 0.0% 2.0% Fresno Co. - Main Jail, North Annex, & South Annex 2.6 1.2 5.6 2.3 1.1 5.0 Kern Co. - Lerdo Min. Security Fac. 1.4 0.6 3.2 1.0 0.4 2.7 Lake Co. - Hill Road Corr. Fac. 0.5 0.2 1.9 0.0 0.0 3.3 Los Angeles Co. - Pitchess Det. Ctr. - East Fac. 1.9 0.8 4.8 1.9 0.8 4.4 Los Angeles Co. - Pitchess Det. Ctr. - North Fac. 1.0 0.3 3.7 0.0 0.0 1.8 Los Angeles Co. - Men’s Central Jail 1.9 0.5 6.8 3.1 1.4 6.8 Madera Co. Jail 4.2 2.4 7.2 0.7 0.2 2.4 Mendocino Co. Jail 0.8 0.2 2.7 2.0 0.8 5.0 Monterey Co. Jail 1.1 0.3 3.9 2.6 1.2 5.7 Orange Co. - Central Jail Complex 2.2 1.0 4.7 0.8 0.2 2.9 Orange Co. - J.A. Musick Fac. 1.9 0.9 4.0 0.4 0.1 1.5 Riverside Co. - Robert Presley Det. Ctr. 3.9 1.9 7.7 0.9 0.2 4.4 Riverside Co. - Southwest Det. Ctr. 1.8 0.6 5.2 1.3 0.5 3.6 Sacramento Co. - Main Jail 3.3 1.8 6.3 2.1 0.9 4.6 San Bernardino Co. - Central Det. Ctr. 0.4 0.1 1.7 0.4 0.1 1.7 San Bernardino Co. - West Valley Det. Ctr. 2.5 1.4 4.7 2.5 1.4 4.6 San Diego Co. - Central Det. Fac. 5.2 2.8 9.3 1.5 0.6 4.2 San Diego Co. - Descanso Det. Fac. 1.8 0.9 3.7 0.0 0.0 2.7 San Francisco Co. - County Jail #8 4.0 2.3 6.9 2.0 0.9 4.3 San Joaquin Co. Jail 1.7 0.6 4.5 1.1 0.3 4.2 San Mateo Co. - Maguire Corr. Fac. 1.1 0.3 3.3 0.5 0.1 2.5 Santa Cruz Co. - Blaine Street Fac.e 7.7 3.1 17.8 0.0 0.0 22.8 Solano Co. - Sentenced Det. Fac. 0.7 0.2 2.7 0.0 0.0 3.2 Sonoma Co. - North Det. Fac. 1.2 0.5 2.7 0.5 0.1 1.5 82 August 2010 Appendix Table 8 (continued) Percent of jail inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual contacts, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 Nonconsensual sexual actsa Abusive sexual contacts onlyb 95%-confidence intervalc Facility name Percent victimizedd Lower bound Upper bound 95%-confidence intervalc Percent victimizedd Lower bound Upper bound Colorado Adams Co. Det. Fac. 0.6% 0.2% 2.0% 0.5% 0.1% 1.6% Arapahoe Co. Jail 1.7 0.7 4.1 1.0 0.3 3.6 El Paso Co. - Criminal Justice Ctr. 0.8 0.2 2.5 0.9 0.3 3.1 Jefferson Co. Jail 0.3 0.1 1.4 1.1 0.4 3.0 Logan Co. Jail 3.3 1.6 6.8 0.0 0.0 5.5 4.4% 2.1% 8.8% 1.6% 0.4% 5.8% District of Columbia D.C. Dept of Corr. - Central Det. Fac. & Corr. Treatment Fac. Florida Bay Co. Jail 1.4% 0.6% 3.4% 0.9% 0.3% 2.8% Broward Co. - Joseph V. Conte Fac. 2.5 1.2 5.2 0.9 0.3 3.1 Broward Co. - Main Jail 1.5 0.5 4.0 3.1 1.5 6.4 Broward Co. - North Broward Bureau 3.9 2.3 6.6 0.6 0.1 2.8 Broward Co. - Paul Rein Det. Fac. 1.9 0.9 4.1 1.2 0.5 3.1 Charlotte Co. Jail 1.5 0.5 4.2 1.6 0.5 4.9 Hardee Co. Jail 2.2 0.8 5.9 0.0 0.0 6.0 Highlands Co. Jail 1.7 0.7 3.9 0.0 0.0 2.2 Hillsborough Co. - Falkenburg Road Jail 1.2 0.4 3.3 0.9 0.3 2.8 Jacksonville - James I. Montgomery Corr. Ctr. 1.7 0.8 3.5 0.3 0.1 1.3 Marion Co. Jail 1.1 0.4 2.9 0.7 0.2 2.2 Miami-Dade Co. - Metro West Det. Ctr. 1.2 0.4 3.2 0.5 0.1 2.8 Miami-Dade Co. - Pre-trial Det. Ctr. 6.8 4.1 11.1 1.0 0.3 3.2 Monroe Co. Det. Ctr. 0.3 0.1 1.4 2.6 1.3 5.1 Nassau Co. Det. Fac. 0.7 0.2 1.9 0.0 0.0 2.2 Okaloosa Co. Jail 2.1 1.1 4.0 0.4 0.1 1.7 Osceola Co. Jail 1.0 0.3 3.4 0.0 0.0 1.8 Palm Beach Co. - Main Det. Ctr. 1.4 0.5 3.7 1.0 0.4 2.8 Pinellas Co. Med. Security Fac. 1.1 0.4 2.6 2.3 1.2 4.4 Polk Co. - Central County Jail 0.6 0.1 2.5 1.1 0.4 3.1 St. Lucie Co. Main Jail 1.0 0.4 2.6 1.5 0.6 4.0 Volusia Co. Branch Jail 2.2 1.1 4.7 0.0 0.0 1.5 Walton Co. Jail 3.3 2.1 5.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 Georgia Atlanta City Jail 1.3% 0.5% 3.4% 3.2% 1.5% 6.7% Bulloch Co. Jail 3.9 2.5 6.0 1.2 0.5 2.5 Chatham Co. Det. Ctr. 1.1 0.4 3.0 0.3 0.1 1.4 Clarke Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 2.1 1.5 0.7 3.2 Clayton Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 1.5 1.6 0.8 3.5 Cobb Co. - Jail & Prison Unit 1.6 0.7 4.0 0.4 0.1 2.2 Coweta Co. Prison 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 Dekalb Co. Jail 2.3 1.1 4.9 1.9 0.9 4.3 Fulton Co. - Alpharetta Annex 0.0 0.0 10.4 0.0 0.0 10.4 Gilmer Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 6.6 0.0 0.0 6.6 Houston Co. Jail 1.1 0.4 3.0 0.9 0.3 2.4 Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09 83 Appendix Table 8 (continued) Percent of jail inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual contacts, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 Nonconsensual sexual actsa Abusive sexual contacts onlyb 95%-confidence intervalc Facility name Percent victimizedd Lower bound Upper bound 95%-confidence intervalc Percent victimizedd Lower bound Upper bound Georgia (continued) Jackson Co. Jail 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Jasper Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 16.8 4.4% 0.0 0.0 16.8 4.4% Lowndes Co. Jail 1.8 0.9 3.6 0.5 0.1 2.1 Muscogee Co. Prison 1.7 0.8 3.6 0.4 0.1 1.7 Richmond Co. - Charles B. Webster Det. Ctr. 2.0 0.9 4.3 1.2 0.5 2.9 Roswell City Jail 0.0 0.0 29.9 0.0 0.0 29.9 Turner Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 15.5 0.0 0.0 15.5 Ware Co. Jail 2.8 1.7 4.6 1.3 0.6 2.5 Canyon Co. Jail 3.0% 1.6% 5.4% 0.5% 0.1% 1.9% Madison Co. Jail 1.1 0.3 3.9 0.0 0.0 8.8 Idaho Illinois Cook Co. Jail - Division 1 3.8% 2.2% 6.5% 1.4% 0.7% 2.9% Cook Co. Jail - Division 6 4.3 2.7 6.9 2.1 1.1 4.0 Cook Co. Jail - Division 9 2.4 1.2 4.8 2.6 1.1 5.8 DuPage Co. Jail 1.6 0.7 3.7 1.9 0.8 4.3 LaSalle Co. Jail 3.9 2.3 6.5 0.0 0.0 3.2 Vermilion Co. Jail 2.1 1.2 3.7 1.0 0.4 2.5 Winnebago Co. Jail 3.8 2.1 6.7 0.6 0.1 2.5 Indiana Boone Co. Jail 1.3% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% Brown Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 14.9 3.0% 0.0 0.0 14.9 5.1% Madison Co. Det. Ctr. 2.0 1.1 3.6 3.5 2.2 5.6 Marion Co. Jail IIf 3.1 1.4 6.6 0.4 0.1 1.9 Pulaski Co. Jail 1.9 1.2 2.8 0.0 0.0 4.2 Vigo Co. Jail 4.6 2.8 7.4 1.9 0.9 4.0 Iowa Black Hawk Co. Jail 1.9% 1.1% 3.4% 0.8% 0.3% 2.0% Linn Co. Corr. Ctr. 1.3 0.4 4.7 2.7 1.2 6.0 2.5% Kansas Butler Co. Jail 3.1% 1.8% 5.3% 0.9% 0.3% Johnson Co. - New Century Adult Det. Ctr. 1.6 0.5 4.4 0.9 0.2 3.1 Rice Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 22.8 0.0 0.0 22.8 Sedgwick Co. Jail 1.3 0.5 3.6 0.8 0.2 2.7 Kentucky Campbell Co. Det. Ctr. 1.6% 0.7% 3.3% 1.1% 0.4% 2.8% Floyd Co. Det. Ctr. 1.3 0.5 3.1 1.9 0.6 6.1 Franklin Co. Regional Jail 0.0 0.0 3.4 0.0 0.0 3.4 Henderson Co. Det. Ctr. 1.5 0.6 3.7 0.0 0.0 2.1 Jessamine Co. Det. Ctr. 0.0 0.0 7.7 0.0 0.0 7.7 Louisville Metro Dept. of Corr. - Community Corr. Ctr. 1.8 0.7 4.5 1.0 0.3 3.3 Louisville Metro Dept. of Corr. - Metro Corr. Fac. 1.1 0.4 3.0 0.8 0.3 2.8 Warren Co. Regional Jail 2.3 1.1 5.0 0.9 0.3 2.6 84 August 2010 Appendix Table 8 (continued) Percent of jail inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual contacts, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 Nonconsensual sexual actsa Abusive sexual contacts onlyb 95%-confidence intervalc Facility name Percent victimizedd Lower bound Upper bound 95%-confidence intervalc Percent victimizedd Lower bound Upper bound Louisiana Calcasieu Parish Corr. Ctr. 2.2% 1.0% 4.9% 0.4% 0.1% 1.9% Morehouse Parish Det. Ctr. 1.1 0.6 2.2 0.0 0.0 2.1 Natchitoches Det. Ctr. 0.6 0.2 1.6 0.6 0.2 1.7 Orleans Parish - Conchetta Jail 2.1 0.9 4.9 1.1 0.3 4.5 Orleans Parish - Old Parish Prison 1.8 0.8 4.1 1.3 0.6 2.9 Orleans Parish - South White Street Jaile 2.3 1.3 4.1 6.6 4.7 9.1 Orleans Parish - Templeman Phase III 3.3 1.8 5.9 1.8 0.7 4.8 Orleans Parish - Templeman Phase V 2.9 1.6 5.5 0.6 0.2 2.2 Ouachita Parish Corr. Fac. 3.0 1.7 5.4 2.1 1.0 4.3 Richland Parish Det. Ctr. 0.7 0.2 1.9 2.1 1.2 3.8 Webster Parish - Bayou Dorcheat Corr. Ctr. 1.7 0.8 3.5 0.0 0.0 1.9 3.8% 1.7% 7.9% 1.0% 0.3% 3.1% Allegany Co. Det. Ctr. 0.0% 0.0% 6.4% 0.0% 0.0% 6.4% Baltimore Co. Det. Ctr. 2.2 0.8 6.0 1.8 0.6 4.8 Caroline Co. Jail 7.9 2.0 26.6 2.1 0.5 8.3 Cecil Co. Det. Ctr. 1.5 0.6 3.9 1.2 0.4 3.0 Prince George’s Co. Corr. Ctr. 2.5 1.2 5.2 1.0 0.4 2.6 Maine Kennecec Co. Jail Maryland Massachusetts Bristol Co. - Dartmouth Fac. 0.9% 0.3% 3.3% 2.0% 1.0% 3.9% Bristol Co. - New Bedford Fac. 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.7 0.2 1.9 Hampshire Co. - Jail & House of Corr. 0.6 0.2 1.8 0.5 0.1 1.5 Suffolk Co. House of Corr. 3.1 1.4 6.4 1.1 0.2 5.4 Worcester Co. Jail & House of Corr. 1.5 0.6 4.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 Michigan Barry Co. Jail 0.0% 0.0% 9.6% 0.0% 0.0% 9.6% Jackson Co. - Chanter Road Corr. Fac. 2.4 1.2 4.7 1.2 0.4 3.5 Kent Co. Corr. Fac. 2.0 0.8 4.5 1.8 0.8 4.2 Lenawee Co. Jail 0.9 0.4 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 Muskegon Co. Jail 2.1 1.1 3.9 0.8 0.2 2.7 Saginaw Co. Jail 2.5 1.1 5.2 0.5 0.1 2.1 Wayne Co. - Andrew C. Baird Det. Fac. 2.0 0.9 4.2 0.4 0.1 1.9 Beltrami Co. Jail 2.9% 0.7% 10.7% 0.0% 0.0% 9.4% Morrison Co. Jail 4.2 1.8 9.5 0.0 0.0 9.0 Sherburne Co. Jail 1.6 0.5 4.8 0.7 0.1 2.9 Minnesota Mississippi Bolivar Co. Jail 1.5% 0.7% 2.9% 0.5% 0.2% 1.6% Copiah Co. Det. Ctr. 2.1 1.0 4.7 0.0 0.0 7.7 Hinds Co. Penal Farm 0.5 0.2 1.6 0.0 0.0 2.3 Issaquena Co. Corr. Fac. 0.0 0.0 9.0 3.5 1.2 9.3 Jackson Co. Jail 2.1 1.1 4.1 2.6 1.5 4.5 Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09 85 Appendix Table 8 (continued) Percent of jail inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual contacts, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 Nonconsensual sexual actsa Abusive sexual contacts onlyb 95%-confidence intervalc Facility name Percent victimizedd Lower bound Upper bound 95%-confidence intervalc Percent victimizedd Lower bound Upper bound Mississippi (continued) Lee. Co. Work Ctr. 0.0% 0.0% 24.3% 0.0% 0.0% 24.3% Rankin Co. Jail 5.5 3.2 9.1 0.5 0.1 1.8 Winston-Choctaw Co. Regional Corr. Fac. 3.4 2.1 5.6 0.0 0.0 2.0 Missouri Jackson Co. Det. Ctr. 3.3% 1.8% 5.9% 2.1% 1.0% 4.4% Jefferson Co. Jail 1.5 0.7 2.9 4.0 2.5 6.2 Joplin City Jail 0.0 0.0 11.7 2.5 1.0 6.3 Lincoln Co. Jail 2.6 1.2 5.7 0.7 0.2 2.1 City of St. Louis - Med. Security Inst. & City Justice Ctr. 4.7 2.6 8.2 1.1 0.3 3.4 Buffalo Co. Jail 0.0% 0.0% 8.8% 0.0% 0.0% 8.8% Dodge Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 17.6 0.0 0.0 17.6 Douglas Co. Corr. Ctr. 3.7 1.7 7.8 0.3 0.1 1.3 Nebraska Nevada Carson City Jail 0.8% 0.3% 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.8% City of North Las Vegas Det. Ctr. 1.1 0.3 3.4 0.0 0.0 1.8 2.8% 1.3% 6.3% 0.0% 0.0% 2.5% New Hampshire Rockingham Co. Jail & House of Corr. New Jersey Camden Co. Jail 1.5% 0.5% 4.2% 1.3% 0.4% 4.3% Essex Co. Corr. Fac. 2.2 1.0 4.8 1.2 0.4 3.7 Atlantic Co. - Gerard L. Gormley Justice Fac. 0.7 0.1 3.5 1.8 0.4 8.7 Passaic Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.4 0.1 2.1 Sussex Co. - Walter Keogh Dwyer Corr. Fac. 1.0 0.2 3.8 0.0 0.0 4.8 New Mexico Chaves Co. Det. Ctr. 1.1% 0.5% 2.4% 2.2% 1.1% 4.3% Lea Co. Det. Fac. 0.0 0.0 9.6 0.0 0.0 9.6 Roosevelt Co. Det. Ctr. 0.0 0.0 6.0 1.7 0.7 4.3 New York Columbia Co. Jail 1.5% 0.5% 4.3% 1.1% 0.4% 3.2% Livingston Co. Jail 2.6 1.1 5.8 0.0 0.0 6.8 Monroe Co. Jail 2.7 0.9 8.1 0.0 0.0 1.9 Nassau Co. Corr. Ctr. 1.5 0.5 4.4 2.6 1.3 5.2 New York City - Eric M. Taylor Ctr. 2.2 0.9 5.3 0.4 0.1 1.9 New York City - Manhattan Det. Ctr. 4.3 2.0 9.1 0.5 0.1 2.3 New York City - Vernon C. Bain Ctr. 4.0 2.1 7.3 0.5 0.1 2.2 Onondaga Co. Penitentiary 1.7 0.7 4.1 0.0 0.0 2.5 Orleans Co. Jail 3.8 2.1 6.8 1.8 0.8 4.0 Wayne Co. Jail 3.1 1.8 5.4 1.0 0.4 2.6 86 August 2010 Appendix Table 8 (continued) Percent of jail inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual contacts, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 Nonconsensual sexual actsa Abusive sexual contacts onlyb 95%-confidence intervalc Facility name Percent victimizedd Lower bound Upper bound 95%-confidence intervalc Percent victimizedd Lower bound Upper bound North Carolina Alamance Co. Jail 3.0% 1.7% 5.3% 1.0% 0.4% 2.5% Davidson Co. Jail 1.1 0.5 2.2 0.7 0.3 1.7 Durham Co. Jail 1.9 0.9 3.6 3.4 1.8 6.2 Johnston Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 McDowell Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 6.2 2.8 1.2 6.4 Orange Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 4.4 0.0 0.0 4.4 Rowan Co. Jail 3.6 1.8 7.2 1.5 0.6 4.0 Wilson Co. Jail 4.5 1.9 9.8 0.0 0.0 5.3 Ashtabula Co. Jail 0.0% 0.0% 7.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.0% Hamilton Co. - Talbert House - Turning Point Treatment Ctr. 0.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 8.0 Clermont Co. Jail 1.2 0.5 2.9 0.6 0.2 1.9 Lake Co. - Adult Max. Security Det. Ctr. 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.5 0.1 1.6 Montgomery Co. Jail 0.6 0.1 2.8 0.8 0.3 2.7 Pickaway Co. Jail 0.8 0.3 2.0 0.8 0.3 2.1 Wood Co. Justice Ctr. 0.8 0.2 2.5 2.9 0.9 8.9 Ohio Oklahoma Muskogee Co. Jail 1.3% 0.5% 3.6% 0.5% 0.1% 2.0% Oklahoma Co. Jail 2.4 1.2 5.0 2.1 0.9 4.7 Pawnee Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 21.5 0.0 0.0 21.5 Texas Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 8.0 Tulsa Co. - David L. Moss Criminal Justice Ctr. 0.4 0.1 1.8 0.0 0.0 1.7 Oregon Deschutes Co. Jail 0.7% 0.2% 2.3% 2.5% 1.3% 4.5% Polk Co. Jail 5.9 3.6 9.8 2.1 1.0 4.2 Pennsylvania Allegheny Co. Jail 1.3% 0.5% 3.2% 1.4% 0.4% 4.8% Centre Co. Corr. Fac. 0.5 0.2 1.8 3.6 2.0 6.2 Chester Co. Prison 0.8 0.3 2.1 0.3 0.1 1.4 Dauphin Co. Prison 2.9 1.6 5.4 0.8 0.3 2.3 Lackawanna Co. Prison 0.8 0.3 2.3 2.7 1.3 5.7 Lawrence Co. Corr. Fac. 2.9 1.3 6.3 1.0 0.3 3.4 Lehigh Co. Prison 2.0 0.9 4.2 0.7 0.2 2.2 Lycoming Co. Prison 2.2 0.7 7.0 2.2 0.7 7.1 Monroe Co. Corr. Fac. 0.6 0.2 2.2 0.2 0.1 0.8 Philadelphia City - Det. Ctr. & Prison Health Services Unit 1.8 0.6 4.9 2.2 0.9 5.3 Philadelphia City - House of Corr. 1.5 0.5 4.2 1.0 0.3 3.3 Philadelphia City - Industrial Corr. Ctr. 5.4 3.3 8.7 1.2 0.4 3.1 Tioga Co. Jail 3.0 1.0 8.7 0.0 0.0 8.4 Westmoreland Co. Prison 1.3 0.4 4.1 0.7 0.2 3.3 Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09 87 Appendix Table 8 (continued) Percent of jail inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual contacts, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 Nonconsensual sexual actsa Abusive sexual contacts onlyb 95%-confidence intervalc Facility name Percent victimizedd Lower bound Upper bound 95%-confidence intervalc Percent victimizedd Lower bound Upper bound South Carolina Georgetown Co. Det. Ctr. 1.2% 0.4% 3.5% 2.7% 0.7% 10.1% Greenville Co. Det. Fac. 0.4 0.1 1.7 1.0 0.2 4.3 Horry Co. - J. Reuben Long Det. Ctr. 3.9 2.0 7.3 0.7 0.2 2.1 Lancaster Co. Det. Ctr. 0.9 0.3 3.2 1.6 0.5 5.4 Richland Co. Det. Ctr. 1.8 0.8 4.0 1.6 0.6 4.1 York Co. Moss Justice Ctr. 2.3 0.8 6.6 0.0 0.0 3.4 : : : : : : Bedford Co. Jail 1.2% 0.5% 2.8% 0.0% 0.0% 3.5% Crockett Co. Jail 4.4 1.8 10.0 0.0 0.0 11.4 Davidson Co. - Criminal Justice Ctr. 2.1 0.8 5.3 0.7 0.1 2.9 Davidson Co. - Metro Det. Fac.f 4.3 2.6 6.9 0.0 0.0 1.5 Hamilton Co. Jail 0.3 0.1 1.2 0.9 0.3 2.6 Putnam Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.7 0.2 2.3 Silverdale Penal Farmf 1.9 0.9 3.9 2.1 0.9 4.9 White Co. Jail 1.8 0.9 3.4 1.6 0.8 3.1 South Dakota Faulk Co. Jail Tennessee Texas Collin Co. Min. Security Fac. 1.7% 0.7% 4.3% 2.7% 1.4% 5.3% Dallas Co. - North Tower 1.7 0.6 4.7 0.3 0.1 1.5 Dallas Co. - West Tower 3.6 1.8 7.0 0.6 0.1 3.1 Ector Co. Jail 1.3 0.4 4.4 0.5 0.1 2.6 Ellis Co. Jail 0.5 0.1 1.7 1.9 0.8 4.3 Fort Bend Co. Jail 1.6 0.7 3.7 0.0 0.0 2.0 Harris Co. Jail 1.3 0.5 3.3 1.1 0.3 3.7 Harris Co. Jail - Baker Street 2.2 1.0 4.6 2.5 1.3 4.9 Henderson Co. Jail 1.3 0.3 5.3 1.2 0.3 4.7 Hood Co. Jail 2.9 1.9 4.3 1.6 0.9 2.8 Hunt Co. Criminal Justice Ctr. 1.4 0.6 3.7 0.0 0.0 2.6 Lubbock Co. Jail 1.4 0.4 4.4 0.0 0.0 2.8 Newton Co. Corr. Ctr.f 0.7 0.2 2.3 0.0 0.0 1.5 Nueces Co. Jail 1.7 0.8 3.9 0.4 0.1 1.7 Smith Co. Jail - Min. & Med. Security Fac. 3.4 1.7 6.6 0.0 0.0 2.4 Tarrant Co. Corr. Ctr. 2.7 1.2 6.0 2.6 1.1 5.7 Tarrant Co. - Green Bay Fac. 2.9 1.2 7.2 0.7 0.1 3.5 Terry Co. Jail 1.2 0.4 3.5 0.0 0.0 4.1 Van Zandt Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 3.5 0.0 0.0 3.5 Walker Co. Jail 1.3 0.4 4.4 4.1 2.0 8.4 Webb Co. Jail 2.0 0.8 5.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 Wichita Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 3.3 3.4 1.6 7.0 Utah Salt Lake Co. Jail 2.4% 1.2% 4.8% 1.4% 0.6% 3.4% Uintah Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 8.6 0.0 0.0 8.6 Utah Co. Jail 0.4 0.1 1.8 1.2 0.5 2.9 88 August 2010 Appendix Table 8 (continued) Percent of jail inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual contacts, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 Nonconsensual sexual actsa Abusive sexual contacts onlyb 95%-confidence intervalc Facility name Percent victimizedd Lower bound Upper bound 95%-confidence intervalc Percent victimizedd Lower bound Upper bound Virginia Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail 3.8% 1.9% 7.2% 1.0% 0.3% 3.1% Alexandria City Det. Ctr. 0.9 0.2 4.0 0.8 0.2 3.9 Chesapeake Corr. Ctr. 2.6 0.9 6.7 0.0 0.0 3.2 Eastern Shore Regional Jail 9.9 4.3 21.5 0.0 0.0 12.5 Fairfax Co. - Adult Det. Ctr. 1.5 0.6 3.7 0.8 0.2 2.9 Hampton Roads Regional Jail 3.3 1.7 6.3 2.0 0.9 4.4 Loudoun Co. - Adult Det. Ctr. 2.0 0.8 5.2 1.2 0.3 4.4 Middle Peninsula Regional Security Ctr. 3.1 1.6 5.6 3.4 1.6 7.2 Norfolk City Jail 1.4 0.5 3.9 0.0 0.0 2.1 Northwestern Regional Adult Det. Ctr. 0.7 0.2 2.9 0.4 0.1 1.8 Page Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 14.3 0.0 0.0 14.3 Roanoke City Jail 4.1 2.1 7.5 1.1 0.4 2.9 Southside Regional Jail 2.6 0.9 6.9 0.0 0.0 4.1 Clallam Co. Corr. Fac. 5.4% 3.0% 9.5% 3.0% 1.3% 6.6% King Co. Corr. Fac. 4.0 2.1 7.6 1.5 0.6 3.6 Pierce Co. Det. and Corr. Ctr. - New Jail & Main Jail 0.4 0.1 2.2 1.6 0.6 4.3 Spokane Co. - Geiger Corr. Ctr. 1.4 0.6 3.2 2.1 1.0 4.4 Spokane Co. Jail 1.4 0.5 3.4 1.5 0.6 3.6 2.1% 1.0% 4.5% 4.3% 2.5% 7.2% Washington West Virginia Southwestern Regional Jail Wisconsin Chippewa Co. Jail 0.0% 0.0% 6.4% 2.9% 1.1% 7.3% Dane Co. Jail 1.9 0.6 6.1 2.3 0.8 6.4 LaCrosse Co. Jail 5.2 2.5 10.5 0.0 0.0 4.1 Ozaukee Co. Jail 1.0 0.3 2.9 0.9 0.3 2.6 Racine Co. Jail 2.1 0.8 5.3 1.3 0.4 3.9 3.5% 2.0% 5.9% 1.4% 0.6% 3.3% Wyoming Natrona Co. Det. Ctr. :Not available. aIncludes all inmates who reported unwanted contacts with another inmate or any contacts with staff that involved oral, anal, or vaginal penetration, hand jobs, and other sexual acts occurring in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if shorter. bIncludes all inmates who reported unwanted contacts with another inmate or any contacts with staff that involved touching of the inmate’s buttocks, thigh, penis, breasts or vagina in a sexual way occurring in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if shorter. cIndicates that different samples in the same facility would yield prevalence rates falling between the lower and upper bound estimates 95 out of 100 times. dWeights were applied so that inmates who responded accurately reflected the entire population of each facility on select characteristics, including age, sex, race, time served, and sentence length. (See Methodology.) eFemale facility. fPrivately operated facility. Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09 89 Appendix Table 9 Characteristics of special correctional facilities and prevalence of sexual victimization, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 Inmates reporting sexual victimizationa 95%-confidence intervalb Number of inmates in custodyc Respondents to sexual victimization surveyd Response ratee Eloy Det. Ctr. (AZ)g,h 1,464 241 63% Stewart Det. Ctr. (GA)h Special correctional facilities Percentf Lower bound Upper bound Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities 0.7% 0.2% 2.4% 1,506 138 66 0.9 0.2 4.5 Elizabeth Contract Det. Fac. (NJ)g,h 224 100 68 0.8 0.3 2.7 El Paso Processing Ctr. (TX)g 767 250 79 2.1 1.1 4.0 South Texas Det. Complex (TX)g 991 164 64 0.0 0.0 2.3 Military facilities Marine Corps Base Brig, Camp Pendleton (CA) 171 105 85% 0.5% 0.2% 1.6% Naval Consolidated Brig, Miramar (CA)g 266 125 73 2.9 1.4 5.6 U.S. Disciplinary Barracks, Leavenworth (KS) 437 149 71 6.0 3.6 10.0 Gila River DOC and Rehab. (AZ)g 149 97 77% 1.0% 0.4% Navajo Nation-Window Rock (AZ) 14 10 0.0 0.0 Tribal jails 100 2.6% 27.8 aIncludes all types of sexual victimization, including oral, anal, or vaginal penetration, hand jobs, touching of the inmate’s butt, thighs, penis, breasts, or vagina in a sexual way, and other sexual acts occurring in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if shorter. bIndicates that different samples in the same facility would yield prevalence rates falling between the lower and upper bound estimates 95 out of 100 times. cNumber of inmates in custody on day when the facility provided the sample roster. dNumber of respondents consenting to the sexual victimization survey on NIS. (See Methodology.) eResponse rate is equal to the number of respondents divided by the number of eligible inmates sampled times 100 percent. fWeights were applied so that inmates who responded accurately reflected the entire population of each facility on select characteristics, including age, sex, race, time served, and sentence length. (See Methodology.) gFacility houses both males and females; both were sampled at this facility. hPrivately operated facility. 90 August 2010 Appendix table 10. Wald F statistics for inmate risk characteristics in the final multivariate logistic models of sexual victimization in prisons and jails, by type of incident, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 Degrees of freedom Wald F statistics for sexual victimization in prison Wald F statistics for sexual victimization in jail All models* Inmate-oninmate Staff sexual misconduct Sex 1 4.20 38.48 4.06 35.87 Race/Hispanic origin 4 4.17 3.16 -- 7.27 Age 5 -- 8.92 6.90 23.15 Education 3 -- 3.89 8.55 17.52 Marital status 2 3.20 -- -- -- Weight 3 -- -- 5.19 -- Inmate characteristic Inmate-oninmate Staff sexual misconduct Demographic characteristics Sexual orientation/history characteristics Sexual orientation 1 104.60 14.32 61.21 -- Number of sexual partners 4 -- 2.65 -- 6.68 Prior sexual assault 1 319.00 135.70 345.60 247.20 Most serious offense 4 15.04 3.96 2.61 -- Sentence length 5 3.78 6.20 -- -- Time in a correctional facility prior to current facility 4 -- 4.23 -- 6.30 Number of times arrested 3 -- -- 2.98 5.06 Time since admission 4 -- -- 7.35 5.42 Criminal justice status/history characteristics Note: Wald-F tests were conducted to test for the statistical significance of each inmate characteristic in the four final models presented in table 12. For each characteristic, the Wald-F tests the null hypothesis that all regression coefficients are equal to zero (i.e., the probability of experiencing a victimization is the same across all categories of the selected characteristic), conditional on all other inmate characteristics being included in the model. The Wald F statistic is calculated by comparing the maximum likelihood estimate for the characteristic to an estimate of its standard error. Though varying by the number of degrees of freedom, statistics greater than 2.0 (for 1 degree of freedom) are statistically significant at the 95%-confidence level. --Characteristic deleted from model when Wald statistic was not significant at the 95%-confidence level. *For each inmate characteristic, the degrees of freedom represent the number of categories minus 1. Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09 91 Office of Justic Programs Innovation • Partnerships • Safer Neighborhoods http://www.ojp.usdog.gov
