Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners - 2008, DOJ BJS, 2012

The Habeas Citebook Ineffective Counsel - Header

Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners - 2008, DOJ BJS, 2012

• Nov. 17, 2016 • Locations: United States of America • Topics: Sexual Assault

Download original document:
Brief thumbnail

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

National Former Prisoner Survey, 2008

Sexual Victimization Reported
by Former State Prisoners, 2008

Parole/community supervision offices

Allen J. Beck, Ph.D.
BJS Statistician
Candace Johnson, Ph.D.
Principal Research Scientist, NORC
May 2012, NCJ 237363

BJS

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.gov

This compendium was written by Allen J.
Beck, BJS Statistician, and Candace Johnson,
NORC Research Scientist. Jessica Rexroat,
BJS intern, verified the report.

askbjs@usdoj.gov

BJS statisticians Christopher J. Mumola and
Paige M. Harrison, under the supervision
of Allen J. Beck, were project managers
for the National Former Prisoner Survey.
NORC, under a cooperative agreement and
in collaboration with BJS staff, developed
the survey and collected, processed, and
analyzed the data. Candace Johnson with
Pam Loose directed the project; Kirk
Wolter and Ken Copeland guided sampling,
weighting, and other statistical support
services; Kris Talley and Patt Maugherman
led field operations; Angela Herrmann
directed telephone center activities; Mike
Cooke managed TACASI development and
IT support; Marissa Kiss, Stephanie Poland,
Mehera Baugher, and Emily Frizzell assisted
throughout the project; and Lynda Okeke
and Fang Wang prepared statistical tables.
Vanessa Curto and Jill Thomas edited the
report, and Barbara Quinn and Tina Dorsey
designed and produced the report, under the
supervision of Doris J. James.
May 2012, NCJ 237363

Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners, 2008 | May 2012

National Former Prisoner Survey, 2008

Sexual Victimization Reported
by Former State Prisoners, 2008
Allen J Beck, Ph D
BJS Statistician
Candace Johnson, Ph D
Principal Research Scientist, NORC
May 2012, NCJ 237363

BJS

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

Post-release responses to victimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Incidents of sexual victimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

HIV testing and results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Type of coercion and physical injury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Circumstances surrounding victimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Appendix A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Variations by sex of former inmates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Appendix B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Variations by other individual-level characteristics . . . . . . . 16

Appendix C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Variations by selected facility-level characteristics . . . . . . . 20

Appendix D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Prison placements and individual-level risk factors . . . . . . . 25

Appendix E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Reporting of sexual victimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

List of tables
Table 1. Former state prisoners reporting sexual victimization
during most recent period of incarceration, by type of
victimization and facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Table 2. Former state prisoners reporting sexual victimization
in a community-based correctional facility . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Table 3. Criminal history and supervision status of persons
under active parole supervision, by sex of former inmate . . . 11
Table 4. Type of coercion and physical injury of former state
prisoners who reported sexual victimization, by type of
incident . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Table 5. Circumstances surrounding sexual victimization of
former state prisoners, by type of incident . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Table 6. Former state prisoners reporting sexual victimization,
by sex of inmate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Table 7. Staff sexual misconduct and type of activity, by sex of
victim and sex of staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Table 8. Prevalence of sexual victimization, by type of incident
and former prisoner demographic characteristics . . . . . . . 16

Table 12. Sequence of reported sexual victimization in prison,
by sex of victim and type of incident . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Table 13. Prevalence of sexual victimization during prison
placement, by sex of inmate, type of incident, and facility-level
characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Table 14. Prevalence of sexual victimization during each prison
placement, comparing the National Former Prisoner Survey,
2008, and National Inmate Survey, 2008–09 . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Table 15. Prevalence of sexual victimization among male and
female placements, by type of incident and former prisoner
characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Table 16. Final multivariate logistic regression models of sexual
victimization among male and female placements, by type of
incident and former prisoner and facility characteristics . . . 28
Table 17. Reporting of sexual victimization, by type of incident
and persons to whom the incident was reported . . . . . . . . 30
Table 18. Reasons for not reporting sexual victimization to
facility staff, by type of victimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Table 9. Prevalence of sexual victimization, by type of incident
and former prisoner criminal justice status and history . . . . 17

Table 19. Facility responses to the reporting of sexual
victimization to staff, by type of incident . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Table 10. Multivariate logistic regression models of sexual
victimization, by type of incident, former prisoner demographic
characteristics, and former prisoner criminal justice status and
history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Table 20. Post-release responses of victims to sexual
victimization, by type of incident . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Table 21. HIV testing and results for former state prisoners, by
type of victim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Table 11. Prison facilities entered and prison placements, by
former state prisoners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Table 22. Current employment, housing, and living
arrangements of former inmates under active parole
supervision, by victimization status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners, 2008 | May 2012

List of appendix tables
Appendix table 1. Standard errors for table 4: Type of coercion
and physical injury of former state prisoners who reported
sexual victimization, by type of incident . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Appendix table 5. Standard errors for table 17: Reporting of
sexual victimization, by type of incident and persons to whom
the incident was reported . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Appendix table 2. Standard errors for table 5: Circumstances
surrounding sexual victimization of former state prisoners, by
type of incident . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Appendix table 6. Standard errors for table 19: Facility
responses to the reporting of sexual victimization to staff, by
type of incident . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Appendix table 3. Wald-F statistics for former prisoner
characteristics in the final multivariate logistic regression
models of sexual victimization, by type of incident . . . . . . . 48

Appendix table 7. Standard errors for table 20: Post-release
responses of victims to sexual victimization, by type of
incident . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Appendix table 4. Wald-F statistics for former state prisoner
and facility characteristics in the final multivariate logistic
regression models of sexual victimization among male and
female placements, by type of incident . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Highlights
Prevalence of sexual victimization
An estimated 9.6% of former state prisoners reported one

or more incidents of sexual victimization during the most
recent period of incarceration in jail, prison, and postrelease community-treatment facility.
Among all former state prisoners, 1.8% reported

experiencing one or more incidents while in a local jail,
7.5% while in a state prison, and 0.1% while in a postrelease community-treatment facility.
About 5.4% of former state prisoners reported an

incident that involved another inmate. An estimated 3.7%
of former prisoners said they were forced or pressured to
have nonconsensual sex with another inmate, including
manual stimulation and oral, anal, or vaginal penetration.
About 5.3% of former state prisoners reported an

incident that involved facility staff. An estimated 1.2% of
former prisoners reported that they unwillingly had sex
or sexual contact with facility staff, and 4.6% reported
that they “willingly” had sex or sexual contact with staff.
Although the rate of sexual victimization in state prison

reported by former inmates (7.5%) was higher than the
rate reported by inmates in previous BJS surveys (4.8%
in 2008-09), the difference may reflect longer exposure
periods (39.4 months and 7.9 months, respectively).

Coercion and physical injury
Among victims of inmate-on-inmate sexual violence, a

quarter had been physically held down or restrained, and
a quarter had been physically harmed or injured.
Half of all victims of staff sexual misconduct said they had

been offered favors or special privileges; a third said they
had been persuaded or talked into it.

Approximately 16% of victims of unwilling sexual activity

with staff, compared to 2% of victims of “willing” sexual
activity, reported being physically injured by staff.

Individual risk factors
The rate of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization was

at least 3 times higher for females (13.7%) than males
(4.2%).
The rate of “willing” sexual activity with staff was higher

among males (4.8%) than females (2.6%), and the rate
of unwilling sexual activity was higher among females
(2.5%) than males (1.1%).
Among heterosexual males, an estimated 3.5% reported

being sexually victimized by another inmate. In comparison,
among males who were bisexual, 34% reported being
sexually victimized by another inmate. Among males who
were homosexual or gay, 39% reported being victimized by
another inmate.
Female heterosexual inmates reported lower rates of

inmate-on-inmate victimization (13%) and staff sexual
misconduct (4%) than female bisexual inmates (18% and
8%, respectively).
Among female homosexual or lesbian inmates, the rate

of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization was similar to
that for female heterosexual inmates (13%), while the rate
of staff sexual victimization was at least double (8%) that
for female heterosexual inmates (4%).
The rate of imate-on-inmate sexual victimization for

males was higher among non-Hispanic white inmates
(5.9%) and inmates of two or more races (9.5%) than nonHispanic black inmates (2.9%).

Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners, 2008 | May 2012

Highlights (continued))
Among male former state prisoners, the rates of staff

sexual misconduct were higher for those of two or more
races (11.3%) and black non-Hispanics (6.5%) than for
white non-Hispanics (4.5%) and Hispanics (4.0%).
The rate of staff sexual misconduct was higher for male

inmates ages 20 to 24 (7.9%) than for male inmates ages
25 to 34 (5.2%), ages 35 to 44 (3.5%), and age 45 or older
(2.0%).
Among female former state prisoners, rates of staff sexual

misconduct were lower for those ages 35 to 44 (3.1%) and
age 45 or older (1.6%), compared to those ages 20 to 24
(6.7%).
Most victims of staff sexual misconduct (87%) reported

only perpetrators of the opposite sex.
Among victims of staff sexual misconduct, 79% were

males reporting sexual activity with female staff. An
additional 5% were males reporting sexual activity with
both female and male staff.

Facility characteristics
Rates of sexual victimization did not vary among

commonly cited characteristics of facilities, including size
of facility, facility age, crowding, inmate-to-staff ratios, or
gender composition of staff.
Among male former inmates, inmate-on-inmate and

staff-on-inmate victimization rates were higher in
facilities under a court order or consent decree, higher in
facilities reporting a major disturbance in the 12 months
prior to the most recent facility census, higher in facilities
with medium or greater security levels, and higher in
facilities with a primary function of housing general
population than in facilities without these characteristics.
Among female former inmates, rates of inmate-

on-inmate victimization were lower in community
corrections centers, in facilities that permitted 50% or
more of their inmates to leave unaccompanied during
the day, in minimum or low security facilities, and in
privately operated facilities than in facilities without these
characteristics.

After controlling for multiple individual-level

characteristics—

ff Inmate-on-inmate and staff-on-inmate victimization
rates among males were lower in reception and
diagnostic centers than in facilities that housed
general population, and lower in minimum security
facilities than in facilities with higher security levels.

ff Inmate-on-inmate victimization rates among females
were lower in facilities that permitted 50% or more of
their inmates to leave unaccompanied during the day
than in other confinement facilities, lower in medium
security facilities than in maximum or high security
facilities, and higher in facilities that had a major
disturbance in the census year than in facilities that
did not.

Sexual victimization and its consequences
Following their release from prison, 72% of victims of

inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization indicated they felt
shame or humiliation, and 56% said they felt guilt.
The majority of victims of staff sexual misconduct

involving unwilling activity said they felt shame or
humiliation (79%) and guilt (72%) following their release
from prison. More than half (54%) reported having
difficulty feeling close to friends or family members as a
result of the sexual victimization.
Although the vast majority of victims of staff sexual

misconduct (86%) reported at least one incident that
they considered “willing,” approximately a quarter said
they felt guilt (27%) or shame and humiliation (23%) after
their release from prison.
Among former inmates who had been tested for HIV

(90%), those who had been sexually victimized by other
inmates or by staff had significantly higher percentages
for HIV positive (6.5% and 4.6%, respectively) than those
who had not been victimized (2.6%).
Among former inmates under parole supervision,

victims and nonvictims did not differ in their current
employment (64% employed) or housing arrangements
(92% in house, apartment, trailer, or mobile home);
however, victims (18%) were somewhat more likely than
nonvictims (14%) to be living alone.

Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners, 2008 | May 2012

Sexual Victimization Reported by
Former State Prisoners, 2008

he Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) conducted the
first-ever National Former Prisoner Survey (NFPS)
between January 2008 and October 2008. NORC at
the University of Chicago, under a cooperative agreement
with BJS, collected the data. A total of 317 parole offices
in 40 states were randomly included in the survey sample.
A total of 17,738 former state prisoners who were under
active supervision (i.e., required to contact a supervisory
parole authority regularly in person, by mail, or by telephone) participated in the national survey. Interviews from
an additional 788 former prisoners were included from the
survey test sites. These former inmates had been randomly
selected from 16 offices sampled. Based on 18,526 completed interviews, the survey achieved a 61% response rate. (See
Methodology for further details.)
The NFPS is part of the National Prison Rape Statistics
Program, which collects both administrative records
of reported sexual violence and allegations of sexual
victimization directly from victims. BJS has collected
administrative records annually since 2004. We collected
victim reports through surveys of adult inmates in prisons

and jails in the National Inmate Survey in 2007 (NIS-1)
and in 2008-09 (NIS-2) and through surveys of youth held
in juvenile correctional facilities in the National Survey of
Youth in Custody in 2008-09 (NSYC-1).
The NFPS collects data on the totality of the prior term of
incarceration, including any time in a local jail, state prison,
or community correctional facility prior to final discharge.
Because the survey is based on a sample of parole offices
and not a sample of prisons, the NFPS is not conducive
to providing facility estimates or rankings. The NFPS is
designed to encourage a fuller reporting of victimization,
by surveying only former inmates, who are not subject to
the immediate risk of retaliation from perpetrators or a
code of silence while in prison. The NFPS may elicit reports
of incidents that were unreported in the previous NIS-1
and NIS-2 surveys of prisoners; however, some reports may
be untrue. At the same time, some former inmates may
remain silent about sexual victimization experienced while
incarcerated, despite efforts to assure victims that their
responses will be kept confidential.

Other PREA data collections
The Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (PREA; P.L. 10879) requires the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) to carry
out, for each calendar year, a comprehensive statistical
review and analysis of the incidence and effects of prison
rape. The act further specifies that the review and analysis
shall be based on a random sample or other scientifically
appropriate sample of not less than 10% of all federal,
state, and county prisons and a representative sample of
municipal prisons. It requires BJS to use surveys and other
statistical studies of current and former inmates. To fully
meet these requirements, BJS has developed a multiple
measure, multi-mode data collection strategy, in which the
NFPS is one component.
National Survey of Youth in Custody (NSYC) provides
facility-level estimates of youth reporting sexual
victimization in juvenile facilities, as required under PREA.
The first NSYC (NSYC-1) was conducted in 2008-09; the
second (NSYC-2) is underway and will be completed by
September 2012. NSYC-2 will provide estimates for large
facilities that house adjudicated youth and for each of the 50
state systems and the District of Columbia.

National Inmate Survey (NIS) gathers data on the
incidence of sexual assault in adult prisons and local jail
facilities, as reported by inmates. The first NIS (NIS-1) was
conducted in 2007, the second (NIS-2) was conducted
in 2008-09, and the third (NIS-3) is underway and will be
completed by May 2012. Based on inmate allegations, the
NIS provides facility-level estimates used to rank facilities
as required under PREA.

Survey of Sexual Violence (SSV) collects data annually
on the incidence of sexual violence in adult and juvenile
correctional facilities. Based on administrative data only, the
SSV is limited to incidents reported to correctional officials.
Begun in 2004, the SSV provides detailed information on
incidents that have been substantiated upon investigation.
Clinical Indicators of Sexual Violence in Custody (CISVC) In
2010–11, in collaboration with the National Institute of Justice
(NIJ) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC), BJS conducted a feasibility study using medical
indicators and medical surveillance methodologies. As part
of routine medical practice, medical staff in 19 prisons and 11
jails completed a surveillance form for adult males who either
made an allegation of sexual violence or displayed clinical
conditions consistent with sexual victimization. Results of the
12-month pilot study are expected in 2012.

Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners, 2008 | May 2012

Incidents of sexual victimization
9.6% of former state prisoners reported one or more
incidents of sexual victimization during the most
recent period of incarceration in jail, prison, or a postrelease community-treatment facility
Among the 18,526 former state inmates participating in
the NFPS survey, 2,096 reported experiencing one or more
incidents of sexual victimization during their most recent
period of incarceration, including the combined time
in local jails, state prisons, or post-release communitytreatment facilities. Because the NFPS is a sample survey,
weights were applied to the sampled offices and offenders
under their supervision to produce national-level
estimates. The estimated number of former state prisoners
experiencing sexual victimization totaled 49,000, or 9.6%
of all former state prisoners under active supervision at
midyear 2008 (table 1).
Among all former state prisoners, 1.8% reported
experiencing one or more incidents while in a local jail,
7.5% while in a state prison, and 0.1% while in a postrelease community-treatment facility. An estimated 1.4%
reported an incident in a facility for which the type could
not be determined.

5.4% of former inmates reported an incident with
another inmate; 5.3% reported an incident with staff
Among former state prisoners, 5.4% (or an estimated
27,300 prisoners nationwide at midyear 2008) reported an
incident that involved another inmate, and 5.3% (27,100)
reported an incident that involved facility staff. Some
inmates (1.1%) reported sexual victimization by both
another inmate and facility staff.
An estimated 3.7% of former prisoners said they had
nonconsensual sex with another inmate, including
manual stimulation and oral, anal, or vaginal penetration.
An additional 1.6% of former prisoners said they had
experienced one or more abusive sexual contacts only with
another inmate, including unwanted touching of the inmate’s
buttocks, thigh, penis, breast, or vagina in a sexual way.
An estimated 1.2% of former prisoners reported that they
unwillingly had sex or sexual contact with facility staff.
An estimated 4.6% said they “willingly” had sex or sexual
contact with staff.

Table 1

Former state prisoners reporting sexual victimization during most recent period of incarceration, by type of victimization
and facility
Percent of former prisonersa
Standard errorsb
Estimated number
c
Type of incident
of victims
All
Prison
Jail
All
Prison
Jail
Total
49,000
9.6%
7.5%
1.8%
0.29%
0.26%
0.14%
Inmate-on-inmate
27,300
5.4%
3.7%
1.0%
0.24%
0.19%
0.09%
Nonconsensual sexual acts
18,700
3.7
2.6
0.6
0.17
0.14
0.06
Abusive sexual contacts only
7,900
1.6
0.9
0.2
0.13
0.09
0.04
Staff sexual misconduct
27,100
5.3%
4.7%
1.0%
0.22%
0.22%
0.10%
Unwilling activity
6,300
1.2%
1.0%
0.2%
0.11%
0.11%
0.03%
Excluding touching
5,100
1.0
0.8
0.1
0.10
0.10
0.02
Touching only
1,100
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.05
0.04
0.02
Willing activity
23,300
4.6%
4.0%
0.7%
0.21%
0.21%
0.08%
Excluding touching
22,200
4.3
3.4
0.3
0.21
0.21
0.06
Touching only
1,100
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.04
0.04
0.01
Note: Former prison inmates include only persons who were under active community supervision following a period of incarceration in state prison. See Methodology for
sample description. Detail may not sum to total because former inmates may have reported more than one type of victimization or victimization in more than one type of
facility.
aBased on the most recent period of incarceration, which may include time spent in local jail prior to admission to state prison and time spent in a post-release community
treatment facility following release from prison.
bStandard errors may be used to construct confidence intervals around each estimate. See Methodology for calculations.
cIncludes former inmates victimized in a post-release community-treatment facility (0.1%) and in facilities for which type was not reported (1.4%).
Source: BJS, National Former Prisoner Survey, 2008.

Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners, 2008 | May 2012

National Former Prisoner Survey Protocol
Active post-custody supervision
Only people who had served time in a state prison, were
age 18 or older at the time of the survey, and under
active post-release supervision were eligible to be part
of the NFPS. The survey includes some people who were
under age 18 at the time of their incarceration. These
people were sentenced as adults and served time in adult
facilities.
In 2008, approximately 85% of all persons under some
form of post-custody supervision were considered to be
under active supervision. Individuals who were ineligible
for the survey included those who had absconded, were
re-incarcerated, were in a halfway house or communitybased treatment center, had a warrant issued for their
arrest, were in violator status, or had been transferred to
another parole office. Persons under supervision in small
offices (under 40 parolees) in remote areas or in specialty
offices (e.g., sex offender supervision or treatment
facilities) were also excluded from the survey. Overall, the
NFPS is a representative sample of approximately 510,800
former state prisoners under supervision at midyear 2008.
(See Methodology for sampling information.)

Audio computer-assisted self-interview
The NFPS interviews, which averaged 23 minutes in
length, were conducted using computer-assisted
personal interviewing (CAPI) and audio computer-assisted
self-interviewing (ACASI) data collection methods. Survey
interviewers initiated the personal interview using CAPI to
obtain demographic and criminal history information. 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 survey in private at the parole office (or satellite
office), with the interviewer in the room but unable to
see the computer screen. (See Methodology for further
description of the survey protocol.)

Voluntary participation with incentives
Before the interview, respondents were informed verbally
and in writing that participation was voluntary and that
all information provided would be held in confidence.
They were also informed that if they agreed to participate,

they would receive $50 as a token of appreciation for
participating in the survey. A second automated consent
protocol was administered at the beginning of the ACASI
portion of the interview to confirm that the respondent
had been properly informed that participating in the
survey was voluntary and that they were “ready to
continue with the interview.”

Measuring sexual victimization
The NFPS first screened for inmate-on-inmate sexual
touching “when they didn’t want this to happen” and
sexual activity “in which they did not want to participate.”
Respondents were then asked about the specific sexual
activity, including oral, anal, or vaginal penetration,
and about the specific contact, including touching of
buttocks, thighs, breasts, penis, or vagina in an attempt
to hurt or arouse the victim or the perpetrator. (See
appendix A and B for specific survey questions.) Reports
of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization were classified
as either nonconsensual sexual acts or abusive sexual
contacts.
The NFPS also asked about staff sexual activity,
including staff sexually harrassing the inmate, staring
inappropriately at the inmate, and forcing the inmate
to undress or brushing private parts when “it was
not required by their job.” Former inmates were then
screened for sexual contact with staff, “whether it was
willing or not,” or “whether you wanted to have it or not.”
These contacts may have included oral, anal, or vaginal
penetration and other forms of sexual stimulation
through rubbing the penis and touching other private
parts. (See appendix C and D for specific survey
questions.)
Reports of staff sexual misconduct involving physical force,
threat of force, fear of bodily injury, and being pressured or
made to feel they had no choice were classified as “unwilling.”
Other reports of staff sexual misconduct in which former
inmates reported willingly having sex or sexual contact
with staff were classified as “willing” even though any sex
or sexual contact between inmates and staff is illegal. (See
Definition of terms on page 13.)

Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners, 2008 | May 2012

Former prisoners reported a wide variety of other sexual
experiences with staff that were inappropriate:

An estimated 8.9% reported that staff had hassled or
harassed them in a sexual way.

27.9% said that staff had stared or watched them at

inappropriate times (e.g., while the inmate was dressing
or taking a shower).

13.5% said that staff had forced them to undress in their

presence or had brushed against their private parts
when “they did not think it was an accident or it was not
required by their job.”

Nearly a third (32.4%) of all former inmates reported one
or more of these types of experiences. While inappropriate,
these lesser forms of staff sexual misconduct were not
included in the analysis unless combined with reports of
“willingly” or unwillingly having sex or sexual contact with
staff. (See appendix D for survey items related to staff-oninmate sexual victimization.)
Few former inmates reported experiencing sexual
victimization while in a community-based correctional
facility
Correctional facilities are typically classified as communitybased if 50% or more of the residents are regularly
permitted to leave unaccompanied by facility staff to work
or study in the community. Community-based facilities
include entities such as halfway houses, residential
treatment centers, restitution centers, and pre-release
centers. Although community-based correctional facilities
are covered by the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA),
little data have been available on the rate of sexual
victimization in these facilities. Despite the large number of
such facilities (529 of the 1,719 state correctional facilities
in 2005), they hold few inmates on any single day (54,233
inmates at yearend 2005, or approximately 4% of all state
inmates held nationwide) (See Census of State and Federal
Correctional Facilities, 2005, October 2008, BJS Web, NCJ
222182, appendix tables 2 and 10.) As a result of their
small size (an average of 102 inmates per facility) and the
relatively short length of stay for most inmates while in
community-based facilities, inmates held in these facilities
have been excluded from previous PREA-related inmate
surveys.
The NFPS provides the first systematic data available on
sexual victimization in community-based facilities. An
estimated 66,400 former state prisoners (13%) said they had
served some time in a community-based treatment facility
or halfway house after release from prison. Among those
inmates who had served time in such a facility, 0.9% reported
experiencing one or more incidents of sexual victimization
while in the facility (table 2). Among all former state
prisoners, 0.1% said they had been sexually victimized while
in a post-release community-treatment facility.

Approximately 65,500 former inmates (13%) reported
spending time in a community-based facility before their
release from prison. During the time they had been placed
in such a facility, 2.0% reported experiencing one or more
incidents of sexual victimization: 0.7% reported inmate-oninmate sexual victimization, while 1.4% reported staff-oninmate victimization.
Sexual victimization rates differed from those
previously reported in the NIS-1 and NIS-2
The rate of sexual victimization reported by former state
prisoners (9.6%) was substantially higher than the rates
reported in the previous BJS National Inmate Surveys
which were based on confined state and federal inmates
(e.g., 4.5% in the NIS-1 conducted in 2007 and 4.4% in
the NIS-2 conducted in 2008-09). The differences may
largely reflect longer average exposure time among former
inmates.
Unlike NFPS, the NIS-1 and NIS-2 provide facility-specific
estimates of the prevalence of sexual victimization. As
required under the PREA of 2003, these surveys are designed
to provide a list of prisons and jails ranked by the prevalence
of sexual victimization. To eliminate experiences that may
have occurred in other facilities or in the distant past and to
control for the varying length of stay, the NIS-1 and NIS-2
asked inmates to provide the most recent date of admission
to the current facility. To provide comparative rates, 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 arrived at the facility.
As a consequence, the average exposure period among
state prisoners participating in the NIS-2 was 7.9 months,
compared to the average of 39.4 months that the former
inmates in the NFPS had served in state prisons prior to
their release (excluding time served in a local jail or postrelease community-treatment facility). (See Methodology
for differences in coverage between NFPS and NIS.)
Table 2

Former state prisoners reporting sexual victimization in a
community-based correctional facility
Percent of former inmates who served
time in a community-based facility
Type of incident
Before releasea
After releaseb
Number of former inmates
65,500
66,400
Total
2.0%
0.9%
Inmate-on-inmate
0.7
0.4
Staff sexual misconduct
1.4
0.5
aIncludes pre-release community-based facilities, such as halfway houses, residential
treatment centers, restitution centers, and other pre-release centers.
bIncludes post-release community-based treatment facilities only.
Source: BJS, National Former Prisoner Survey, 2008.

Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners, 2008 | May 2012

Criminal history and
supervision profile of former
inmates
In addition to collecting data on the
sexual experiences of former state
inmates during their most recent period
of confinement, the NFPS gathered
information on their criminal histories and
their current supervision (table 3). Results
from the survey include the following:

Among former state inmates under

active supervision, 47% had been on
parole or community supervision for
less than 12 months, 24% for 12 to 23
months, 12% for 24 to 35 months, and
17% for 36 months or more.

About a third of the former inmates

under active parole supervision had
served time for a violent offense (33%)
or a drug offense (30%), a quarter for a
property offense (25%), and an eighth
for a public-order offense (12%).

Nearly 21% of the former inmates under
active supervision had served time for
a probation violation; 21% for a parole
violation.

Nineteen percent of the former state

prison inmates had served less than
12 months in prison or jail before their
release from prison; 25% had served 12
to 23 months; 16%, 24 to 35 months;
17%, 36 to 59 months; and 23%, 60
months or more.

More than half of those under

supervision (56%) had been released as
a result of a parole board decision.

As a condition of their release, more

than 90% of the parolees were required
to submit to drug testing; 78% were
required to be employed.

Participation in a treatment or

counseling program was also required
of 53% of the parolees for drugs; 39%
for alcohol; and 26% for issues other
than drugs or alcohol.

Nearly 80% of parolees said they had a

face-to-face meeting in the last month
with their parole officer in the parole
office; 57% said they had a face-toface meeting outside of the office (at
home, at work, or elsewhere); and 48%
said they had been contacted by mail,
e-mail, or telephone.

Table 3

Criminal history and supervision status of persons under active parole
supervision, by sex of former inmate
Number under supervison
Time on parole/community supervision
Less than 12 months
12–23
24–35
36–59
60 months or longer
Most serious offense
Violent
Property
Drug
Public order
Other
Probation/parole violator
No
Yesb
Probation
Parole
Total time served
Less than 12 months
12–23
24–35
36–59
60–119
120 months or more
Release type
Parole board decision
Other release
Don’t knowc
Requirements of supervision
Be employed
Submit to drug testing
Participate in drug treatment or counseling
Participate in alcohol treatment or counseling
See counselor/therapist for issues other than
drugs/alcohol
Contacts with parole officer in last month
Face-to-face in office
None
1
2–3
4 or more
Face-to-face outside of office
None
1
2–3
4 or more
Contact by mail, e-mail, or telephone
None
1
2–3
4 or more

Alla
510,800

Male
449,700

Female
60,700

47.2%
24.0
11.6
8.2
8.8

47.1%
23.9
11.7
8.3
9.0

48.3%
25.1
11.5
7.6
7.5

33.3%
25.2
29.7
11.5
0.3

35.0%
23.8
29.0
11.9
0.3

20.7%
35.2
35.2
8.5
0.5

58.8%
41.2
20.7
21.0

59.2%
40.8
19.7
21.7

55.8%
44.2
28.5
16.3

19.0%
25.3
16.1
16.8
14.6
8.2

17.8%
24.6
16.2
17.1
15.4
9.0

27.6%
30.5
15.7
14.7
8.8
2.7

56.0%
43.0
1.0

56.4%
42.6
1.0

53.3%
45.4
1.3

77.5%
90.9
53.3
38.6

78.9%
91.3
53.2
39.3

66.6%
88.5
54.3
32.9

25.6

25.4

26.7

20.6%
50.5
19.9
8.9

19.9%
50.4
20.4
9.3

26.2%
51.5
16.3
6.0

43.2%
39.5
13.7
3.6

42.4%
39.8
14.1
3.7

49.4%
37.4
10.4
2.8

51.9%
23.1
17.8
7.2

52.2%
23.0
17.8
7.0

49.4%
23.9
18.0
8.7

aIncludes persons who said they were transgendered.
bDetail may not sum to total because some former inmates had violated both probation and parole.
cFormer inmates said they did not know if they had been released through a parole board decision.

Source: BJS, National Former Prisoner Survey, 2008.

Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners, 2008 | May 2012

Incidents of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization involved
a wide array of acts with differing levels of coercion and force
to get the victim to participate. Although many of the victims
were not raped, all of the victims had been sexually abused.

The most common form of coercion other than force or
threat of force was being “persuaded or being talked into it”
(34%) against their will. A quarter of victims (26%) said the
inmate perpetrator had given them a bribe or blackmailed
them, and a quarter (24%) said they had been offered or
given protection from other inmates. In addition, some
victims had been given drugs or alcohol to get them drunk
or high (9%), and some had sexual contact to pay off or
settle a debt that they owed (8%). Overall, 52% of victims
reported one or more of these types of coercion.

Force or threat of force or harm was reported by 59% of
victims of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization—about
3.2% of former state prisoners overall (not shown in table).
An estimated 53% said they had been threatened with
harm or a weapon; 28% had been physically held down or
restrained, and 25% had been physically harmed or injured.
(table 4).

Among victims of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization,
the most common injuries were anal or vaginal tearing,
severe pain or bleeding (12%) and chipped or lost teeth
(12%). Although 29% of all victims reported bruises, black
eyes, sprains, cuts, scratches, swelling, or welts from one or
more incidents involving another inmate, nearly a quarter
(23%) also reported more serious injuries.

Type of coercion and physical injury
Among victims of inmate-on-inmate sexual violence,
a quarter had been physically held down or restrained
and a quarter had been physically harmed or injured

Table 4

Type of coercion and physical injury of former state prisoners who reported sexual victimization, by type of incident
Inmate-on-inmate
Staff sexual misconduct
Nonconsensual
Willing
Unwilling
Totala
sexual acts
Total
activityb
activityb
Number of victims
27,300
18,700
27,100
23,300
6,300
Type of coercionc
Force/threat
58.6%
65.6%
12.3%
5.4%
48.2%
Threatened with harm or a weapon
53.1
59.7
11.0
5.2
43.9
Physically held down or restrained
28.1
34.2
4.9
1.5
19.2
Physically harmed/injured
24.8
30.0
4.1
1.6
15.2
Coercion other than force/threat
51.7%
63.0%
62.4%
61.6%
87.0%
Persuaded/talked into it
34.3
45.4
35.2
33.9
71.9
Offered/given protection from other inmates
24.4
29.4
6.5
5.0
16.5
Given bribe/blackmailed
25.6
31.3
27.2
24.3
60.4
Given drugs/alcohol
9.0
12.0
18.6
19.9
21.0
8.2
10.8
3.1
2.7
6.5
Pay off debtd
Offered/given protection from another correctional officerd
~
~
13.3
10.3
34.2
Offered favors or special privileges
~
~
49.6
49.1
72.0
Physically injuredc
29.7%
35.3%
4.1%
2.1%
16.5%
Excluding minor injuries
22.9
28.4
3.2
1.6
13.0
Knife/stab wounds
4.4
5.1
0.6
0.2
2.6
Broken bones
4.3
5.5
0.5
0.5
1.9
Anal/vaginal tearing, severe pain, or bleeding
11.7
17.0
2.1
1.0
8.8
Teeth chipped/knocked out
11.5
13.9
1.6
0.6
6.3
Internal injuries
6.3
7.4
1.2
0.5
4.9
Knocked unconscious
8.4
10.5
0.6
0.4
2.5
Bruises, a black eye, sprains, cuts, scratches,
swelling, or welts
28.6
33.8
2.9
1.0
11.8
Note: See appendix table 1 for estimated standard errors.
~Not applicable.
aIncludes abusive sexual contacts.
bIncludes touching only.
cDetail may not sum to total because multiple responses were allowed for this item.
dNot included in the pretest interviews. See Methodology for a detailed discussion of the merged pretest and full survey data files.
Source: BJS, National Former Prisoner Survey, 2008.

Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners, 2008 | May 2012

Half of victims of staff sexual misconduct said they had
been offered favors or special privileges; a third had
been persuaded or talked into it; a quarter had been
bribed or blackmailed
Most victims of staff sexual misconduct said they “willingly”
had sex or sexual contact with staff; however, many of
these victims also reported sexual contact or activity with
staff that involved some form of coercion. Among the
estimated 23,300 former prisoners who reported some type
of “willing” activity with staff, 11% (2,500) also reported
unwilling sexual activity with staff. The most common form
of coercion reported by the 23,300 “willing” victims was
offers of favors or special privileges by staff (49%), followed
by being persuaded or talked into it by staff (34%) and being
given a bribe or blackmailed (24%). Overall, 62% of inmates
who had engaged in “willing” sex or sexual activity with staff
reported some type of coercion or offer of favors, special
privileges, or protection by staff.
An estimated 6,300 former state prisoners (1.2%) reported
unwilling sexual activity with staff during their most recent
period of incarceration. These unwilling victims (48%) were
more likely than “willing” victims of staff sexual misconduct
(5%) to report having been physically forced or threatened
by staff. An estimated 44% of unwilling victims said they
had been threatened with harm or a weapon, 19% said they
had been physically held down, and 15% said they had been
physically harmed or injured.
Nearly 7 of every 8 inmates who reported unwilling sexual
activity with staff said that staff had employed other forms
of coercion to engage them in sexual activities or have
sexual contact. In specific, 72% of the victims were offered
favors or special privileges, 72% were persuaded or talked
into it, 60% were given bribes or blackmailed, 34% were
offered protection from other staff, and 21% were given
drugs or alcohol.
These reports suggest that these former inmates
experienced a wide array of pressures from staff to have
sexual contact against their will. More than 80% of victims
who reported force and threat of force also reported one or
more of these other forms of coercion (not shown in table).

Four percent of victims of staff sexual misconduct
reported that they were physically injured
Approximately 16% of victims of unwilling sexual activity
with staff, compared to 2% of victims of “willing” sexual
activity, reported being physically injured by staff. Among
victims of unwilling activity, the most commonly reported
injuries were bruises, black eyes, sprains, cuts, scratches,
swelling or welts (11.8%). Most of these victims of unwilling
sexual activity also reported more serious injuries, including
anal or vaginal tearing (8.8%), loss or chipping of teeth
(6.3%), and receiving internal injuries (4.9%). Though few
victims of “willing” sexual activity with staff reported being
injured, some (1.6%) reported a serious injury.

Definition of terms
Sexual victimization—all types of unwanted sexual
activity with other inmates (e.g., oral, anal, or vaginal
penetration, hand jobs, or touching of the inmate’s
buttocks, thighs, penis, breasts, or vagina in a sexual way),
abusive sexual contacts with other inmates, and both
willing and unwilling sexual activity with staff.
Nonconsensual sexual acts—unwanted contact with
another inmate or any contact with staff that involved
oral, anal, vaginal penetration, hand jobs, and other
sexual acts.
Abusive sexual contacts only—unwanted contact
with another inmate or any contact with staff that
involved touching of the inmate’s buttocks, thighs,
penis, breasts, or vagina in a sexual way.
Unwilling activity—incidents of unwanted sexual
contact 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—all incidents of willing
and unwilling sexual contact with facility staff, and all
incidents of sexual activity that involved oral, anal or
vaginal penetration, hand jobs, and other sexual acts
with facility staff.

Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners, 2008 | May 2012

Circumstances surrounding victimization
Inmate-on-inmate victimization occurred most often in
the victim’s cell; staff-on-inmate victimization occurred
most often in a closet, office, or other locked room
In the NFPS victims were asked to provide additional
information about the circumstances surrounding their
victimization, including the number of times it had
happened, the number of different perpetrators, when each
incident occurred, and where it occurred in each facility.
Data provided by inmates who reported sexual
victimization by another inmate revealed that—

Victimization was more common in the evening

(between 6 p.m. and midnight) (52%) than at any other
time (table 5).

Almost two-thirds (62%) of the victims said at least one
incident took place in their cell or room, and a quarter
said an incident took place in another inmate’s cell or
room (24%).

An estimated 46% of inmate-on-inmate victims had
been victimized by more than one perpetrator.

About 42% had been victimized once; 31% had been
victimized 3 or more times.

Most victims (86%) of staff sexual misconduct reported
more than one incident; 47% reported more than one
perpetrator
Data provided by inmates who had been sexually
victimized by facility staff also revealed that—

Reports of staff sexual misconduct were more common
between midnight and 6 a.m. (54%) than at any other
time.

More than two-thirds (70%) of the victims said at least

one incident had occurred in a closet, office, or other
locked room; half (54%) of the victims said an incident
had occurred in a work area; and a third (35%) in a
shower or bathroom.

Reports of when and where incidents had occurred were
similar among willing and unwilling victims.

Table 5

Circumstances surrounding sexual victimization of former state prisoners, by type of incident
Inmate-on-inmate
Staff sexual misconduct
Nonconsensual
Willing
Circumstance
Totala
sexual acts
Total
activityb
Number of victimsc
27,300
18,700
27,100
23,300
Time of dayd
6 a.m. to noon
30.4%
30.3%
41.7%
41.7%
Noon to 6 p.m.
35.5
34.0
37.6
37.7
6 p.m. to midnight
52.2
56.6
46.4
46.6
Midnight to 6 a.m.
41.3
52.8
54.5
56.5
Where occurredd
Victim’s cell/room/sleeping area
61.9%
71.3%
42.8%
43.8%
Another inmate’s cell/room
24.3
31.5
9.0
9.9
Shower/bathroom
36.7
38.4
35.0
36.5
Yard/recreation area
21.8
19.2
10.8
10.2
Workplace
17.9
19.8
54.5
55.8
Closet, office, or other locked room
13.1
17.2
69.8
71.7
Classroom/library
9.6
11.3
33.8
34.5
Elsewhere in facility
11.3
11.6
13.3
13.7
Off facility groundse
5.4
5.9
9.9
9.9
Number of perpetrators
1
53.8%
48.1%
52.8%
52.0%
2
25.4
28.0
27.0
27.5
3 or more
20.8
23.9
20.3
20.5
Number of times
1
42.4%
36.4%
14.2%
13.2%
2
26.2
26.5
22.3
22.2
3 or more
31.3
37.1
63.5
64.6

Unwilling
activityb
6,300
44.5%
35.6
50.9
51.3
45.9%
8.5
33.8
11.8
57.4
67.0
33.6
12.1
14.4
53.6%
22.0
24.4
11.0%
19.3
69.7

Note: See appendix table 2 for estimated standard errors.
aIncludes abusive sexual contacts.
bIncludes touching only.
cDetail may not sum to total because respondents may have reported more than one type of victimization.
dDetail may sum to total because multiple responses were allowed for this item.
eIncludes incidents that occurred in a temporary holding facility, on work release, in a medical facility, in a vehicle, or at a courthouse.
Source: BJS, National Former Prisoner Survey, 2008.

Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners, 2008 | May 2012

Variations by sex of former inmates
Past BJS surveys of confined prison inmates have
consistently found higher rates of inmate-on-inmate
victimization among females than males. In the National
Inmate Survey, 2008-09, 4.7% of the surveyed female
inmates and 1.9% of the male inmates reported being
sexually victimized by another inmate. This difference
was found to be statistically independent and largely
unexplained by covariation with other demographic
characteristics (e.g., an inmate’s race or Hispanic origin,
age, education, marital status, and weight). (See Sexual
Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates,
2008-09, tables 6 and 7.) The reports of former prisoners
confirm the large and statistically significant difference
between male and female rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual
victimization (table 6).
Table 6

Former state prisoners reporting sexual victimization, by
sex of inmate
Percent of former prisoners
Type of incident
All
Male*
Female
Totala
9.6%
8.7%
16.1%**
Inmate-on-inmate
5.4%
4.2%
13.7%**
Nonconsensual sexual acts
3.7
2.7
10.5**
Abusive sexual contacts only
1.6
1.3
3.1**
Staff sexual misconduct
5.3%
5.4%
4.4%
Unwilling activity
1.2%
1.1%
2.5%**
Excluding touching
1.0
0.9
1.7**
Touching only
0.2
0.2
0.7**
Willing activity
4.6%
4.8%
2.6%**
Excluding touching
4.3
4.6
2.2**
Touching only
0.2
0.2
0.4
*Comparison group.
**Difference with comparison group is significant at the 95%-confidence level.
aDetail may not sum to total because former inmates may report more than one
type of victimization.
Source: BJS, National Former Prisoner Survey, 2008.

The rate of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization
among former state prisoners was 3 times higher
among females (13.7%) than males (4.2%)
When the rate of sexual victimization was limited to
nonconsensual sexual acts including only incidents of
manual stimulation and oral, anal, or vaginal penetration,
the difference between females and males was large. An
estimated 10.5% of females reported such incidents with
other inmates, compared to 2.7% of males.
The rate of “willing” sexual activity with staff was
higher among males (4.8%) than females (2.6%), and
the rate of unwilling sexual activity was higher among
females (2.5%) than males (1.1%)
Most victims of staff sexual misconduct (87%) reported
only perpetrators of the opposite sex (table 7). Same-sex
victimization was more likely to be reported by victims
of unwilling staff sexual misconduct than by victims
of “willing.” Approximately a quarter of the reports of
unwilling sexual activity with staff involved male inmates
with male staff only (23%) and female inmates with female
staff only (3%).
Table 7

Staff sexual misconduct and type of activity, by sex of victim
and sex of staff
All staff sexual
Willing
Unwilling
misconduct
activity
activity
Total
100%
100%
100%
Male victims
Female staff only
78.7%
86.0%
42.2%
Male staff only
6.8
4.4
23.1
Both male and female staff
4.6
2.7
10.9
Female victims
Female staff only
1.3%
1.1%
2.8%
Male staff only
8.1
5.5
19.2
Both male and female staff
0.5
0.3
1.8
Source: BJS, National Former Prisoner Survey, 2008.

Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners, 2008 | May 2012

Variations by other individual-level characteristics
Large differences in sexual victimization were
found among former inmates based on their sexual
orientation
An estimated 3.5% of male heterosexual former inmates
reported being sexually victimized by another inmate,
and 5.2% reported being victimized by staff (table 8).
In comparison, 34% of male inmates who were bisexual
reported being sexually victimized by another inmate, and

18% reported being sexually victimized by staff. Thirtynine percent of male inmates who were homosexual or gay
indicated they had been victimized by another inmate and
12% by staff.

Bisexual female former inmates reported a higher rate of

inmate-on-inmate victimization (18%) than heterosexual
inmates (13%) and lesbian inmates (13%).

Lesbian inmates and bisexual female former inmates had

rates of staff sexual misconduct that were at least double
(8%) the rate among heterosexual female former inmates.

Table 8

Prevalence of sexual victimization, by type of incident and former prisoner demographic characteristics
Percent of male former prisoners
Percent of female former prisoners
reporting sexual victimization
reporting sexual victimization
Number of male
Inmate-onStaff sexual
Number of female
Inmate-onStaff sexual
Demographic characteristic
former prisoners
inmate
misconduct
former prisoners
inmate
misconduct
Race/Hispanic origin
Whitea
173,200
5.9%**
4.5%**
29,300
13.2%
4.5%
Black/African Americana*
171,000
2.9
6.5
17,400
15.2
4.2
Hispanic/Latino
80,500
2.7
4.0**
10,100
12.2
3.8
Othera,b
13,500
4.1
6.0
1,800
7.2
2.3
Two or more racesa
11,100
9.5**
11.3**
1,800
23.9
11.9**
Age at admission
Under 18
10,200
8.4%
18.6%
800
14.8%
14.9%
18–19
27,000
4.3
9.1
1,700
22.9
10.4
20–24*
91,000
5.3
7.9
8,300
17.1
6.7
25–34
146,600
4.1
5.2**
20,300
14.8
5.1
35–44
107,300
3.7
3.5**
20,100
12.0
3.1**
45 or older
61,500
3.5
2.0**
9,000
10.9
1.6**
Educationc
Less than high schoold*
267,100
4.0%
5.5%
33,200
13.0%
4.5%
High school graduate
89,800
3.2
4.0**
11,300
12.2
2.8
Some college
78,100
5.8
7.0
13,400
16.4
4.8
College degree or more
14,100
5.2
5.2
2,600
15.3
8.1
Marital statusc
Married*
90,700
4.8%
6.4%
10,600
12.4%
4.3%
Widowed, divorced, or separated
132,400
4.1
4.5**
25,100
15.4
4.3
Never married
225,500
4.0
5.6
24,900
12.7
4.6
Weightc,e
1st quartile*
121,200
4.9%
4.5%
16,700
14.3%
5.0%
2nd quartile
108,400
4.1
5.3
13,300
12.6
3.5
3rd quartile
118,800
4.0
5.7
15,000
14.1
4.7
4th quartile
101,200
3.8
6.4**
14,900
13.8
4.1
Sexual orientationc
Straight/heterosexual*
435,600
3.5%
5.2%
49,800
13.1%
3.7%
Bisexual
5,500
33.7**
17.5**
7,300
18.1**
7.5**
Lesbian/gay/homosexual
4,200
38.6**
11.8**
3,300
12.8
8.0**
*Comparison group.
**Difference with comparison group is significant at the 95%-confidence level.
aExcludes persons of Hispanic or Latino origin.
bIncludes American Indians, Alaska Natives, Asians, Native Hawaiians, and other Pacific Islanders.
cAs reported at time of interview.
dIncludes former prisoners who received a GED while incarcerated.
eWeight quartiles are defined by sex: Men—1st quartile (86 to 170 lbs.), 2nd quartile (171 to 190 lbs.), 3rd quartile (191 to 220 lbs.), 4th quartile (more than 220 lbs.). Women—
1st quartile (78 to 145 lbs.), 2nd quartile (146 to 169 lbs.), 3rd quartile (170 to 198 lbs.), 4th quartile (more than 198 lbs.).
Source: BJS, National Former Prisoner Survey, 2008.

Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners, 2008 | May 2012

Rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization among
males varied by race and Hispanic origin. Rates of inmateon-inmate victimization for males were higher among white
non-Hispanic inmates (5.9%) and multi-racial inmates (9.5%)
than among black non-Hispanic inmates (2.9%). Among
females, rates of inmate-on-inmate victimization did not vary
significantly across other demographic characteristics.

to 44 (3.1%) and age 45 or older (1.6%), compared to those
ages 20 to 24 (6.7%). The only other statistically significant
difference among female inmates was that 11.9% of multiracial inmates reported staff sexual misconduct, which
was approximately 2 to 3 times the rate of victimization
reported by white non-Hispanic inmates (4.5%), black nonHispanic inmates (4.2%), and Hispanic inmates (3.8%).

Patterns of staff sexual misconduct among male
former prisoners varied among multiple demographic
characteristics. Rates of staff sexual misconduct were higher
for those of two or more races (11.3%) and lower for white
non-Hispanic inmates (4.5%) and Hispanic inmates (4.0%),
when compared to black non-Hispanic inmates (6.5%).
Rates of staff sexual misconduct were also higher among
younger male inmates (under age 25) than among older
male inmates; higher among those with less than a high
school education than those who completed high school;
and higher for those who were married than those who
were widowed, divorced, separated, or never married.

Violent, male sex offenders reported high rates of
inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization (13.7%)

Among female former prisoners, rates of staff sexual
misconduct were significantly lower among those ages 35

Consistent with findings in previous BJS data collections
based on inmates held in prisons and local jails, male
former state prisoners whose most serious offense was a
violent sex offense reported significantly higher rates of
inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization than other inmates
(table 9). The rate among male sex offenders (13.7%)
was more than twice the rate among other violent male
offenders (4.9%), 3 times the rate of property offenders
(4.4%), 5 times the rate of public-order offenders (2.6%),
and 6 times the rate of drug offenders (2.0%). Among
female former inmates, no differences were found in rates
of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization by type of offense
for which they had been sentenced.

Table 9

Prevalence of sexual victimization, by type of incident and former prisoner criminal justice status and history
Percent of male former prisoners
Percent of female former prisoners
reporting sexual victimization
reporting sexual victimization
Number of male
Inmate-onStaff sexual
Number of female Inmate-onStaff sexual
Criminal justice status and history
former prisoners
inmate
misconduct
former prisoners
inmate
misconduct
Prior incarcerations
No prior incarceration*
79,700
6.6%
5.7%
14,200
11.9%
4.4%
1 or more prior incarcerations
370,300
3.7**
5.4
46,500
14.3
4.4
Most serious offense
Violent sexual offense*
28,500
13.7%
6.5%
500
17.2%
10.4%
Other violent
125,500
4.9**
8.6
11,700
15.5
7.0
Property
104,900
4.4**
5.8
20,900
14.4
4.2
Drug
127,500
2.0**
3.0**
20,900
12.5
3.5
Public order
52,400
2.6**
2.3**
5,100
10.4
2.9
Other
1,500
5.6
7.3
300
8.0
0.0
Total time serveda
Less than 12 months*
80,100
1.8%
2.0%
16,800
9.3%
1.3%
12–23
110,500
3.1
3.1
18,500
13.8
3.7**
24–35
72,900
3.6**
3.6**
9,500
13.9
2.2
36–59
76,800
2.8
5.3**
8,900
16.9**
6.2**
60–119
69,000
6.4**
8.3**
5,300
20.9**
11.3**
120 months or longer
40,300
12.3**
17.2**
1,600
16.4
25.4**
Number of facilitiesb
1*
25,200
2.4%
2.6%
5,100
9.0%
2.2%
2
91,900
3.4
3.9
20,100
13.5
3.6
3
127,000
3.9
4.0
19,800
13.6
3.8
4
92,400
4.3
5.4**
9,800
16.5**
4.4
5
52,400
4.5
6.7**
3,900
14.6
7.7**
6 or more
61,000
6.5**
10.7**
2,000
13.6
17.7**
*Comparison group.
**Difference with comparison group is significant at the 95%-confidence level.
aIncludes time served in jail, all prison facilities, and post-release community treatment facilities.
bIncludes all facilities in which the former inmates were held during the most recent period of incarceration.
Source: BJS, National Former Prisoner Survey, 2008.

Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners, 2008 | May 2012

Rates of sexual victimization increased with the length
of time that former inmates had served

Difference in findings after BJS performed multivariate
logistic regressions

Rates of sexual victimization by other inmates and staff
increased with the length of time the former inmate had
served during the most recent incarceration in jail, prison,
or post-release community-treatment facility. Among
males, rates for former inmates who had served 5 years
or more were at least 3 times higher than for those who
had served less than a year. Among males who had served
10 years or longer, 12% reported having been sexually
victimized by other inmates and 17% by staff. Among
females who had served 5 to 10 years before their release,
21% reported having been sexually victimized by other
inmates and 11% by staff. A quarter of the females who had
served 10 years or more reported experiencing staff sexual
misconduct.

Among male former prisoners, after controlling for the
effects of other individual-level factors—

Male inmates with no prior incarceration experience
had a higher rate of inmate-on-inmate sexual
victimization (6.6%) compared to those with one or
more prior incarcerations (3.7%). Rates of staff sexual
victimization for males and rates for both inmate and
staff sexual victimization for females did not vary by prior
incarceration history.
Former state prisoners who had served time in 5 or
more facilities during their most recent confinement
reported the highest rates of staff sexual misconduct
Staff sexual misconduct rates varied by the number of
facilities in which male and female inmates had served
time during their most recent period of incarceration.
Approximately 25% of the male former state prisoners and
10% of the female state prisoners had served time in five or
more facilities before their release. These inmates reported
significantly higher rates of staff sexual misconduct (6.7%
or more among males and 7.7% or more among females)
than those who had served in three or fewer facilities (4.0%
or less among males and females).
These differences are consistent with the practice of
transferring victims to other facilities in response to
substantiated incidents of staff sexual misconduct. In
2006, based on reports by correctional authorities of all
substantiated incidents of sexual victimization, nearly
a third of the victims of staff sexual misconduct were
transferred to another facility—19% of victims in prisons
and 48% of victims in jails. (For further details, see Sexual
Violence Reported by Correctional Authorities, 2006, April
2007, BJS Web, NCJ 218914, table 12.) The increase in
sexual victimization rates by number of facilities may also
reflect covariation with total time served, with inmates who
serve longer sentences being placed in more facilities.

Inmate-on-inmate victimization was higher for white

non-Hispanic inmates, persons of two or more races,
those age 24 or younger, non-heterosexuals, sex
offenders, and those who served 5 years or more than for
inmates with other characteristics (table 10).

BJS used multivariate logistic regression models
to determine which inmate characteristics were
significant predictors of whether the inmate
would be sexually victimized in prison
Multivariate logistic regression estimation is a modeling
technique used to determine what characteristics are
statistically significant for predicting a dichotomous
outcome (e.g., an inmate is victimized or not victimized)
while controlling for all the other characteristics in the
model.
BJS used this technique to determine which
inmate characteristics were statistically significant
for predicting sexual victimization. Based on four
separate models, each representing the type of
sexual victimization and sex of the former inmate,
the variations in rates of sexual victimization by
demographic characteristic, sexual orientation,
and criminal justice status were found to be largely
statistically independent of one another.
Estimates are displayed in terms of the conditional
marginal probabilities, which represent the probability
that a former male or female inmate with a particular
characteristic has experienced a specific sexual
victimization outcome conditional on the former
inmate having the mean value for all other predictors
in the model. For example, based on models with
demographic and criminal justice status characteristics
only, a white male former inmate had a 4.0% chance
of having been sexually victimized by another inmate,
and a female former inmate had a 12.2% chance
(conditional on the inmate 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 these logistic regression models, the
mean value is a weighted value of the joint distribution
of all other characteristics in the respective model. (See
Methodology for a discussion of logistic regression.)

Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners, 2008 | May 2012

Table 10

Multivariate logistic regression models of sexual victimization, by type of incident, former prisoner demographic
characteristics, and former prisoner criminal justice status and history
Predicted percent of male former
Predicted percent of female former
prisoners reporting sexual victimization
prisoners reporting sexual victimization
Former prisoner characteristic
Inmate-on-inmate
Staff sexual misconduct
Inmate-on-inmate
Staff sexual misconduct
Race/Hispanic origin
4.0%**
3.4%**
12.2%**
3.2%**
Whitea
Black/African Americana*
2.0
4.4
15.0
2.2
Hispanic/Latino
2.1
3.2**
11.6**
2.6
Othera,b
3.0
4.9
4.8**
1.7
Two or more racesa
6.0**
8.3**
24.5**
9.3**
Age at admission
Under 18
4.9%
11.0%**
14.1%
5.8%
18–19
3.0
6.2
24.4
6.4
20–24*
3.8
6.1
18.6
4.5
25–34
2.6**
4.0**
14.2
3.6
35–44
2.4**
2.9**
10.4**
2.2**
45 or older
2.1**
1.9**
9.3**
1.3**
Educationc
Less than high schoold*
~
~
11.7%
~
High school graduate
~
~
12.1
~
Some college
~
~
15.8**
~
College degree or more
~
~
15.8
~
Marital statusc
Married*
~
~
11.8%
~
Widowed, divorced, or separated
~
~
15.8**
~
Never married
~
~
10.6
~
Weightc,e
1st quartile*
~
3.3%
~
~
2nd quartile
~
3.8
~
~
3rd quartile
~
3.9
~
~
4th quartile
~
4.6**
~
~
Sexual orientationc
Straight/heterosexual*
2.6%
3.7%
~
~
Bisexual
28.1**
15.6**
~
~
Lesbian/gay/homosexual
31.8**
10.4**
~
~
Prior incarcerations
No prior incarceration*
~
2.8%
9.5%
1.9%
1 or more prior incarcerations
~
4.1**
14.0**
3.2**
Most serious offense
Violent sexual offense*
6.8%
4.0%
~
~
Other violent
2.5**
4.4
~
~
Property
3.2**
5.1
~
~
Drug
2.1**
3.0
~
~
Public order
2.9**
3.0
~
~
Other
4.0
5.3
~
~
Total time served
Less than 12 months*
1.5%
1.9%
8.9%
1.1%
12–23
2.3
2.8**
13.3**
3.2**
24–35
2.8**
3.3**
13.7**
1.9
36–59
2.0
4.5**
15.8**
5.3**
60–119
4.9**
6.5**
19.2**
10.3**
120 months or longer
9.5**
12.1**
14.4
24.0**
Note: See appendix table 3 for Wald-F statistics for each model.
~Characteristics deleted from model when Wald statistic for each categorical variable was not significant at the 95%-confidence level.
*Comparison group.
**Difference with comparison group is significant at the 95%-confidence level.
aExcludes persons of Hispanic or Latino origin.
bIncludes American Indians, Alaska Natives, Asians, Native Hawaiians, and other Pacific Islanders.
cAs reported at time of interview.
dIncludes former prisoners who received a GED while incarcerated.
eWeight quartiles are defined by sex: Men—1st quartile (86 to 170 lbs.), 2nd quartile (171 to 190 lbs.), 3rd quartile (191 to 220 lbs.), 4th quartile (more than 220 lbs.). Women—
1st quartile (78 to 145 lbs.), 2nd quartile (146 to 169 lbs.), 3rd quartile (170 to 198 lbs.), 4th quartile (more than 198 lbs.).
Source: BJS, National Former Prisoner Survey, 2008.

Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners, 2008 | May 2012

Staff sexual misconduct was higher for black non-

Hispanic inmates, persons of two or more races, those
age 24 or younger, non-heterosexuals, those with one
or more prior incarcerations, and those who served
12 months or more than for inmates with other
characteristics.

Among female former prisoners, after controlling for the
effects of other individual-level factors—

Inmate-on-inmate victimization was higher for inmates

of two or more races, those age 24 or younger, those
with some college education, those with one or more
prior incarcerations, and those who had served a year or
more but less than 10 years than for inmates with other
characteristics.

Staff sexual misconduct was higher for white non-

Hispanic inmates, inmates of two or more races,
those age 24 or younger, those with one or more prior
incarcerations, and those who served 3 years or more
than for inmates with other characteristics.

Sexual victimization either by other inmates or by staff
was unrelated to sexual orientation.

For both male and female former prisoners, the number of
facilities in which the inmate had served time was no longer
related to reports of staff sexual misconduct. For male
former inmates, education levels and marital status were no
longer correlated with reports of staff sexual victimization.

Variations by selected facility-level characteristics
To understand more fully the correlates of sexual
victimization and circumstances surrounding that
victimization, BJS included survey questions to identify
each of the state facilities in which the inmates had served
time during their most recent period of incarceration and
asked if the inmates had been sexually victimized (by type
of victimization) within each facility. (See appendix E for
specific survey questions.) Data collected in prior BJS
censuses of state prison facilities (conducted in 1990, 1995,
2000 and 2005) were linked to these reports to determine
whether any facility characteristics were associated with
variations in rates of sexual victimization. Although data on
local jails and post-release community-treatment facilities
were also collected, they have been excluded from this
analysis. (See Methodology for details on linkage of prison
census data.)

Three-quarters of former inmates had served time in
more than one prison facility; nearly 1 in 8 had served
time in 5 or more prison facilities before their release
During their period of incarceration, inmates typically
served time in more than one facility. Covering only the
last continuous period of incarceration, the 18,526 former
prisoners interviewed in NFPS reported 63,813 separate
placements. Of these, 16,073 involved jail placements
(either prior to prison, as an interim stop or as the only
placement for some). In addition, 2,422 placements were to
post-release local facilities, and 1,525 were to out-of-state
facilities. When weighted by the inverse of the probability
of selection, the eligible prison-only placements represented
more than 1.3 million separate placements (table 11).
Overall, an estimated 500,400 former prisoners (98%) had
served time in a prison facility in the state in which they
were currently under parole or post-custody supervision,
excluding 10,400 prisoners who had served time only in a
local jail. Approximately three-quarters of these inmates
had served time in more than one prison facility; nearly an
eighth had served time in five or more prison facilities.
Table 11

Prison facilities entered and prison placements, by former
state prisoners
State prisons entered/
Percent of
Percent of prison
order of placement
former inmatesa
placementsb
Total
100%
100%
1
24.4
37.6
2
32.5
28.5
3
21.4
16.2
4
10.0
8.2
5
5.8
4.4
6 or more
6.0
5.0
Number
500,400
1,329,700
Note: Respondents were asked to identify the names of the facilities in which they
had been placed. Among those who entered a prison, the number of prisons ranged
from 1 to 15. Facilities were ordered from the first to last by date of entry.
aExcludes an estimated 10,400 former prisoners who served time in local jail only.
bBased on separate records for each state prison entered during the period of
incarceration. Excludes placements in jails and post-release community treatment
facilities.
Source: BJS, National Former Prisoner Survey, 2008.

Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners, 2008 | May 2012

Nearly 44% of male victims and 74% of female victims
reported that sexual victimization had occurred in the
first prison facility they had entered
Based on the self reports of victims in the NFPS, sexual
victimization frequently occurred in the first facility to
which the inmates had been admitted. Among victims,
nearly half (49%) said they were victimized in the first prison
they had entered (table 12). Female victims (74%) were
much more likely than male victims (44%) to report having
been victimized in the first prison entered. This difference
in victimization may be partially explained by differences
among males and females in the likelihood of serving time in
more than one facility. An estimated 78% of males, compared

to 57% of females, had served time in two or more prison
facilities before their release; nearly 25% of males, compared
to 7% of females, had served time in four or more prison
facilities (not shown in table).
Among victims, sexual victimization by other inmates
was more likely than sexual victimization by staff to have
occurred in the first facility the inmates had entered. More
than half (57%) of the estimated 18,800 prisoners who
reported sexual victimization by another inmate indicated
that it occurred in the first prison facility they entered.
Fewer than half (42%) of the 23,800 victims of staff sexual
misconduct indicated it occurred in the first facility.

Table 12

Sequence of reported sexual victimization in prison, by sex of victim and type of incident
Sequence
Total
Male*
Female
Inmate-on-inmate*
Number victimized in state prisona
38,500
31,900
6,600
18,800
Victimized in first prison entered
49.0%
43.7%
74.5%**
57.1%
Victimized in first prison and subsequent prison(s)
17.0
17.3
16.0
18.8
Victimized in subsequent prison(s) only
47.6%
52.7%
22.7%**
37.6%
Unable to place victimization
3.4%
3.6%
2.7%
5.3%

Staff sexual misconduct
23,800
41.8%**
14.2
56.3%**
1.9%**

Note: Detail may not sum to total because former inmates may report more than one type of victimization.
*Comparison group.
**Difference with comparison group is significant at the 95%-confidence level.
aExcludes former state prisoners victimized in local jails only.
Source: BJS, National Former Prisoner Survey, 2008.

Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners, 2008 | May 2012

Reports of sexual violence did not vary by size of
facility, facility age, crowding, inmate-to-staff ratios, or
sex composition of staff
Further analysis of prison placements provided a detailed
risk profile of facility-level characteristics in conjunction
with reported sexual victimization. Overall, few measurable
differences at the 95% level of statistical confidence
emerged among commonly cited facility risk factors
(table 13). Sexual victimization rates (defined by type of
victimization and sex of inmate) did not increase with—

increased size of the facility (based on the average daily
population during the 12 months prior to the census
closest in time to the inmate’s placement)

increased age of the facility (based on year of original
construction)

facility overcrowding (based on the ratio of the number
of inmates the facility actually held to the official rated
capacity)

increased inmate-to-staff ratios in the facility (based

on the number of inmates held to the total number of
payroll, non-payroll, and contract staff)

decreased proportion of female to male staff.
Sexual victimization rates varied by type and primary
function of the facility and by indicators of facility
disorder
Among male former state prisoners, inmate-on-inmate
and staff-on-inmate victimization rates were higher in
facilities—

under a court order or consent decree (to limit the

number of inmates, to address crowding, or in response
to the totality of conditions at the time of the census)
than in other facilities

reporting a major disturbance (involving five or

more inmates and which resulted in serious injury or
significant property damage) in the 12 months prior to
the census than in other facilities

Among female former state prisoners, reports of inmateon-inmate victimization were lower in community
corrections centers (1.3%) and facilities that permitted 50%
or more of their inmates to leave unaccompanied during
the day (1.3%), than in facilities holding general population
(5.3%) or in general confinement facilities (5.0%). Inmateon-inmate sexual victimization rates were also lower in
minimum or low security facilities (3.0%) than in medium
security facilities (5.6%) and lower in privately operated
facilities (2.0%) than in state facilities (5.0%).
Reports of staff sexual misconduct among female former
state prisoners did not vary significantly across facility
characteristics, except for being lower in minimum or low
security facilities (1.0%) than in medium security facilities
(3.0%) and higher in facilities under a court order (6.3%)
than in other facilities (2.0%).
Whether a facility was publicly operated or privately
operated was an inconsistent predictor of victimization.
While reports by male former state prisoners of staff sexual
misconduct were higher in privately operated facilities
(4.6%) than in state facilities (2.5%), reports by female
former prisoners did not differ statistically between state
and privately operated facilities. Rates of inmate-on-inmate
victimization among women, but not among men, were
lower in privately operated facilities than in state facilities.
When an inmate had been placed in the facility was a
strong predictor of sexual victimization among male former
prisoners. As measured by the census year closest to the
time of placement, male former state inmates were nearly 4
times more likely to report victimization by another inmate
and 3 times more likely to report victimization by staff if
they had entered the facility around the 1990 census than if
they had entered around the 2005 census. Female inmates
who entered the prison facility around 1990 were nearly 8
times more likely to report staff sexual misconduct (12.5%)
than if they had entered around 2005 (1.6%). However,
rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization among
females did not differ by year of placement.

with medium or greater security levels than in facilities
with minimum or low security levels

with a primary function of housing general population

than in facilities with specialized functions (e.g.,
reception or diagnostic centers, community corrections
centers, medical treatment, and alcohol or drug
treatment).

Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners, 2008 | May 2012

Table 13

Prevalence of sexual victimization during prison placement, by sex of inmate, type of incident, and facility-level characteristics
Percent of male inmates
Percent of female inmates
reporting sexual victimization
reporting sexual victimization
during placement
during placement
Number of male Inmate-onStaff sexual Number of female Inmate-on- Staff sexual
Facility-level characteristica
placementsb
inmate
misconduct placementsb
inmate
misconduct
Average daily populationc
860 or less
287,300
1.0%
2.1%
45,100
3.6%
2.1%
861 to 1,350*
287,500
1.5
2.8
22,800
4.9
2.9
1,351 to 2,200
289,000
1.9
2.8
16,700
5.6
2.9
More than 2,200
288,800
1.9
2.5
17,900
6.9
2.2
Type of facility
General population*
825,500
1.9%
3.1%
89,900
5.3%
2.6%
Reception/diagnostic
162,400
0.9**
1.1**
1,100
4.5
6.0
Community corrections center
66,200
0.6**
1.3**
5,700
1.3**
1.2
Returned to custodyd
34,700
0.8
1.2**
900
3.1
4.3
52,300
0.9**
1.5**
3,900
0.4**
0.3**
Othere
Percent of inmates leaving facility during the day
Less than 50%*
1,084,800
1.6%
2.6%
96,600
5.0%
2.5%
50% or more
67,700
0.6**
1.2**
5,900
1.3**
1.0
Security levelf
Maximum/close/high
394,800
2.1%
3.0%
39,300
5.2%
2.8%
Medium*
488,900
1.6
2.7
38,100
5.6
3.0
Minimum/low
268,800
0.7**
1.7**
25,000
3.0**
1.0**
Who operates facility
State*
1,087,400
1.6%
2.5%
96,400
5.0%
2.5%
Private
50,800
0.8
4.6**
5,900
2.0**
1.1
14,300
1.4
1.3**
:
:
:
Otherg
Year builth
Before 1951
277,500
1.8%
2.4%
22,800
4.7%
3.4%
1951–1985*
325,200
1.6
2.7
29,200
3.8
2.7
1986–1990
187,300
1.6
3.0
14,100
5.5
2.4
1991 or after
339,600
1.4
2.4
34,400
5.6
1.6
Facility over capacityi
No*
706,700
1.6%
2.8%
65,100
4.4%
2.4%
Yes
444,200
1.5
2.1
37,400
5.5
2.4
Inmate-to-staff ratioj
Less than 4.0
306,300
1.4%
2.5%
32,000
4.3%
3.3%
4.0–4.9*
200,900
2.0
2.9
19,500
3.9
1.6
5.0–5.9
216,700
1.8
3.3
14,900
5.5
2.3
6.0 or more
279,600
1.6
2.5
18,300
4.2
2.1
Under a court orderk
No*
1,001,500
1.4%
2.2%
92,600
4.6%
2.0%
Yes
138,800
3.0**
4.9**
9,800
6.7
6.3**
Major disturbance in census yearl
No*
941,800
1.4%
2.4%
90,400
4.5%
2.5%
Yes
171,600
2.4**
3.9**
5,800
8.0
3.2
Percent female staffm
Low
328,000
1.6%
2.1%
18,900
3.8%
3.7%
Medium*
239,800
1.6
2.8
21,900
4.5
1.9
High
261,900
1.7
2.7
20,700
5.1
2.1
Highest
173,800
1.9
4.2
23,300
4.2
2.3
Census year closest to time of placementn
1990
47,600
4.2%**
6.8%**
2,200
4.2%
12.5%**
1995
85,700
2.2**
4.5**
4,700
5.0
6.7**
2000
257,100
2.4**
3.4**
14,600
5.6
4.3**
1.8
80,900
4.6
1.6
2005*
762,100
1.0

Continued on next page

Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners, 2008 | May 2012

Table 13 (continued)

Prevalence of sexual victimization during prison placement, by sex of inmate, type of incident, and facility-level characteristics
Percent of male inmates
Percent of female inmates
reporting sexual victimization
reporting sexual victimization
during placement
during placement
Number of male Inmate-onStaff sexual
Number of female Inmate-on- Staff sexual
Facility-level characteristica
placementsb
inmate
misconduct placementsb
inmate
misconduct
Placement order of facilityo
1st*
413,400
1.5%
1.9%
55,200
5.5%
2.6%
2nd
325,700
1.9
2.6**
30,400
4.8
1.9
3rd or higher
413,400
1.4
3.2**
16,900
2.4**
2.8
Note: Based on a separate record for each prison placement for the 18,256 former prison inmates interviewed nationwide. Facility-level data from BJS prison censuses
(conducted in 1990, 1995, 2000, and 2005) were merged with each placement record based on the census year closest to the prison placement. After weighting, the number of
placements with valid data totaled 1,254,998. (See Methodology for further description.)
:Not calculated.
*Comparison group.
**Difference with comparison group is significant at the 95%-confidence level.
aCharacteristic of the facility is based on the prison census year closest to the time of placement.
bDetail may not sum to total because of missing data on facility characteristics in each census year.
cBased on the number of inmates for each day during the 12 months prior to the census divided by 365.
dIncludes facilities whose primary function is to house persons returned to custody (e.g., parole violators).
eIncludes facilities whose primary function is boot camp, medical treatment/hospitalization confinement, mental health/psychiatric confinement, alcohol/drug treatment
confinement, housing youthful offenders, and geriatric care.
fThe physical security level that best describes the facility.
gIncludes facilities under joint state and local authority.
hBased on year of original construction. If more than one building, based on the oldest building used to house inmates.
iBased on the ratio of the number of inmates housed on the day of census to the rated capacity.
jBased on the ratio of the inmate population on the day of census divided by the number of payroll and non-payroll, full-time, part-time, and contract staff, excluding volunteers.
kIncludes state or federal court order or consent decree to limit the number of inmates, crowding, and totality of conditions at time of the census.
lRepresents facilities that reported one or more major disturbances in the 12 months prior to the census. Major disturbances are incidents involving five or more inmates which
result in serious injury or significant property damage.
mCategories are specific to sex: For males, low is less than 15%, medium is 15% to 21%, high is 22% to 34%, and highest is 35% or more. For females, low is less than 35%,
medium is 35% to 49%, high is 50% to 69%, and highest is 70% or more.
nPrison census year closest to the time of placement.
oPlacement order of the facility during the period of incarceration: 1st placement, 2nd placement, and 3rd placement or higher.
Source: BJS, National Former Prisoner Survey, 2008.

Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners, 2008 | May 2012

Prison placements and individual-level risk factors
While individual-level factors related to sexual
victimization have been examined by type of victimization
and sex of inmate for the entire period of incarceration,
they may also be examined for each prison placement.
Such a placement-based examination takes into account
the risk of victimization related to individual-level factors,
regardless of the duration of time served during a specific
prison placement, and permits analysis of the independent
contribution of individual-level and facility-level factors.
Unlike the earlier analysis based on individuals (510,800
former inmates nationwide), the placement analysis is
based on prison placements (more than 1.25 million prison
placements). Individuals are represented multiple times,
based on their number of separate prison placements (up to
a maximum of 15 times per inmate).
An incident of sexual victimization was reported in
4.0% of prison placements
Among the estimated 1.15 million placements of male
inmates, 1.6% involved inmate-on-inmate sexual
victimization and 2.6% involved staff-on-inmate
victimization (table 14). Among the estimated 102,500
placements of female inmates, 4.8% involved sexual
victimization by another inmate and 2.4% involved sexual
victimization by staff. Overall, in 4.0% of the more than
1.25 million prison placements, former prisoners reported
at least one experience of sexual victimization by another
inmate or facility staff.
Table 14

Prevalence of sexual victimization, comparing results from
the National Former Prisoner Survey, 2008, and National
Inmate Survey, 2008–09
Percent of inmates reporting
sexual victimization
Sex of inmate and type
Among all prison
Among all inmates
of incident
placementsa
at time of surveyb
Total
4.0%
4.8%
Male inmates
Inmate-on-inmate
1.6
2.0
Staff sexual misconduct
2.6
3.2
Female inmates
Inmate-on-inmate
4.8
5.1
Staff sexual misconduct
2.4
2.3
aBased on the experience reported by former state prisoners during each prison
placement while incarcerated in NFPS.
bBased on the experience reported by state prisoners in the last 12 months, or since
admission to the facility, if shorter in NIS-2.
Source: BJS, National Former Prisoner Survey, 2008, and National Inmate Survey,
2008–09.

These rates of victimization among all prison placements
are similar to those reported by inmates in NIS-2 based
on the current facility (during the last 12 months or
since admission, if shorter). Based on the NIS-2, 2.0%
of currently confined male inmates reported sexual
victimization by another inmate and 3.2% by staff; 5.1%
of currently confined female inmates reported sexual
victimization by another inmate and 2.3% by staff.
Patterns of sexual victimization based on prison placements
also resembled those observed for individuals based on
their entire period of incarceration in NFPS, except that
the rates were somewhat lower across categories defined by
demographic and criminal justice characteristics:

Large differences in sexual victimization during prison
placement were found among inmates based on their
sexual orientation (table 15).

Among male former inmates, reports of inmate-on-

inmate sexual victimization during prison placement
varied by race and Hispanic origin. Reports were higher
among white non-Hispanic inmates (2.4%) and multiracial inmates (4.0%) than among black non-Hispanic
inmates (0.9%).

Among male inmates, violent sex offenders reported

higher rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization
(5.9%) than other violent offenders (1.4%), property
offenders (1.7%), public-order offenders (1.0%), and
drug offenders (0.8%).

Among male former inmates, those with a prior

incarceration (1.4%) were less likely to be victims of
other inmates than those with no prior incarceration
(2.5%).

Among female former inmates, rates of inmate-on-

inmate victimization during prison placement did not
significantly vary across demographic characteristics,
except among inmates of two or more races.

Among placements of male former prisoners, reports

of staff sexual misconduct were higher among black
non-Hispanic inmates (3.3%) than among white nonHispanic inmates (2.0%) and Hispanic inmates (1.7%).
The rates were also higher among younger male inmates
(under age 25) than among older male inmates (age 35
or older).

Among placements of female former prisoners, rates of

staff sexual misconduct were significantly lower among
those ages 35 to 44 (1.5%) and age 45 or older (1.1%),
compared to those ages 20 to 24 (4.0%).

The only other statistically significant difference among
placements of female former inmates was that 8.1% of
multi-racial inmates reported staff sexual misconduct,
compared to 2.4% or lower among inmates who were
white, black, or Hispanic.

Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners, 2008 | May 2012

Table 15

Prevalence of sexual victimization among male and female placements, by type of incident and former prisoner
characteristics

Former prisoner characteristic
Race/Hispanic origin
Whitea
Black/African Americana*
Hispanic/Latino
Othera,b
Two or more racesa
Age at admission
Under 18
18–19
20–24*
25–34
35–44
45 or older
Educationc
Less than high schoold*
High school graduate
Some college
College degree or more
Marital statusc
Married*
Widowed, divorced, or separated
Never married
Weightc,e
1st quartile*
2nd quartile
3rd quartile
4th quartile
Sexual orientationc
Straight/heterosexual*
Bisexual
Lesbian/gay/homosexual
Prior incarcerations
No prior incarceration*
1 or more prior incarcerations
Most serious offense
Violent sexual offense*
Violent
Property
Drug
Public order
Other
Total time served
Less than 12 months*
12–23
24–35
36–59
60–119
120 months or longer

Number of male
placements

Percent of male inmates
reporting sexual victimization
during placement
Inmate-onStaff sexual
inmate
misconduct

Percent of female inmates
reporting sexual victimization
during placement
Number of female
placements

Inmate-oninmate

Staff sexual
misconduct

433,700
449,900
203,200
31,900
31,300

2.4%**
0.9
0.8
1.2
4.0**

2.0%**
3.3
1.7**
2.3
5.1

48,700
30,400
17,400
2,900
2,800

4.9%
3.5
5.9
2.1
12.0**

2.4%
2.3
2.1
1.1
8.1**

39,900
84,200
253,600
374,300
258,600
128,900

2.0%
1.4
1.8
1.6
1.3
1.4

5.7%
3.5
3.6
2.6
1.7**
0.8**

1,700
2,700
14,300
34,900
34,000
14,300

5.9%
6.8
6.0
4.9
4.5
3.8

4.1%
6.5
4.0
2.8
1.5**
1.1**

693,300
210,500
209,000
37,600

1.5%
1.3
2.1
1.9

2.4%
1.8
3.8**
2.1

55,200
18,200
23,800
5,100

4.7%
4.1
5.3
6.2

2.3%
1.3
2.9
5.7

237,900
325,600
584,900

2.0%
1.4
1.5

3.1%
2.2
2.5

18,400
41,100
43,000

4.4%
5.9
3.9

2.1%
2.4
2.6

303,300
279,100
309,800
259,100

1.7%
1.7
1.4
1.4

2.2%
2.4
2.6
3.0

28,000
22,300
26,100
24,600

5.8%
3.6
5.1
4.4

3.1%
1.9
2.8
1.6

1,118,200
13,100
9,600

1.2%
18.1**
19.3**

2.5%
9.2**
5.6**

84,200
11,900
5,700

4.3%
7.8
5.4

2.0%
4.2**
5.5**

211,400
941,100

2.5%
1.4**

2.5%
2.6

25,200
77,300

3.3%
5.3

2.4%
2.4

78,300
385,200
259,600
297,300
112,500
3,200

5.9%
1.4**
1.7**
0.8**
1.0**
1.7

2.9%
3.8
2.5
1.5
0.9**
3.3

900
22,300
34,300
35,000
8,000
300

6.2%
3.7
6.0
4.4
4.0
2.0

5.3%
3.7
2.3
2.0
1.6
0.0

129,000
233,700
177,100
215,000
226,800
170,500

0.9%
0.9
1.4
0.8
1.9**
3.5**

1.2%
1.1
1.8
2.0
2.9**
6.6**

22,200
30,000
16,900
17,500
11,700
4,200

3.6%
4.6
4.5
6.0
6.2
5.6

0.8%
1.6
1.2
2.9**
5.4**
11.8**

*Comparison group.
**Difference with comparison group is significant at the 95%-confidence level.
aExcludes persons of Hispanic or Latino origin.
bIncludes American Indians, Alaska Natives, Asians, Native Hawaiians, and other Pacific Islanders.
cAs reported at time of interview.
dIncludes former prisoners who received a GED while incarcerated.
eWeight quartiles are defined by sex: Men—1st quartile (86 to 170 lbs.), 2nd quartile (171 to 190 lbs.), 3rd quartile (191 to 220 lbs.), 4th quartile (more than 220 lbs.). Women—1st quartile (78 to 145
lbs.), 2nd quartile (146 to 169 lbs.), 3rd quartile (170 to 198 lbs.), 4th quartile (more than 198 lbs.).
Source: BJS, National Former Prisoner Survey, 2008.

Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners, 2008 | May 2012

Independent contributions of individual-level and
facility-level factors to victimization
Variations in rates of sexual victimization among groups of
inmates based on the characteristics of facilities in which
they were placed overlap somewhat with variations based
on individual risk factors. Multivariate regression models
were developed to incorporate selected individual-level
and facility-level factors. Models for each type of sexual
victimization were developed separately for male and
female former prisoners based on prison placements
(table 16).
In each of the logistic regression models, the conditional
probabilities represent the probability that a former inmate
during a prison placement with a particular individual or
facility characteristic experienced sexual victimization,
conditional on the inmate having the mean value for all
other predictors in the model. For example, based on the
final multivariate model, a male former state prisoner who
served time for a violent sex offense had a 2.2% chance of
having been sexually victimized by another inmate during a
prison placement, given that he was at the mean of the joint
distribution of other individual characteristics (i.e., race or
Hispanic origin, marital status, sexual orientation, and time
served) and facility characteristics (i.e., type, security level,
census year closest to placement, and placement order).
Variations in sexual victimization rates were strongly
related to sexual orientation after controlling for other
factors
An inmate’s sexual orientation remained an important
correlate of victimization, except for staff sexual
misconduct reported by females. Male inmates who
identified themselves as bisexual were at least 13 times
more likely to report being sexually victimized by another
inmate and 4 times more likely to report being sexually
victimized by staff than male inmates who identified
themselves as straight or heterosexual.
After controlling for other factors, an inmate’s race or
Hispanic origin remained an important predicator of
sexual victimization. Based on the multivariate placement
models for male former inmates—

Based on the multivariate placement models for female
former inmates—

Inmate-on-inmate victimization rates were lower for

black non-Hispanic inmates (2.8%) than for white nonHispanic inmates (3.9%), Hispanic inmates (4.6%) and
inmates of two or more races (8.7%)

Staff-on-inmate victimization rates were higher for

inmates of two or more races (6.1%) than for white
non-Hispanic (1.7%), black non-Hispanic (1.1%) and
Hispanic inmates (1.1%).

Facitily-level factors remained significant after
controlling for inmate characteristics

Among male former inmates, inmate-on-inmate and

staff-on-inmate victimization rates were lower in
reception or diagnostic centers than in facilities that
housed general population. For inmate-on-inmate
victimizations, rates were lower in minimum security
facilities than in facilities with higher security levels.

Among female former inmates, the inmate-on-inmate

victimization rate was lower in facilities that permitted
50% or more of their inmates to leave unaccompanied
during the day (than in other confinement facilities),
lower in medium security facilities (than in facilities
with maximum, close, or high security levels), higher in
facilities that had been built before 1951 or after 1985
(than in facilities built between 1951 and 1985), and
higher in facilities that had a major disturbance in the
census year (than in those that did not).

Among female former inmates, few facility-level factors

were linked to staff sexual misconduct. Rates were lower
in minimum or low security facilities than in medium
security facilities, and lower in facilities built between
1951 and 1985 than in facilities built before 1951.

The final regression models confirm that the best predictor
of staff sexual misconduct among female former inmates
was length of time served, with the rate of staff sexual
misconduct during prison placements generally increasing
with total time served.

White non-Hispanic inmates (1.4%) and inmates of

two or more races (2.0%) had higher rates of inmateon-inmate victimization than black non-Hispanic and
Hispanic inmates (each 0.6%).

Black non-Hispanic inmates (2.0%) had higher rates of

staff-on-inmate victimization than white non-Hispanic
(1.4%) and Hispanic inmates (1.2%).

Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners, 2008 | May 2012

Table 16

Final multivariate logistic regression models of sexual victimization among male and female placements, by type of incident
and former prisoner and facility characteristics
Predicted percent of male placements
Predicted percent of female placements
in which sexual victimization was reported
in which sexual victimization was reported
Former prisoner/facility characteristic
Inmate-on-inmate
Staff sexual misconduct
Inmate-on-inmate
Staff sexual misconduct
Race/Hispanic origin
Whitea
1.4%**
1.4%**
3.9%**
1.7%
Black/African Americana*
0.6
2.0
2.8
1.1
Hispanic
0.6
1.2**
4.6**
1.1
Othera,b
0.6
1.6
1.8
0.8
2.0**
3.3
8.7**
6.1**
Two or more racesa
Age at admission
Under 18
~
3.1%
~
1.4%
18–19
~
2.3
~
3.4
20–24*
~
2.5
~
2.2
25–34
~
1.7**
~
1.8
35–44
~
1.3**
~
1.0
45 or older
~
0.6**
~
0.8
Educationc
Less than high schoold*
~
1.5%
~
~
High school graduate
~
1.4
~
~
Some college
~
2.6**
~
~
College degree or more
~
1.4
~
~
Marital statusc
Married*
1.1%
~
3.5%
~
Widowed, divorced, or separated
0.6**
~
4.4
~
Never married
0.9
~
3.0
~
Sexual orientationc
Straight/heterosexual*
0.8%
1.6%
3.4%
~
Bisexual
10.6**
7.2**
5.6**
~
Gay/homosexual
9.6**
3.8
4.0
~
Prior incarcerations
No prior incarceration*
~
1.2%
2.5%
~
1 or more prior incarcerations
~
1.7**
4.1**
~
Most serious offense
Violent sexual offense*
2.2%
1.7%
~
~
Other violent
0.7**
1.8
~
~
Property
1.1**
1.9
~
~
Drug
0.8**
1.3
~
~
Public order
0.8**
1.2
~
~
Other
0.9
2.6
~
~
Total time served
Less than 12 months*
0.7%
1.1%
2.1%
0.6%
12–23
0.7
1.0
3.3
1.4**
24–35
0.9
1.6
3.5
1.0
36–59
0.5
1.6
5.2**
2.2**
60–119
1.0
2.0**
6.1**
3.4**
120 months or longer
1.9**
3.6**
7.1
6.1**
Type of facility
General population*
1.0%
2.0%
4.0%
~
Reception/diagnostic
0.4**
0.8**
2.7
~
Community corrections center
0.6
0.8**
3.9
~
0.8
1.6
2.0
~
Returned to custodye
Otherf
0.7
1.2
0.4**
~

Continued on next page

Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners, 2008 | May 2012

Table 16 (continued)

Final multivariate logistic regression models of sexual victimization among male and female placements, by type of incident
and former prisoner and facility characteristics
Predicted percent of male placements
Predicted percent of female placements
in which sexual victimization was reported
in which sexual victimization was reported
Former prisoner/facility characteristic
Inmate-on-inmate
Staff sexual misconduct
Inmate-on-inmate
Staff sexual misconduct
Percent of inmates leaving the facility
during the dayg
Less than 50%*
~
~
3.8%
~
50% or more
~
~
1.7**
~
Security levelh
Maximum/close/high
1.1%
~
4.6%**
1.6%
Medium*
0.9
~
3.1
2.0
Minimum
0.5**
~
3.2
0.6**
Who operates facility
State*
~
1.6%
~
~
Private
~
3.2**
~
~
Other
~
1.4
~
~
Year builti
Before 1951
~
1.5%**
4.4%**
2.2%**
1951–1985*
~
1.8
2.6
1.1
1986–1990
~
2.0
3.4**
1.6
1991 or after
~
1.5**
4.4**
1.1
Inmate-to-staff ratioj
Less than 4.0
~
~
3.1%
~
4.0–4.9*
~
~
2.7
~
5.0–5.9
~
~
3.7
~
6.0 or more
~
~
3.4
~
Under court orderk
No*
~
1.6%
~
~
Yes
~
1.9
~
~
Major disturbance in census yearl
No*
~
~
3.4%
~
Yes
~
~
7.6**
~
Percent female staffm
0% to less than 15%
~
1.2%**
~
~
15% to less than 22%*
~
1.6
~
~
22% to less than 35%
~
1.7
~
~
35% or more
~
3.1**
~
~
Census year closest to time of placementn
1990
1.3%
~
~
~
1995
0.8
~
~
~
2000
1.2**
~
~
~
2005*
0.7
~
~
~
Placement order of facilityo
1st*
0.8%
~
3.9%
~
2nd
1.1**
~
4.2
~
3rd or higher
0.7
~
2.1**
~
Note: See appendix table 4 for Wald-F statistics for each model. See table 15 for footnotes a–d. For the remaining footnotes describing facility characteristics, see table 13.
~Characteristics 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.
Source: BJS, National Former Prisoner Survey, 2008.

Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners, 2008 | May 2012

Reporting of sexual victimization
In addition to identifying key individual-level and facilitylevel risk factors associated with variations in sexual
victimization rates, the former inmate survey provided
data on the responses of victims and the impact on victims
while they were still in prison and after their release from
prison. The survey included questions about reporting
victimization to facility staff and persons other than facility
staff, reasons for not reporting and what happened if they
did report to facility staff, and the continued impact on the
victims following their release from prison.
Two-thirds of victims of inmate-on-inmate sexual
victimization said they reported at least one incident
to facility staff or someone else
Detailed data suggest that victims of inmate-on-inmate
victimization were most likely to have reported at least one
incident to another inmate (49%), followed by having reported
to a family member or friend outside the facility (28%) and to
correctional officers (24%). Few victims (1.4%) had reported
their experience on a telephone hotline (table 17).

An estimated 37% of victims of inmate-on-inmate sexual
victimization reported at least one incident to facility
staff—58% of those injured, compared to 29% of those not
injured (not shown in table). Reporting to medical and
healthcare staff was even less common (14% of the victims
said they reported an incident to medical personnel).
Among those physically injured by another inmate, a third
(33%) said they reported to medical staff (not shown in
table).
22% of unwilling victims of sexual activity with staff,
compared to 3% of “willing” victims, said they had
reported an incident to facility staff or someone else
“Willing” sexual activity with staff was rarely reported
to any facility staff (2%) or to other persons (2%). When
sexual activity with staff was reported, it was typically
unwilling and divided nearly equally between reporting to
staff (21%) and someone other than staff (20%).

Table 17

Reporting of sexual victimization, by type of incident and persons to whom the incident was reported

Number of victims
Percent of victims reporting at least one incident of sexual victimization
Percent reporting to any facility staffc
Correctional officer
Administrative staff
Medical/healthcare staff
Instructor/teacher
Counselor/case manager
Chaplain/other religious leader
Volunteer
Someone else at the facilityd
Percent reporting to someone other than facility staffc
Telephone hotline
Another inmate
Family/friend outside the facility
Someone else outside the facility

Inmate-on-inmate
Nonconsensual
Totala
sexual acts
27,300
18,700
65.9%
66.6%
37.4%
38.2%
24.0
24.2
16.5
16.2
13.5
15.1
4.3
5.3
12.1
12.8
8.0
9.4
4.0
3.3
13.5
13.7
60.0%
60.6%
1.4
1.6
49.0
48.2
28.1
28.8
14.6
17.3

Total
27,100
6.8%
5.8%
2.7
4.8
2.1
1.4
2.9
1.4
1.3
3.1
5.2%
0.5
3.6
4.5
~

Staff sexual misconduct
Willing
Unwilling
activityb
activityb
23,300
6,300
3.3%
22.1%
2.5%
20.7%
0.9
10.1
1.8
18.0
0.9
7.5
0.6
5.1
1.2
10.4
0.6
5.1
0.3
4.7
1.2
11.3
2.1%
19.7%
0.2
2.3
1.3
14.6
1.4
17.3
~
~

Note: See appendix table 5 for estimated standard errors.
~Category not included in the survey.
aIncludes abusive sexual contacts.
bIncludes touching only.
cDetail may not sum to total because victim may have reported to more than one person inside or outside the facility.
dCategory not included in the pretest interviews. See Methodology for a detailed discussion of merged data files.
Source: BJS, National Former Prisoner Survey, 2008.

Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners, 2008 | May 2012

Most common reasons for not reporting sexual
victimization by other inmates linked to embarrassment,
shame, and not wanting others to know
Victims who never reported their experience of sexual
victimization to anyone at the facility were asked their
reasons for not reporting. The most common reason for
victims not reporting sexual victimization by another
inmate was that they “didn’t want anyone else to know
about it” (70%), followed by feeling “embarrassed or
ashamed that it happened” (68%) (table 18). The most
common reasons for not reporting staff sexual misconduct
were that they “had the sex or sexual contact willingly”
(80%) and they “didn’t want the staff person to get in
trouble” (71%). Almost 40% of victims of inmate-oninmate sexual victimization and staff sexual misconduct
said they were afraid of being punished by staff. Nearly a
quarter of inmates victimized by another inmate or by staff
said they were afraid of being charged with making a false
report.
Table 18

Reasons for not reporting sexual victimization to facility
staff, by type of victimization
Inmate-on- Staff sexual
Reason for not reporting
inmate
misconduct
Number of victims not reporting
victimization to staff*
16,870
25,200
Afraid/scared of perpetrator
51.6%
~%
Afraid of being punished by staff
40.7
38.3
Afraid of being charged with making
a false report
24.9
25.4
Didn’t want anyone to know
70.1
~
Embarassed/ashamed
68.5
14.6
Thought staff would not investigate
43.3
21.9
Thought perpetrator would not be
punished
40.6
~
Didn’t want staff to get in trouble
~
70.5
Had sex or sexual contact willingly
~
79.8
~Not asked of victims.
*Represents the item with largest number of valid responses.
Source: BJS, National Former Prisoner Survey, 2008.

37% of victims who reported being victimized by other
inmates said facility staff did not respond
Among victims who reported inmate-on-inmate sexual
victimization to authorities—

34% were moved to administrative segregation or

protective housing, 24% were confined to their cell, 14%
were assigned a higher level of custody, and 11% were
placed in a medical unit or hospital.

18% were offered a transfer to another facility.
More than a quarter (29%) said they were written up;

and 28% said they spoke to an investigator (table 19).

Though few in number, 86% of the victims who reported
staff sexual misconduct to authorities said the facility
responded: more than half (54%) of the victims spoke to
an investigator, and nearly half (46%) said that they were
“written up” for the incident. More than 40% said they were
moved to administrative segregation or protective housing.
Table 19

Facility responses to the reporting of sexual victimization
to staff, by type of incident
Inmate-onStaff sexual
inmate
misconduct
Number of victims reporting to
facility staff
10,200
1,600
Facility response to reported sexual
victimizationa
63.0%
85.5%
Moved victim to administrative
segregation/protective housing
34.3
41.2
Placed victim in medical unit/ward/
hospital
10.9
12.2
Confined victim to cell
24.3
35.2
Assigned victim to higher level of
custody to victim
14.3
26.6
Offered victim a transfer
17.6
39.1
Victim written up
28.5
46.3
Victim spoke to investigatorb
28.3
53.9
Perpetrator punished/segregated
28.6
~
No facility response reported by victim
37.0%
14.5%
Note: An additional 200 victims of inmate-on-inmate victimization reported that
someone else reported his/her victimization to staff. See appendix table 6 for
estimated standard errors.
~Not asked of victims of staff sexual misconduct.
aDetail may not sum to total because multiple responses were allowed for this item.
bCategory not included in the pretest interviews. See Methodology for a detailed
discussion of merged data files.
Source: BJS, National Former Prisoner Survey, 2008.

Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners, 2008 | May 2012

Post-release responses to victimization
Following their release from prison, victims of inmate-oninmate sexual victimization—

had feelings of shame or humiliation (72%) and guilt
(56%) (table 20)

discussed their victimization with intimate partners

Victims of staff sexual misconduct that involved unwilling
activity reported many similar feelings or thoughts about
their victimization following their release from prison:

79% said they felt shame or humiliation.
72% said they felt guilt.
54% reported having difficulty feeling close to friends or
family members.

(27%) or friends (26%)

saw a therapist or counselor (15%), participated in a

self-help group for emotional or mental health problems
(14%), or enrolled in a treatment program other than
counseling (8%).

Although the vast majority of victims (86%) of staff sexual
misconduct said they had at least one incident that they
considered “willing,” more than a quarter (27%) said they
felt guilt and 23% said they felt shame or humiliation after
their release from prison.

Table 20

Post-release responses of victims to sexual victimization, by type of incident

Number of victimsc,d
Discussed victimization with at least one individuald
Husband/wife, boyfriend/girlfriend, or other partner
Children
Parents
Other family member
Friends
Minister or other religious leader
Therapist or treatment professional
Parole officer
Another inmate
Had feelings or thoughts about victimizationd
Guilt
Shame or humiliation
Revenge against someone victim was angry with
Difficulty feeling close to friends/family members
Participated in treatment to deal with victimizationd
Saw therapist or counselor
Participated in self-help group for emotional/mental health
problems
Enrolled in treatment program (other than counseling) for
emotional/mental health problems
Took medication to treat emotional/mental health problems
Hospitalized for emotional/mental health problems

Inmate-on-inmate
Nonconsensual
Totala sexual acts
26,200
18,000
43.7%
44.6%
26.9
27.0
2.9
2.5
13.0
10.7
15.5
14.8
26.0
26.7
7.7
7.7
16.1
17.3
4.9
5.9
22.7
22.4

Staff sexual misconduct
Willing
Unwilling
Total
activityb
activityb
26,100
22,500
5,900
56.8%
60.1%
35.9%
33.7
35.0
25.8
2.4
2.4
3.5
15.6
15.5
12.9
34.9
38.2
16.1
47.8
52.4
20.2
3.4
2.7
9.4
7.1
6.6
12.9
2.0
1.4
4.1
34.5
37.0
17.0

55.7%
71.9
23.2
37.0
20.5%
15.4

67.2%
79.8
24.9
44.7
23.5%
17.3

31.3%
29.6
9.5
17.9
7.8%
5.8

26.9%
22.6
6.8
13.1
6.6%
5.1

9.6

14.5

16.2

6.1

4.9

14.2

5.4
6.9
2.7

8.5
10.5
4.1

10.5
12.2
4.9

3.4
4.1
1.4

2.7
2.7
1.2

7.4
12.3
3.0

All victims
47,000
51.4%
30.9
2.7
14.7
26.3
38.4
5.6
11.7
3.5
29.6
40.5%
47.9
15.3
24.9
13.3%
9.7

72.2%
79.1
27.6
54.1
16.6%
12.1

Note: See appendix table 7 for estimated standard errors.
aIncludes abusive sexual contacts.
bIncludes touching only.
cDetail may not sum to total because respondents may report more than one type of victimization.
dInterviews conducted in the pretest were excluded due to changes in the questionnaire design. See Methodology for a detailed discussion of merged data files.
Source: BJS, National Former Prisoner Survey, 2008.

Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners, 2008 | May 2012

HIV testing and results
The former inmate survey also provided self-report data on
HIV testing and outcomes for victims of inmate-on-inmate
and staff-on-inmate sexual victimization.

Among former inmates tested for HIV, a significantly

higher percentage of those who had been sexually
victimized by other inmates (6.5%) or by staff (4.6%)
were HIV-positive, compared to those who had not been
victimized (2.6%) (table 21).

Among all victims tested for HIV, 5.1% of males and

3.9% of females were HIV-positive (not shown in table).

Among all victims tested for HIV, 15.5% of non-

heterosexual inmates were HIV-positive, compared to
3.8% of heterosexual victims (not shown in table).

Although the rates of HIV infection are high among former
prisoners, when these inmates contracted HIV is unknown.
Inmates were not asked if they became HIV-positive while
incarcerated.
Through the National Prisoner Statistics program, BJS has
collected data on the number of inmates HIV-positive and
the number with confirmed acquired immune deficiency
syndrome (AIDS) since 1991. At yearend 2008, 20,499
inmates in state prisons (or 1.6% of all inmates in custody)
were known to be HIV-positive or had confirmed AIDS.
(See HIV in Prisons, 2007-08, NCJ 228307, BJS Web,
December 2009.) Data are not available on the percentage
of inmates who were HIV-positive when they were
admitted to prison.

Table 21

HIV testing and results for former state prisoners, by type of victim
Number
Tested for HIV
Percent
Standard error
Tested positive for HIV
Percent
Standard error

All former state prisoners
510,800

Nonvictims
461,800

Inmate-on-inmate victims
27,300

Staff-on-inmate victims
27,100

89.9%
0.39%

89.5%
0.43%

93.0%
0.92%

95.0%
0.89%

2.8%
0.16%

2.6%
0.16%

6.5%
0.93%

4.6%
0.88%

Source: BJS, National Former Prisoner Survey, 2008.

Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners, 2008 | May 2012

Current employment, housing, and living
arrangements of former inmates
Following their release from prison, victims and
nonvictims did not differ in their employment and
housing arrangements, but victims were more likely
than nonvictims to be living alone
The NFPS asked former prisoners about their current
employment status, housing, and living arrangements while
on post-release supervision. Except for a slightly higher
percent of victims living alone (18%) than nonvictims
(14%), few differences were reported in their current
employment status or housing arrangements:

Two-thirds of both victims and nonvictims were

employed; at least half of each group were employed
full-time.

A quarter of victims and nonvictims were looking for
work.

More than 90% of victims and nonvictims were

currently living in a house, apartment, trailer or mobile
home.

An estimated 2% of victims and nonvictims said they

were in a shelter, homeless, or on the street (table 22).

Table 22

Current employment, housing, and living arrangements of former inmates under active parole supervision, by victimization
status
All
Victims
Nonvictims*
Number under supervisona
510,800
49,000
461,800
Current employment status
Employedb
64.4%
63.6%
64.5%
Full-time
52.1
52.9
52.0
Part-time
8.8
7.2
8.9
Occasional
3.5
3.4
3.5
Not employedb
35.6%
36.4%
35.5%
Looking for work
24.5
22.9
24.7
Not looking
11.0
13.2
10.7
Current housing
In house, apartment, trailer, or mobile home
92.1%
92.1%
92.1%
In rooming house, hotel, or motel
3.6
3.4
3.7
In hospital/treatment center
0.9
0.6
0.9
In a shelter/homeless
2.0
2.0
2.0
Other
1.4
1.9
1.4
Current living arrangements
Alone
14.9%
18.0%**
14.5%
85.1%
82.0%**
85.5%
With othersc
Spouse/girlfriend/boyfriend
41.7
45.0**
41.3
Children
27.6
25.8
27.8
Parents
25.2
20.3**
25.7
Other family members
22.5
16.8**
23.1
Friends
11.3
10.5
11.4
*Comparison group.
**Difference with comparison group is significant the 95%-confidence level.
aNumber of victims and nonvictims were rounded to the nearest 100.
bDetail may not sum to total because of missing data.
cDetail sums to more than total because the former inmates may be living with more than one person.
Source: BJS, National Former Prisoner Survey, 2008.

Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners, 2008 | May 2012

Methodology
The National Former Prisoner Survey (NFPS) was
conducted between January 2008 and October 2008. The
data were collected by the NORC at the University of
Chicago under a cooperative agreement with the Bureau
of Justice Statistics. A total of 317 total parole offices in 40
states were included in the survey sample. Within each of
the sampled offices, respondents were selected at random
from rosters of eligible former prisoners. A total of 17,738
former state prisoners under active supervision participated
in the survey. An additional 788 former prisoners were
included from survey test offices. These former inmates had
been randomly selected from 16 sampled offices. Based on
18,526 completed interviews, the survey achieved a 61%
response rate.

Sample design

The interviews, which averaged 23 minutes in length, were
conducted using computer-assisted personal interviewing
(CAPI) and audio computer-assisted self-interviewing
(ACASI) data collection methods. Survey interviewers
initiated the personal interview using CAPI to obtain
demographic and criminal history information. For the
remainder of the interview, respondents interacted with
a computer-administered questionnaire using a touchscreen and synchronized audio instructions delivered via
headphones. Respondents completed the survey in private
at the parole office (or satellite office), with the interviewer
in the room but unable to see the computer screen.

Prior to selection of offices, the field office sampling frame
was modified:

The NFPS used a multistage stratified sample design with
probabilities of selection proportionate-to-size (PPS). The
sampling frame was developed based on the 2006 Census
of State Parole Supervising Agencies, conducted by the U.S.
Census Bureau on behalf of BJS. The original sampling frame
consisted of two subframes: a field office group (FOG) level
frame of 800 field office groups and a district level frame of
101 districts. Each of these subframes was sampled separately
to produce the sampled offices. A two-stage stratified sample
design was used for selection from the office subframe, while a
three-stage design was used for the district subframe.
Sampling from the field office subframe

40 offices were considered ineligible and deleted,

including administrative offices not actively supervising
parolees; specialty offices, such as those supervising sex
offenders only; and offices supervising only individuals
committed to treatment or other confinement facilities.

8 offices in the District of Columbia were deleted, as

most parolees had served time in federal facilities; 10
offices in Alaska and 4 offices in Hawaii, except for the
largest in each state, were deleted.

The interviews were completed in 13 rounds of data
collection. The survey was typically scheduled for 2 weeks
at each parole office. Approximately 2 to 3 weeks before
each round of interviews, sampled respondents were
contacted by mail. The respondents were introduced to
the survey, provided an approximate data collection date,
informed of the nature of the survey, and given a toll-free
number to set up an appointment. Two weeks prior to
the interview period, NORC appointment setters called
respondents to set up interview appointments with those
respondents who had not used the toll-free number.

34 offices, with a parolee population under 40 and that

Before the interview, respondents were informed verbally
and in writing that participation was voluntary and that
all information provided would be held in confidence.
They were also informed that if they agreed to participate,
they would receive $50 as a token of appreciation for
participation in the survey. A second automated consent
protocol was administered at the beginning of the ACASI
portion of the interview to confirm that the respondent had
been properly informed that participation in the survey was
voluntary and that they were “ready to continue with the
interview.”

34 FOGs were selected with certainty, due to their large

had no other in-state office within 75 miles, were deleted.

27 offices included in the sample frame for the NFPS
pretest were excluded. (See page 36 for details on the
inclusion of pretest sample data in the final survey.)

Offices with a parolee population under 40 were

combined with another office within 75 miles for
sampling purposes to form FOGs.

Field offices and FOGs were selected from the remaining
frame of 800 offices using a PPS sampling procedure:
size, and allocated a sample size of 260 parolees.

117 FOGs were selected with non-certainty and allocated
a sample size of 130 for offices with populations of 130
or greater, or the actual population sizes for offices with
populations of less than 130.

37 additional FOGs were selected as reserve offices and
activated in order of selection as needed to offset office
refusals and potential ineligible offices on the frame.

Interviews were conducted in either English (99.4%) or
Spanish (0.6%). Twenty interviews (0.1%) were lost because
the sample parolee could not speak English or Spanish.
Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners, 2008 | May 2012

A total of 151 FOGs (including 7 involving combined
offices) were selected. Data collection was completed in 157
FOGs (after exclusion of 4 ineligible administrative offices
and inclusion of 10 reserve sample offices.) All eligible
sampled offices agreed to participate.
Sampling from the district office sub-frame
The 2006 census provided data only at the district or
regional office in 19 states. A total of 50 districts were
selected from the list of 101 offices using PPS sampling
procedures (including 35 certainty and 15 non-certainty
districts). An additional 20 reserve districts were selected
to offset potential refusals and ineligible listings. Eleven of
the districts on the reserve list were activated. All sampled
state offices granted approval to participate in the survey;
however, one sampled district was excluded due to lateness
of the request.
Following selection of district offices, field offices and
population sizes within each selected district were
enumerated. The same grouping and elimination criteria as
listed above for parole offices were used for FOGs within
each district, except that the distance cutoff was increased
to 120 miles. Offices with fewer than 40 parolees were only
eliminated if there was no other office with 120 miles for
grouping. Three offices were deleted due to the distance and
size criteria. Access to one office was denied by the district
and was replaced by another randomly selected office
within that district.
The remaining eligible FOGs within each sampled district
were selected using PPS sampling procedures. A total of
81 FOGs were selected (including 21 with combined field
offices).
Parolee selection
After approvals from states and offices were received, a
roster was requested of eligible former prisoners under
active supervision by the parole office. Only persons
who had served time in a state prison and were age 18
or older were eligible. Individuals who had absconded,
were reincarcerated or committed, were in a halfway
house or community treatment center, had a warrant
issued for their arrest, were in violator status, or had been
transferred to another parole office were ineligible.
Prior to sample selection, each roster was sorted by sex.
Males and females were then randomly selected for
inclusion in the survey. The target sample size was 260 (196
males and 64 females) in large field offices and 130 (98
males and 32 females) in smaller offices. Female former
prisoners were sampled at a higher rate than males to
ensure that sufficient numbers were included to provide
reliable national estimates. For offices with 130 or fewer
eligible parolees, all former prisoners were selected. In total,
34,782 former prisoners were selected.

Response rates
Of the total number of former prisoners selected for the
national survey, 17,738 eligible and available respondents
completed the CAPI and ACASI portions of the interview:

4,318 (12.4%) refused to participate in the survey for

reasons such as work, no transportation to the office,
unwillingness to discuss prison experiences, wanting to
avoid the parole office, dissatisfaction with the system, in
trouble, health issues, and other unknown reasons.

5,664 (16.3%) could not be reached due to absence

of working phone numbers, wrong phone numbers,
failure to return phone messages, or lack of interest
communicated by the parole officer or another person.

3,338 (9.6%) were found to be ineligible for reasons such

as death; deportation; under age 18; not on parole; under
warrant or absconder status; transferred to another
office; incarcerated at time of sample selection; or under
warrant, violator or absconder status after sample
selection.

2,151 (6.2%) were unavailable due to change in status

after sample selection, primarily due to incarceration,
transfer, or completion of parole supervision.

1,571 (4.5%) did not participate for other reasons,

primarily due to missing scheduled appointments.

Overall, 60.6% of eligible and available sampled former
prisoners participated in the survey.
Inclusion of pretest sample sites and respondents
Due to the extensive and burdensome nature of the pretest,
and the similarities in the pretest and national survey
design and content, data from the pretest were included
in the final survey results. PPS sampling methods were
employed:

16 offices from a list of 29 offices responsible for

supervision of post-release offenders were selected using
PPS sampling methods.

The initial protocol called for randomly sampling 75
cases from each office, with a goal of obtaining 50
completed interviews per office.

A reserve sample of 50 former prisoners per office was

drawn for activation in case of high numbers of ineligible
cases and non-response.

After interviewing in 8 offices, the initial sample sizes

were increased to 100 to address the large numbers of
ineligible cases on the office rosters.

Sample sizes varied from 100 to 135 across 15 of the

sampled offices. One office, with a population of 67, had
a sample size equal to its population.

Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners, 2008 | May 2012

In total, 1,745 former prisoners were selected in the pretest.
Interviews were completed by 788 parolees (representing
64.5% of the 1,222 eligible sampled cases).

The final weights in the national survey (including pretest
offices) averaged 27.57, resulting in a national estimate of
approximately 510,800.

Weighting and non-response adjustments

Standard errors and confidence intervals

Responses from interviewed former prisoners were
weighted to provide national-level estimates. The
construction of parolee base weights took into account the
probability of selection at each stage, reflecting two stages
in the field office subframe and three stages in the district
subframe:

As with any survey estimates, the NFPS estimates are
subject to error arising from the fact that they are based
on a sample rather than a complete enumeration. A
common way to express this sampling error 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.

Within the district sample, selection probabilities were

adjusted at the district and office levels for non-response.

Within the field office sample, all selected FOGs
participated.

Probabilities of selection from each subframe took

into account the impact of certainty and non-certainty
districts and offices.

Within selected FOGs in both subframes, males and

females were selected at different rates; consequently, the
probabilities of selection were computed separately.

The final parolee base weights in the district sample

represent the inverse of the product of the non-response
adjusted probabilities from the district and FOG stages
times the probability of selection of male and female
parolees within field offices. The base weights in the
field office subframe represent the inverse of the product
of the probability of selection at the FOG and parolee
stages.

A series of adjustments were applied to the initial base
weights to compensate for non-response among sampled
parolees. To produce final weights, the initial weights given
to sampled parolees who did not respond to the survey
were distributed to responding cases. A response propensity
model was constructed and used to form adjustment cells
within which these weights were reallocated:

Variables used in the non-response adjustments were
race, age, years in prison, years since release, and
required number of office visits per month.

Predicted probabilities obtained from the model were

used to construct five non-response groupings, based on
the quintiles of the probability distribution.

Subsequent weight adjustment was done within each

group, so that the weights of nonresponding individuals
within a range of propensities were allocated to like
individuals.

Following procedures to address undesirably large weights,
final post-stratification was introduced to adjust the weights
to known control totals. All states in the sample frame were
divided into seven strata, and control totals for each stratum
were produced based on the midyear 2008 parolee counts.

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. For example, the difference in
the rate of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization among
female prisoners (13.7%), compared to male prisoners
(4.2%), is statistically significant at the 95% level of
confidence. (See table 6 on page 15.) In all tables providing
detailed comparisons, statistically significant differences at
the 95% level of confidence or greater have been designated
with two asterisks (**).
Measurement of sexual victimization
The survey of sexual victimization relied on former inmates
reporting their direct experience, rather than 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.
The ACASI survey began with a series of questions that
screened for general unwanted sexual activities with other
inmates. To fully measure all sexual activities, a question
related to touching of specific body parts in a sexual way
was followed by a general question regarding any sexual
activity with another inmate in which the respondent did
not want to participate. (For specific screening questions,
see appendix A.)
Respondents who answered “yes” to either of the sexspecific screener questions were then asked questions
related to the touching of body parts in a sexual way and
questions related to acts of oral, anal, and vaginal sex.
(For survey items related to specific inmate-on-inmate
victimization categories, see appendix B.) The nature of
coercion (including physical force, pressure, and other
forms of coercion) was measured for each type of reported
sexual activity.

Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners, 2008 | May 2012

ACASI survey items related to staff sexual misconduct were
asked somewhat differently. Respondents were first asked if
during their confinement staff had sexually harassed them,
watched them at an inappropriate time while dressing or
taking a shower, or forced them to undress or touched their
private parts in an inappropriate way. (See survey items in
appendix C.)
Regardless of the responses to the initial questions, all
respondents were then asked two screener questions to
determine if they ever “willingly” or unwillingly had sex
or sexual contact with any facility staff. Respondents who
answered “yes” to either of the screener questions were
then asked questions related to “willing” and unwilling sex
or sexual contacts, the nature of coercion, and the specific
types of sexual contacts including oral, anal, and vaginal
sex. (For survey items related to specific staff-on-inmate
victimization categories, see appendix D.)
Based on their responses to the survey items, victims were
classified in each of four general variables: (1) inmateon-inmate nonconsensual acts, (2) inmate-on-inmate
abusive sexual contacts only, (3) staff sexual misconduct—
unwilling; and (4) staff sexual misconduct—willing.
The entire ACASI questionnaire (listed as the National
Former Prisoner Survey) is available on the BJS website at
http://www.bjs.gov.
Prison placements
In order to assess the impact of facility factors on the
likelihood of a former prisoner reporting inmate-oninmate sexual victimization and staff sexual misconduct, a
separate record for each prison placement was constructed.
Overall, the 18,526 former prisoners in the survey reported
entering separate prison facilities 45,318 times during the
period of incarceration prior to their release from custody.
Depending on the number of state prisons entered, each
respondent is represented between 0 and 15 times. Facilitylevel data from BJS prison censuses conducted in 1990,
1995, 2000, and 2005 were merged to each placement
record, based on the census closest to the period of
incarceration.
Individual-level victimization variables and other
individual-level characteristics reported in the survey
were included with each placement. Of all 45,318 prison
placements, 96% were matched to an appropriate census
data file. When weighted to reflect initial probabilities
of selection and non-response adjustments, data
were available for 1,254,998 of the prison placements
(approximately 94% of all placements). Local jail
placements (prior to prison, as an interim stop, or as the
only placement) were excluded. Placements in hospitals
and out-of-state facilities were also excluded.

Linkage of placements to prison census data
Prison facilities were identified from an initial list provided
by the 2000 Census of State and Federal Correctional
Facilities. Information on these facilities was enhanced by
the 1990 and 1995 censuses and contacts in departments
of correction in each state. The final list was programmed
to appear in the CAPI portion of the survey prior to the
start of ACASI. If the respondent provided a facility name
that could not be identified on the list after attempts to
locate the facility by name of city, the interviewer added the
facility to the list.
Initial rules were used to define the most appropriate
census file for linking the facility information. Each inmate
provided admission and release dates for the most recent
period of incarceration, not for individual facilities. The
following rules were applied to determine the reference year
for linkage, either the year of admission or the average year
(i.e., the midpoint between the admission and release date):

If the victim was placed in only one facility, the average
year was used.

If the victim was in multiple facilities, the admission year
was used for the first facility placement and the average
year for all other placements.

If the reference year was—

1992 or earlier, facility characteristics were drawn from
the 1990 census

1993-1997, facility characteristics were drawn from the
1995 census

1998-2002, facility characteristics were drawn from the
2000 census

2003 or later, facility characteristics were drawn from the
2005 census.

All unmatched facilities from the interviewer entry list were
identified and linked to an appropriate census file.
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.
NFPS used this technique to determine what inmate-level
characteristics were significant predictors of inmate-oninmate sexual victimization and staff sexual misconduct
over the entire period of confinement. For each type
of victimization, and for males and females separately,
selected parolee characteristics were examined, including
demographic characteristics, sexual orientation and history,

Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners, 2008 | May 2012

and criminal justice status and history. For each type of
victimization, a logistic model was iteratively run under a
backwards selection technique until only predictors that
were significant at the 95% level of confidence remained.
(See table 10 on page 19.)
NFPS also used this technique to determine what facilitylevel and inmate-level characteristics were significant
predictors of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization and
staff sexual misconduct in each of the state prisons where
the former inmates had served time. Based on a separate
record for each prison placement for the 18,526 former
prison inmates interviewed, logistic regression models
were developed to model the effects of individual and
prison-level characteristics. For each type of victimization,
a logistic model was developed to isolate specific individual
and facility factors that remain significant at the 95% level
of confidence. (See table 16 on page 28.)
Conditional marginal probabilities
In each of the logistic regression models, the conditional
marginal 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 a combination of individual
characteristics only, a white male former prisoner had a 4.0%
chance of being victimized by another inmate given that
he was at the mean of the joint distribution of age, sexual
orientation, offense, and total time served.
For purposes of estimating the conditional marginal
probabilities, the overall log odds of incurring the event for
a given level of race/Hispanic origin was calculated from
the estimated linear model by specifying the value of the
race/Hispanic origin variable as the level of interest and
then specifying all other variables in the model to be the
weighted mean in the population. For example, the simple
logistic model for the binary variable Y (experienced sexual
victimization or not) is

(

)

=1) = α +x´ β
log P(Yi
i
ij
1-P(Yi=1)
where, αi is the parameter of the race/Hispanic origin
category for the individual i ( i=1 …n, n is the total number
of respondents).
To calculate the log odds for a specific race/Hispanic origin
= r; use fixed αr and xˉ,

( )

log Mr = αr+xˉ´β
1-Mr
where, xˉ = ∑ni=1

wixi
.
∑iwi

For other categorical covariates x except race/Hispanic
origin, the mean value for each dummy variable is the
weighted percentage of the corresponding level.
Based on the obtained log odds, the conditional marginal
probability was then calculated for the specific level of the
race/Hispanic = r as
Mr =

eαr+ˉx´β
1+eαr+ˉx´β

These estimates (Mr) represent the expected risk of
victimization for a former inmate, conditional on the
inmate belonging to a particular group (defined by each
characteristic in the model) and having the mean value on
all of the other characteristics in the model. The conditional
marginal assumes that xˉ is constant, and the variance is due
to the variances of β.
Significance tests
For each of the regression models, variances for the
estimates took into account the NFPS sample design.
These variances were computed with weighted data
in SUDAAN using the Taylor Linearization method.
Wald F-statistics were calculated to test for statistical
significance of the effects of each individual-level and
facility-level characteristic (appendix tables 3 and 4). The
Wald F-statistics were used to test the null hypothesis
that all regression coefficients are equal to zero for
each characteristic (i.e., the probability of experiencing
victimization is the same across all categories of the selected
characteristic), conditional on all other inmate or facilitylevel characteristics being included in the model.
NFPS and NIS sample differences
Findings in the NFPS are limited to persons released
from state prison to a period of post-custody supervision
(including parole, probation following incarceration,
community supervised release, or other form of
supervision). Approximately 24% of all sentenced state
prisoners released in 2008 were released unconditionally.
These former inmates, some of whom may have
experienced sexual victimization while in prison, were not
surveyed. Because these former inmates were not subject
to post-custody supervision, and correctional authorities
lacked their current addresses or phone numbers, they
could not be easily contacted and interviewed after their
release from prison.
The NFPS findings should not be generalized to all former
prisoners. Based on selected demographic characteristics
reported in BJS’s National Corrections Reporting Program
in 2008, inmates released conditionally were similar to
those released unconditionally. Nearly the same percentage
were male (89.2% compared to 89.4%), under age 30
(34.9% compared to 35.2%), age 50 or older (10.1%
compared to 10.2%), and sentenced for a violent offense

Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners, 2008 | May 2012

(25.4% compared to 26.6%). However, inmates released
unconditionally had served significantly longer in prison
than those released conditionally. An estimated 23.2% of
inmates released unconditionally had served more than
3 years, compared to 15.9% of inmates released
conditionally. In addition, 12.5% of unconditional releases
had served fewer than 6 months, compared to 32.5% of
conditional releases.
Caution is also recommended when comparing NFPS
findings with NIS-1 and NIS-2 findings, due to differences
in coverage and differences in composition among former

and current inmates. In contrast with the NIS sample, the
NFPS sample does not include inmates who may never be
released. (Based on data from the 1997 Survey of Inmates
in State Prison, approximately 5% of all inmates in state
prison were not expected to ever be released.) In addition,
the cross-section of former inmates is comprised of less
serious offenders with shorter maximum sentences than the
cross-section of inmates in the NIS sample. For example,
33% of former inmates in NFPS had served time for a
violent offense, compared to 56% of state inmates in NIS-2
who were serving time for a violent offense.

Appendix A
Survey items that screen for inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization, National Former Prisoner Survey, 2008
C11. [MALES] During your confinement, did another
inmate touch your butt, thighs, penis, or other private parts
in a sexual way or did you touch theirs, when you did not
want this to happen?
C11a. [FEMALES] During your confinement, did another
inmate touch your butt, thighs, breasts, vagina, or other
private parts in a sexual way or did you touch theirs, when
you did not want this to happen?

[IF C11 NE Yes or C11a NE YES] We recognize that you
may find questions regarding sexual activity sensitive.
However, no one will know how you answered these
questions. Please remember that your responses are
confidential.
C11b. During your confinement, were you involved in any
sexual activity with another inmate in which you did not
want to participate?

Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners, 2008 | May 2012

Appendix B
Survey items related to inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization categories, National Former Prisoner Survey, 2008
Males
Nonconsensual sexual activity—oral sex

Females

C12. Did the sexual activity ever involve oral sex or a blow
job in which your mouth was on another inmate’s penis or
other private parts?

C12d. Did the sexual activity ever involve oral sex in
which your mouth was on another inmate’s vagina or other
private parts?

You indicated that you were involved in unwanted sexual
incidents, but that oral and anal sex did not occur. During
the unwanted sexual incident or incidents, which of
the following things happened? Please indicate all that
happened.

You indicated that you were involved in unwanted sexual
incidents but [if applicable] oral, [if applicable] vaginal, or
[if applicable] anal sex did not occur. During the unwanted
sexual incident or incidents, which of the following
happened? Please indicate all that happened.

C15f. Another inmate put their mouth on your penis or
other private parts.

C16g. Another inmate put their mouth on your vagina or
other private parts.

C15g. You put your mouth on another inmate’s butt or
thighs.

C16h. You put your mouth on another inmate’s butt or
thighs.

Nonconsensual sexual activity—anal sex
C14. Did the sexual activity ever involve anal sex in which
another inmate inserted their finger, penis, or an object into
your butt?

C14a. Did the sexual activity involve anal sex in which
another inmate inserted their finger or an object into your
butt?

C15h. You inserted your finger, penis, or an object into
another inmate’s butt.

C16j. You inserted your finger or an object into another
inmate’s butt.

Nonconsensual sexual activity—vaginal sex
C13. Did the sexual activity ever involve vaginal sex in
which another inmate inserted their finger or an object into
your vagina?
You indicated that you were involved in unwanted sexual
incidents but [if applicable] oral, [if applicable] vaginal, or
[if applicable] anal sex did not occur. During the unwanted
sexual incident or incidents, which of the following
happened? Please indicate all that happened.
C16i. You inserted your finger or an object into another
inmate’s vagina.

Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners, 2008 | May 2012

Appendix B (continued)
Survey items related to inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization categories, National Former Prisoner Survey, 2008
Males
Nonconsensual sexual activity—manual/hand job

Females

C15d. Another inmate rubbed your penis in an attempt to
arouse you.

C16e. Another inmate rubbed your breasts, butt, or vagina
in an attempt to arouse you.

C15e. You rubbed another inmate’s penis with your hand.

C16f. You rubbed another inmate’s breasts or vagina with
your hand.

C15i. You were forced to masturbate while someone
watched.
Abusive sexual contact only
You indicated that you were involved in unwanted sexual
incidents, but that oral and anal sex did not occur. During
the unwanted sexual incident or incidents, which of
the following things happened? Please indicate all that
happened.

C15a. Another inmate touched your butt or thighs.

C16a. Another inmate touched your butt or thighs.

C15b. Another inmate touched your penis or scrotum.

C16b. Another inmate touched your breasts.

C15c. Another inmate violently grabbed or touched your
penis or scrotum in an attempt to hurt you.

C16c. Another inmate touched your vagina.
C16d. Another inmate violently grabbed or touched your
breasts or vagina in an attempt to hurt you.

Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners, 2008 | May 2012

Appendix C
Survey items related to staff sexual misconduct, National Former Prisoner Survey, 2008
E1. During your confinement, did staff hassle or harass you
in a sexual way?
E2. Did staff ever stare at you or watch you at inappropriate
times (for example, while you were dressing or taking a
shower)?
E3. [FEMALES] Did a staff member ever force you to
undress in their presence or hit or brush against your breast
or other private parts when you did not think it was an
accident or it was not required by their job?

E3b. [MALES] Did a staff member ever force you to
undress in their presence or hit or brush against your
private parts when you did not think it was an accident or it
was not required by their job?
E4. Did you ever willingly or unwillingly have sex or sexual
contact with any facility staff person?
[IF E4 NE Yes] Please remember that your responses are
confidential. Neither you nor the staff person involved will
be identified through this survey. No one will know you
answered these questions.
E4a. During your confinement did you have sex or any
sexual contact with a staff person, whether it was willing or
not?

Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners, 2008 | May 2012

Appendix D
Survey items related to staff-on-inmate sexual victimization categories, National Former Prisoner Survey, 2008
Males
Nonconsensual sexual activity—oral sex

Females

E15. Did the sexual contact involve oral sex or a blow job in
which your mouth was on the male staff person’s penis or
other private parts or his mouth was on your private parts?

E15b. Did the sexual contact involve oral sex in which your
mouth was on the male staff person’s penis or other private
parts or his mouth was on your private parts?

E15a. Did the sexual contact involve oral sex or a blow job
in which the female staff person’s mouth was on your penis
or other private parts or in which your mouth was on her
private parts?

E15c. Did the sexual contact involve oral sex in which your
mouth was on the female staff person’s breasts, vagina, or
other private parts or her mouth was on your private parts?

Nonconsensual sexual activity—anal sex
E16. Did it involve anal sex in which the male staff person
inserted his finger, penis, or an object into your butt or you
inserted your finger, penis, or object into his?

E16b. Did it involve anal sex in which the male staff person
inserted his finger, penis, or an object into your butt or you
inserted your finger or an object into his?

E16a. Did it involve anal sex in which the female staff
person inserted her finger or an object into your butt or you
inserted your finger, penis, or an object into hers?

E16c. Did it involve anal sex in which the female staff
person inserted her finger or an object into your butt or
you inserted your finger or an object into hers?

Nonconsensual sexual activity—vaginal sex
E13. Did you have vaginal sex with a female staff person in
which your penis, finger, or an object was inserted into her
vagina?
E13a. Were you involved in vaginal sex in which a male
staff person inserted his penis, finger, or an object into your
vagina?
E13b. Were you involved in vaginal sex with a female staff
person in which she inserted her finger or an object into
your vagina or you inserted your finger or an object into
hers?
Nonconsensual sexual activity—manual/hand job
E14. Did you give or receive a hand job in which a male staff
person rubbed your penis with his hand or you rubbed his?

E14b. Did you give the male staff person a hand job in
which you rubbed his penis with your hand?

E14a. Did you receive a hand job in which a female staff
person rubbed your penis with her hand?
Abusive sexual contact only
E12. Did a male staff person touch your penis or other
private parts in a sexual way or did you touch his?

E12b. Did a male staff person touch your breasts, vagina,
or other private parts in a sexual way or did you touch his
private parts?

E12a. Did a female staff person touch your penis or other
private parts in a sexual way or did you touch her private
parts?

E12c. Did a female staff person touch your breasts, vagina,
or other private parts or did you touch hers?

Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners, 2008 | May 2012

Appendix E
Survey items that identify prison placements and measure sexual victimization in each facility, National Former
Prisoner Survey, 2008
B5. What was the name of the facility in which you were
placed in [Month/Year]?
B6. Were you placed in any other facilities between [date of
admission] and your release in [Month/Year]?

For all forms of staff-on-inmate sexual victimization
E6. At which facility or facilities did you have sexual
contact with staff? [READ LIST OF FACILITIES]

B5. [REPEAT, up to 25 times] What was the name of
another facility in which you were placed?
For each type of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization
FBM12a. [MALES] You indicated you had unwanted [oral
sex or gave a blow job because you were physically forced,
afraid, or someone threatened to hurt you physically].
Where did this unwanted [oral sex or blow job occur]?
[READ LIST OF FACILITIES]
FBM12b. [FEMALES] You indicated you had unwanted
[oral sex because you were physically forced, afraid, or
someone threatened to hurt you physically]. Where did this
unwanted [oral sex] occur? [READ LIST OF FACILITIES]

Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners, 2008 | May 2012

Appendix Table 1
Standard errors for table 4: Type of coercion and physical injury of former state prisoners who reported sexual victimization,
by type of incident
Inmate-on-inmate
Staff sexual misconduct
Nonconsensual
Willing
Unwilling
Totala
sexual acts
Total
activityb
activityb
Type of coercion
Force/threat
1.73%
1.92%
1.49%
0.99%
4.28%
Threatened with harm or a weapon
1.76
1.86
1.43
1.00
4.84
Persuaded/talked into it
1.73
2.26
1.82
1.93
3.73
Physically held down or restrained
1.84
2.51
0.96
0.57
3.65
Physically harmed/injured
1.39
1.76
1.02
0.58
3.84
Coercion other than force/threat
1.57%
1.91%
1.78%
1.90%
2.69%
Offered/given protection from other inmates
1.67
2.07
1.13
0.95
2.84
Given bribe/blackmailed
1.74
2.30
1.68
1.75
3.51
Given drugs/alcohol
1.05
1.35
1.31
1.37
3.53
0.98
1.28
0.71
0.78
2.08
Pay off debtc
Offered/given protection from another correctional officerc
~
~
2.12
1.74
5.97
Offered favors or special privileges
~
~
1.83
1.83
4.04
Physically injured
1.62%
2.03%
0.79%
0.68%
3.00%
Excluding minor injuries
1.36
1.81
0.74
0.64
2.84
Knife/stab wounds
0.77
1.05
0.30
0.21
1.28
Broken bones
0.83
1.13
0.26
0.29
1.05
Anal/vaginal tearing, severe pain, or bleeding
1.25
1.91
0.65
0.55
2.60
Teeth chipped/knocked out
1.19
1.68
0.53
0.31
2.16
Internal injuries
0.95
1.31
0.37
0.29
1.50
Knocked unconscious
1.11
1.53
0.25
0.20
1.08
Bruises, a black eye, sprains, cuts, scratches, swelling, or welts
1.60
2.04
0.62
0.39
2.48
~Not applicable.
aIncludes abusive sexual contacts.
bIncludes touching only.
cNot included in the pretest interviews. See Methodology for a detailed discussion of the merged data files.
Source: BJS, National Former Prisoner Survey, 2008.

Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners, 2008 | May 2012

Appendix Table 2
Standard errors for table 5: Circumstances surrounding sexual victimization of former state prisoners, by type of incident
Inmate-on-inmate
Staff sexual misconduct
Nonconsensual
Willing
Unwilling
Circumstance
Totala
sexual acts
Total
activityb
activityb
Time of day
6 a.m. to noon
2.01%
2.55%
2.00%
2.18%
4.25%
Noon to 6 p.m.
1.72
1.93
2.08
2.20
4.60
6 p.m. to midnight
1.90
2.18
2.02
2.28
4.86
Midnight to 6 a.m.
1.90
2.16
2.04
2.38
3.05
Where occurred
Victim’s cell/room/sleeping area
1.81%
2.03%
1.92%
2.24%
3.61%
Another inmate’s cell/room
1.83
2.64
1.07
1.22
2.29
Shower/bathroom
1.72
2.17
1.93
2.07
4.20
Yard/recreation area
1.50
1.65
1.12
1.20
2.55
Workplace
1.37
1.74
2.19
2.43
4.46
Closet, office, or other locked room
1.35
1.96
1.71
1.70
4.19
Classroom/library
1.17
1.49
1.89
1.97
4.35
Elsewhere in facility
1.15
1.41
1.37
1.53
2.42
Off facility groundsc
1.06
1.20
1.37
1.44
3.34
Number of perpetrators
1
2.02%
2.55%
1.62%
1.83%
3.10%
2
1.81
2.41
1.84
1.92
3.52
3 or more
1.51
1.87
1.72
1.98
3.30
Number of times
1
2.28%
2.48%
1.31%
1.32%
2.31%
2
1.59
1.99
1.75
1.83
3.62
3 or more
1.89
2.14
2.01
2.05
4.29
aIncludes abusive sexual contacts.
bIncludes touching only.
cIncludes incidents that occurred in a temporary holding facility, on work release, in a medical facility, in a vehicle, or at a courthouse.

Source: BJS, National Former Prisoner Survey, 2008.

Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners, 2008 | May 2012

Appendix Table 3
Wald-F statistics for former prisoner characteristics in the final multivariate logistic regression models of sexual
victimization, by type of incident
Wald-F statistics for male
Wald-F statistics for female
Degrees of freedom
sexual victimization in prison
sexual victimization in prison
Former prisoner characteristic
All models*
Inmate-on-inmate Staff sexual misconduct Inmate-on-inmate Staff sexual misconduct
Race/Hispanic origin
4
8.80
4.05
6.31
4.80
Age at admission
5
3.22
13.94
5.43
4.69
Education
3
~
~
2.68
~
Marital status
2
~
~
6.63
~
Weight
3
~
2.61
~
~
Sexual orientation
2
105.48
17.58
~
~
Prior incarcerations
1
~
14.02
10.22
7.02
Most serious offense
5
9.06
4.13
~
~
Total time served
5
20.30
26.68
4.16
21.28
Note: Wald-F tests were conducted to test for the statistical significance of each former state prisoner characteristic in the final models presented in table 10. 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 former state prisoner 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.
~Characteristics deleted from model when Wald statistic was not significant at the 95%-confidence level.
*For each former prisoner characteristic, the degrees of freedom represent the number of categories minus 1.
Source: BJS, National Former Prisoner Survey, 2008.

Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners, 2008 | May 2012

Appendix Table 4
Wald-F statistics for former state prisoner and facility characteristics in the final multivariate logistic regression models of
sexual victimization among male and female placements, by type of incident
Wald-F statistics for sexual
Degrees of victimization among male placements Wald-F statistics for sexual victimization
freedom
in prison
among female placements in prison
All
Inmate-onStaff sexual
Inmate-onStaff sexual
Characteristic
models*
inmate
misconduct
inmate
misconduct
Former prisoner characteristic
Race/Hispanic origin
4
9.11
4.48
4.75
6.82
Age at admission
5
~
8.98
~
3.24
Education
3
~
6.03
~
~
Marital status
2
3.91
~
3.19
~
Weight
3
~
~
~
~
Sexual orientation
2
73.46
15.23
3.72
~
Prior incarcerations
1
~
5.53
8.73
~
Most serious offense
6
4.49
2.55
~
~
Total time served
5
4.94
8.75
3.75
7.54
Facility characteristicc
Type of facility
4
3.85
11.5
2.61
~
Percent of inmates leaving facility during the day
1
~
~
6.37
~
Security level
2
7.06
~
3.74
12.03
Who operates facility
2
~
9.04
~
~
Year built
4
~
2.96
2.94
2.90
Inmate-to-staff ratio
4
~
~
3.14
~
Under court order
2
~
3.89
~
~
Major disturbance in census year
2
~
~
4.06
~
Percent of female staff
4
~
11.28
~
~
Census year closest to time of placement
3
3.73
~
~
3.83
Placement order of facility
2
7.77
~
4.40
~
Note: Wald-F tests were conducted to test for the statistical significance of each former state prisoner characteristic in the final models presented in table 16. 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 former state prisoner 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 the model when Wald statistic was not significant at the 95%-confidence level.
*For each former state prisoner characteristic, the degrees of freedom represent the number of categories minus 1.
Source: BJS, National Former Prisoner Survey, 2008.

Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners, 2008 | May 2012

Appendix Table 5
Standard errors for table 17: Reporting of sexual victimization, by type of incident and persons to whom the incident was
reported

Percent of victims reporting at least one incident of sexual victimization
Percent reporting to any facility staff
Correctional officer
Administrative staff
Medical/healthcare staff
Instructor/teacher
Counselor/case manager
Chaplain/other religious leader
Volunteer
Someone else at the facilitya
Percent reporting to someone other than facility staff
Telephone hotline
Another inmate
Family/friend outside the facility
Someone else outside the facility

Inmate-on-inmate
Nonconsensual
Total
sexual acts
1.77%
2.11%
2.02%
2.20%
1.71
1.83
1.41
1.65
1.31
1.71
0.74
0.99
1.29
1.63
0.88
1.19
0.72
0.71
1.46
1.68
1.99%
2.30%
0.38
0.48
1.65
2.15
1.94
2.10
1.31
2.00

Staff sexual misconduct
Willing
Unwilling
Total
activity
activity
0.97%
0.80%
3.66%
0.88%
0.61%
3.54%
0.71
0.31
2.87
0.84
0.52
3.42
0.60
0.33
2.35
0.54
0.26
2.15
0.66
0.35
2.56
0.38
0.27
1.49
0.55
0.20
2.19
0.67
0.35
2.48
0.97%
0.62%
3.77%
0.26
0.19
1.16
0.82
0.52
3.38
0.88
0.45
3.45
~
~
~

~Category not included in the survey.
aCategory not included in the pretest interviews.
Source: BJS, National Former Prisoner Survey, 2008.

Appendix Table 6
Standard errors for table 19: Facility responses to the reporting of sexual victimization to staff, by type of incident
Inmate-on-inmate
Staff sexual misconduct
Facility response to reported sexual victimization
2.95%
4.92%
Moved Victim to administrative segregation/protective housing
2.67
8.27
Placed victim in medical unit/ward/hospital
1.88
4.09
Confined victim to cell
2.57
7.85
Assigned vicctim to a higher level of custody
2.02
6.56
Offered victim a transfe
2.21
7.88
Victim written up
2.62
8.27
2.95
8.61
Victim spoke to investigatora
Perpetrator punished/segregated
2.74
~
No facility response reported by victim
2.95%
4.92%
~Not asked of victims of staff sexual misconduct.
aCategory not included in the pretest interviews.
Source: BJS, National Former Prisoner Survey, 2008.

Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners, 2008 | May 2012

Appendix Table 7
Standard errors for table 20: Post-release responses of victims to sexual victimization, by type of incident
Inmate-on-inmate
Staff sexual misconduct
Nonconsensual
Willing
Unwilling
All victims
Total
sexual acts
Total
activity
activity
1.61%
2.27%
2.27%
2.07%
2.28%
4.53%
Discussed victimization with at least one individuala
Husband/wife, boyfriend/girlfriend, or other partner
1.51
2.16
2.27
1.92
2.09
4.46
Children
0.42
0.63
0.50
0.49
0.53
1.27
Parents
1.09
1.32
1.43
1.50
1.57
3.01
Other family member
1.22
1.36
1.60
1.92
2.32
2.77
Friend(s)
1.47
1.61
1.74
1.98
2.10
3.35
Minister or other religious leader
0.67
1.02
1.12
0.64
0.63
2.14
Therapist or treatment professional
0.86
1.34
1.67
0.98
1.06
2.62
Parole officer
0.56
0.91
1.16
0.57
0.42
2.05
Another inmate
1.28
1.52
1.82
1.84
2.13
2.67
Had feelings or thoughts about victimizationa
Guilt
1.30%
1.86%
2.12%
1.84%
1.74%
4.39%
Shame or humiliation
1.44
1.67
1.87
1.74
1.63
3.76
Revenge against someone victim was angry with
1.01
1.52
2.07
1.22
1.15
4.06
Difficulty feeling close to friends/family members
1.22
1.89
2.00
1.60
1.41
4.63
Participated in treatment to deal with victimizationa
0.98%
1.57%
2.33%
1.06%
1.11%
3.07%
Saw therapist or counselor
0.86
1.44
2.12
1.00
1.07
2.54
Participated in self-help group for emotional/mental health
problems
0.82
1.20
1.65
1.00
1.00
2.96
Enrolled in treatment program (other than counseling) for
emotional/mental health problems
0.64
1.09
1.45
0.79
0.72
2.36
Took medication to treat emotional/mental health problems
0.68
1.11
1.60
0.78
0.60
2.95
Hospitalized for emotional/mental health problems
0.42
0.70
0.90
0.37
0.38
1.06
aInterviews conducted in the pretest were excluded due to changes in the questionnaire design.
Source: BJS, National Former Prisoner Survey, 2008.

Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners, 2008 | May 2012

NCJ237363
Office of Justice Programs
Innovation • Partnerships • Safer Neighborhoods
www.ojp.usdoj.gov