NATIONAL PRISON RAPE ELIMINATION COMMISSION

www.nprec.us

REPORT

NATIONAL PRISON RAPE ELIMINATION COMMISSION REPORT

JUNE 2009

Contents

Preface..v
Commissioners. vii
Commission Staff and Contributors........................................................xi
Acknowledgments.. xiii
Executive Summary............................................................................... 1
Introduction......................................................................................... 25
PART I: UNDERSTANDING AND PREVENTING SEXUAL ABUSE. 31
1. A Problem that Must Be Solved. 32
2. Leadership Matters.
50
3. Unequal Risk: Vulnerability and Victimization.
68
4. Inside and Out: Strengthening Oversight
82
PART II: RESPONDING TO VICTIMS AND PERPETRATORS.
5. Reporting, Investigation, and Punishment
6. Treating Trauma

99
100
124

PART III: SPECIAL POPULATIONS. 139
7. When Children Are Involved.
140
8. Community Corrections: The Next Frontier
160
9. On the Margins: Immigrants in Detention.
174
189
APPENDICES.
A. Endnotes...
191
B. National Standards..
215
C. Recommendations.................................................................... 237
D. NPREC Standards Development Expert Committee Members..... 239
E. Standards Implementation Needs Assessment.......................... 243
F. NPREC Hearing Witnesses........................................................ 245
G. PREA Initiatives........................................................................ 251

CONTENTS

iii

Preface

O

n behalf of the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission,
I am pleased to submit the following report on our work toward the elimination of sexual abuse in correctional and detention facilities nationwide.
In the years leading up to the passage of the Prison Rape Elimination Act and since then, the work of corrections and detention professionals
to address the problem of sexual abuse has been significant and laudable.
They have established new policies and programs in some facilities, and
expanded and refined existing practices in others. Their determination
and commitment has led the way and informed the work of our Commission. Even more important, as a result of their efforts, we have seen ideas
transform into actions that by all accounts have the potential to improve
safety and security for those living and working within correctional and
detention facilities.
Despite this important progress, much remains to be done. Although
many correctional systems and individual facilities are ahead of the curve,
others lag behind. Some corrections leaders enjoy the full cooperation and
support they need from the policymakers who oversee their systems; others struggle to secure necessary resources and political commitments. The
problem of prison rape and other forms of sexual abuse is too serious and
far-reaching, too devastating to the individuals and communities that it ultimately affects to be left to evolve unevenly. The Commission’s report and
national standards create a mechanism for advancing the field uniformly,
requiring the participation of all to protect people under supervision in
every corner of our Nation.
Congress conferred upon the Commission an enormous responsibility: developing national standards that will lead to the prevention,
detection, and punishment of prison rape. Yet Congress also and appropriately required us to seriously consider the restrictions of cost, differences among systems and facilities, and existing political structures. We
have endeavored to comply with these directives, sometimes struggling
to find the correct balance among competing considerations. This report
describes the scope and seriousness of the problems, ways of solving them,

PREFACE

v

and what is at stake. The report also includes inspiring examples of good
practices, demonstrating that Congress’ goals can be achieved and that the
Commission’s standards are a realistic blueprint for progress and change.
In our work, the Commissioners have learned more than any of us
expected at the outset. We have been challenged to examine problems that
we wish did not exist and confronted with accounts of sexual abuse that
shocked and saddened us, partly because the pain of the experience was
still evident in the victims’ voices as they testified before the Commission.
At the same time, we have had the opportunity to witness remarkable
examples of human resolve, creativity, and strength among survivors of
sexual abuse as well as corrections and detention professionals. Through
it all, we have questioned our own assumptions and perspectives to fully
understand the far-reaching nature of the problems and the potential for
solutions.
As we near the end of our time of contribution and deliver our report and standards, I offer my sincere gratitude to Commission staff and
others who contributed to this important effort. And for my fellow Commissioners who joined me in this challenging endeavor, I have not only
gratitude but also great admiration. This diverse group has never flagged
in its determination to complete its task with integrity, thoughtfulness,
and respect. Through countless days of working together and hours of difficult and sometimes heated discussion, we have come to know each other
well. Our diverse perspectives, insights, and talents and the debates we
embraced have enhanced our work.
It has been my honor and privilege to serve as the Chair of the Commission. Along with my distinguished and committed colleagues, I am
proud to offer this report and our standards as the next step toward creating correctional and detention settings that are safe and free of the danger
and shame of sexual abuse. 	

The Honorable Reggie B. Walton, Chair

vi

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

Commissioners

Chair Reggie B. Walton
The Honorable Reggie B. Walton is a Federal district judge, appointed by President George W. Bush to the U.S. District Court for the District
of Columbia in 2001. In June 2004, President Bush appointed Judge Walton
Chair of the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission.
Before joining the bench of the U.S. District Court, Judge Walton
was appointed by President Ronald Reagan to be Associate Judge of the
Superior Court of the District of Columbia, where he had served as Deputy
Presiding Judge of the Criminal Division. When called upon by President
George H.W. Bush to become Associate Director of the Office of National
Drug Control Policy in the Executive Office of the President, Judge Walton
resigned his Superior Court judgeship to assume the Associate Director’s
responsibilities. Later, Judge Walton served President George H.W. Bush as
Senior White House Advisor for Crime. President George H.W. Bush reappointed Judge Walton to the Superior Court of the District of Columbia,
where he thereafter served as Presiding Judge of the Family Division and
Presiding Judge of the Domestic Violence Unit.
Judge Walton earned his Bachelor of Arts from West Virginia State
College in 1971 and his Juris Doctor from American University’s Washington College of Law in 1974.

Vice-Chair John A. Kaneb
Commissioner John A. Kaneb is Chairman of the Board of Directors
of HP Hood LLC. He is also President of The Catamount Companies and a
partner in the Boston Red Sox baseball franchise.
In addition to his other duties, Mr. Kaneb is a Trustee Emeritus of
the University of Notre Dame. He is also an Emeritus Trustee of the Massachusetts General Hospital and Emeritus Trustee and former Chairman
of the Board of McLean Hospital. Mr. Kaneb has served numerous other
boards, committees, and task forces, including the Board of Fellows of the
Harvard Medical School.

COMMISSIONERS

vii

Mr. Kaneb earned his Bachelor of Arts in economics from Harvard
College. He holds Honorary Doctor of Laws degrees from Saint Anselm
College and the University of Notre Dame.

Commissioner James E. Aiken
Commissioner James E. Aiken, President of James E. Aiken &
Associates, Inc., consults with attorneys and testifies as an expert witness
in death penalty and civil cases.
Mr. Aiken has more than 33 years of experience in correctional
administration, facility operations and management, inspection and assessment of facility performance, and technical assistance consulting.
Mr. Aiken has served every level of government—Federal, State, county,
and local—in the areas of correctional leadership, organizational development, management of prison disturbances, system productivity, cost containment, prison security system enhancement, management of violent
youthful offenders in adult prisons, gang and security threat group management, new wardens’ training, super-maximum security facility management training, assessment of prison security/operational performance,
prison staffing analysis, reduction of prison critical security, and development of prison classification systems designed to better protect inmate
populations.
Mr. Aiken earned his Bachelor of Arts from Benedict College in
Columbia, South Carolina, and his Master of Arts in criminal justice from
the University of South Carolina.

Commissioner Jamie Fellner
Commissioner Jamie Fellner is Senior Counsel for the U.S. Program
of Human Rights Watch. The U.S. Program focuses on human rights violations in the United States.
In addition to her own research and writing, Ms. Fellner works
with researchers and advocates in the areas of excessively high criminal
sentences; over-incarceration; prison conditions, including treatment of
mentally ill offenders, prison rape, and super-maximum security confinement; ex-offender reentry problems; mistreatment of immigrants; and human rights abuses resulting from antiterrorism policies.
Ms. Fellner served as Director of the U.S. Program at Human Rights
Watch from 2001 to September 2007 and as Associate Counsel from 1994
to 2001. Before beginning work on U.S. criminal justice issues, Ms. Fellner worked as a researcher and advocate for the organization’s Americas Division, focusing on several South American countries. Additionally,
Ms. Fellner has worked with several U.S. foundations that operated Latin
American social justice programs.

viii

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

Ms. Fellner earned her Bachelor of Arts from Smith College and
her Juris Doctor from Boalt Hall at the University of California, Berkeley.
She also completed doctoral studies in Latin American history at Stanford
University and has practiced law in the District of Columbia.

Commissioner Pat Nolan
Commissioner Pat Nolan is the President of Justice Fellowship, the
public policy arm of Chuck Colson’s Prison Fellowship Ministries. Mr.
Nolan is also the author of When Prisoners Return, describing the important role the church can play in helping people lead healthy, productive
lives following their release.
Mr. Nolan brings a unique background to Justice Fellowship. He
served for 15 years in the California State Assembly, including four years
as the Assembly’s Republican Leader. Mr. Nolan has long been a leader on
crime issues, particularly on behalf of victims’ rights, and was one of the
original sponsors of the Victims’ Bill of Rights. Parents of Murdered Children awarded Mr. Nolan its Victims’ Advocate Award, and many groups
named Mr. Nolan “Legislator of the Year.” Then, as part of a Federal Bureau
of Investigation sting operation, Mr. Nolan was prosecuted for a campaign
contribution he received and pled guilty to one count of racketeering. He
served 25 months in a Federal prison and 4 months in a halfway house, and
that experience changed the course of his life and work forever.
Mr. Nolan earned his Bachelor of Arts in political science and his
Juris Doctor from the University of Southern California.

Commissioner Gustavus A. Puryear IV
Commissioner Gustavus A. Puryear IV is Executive Vice President,
General Counsel, and Secretary of Corrections Corporation of America. As
General Counsel, Mr. Puryear is responsible for Corrections Corporation
of America’s legal and regulatory affairs, including its litigation and risk
management, contract management, labor and employment issues, corporate governance matters, and compliance with Federal securities laws.
Additionally, Mr. Puryear supervises the company’s compliance and ethics
program as well as its quality assurance program.
Mr. Puryear graduated from Emory University with highest honors
in 1990. He earned his Juris Doctor with honors from the University of
North Carolina School of Law in 1993.

COMMISSIONERS

ix

Commissioner Brenda V. Smith
Commissioner Brenda V. Smith is a Professor at American University’s Washington College of Law, where she teaches community and economic development law, legal ethics and women, and crime and law. Her
research interests center on women in conflict with the law and on sexual
abuse of individuals in custody. Professor Smith is also Project Director
and Principal Investigator for the U.S. Department of Justice’s National
Institute of Corrections Cooperative Agreement on Addressing Staff Sexual
Misconduct with Offenders. She is an expert on issues affecting women in
prison, a topic about which she has widely published and spoken.
Before her appointment to the faculty of the Washington College
of Law, Professor Smith was Senior Counsel for Economic Security at the
National Women’s Law Center. She has also served as the Director of the
Center’s Women in Prison Project and its Child and Family Support Project.
Professor Smith earned her Bachelor of Arts from Spelman College
and her Juris Doctor from Georgetown University Law Center.

Commissioner Cindy Struckman-Johnson
Commissioner Cindy Struckman-Johnson is a Professor of Psychology at the University of South Dakota in Vermillion. For nearly 25 years, Professor Struckman-Johnson has taught social psychology, sex roles, sexuality,
and prejudice classes. Together with her partner, David Struckman-Johnson,
a Professor of Computer Science, she has researched sexual coercion in
prisons since 1994 and has received two national awards for her work in
this area. To date, Professor Struckman-Johnson has studied sexual coercion rates in 10 male and four female prison facilities.
Professor Struckman-Johnson earned her doctorate in social psychology from the University of Kentucky.

x

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

Commission Staff and Contributors

Staff
Margaret M. Chiara, General Counsel and Executive Director (Acting)
Jenni Trovillion, Deputy Director and Chief Operating Officer
Julia Dempewolf, Program Associate
Sobha Ketterer, Administrative Officer
Joya Taft-Dick, Research Associate

Organizations
The Moss Group, Inc.
National Academy of Public Administration	
Palladian Partners, Inc.
The Raben Group
Vera Institute of Justice

Individuals
Sarah Alexander
Justin Barasky
Isra Bhatty
Amanda Bosquez
Michela Bowman
Angela Browne
Sharon Brett
Taavona Brooks
Christopher Britten
Alexander Busansky
Alissa Cambier
Christopher Campbell
Sherry Carroll
Kathleen Dennehy

Mara Dodson
Erica Drucker
Robert Dumond
Christopher Erlewine
Kathryn Fanlund
Rachel Farbiarz
Nicole Garnett
Mark Glaze
Tara Graham
Haley Griffin
Gabrielle Guzzardo
Allison Hastings
Jennifer Haymes
Kristen Henning

C O M M IS S I O N S TA F F A N D C O N T R I B U TO RS

Jane Hereth
Richard Hoffman
Meaghan Hohl
Katharine Huffman
Henry Huggins
Leonard Jackson
Juliene James
Anita Khashu
Jessie Kirchner
Christy Lopez
Tony Marks
Pamala Micheaux
Marcia Morgan
Anadora Moss

Steven Newman
Emily Niedzwiecki
Robert Raben
Thomas Santaniello
Margo Schlanger
Kerri Sherlock Talbot
Jeff Shorba
Nina Siulc
Jessica St. John
Richard Tewksbury
L. Jackson Thomas, II
Jennifer Trone
Jaime Yarussi
Jason Zeidenberg

xi

Acknowledgments

T

he Commission’s work would not have been possible without the
significant contributions of a wide array of individuals and entities.
Foremost, Senators Edward Kennedy and Jeffrey Sessions, with
their colleagues Senators Mike DeWine, Richard J. Durbin, and
Dianne Feinstein and Representatives Frank Wolf and Robert C. “Bobby”
Scott, sponsors of the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003, have never wavered in their dedication to eliminating sexual abuse in confinement and
their support for the efforts of this Commission.
The Office of Justice Programs of the U.S. Department of Justice has
provided able administrative support to the Commission throughout its
tenure. The Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice Statistics,
the Federal Bureau of Prisons, the National Institute of Corrections, and
the National Institute of Justice have been spirited collaborators as we each
labored to fulfill our mandate under PREA.
The National Institute of Corrections/American University, Washington College of Law Project on Addressing Prison Rape has provided
a valuable service to the Commission by identifying legal resources and
subject matter experts and by keeping the Commission abreast of emerging trends in the area of prison rape.
Professional organizations and associations in the field of corrections have provided significant input to the Commission throughout the
development of the standards and report. They include the American Correctional Association, the American Jail Association, the Association of
State Correctional Administrators, the National Sheriffs’ Association, the
American Probation and Parole Association, the International Community
Corrections Association, and several labor unions, among others. The
Commission is also grateful to the many individual corrections professionals who helped inform us about current policies and practices intended to
prevent and respond to sexual abuse.
Just Detention International (formerly Stop Prisoner Rape) played a
pivotal role in our public hearings by identifying survivors of sexual abuse
willing to testify and also by providing emotional and other support to
those survivors throughout the process. And to the courageous individuals

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

xiii

who shared their stories of abuse with us, we hope you realize how much
your voices and experiences shed light on a problem that is misunderstood
by many. In this way, you helped protect others from the kinds of harm
you have suffered.
Many generous and gracious hosts provided space for our public
meetings and hearings. They included the University of Notre Dame Law
School in Indiana; the Cannon House Office Building in Washington, DC;
the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California in San Francisco; the
Federal Detention Center in Miami, Florida; the John Joseph Moakley U.S.
Courthouse in Boston, Massachusetts; the Theodore Levin U.S. Courthouse,
Eastern District of Michigan in Detroit; the U.S. Courthouse in Los Angeles,
California; the University of Texas School of Law in Austin; and the U.S.
Federal District Courthouse, Eastern District of Louisiana in New Orleans.
Finally, the Commission is deeply indebted to the many corrections leaders, researchers, legal experts, advocates, and academics who
shared their knowledge and experiences through public hearings, expert
committees, roundtable meetings, and public comment on the Commission’s draft standards. We regret space does not allow us to acknowledge
everyone by name.

xiv

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

Executive Summary

R

ape is violent, destructive, and a crime—no less so when the victim is incarcerated. Until recently, however, the public viewed
sexual abuse as an inevitable feature of confinement. Even as
courts and human rights standards increasingly confirmed that
prisoners have the same fundamental rights to safety, dignity, and justice
as individuals living at liberty in the community, vulnerable men, women,
and children continued to be sexually victimized by other prisoners and
corrections staff. Tolerance of sexual abuse of prisoners in the government’s custody is totally incompatible with American values.
Congress affirmed the duty to protect incarcerated individuals from
sexual abuse by unanimously enacting the Prison Rape Elimination Act of
2003. The Act called for the creation of a national Commission to study the
causes and consequences of sexual abuse in confinement and to develop
standards for correctional facilities nationwide that would set in motion a
process once considered impossible: the elimination of prison rape.
This executive summary briefly discusses the Commission’s nine
findings on the problems of sexual abuse in confinement and select policies and practices that must be mandatory everywhere to remedy these
problems. It also covers recommendations about what leaders in government outside the corrections profession can do to support solutions. The
findings are discussed in detail and thoroughly cited in the body of the
report, where readers will also find information about all of the Commission’s standards. Full text of the standards is included as an appendix to
the report.
In the years leading up to the passage of PREA and since then,
corrections leaders and their staff have developed and implemented policies and practices to begin to prevent sexual abuse and also to better respond to victims and hold perpetrators accountable when prevention fails.
They have been aided by a range of robust Federal initiatives, support
from professional corrections associations, and advocates who have vocally condemned sexual abuse in confinement. The landscape is changing.
Training curricula for corrections staff across the country now include
information about sexual abuse in confinement and how to prevent it.

E XECUTIVE SUMMARY

Sexual abuse is “not part of
the penalty that criminal
offenders pay for their
offenses against society.”
—U.S. Supreme Court

1

Many of the Commission’s
standards reflect what
corrections professionals
acknowledge to be good
practices—and are already
operational in some places—
or are requirements
under existing laws.

2

Some agencies and facilities have formed sexual assault response teams
to revolutionize their responses to sexual abuse. Despite these and other
achievements, much remains to be done, especially in correctional environments in which efforts to address the problem of sexual abuse have
been slow to start or have stalled. Protection from sexual abuse should not
depend on where someone is incarcerated or supervised; it should be the
baseline everywhere.
More than 7.3 million Americans are confined in U.S. correctional
facilities or supervised in the community, at a cost of more than $68 billion annually. Given our country’s enormous investment in corrections,
we should ensure that these environments are as safe and productive as
they can be. Sexual abuse undermines those goals. It makes correctional
environments more dangerous for staff as well as prisoners, consumes
scarce resources, and undermines rehabilitation. It also carries the potential to devastate the lives of victims. The many interrelated consequences
of sexual abuse for individuals and society are difficult to pinpoint and
nearly impossible to quantify, but they are powerfully captured in individual accounts of abuse and its impact.
Former prisoner Necole Brown told the Commission, “I continue to
contend with flashbacks of what this correctional officer did to me and the
guilt, shame, and rage that comes with having been sexually violated for
so many years. I felt lost for a very long time struggling with this. . . . I still
struggle with the memories of this ordeal and take it out on friends and
family who are trying to be there for me now.”
Air Force veteran Tom Cahill, who was arrested and detained for
just a single night in a San Antonio jail, recalled the lasting effects of being gang-raped and beaten by other inmates. “I’ve been hospitalized more
times than I can count and I didn’t pay for those hospitalizations, the tax
payers paid. My career as a journalist and photographer was completely
derailed. . . . For the past two decades, I’ve received a non-service connected security pension from the Veteran’s Administration at the cost of
about $200,000 in connection with the only major trauma I’ve ever suffered, the rape.”
Since forming, the Commission has convened public hearings and
expert committees, conducted a needs assessment that involved site visits
to 11 diverse correctional facilities, and thoroughly reviewed the relevant
literature. Throughout the process, corrections leaders, survivors of sexual
abuse, health care providers, researchers, legal experts, advocates, and academics shared their knowledge, experiences, and insights about why sexual
abuse occurs, under what circumstances, and how to protect people.
The Commission used what it learned about the nature and causes
of sexual abuse in correctional settings and its impact to develop mandatory standards to prevent, detect, and punish sexual abuse. Two 60-day
periods of public comment were critical junctures in the creation of the

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

standards. The Commission tailored the standards to reflect the full range
of correctional environments across the country: adult prisons and jails;
lockups and other short-term holding centers; facilities for juveniles; immigration detention sites; and probation, parole, and other forms of community
corrections. Many standards reflect what corrections professionals recognize as good practices—and are already operational in some places—or are
requirements under existing laws. If correctional agencies incur new costs
to comply with the Commission’s standards, those costs are not substantial
compared to what these agencies currently spend and are necessary to fulfill
the requirements of PREA.
The Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution forbids cruel and
unusual punishment—a ban that requires corrections staff to take reasonable steps to protect individuals in their custody from sexual abuse
whenever the threat is known or should have been apparent. In Farmer
v. Brennan, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that deliberate indifference to the substantial risk of sexual abuse violates an incarcerated
individual’s rights under the Eighth Amendment. As the Court so aptly
stated, sexual abuse is “not part of the penalty that criminal offenders pay
for their offenses against society.”

Protection from sexual
abuse should not depend
on where someone is
incarcerated or supervised;
it should be the baseline
everywhere.

FINDING 1

Protecting prisoners from sexual abuse remains a
challenge in correctional facilities across the country.
Too often, in what should be secure environments,
men, women, and children are raped or abused by other
incarcerated individuals and corrections staff.

A

lthough the sexual abuse of prisoners is as old as prisons themselves, efforts to understand the scale and scope of the problem
are relatively new. The first study specifically of prevalence—
examining abuse in the Philadelphia jail system—was published in 1968.
The most rigorous research produced since then—mainly of sexual abuse
among incarcerated men—has yielded prevalence rates in the mid-to-high
teens, but none of these are national studies.
With an explicit mandate from Congress under PREA, the Bureau
of Justice Statistics (BJS) launched a groundbreaking effort to produce
national incidence rates of sexual abuse by directly surveying prisoners.
The survey results may not capture the full extent of the problem, but
they confirm the urgent need for reform. The Commission recommends
that BJS continue this important work and that Congress provide the
necessary funding.

E XECUTIVE SUMMARY

A 2007 survey of State and
Federal prisoners suggests
that an estimated 60,500
individuals were sexually
abused during the 12
months leading up to
the survey.

3

The sexual abuse of prisoners
is widespread, but rates vary
across facilities—from a low of
zero to a high of 15.7 percent.

4

BJS conducted the first wave of surveys in 2007 in a random sample of 146 State and Federal prisons and 282 local jails. A total of 63,817
incarcerated individuals completed surveys, providing the most comprehensive snapshot of sexual abuse in prisons and jails to date. Four-anda-half percent of prisoners surveyed reported experiencing sexual abuse
one or more times during the 12 months preceding the survey or over
their term of incarceration if they had been confined in that facility for
less than 12 months. Extrapolated to the national prison population, an
estimated 60,500 State and Federal prisoners were sexually abused during
that 12-month period.
Although sexual abuse of prisoners is widespread, rates vary across
facilities. For example, 10 facilities had comparatively high rates, between
9.3 and 15.7 percent, whereas in six of the facilities no one reported abuse
during that time period. More prisoners reported abuse by staff than abuse
by other prisoners: 2.9 percent of respondents compared with about 2 percent. (Some prisoners reported abuse by other inmates and staff.)
The rate of sexual abuse in jails appears to be slightly lower: 3.2
percent of inmates surveyed reported that they had been sexually abused
at least once during the prior 6 months or since they had been confined
in that facility. Again, reports of abuse by staff were more common than
reports of abuse by other incarcerated persons: 2 percent of respondents
compared with 1.6 percent. BJS has not surveyed individuals in halfway
houses, treatment facilities, and other community-based correctional settings or individuals on probation or parole.
As the Commission’s report goes to press, BJS is conducting the
first nationally representative survey of sexual abuse among adjudicated
youth in residential juvenile facilities. In a preparatory pilot study, BJS
interviewed 645 youth in nine facilities—sites that volunteered to participate in the pilot and were selected based on convenience. Nearly one out
of every five youth surveyed (19.7 percent) reported at least one nonconsensual sexual contact during the preceding 12 months or since they had
arrived at the facility. Youth were just as likely to report abuse by staff as
they were to report nonconsensual sexual encounters with their peers in
the facility. These preliminary results are not necessarily an indicator of
rates nationally because more than a quarter of the youth interviewed had
been adjudicated for perpetrating a sexual assault, compared to less than
10 percent of youth in residential placement nationally.
In conducting this research, BJS has taken advantage of evolving
survey technology, using laptop computers with touch screens and an accompanying recorded narration to guide respondents—especially helpful
for individuals with limited reading abilities. This method increases the
likelihood of capturing experiences of sexual abuse among individuals
who would be afraid or ashamed to identify as a victim in face-to-face interviews. Prisoners still must believe strangers’ assurances of confidentiality,

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

however—a huge barrier for some—so the likelihood of underreporting
still exists. Researchers also recognize that prevalence levels can be artificially elevated by false allegations. BJS designs its surveys to ask questions
of prisoners in several different ways and also uses analytic tools to assess
data for false reports.

FINDING 2

Sexual abuse is not an inevitable feature of incarceration.
Leadership matters because corrections administrators
can create a culture within facilities that promotes safety
instead of one that tolerates abuse.

I

n 2006, the Urban Institute surveyed 45 State departments of corrections about their policies and practices on preventing sexual abuse and
conducted in-depth case studies in several States. Not surprisingly, the
surveys and case studies identified strong leadership as essential to creating the kind of institutional culture necessary to eliminate sexual abuse
in correctional settings. The Commission has defined clear standards that
corrections administrators can and must champion to prevent sexual abuse
and make facilities safer for everyone—reforms in the underlying culture,
hiring and promotion, and training and supervision that vanguard members of the profession are already implementing.
To begin with, every correctional agency must have a written
policy mandating zero tolerance for all forms of sexual abuse in all settings, whether it is operated by the government or by a private company
working under contract with the government. Although not mandated
under the standards, collective bargaining agreements should feature an
explicit commitment from unions and their members to support a zerotolerance approach to sexual abuse. Without it, there is little common
ground upon which to build when negotiating the many specific policies
and procedures to prevent and respond to sexual abuse.
Ultimately, the culture of an institution is shaped by people not by
policies. Leaders need the right staff to create a genuine culture of zero
tolerance. In particular, administrators must thoroughly screen all new job
applicants and make promotions contingent on a similarly careful review
of each staff member’s behavior on the job to prevent hiring, retaining, or
promoting anyone who has engaged in sexual abuse. Conducting criminal background checks, making efforts to obtain relevant information
from past employers to the extent permissible under law, and questioning
applicants about past misconduct must be mandatory. Rigorous vetting
is not enough, however. Correctional agencies urgently need support in

E XECUTIVE SUMMARY

Leaders need the right staff
to create a genuine culture
of zero tolerance. Rigorous
vetting is crucial; so are
supporting and promoting
staff that demonstrate
commitment to preventing
sexual abuse.

5

Direct supervision is the
most effective mode of
supervision for preventing
sexual abuse and should be
used wherever possible.

6

developing competitive compensation and benefits packages so that they
can recruit and retain appropriate staff. Equally important, administrators should support and promote staff that demonstrate a commitment to
preventing sexual abuse.
Even qualified individuals need training on sexual abuse to fulfill
their job responsibilities. Only through training can staff understand the
dynamics of sexual abuse in a correctional environment, be well informed
about the agency’s policies, and acquire the knowledge and skills necessary to protect prisoners from abuse and respond appropriately when
abuse does occur. The Commission recognizes the corrections profession’s
investment to date in training staff and the fruits of those efforts. The
Commission designed its standards to ensure that no facility is left behind
and that training everywhere meets certain basic criteria. Additionally,
the Commission recommends that the National Institute of Corrections
continue the training and technical assistance it has provided in the years
leading up to PREA and since then and that Congress provide funding for
this purpose.
The corollary to staff training is a strong educational program for
prisoners about their right to be safe and the facility’s commitment to
holding all perpetrators of sexual abuse—staff and inmates—accountable.
Facilities must convey at least basic information during intake in languages and other formats accessible to all prisoners. Armed with this information, prisoners are better able to protect themselves and seek help from
staff before abuse occurs.
Supervision is the core practice of any correctional agency, and it
must be carried out in ways that protect individuals from sexual abuse.
The Commission believes it is possible to meet this standard in any facility,
regardless of design, through appropriate deployment of staff. Direct supervision, which features interaction between staff and prisoners, should
be used wherever possible because it is the most effective mode of supervision for preventing sexual abuse and other types of violence and disorder.
In addition, correctional facilities must assess, at least annually, the need
for and feasibility of incorporating additional monitoring equipment. Technologies are not replacements for skilled and committed security officers,
but they can greatly improve what good officers are able to accomplish.
The Commission recommends that the National Institute of Corrections
help correctional agencies advance their use of monitoring technologies
and that Congress fund this assistance.
Cross-gender supervision is an area in which the Commission has
set clear standards. Some of the widespread abuse that occurred in women’s prisons across Michigan in the 1990s was facilitated by rules that required officers, including men, to meet a daily quota of pat-down searches
for weapons, drugs, or other contraband. Physical searches are necessary
security procedures. The potential for abuse is heightened, however, when

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

staff of the opposite gender conduct them. In the Commission’s view, the
risks are present whether the officers are female or male. Historically, few
women worked in corrections, but this is rapidly changing.
The Commission understands that cross-gender supervision can
have benefits for incarcerated persons and staff. The Commission’s standard on this issue is not intended to discourage the practice generally or
to reduce employment opportunities for men or women. However, strict
limits on cross-gender searches and the viewing of prisoners of the opposite gender who are nude or performing bodily functions are necessary
because of the inherently personal nature of such encounters. Court decisions have recognized that both male and female prisoners retain some
rights to privacy, especially in searches of their bodies and in being observed in states of undress by staff of the opposite gender.
With proper leadership practices and clear policies, corrections administrators can foster a culture that promotes safety. The Commission’s
standards are intended to support these efforts. In addition, the Commission recommends that the Bureau of Justice Assistance continue to provide
grants to diverse correctional agencies to support the development of innovative practices and programs and that Congress fund this important
work as well as continued research by the National Institute of Justice on
the nature of sexual abuse in correctional facilities.

FINDING 3

Certain individuals are more at risk of sexual abuse than
others. Corrections administrators must routinely do
more to identify those who are vulnerable and protect
them in ways that do not leave them isolated and
without access to rehabilitative programming.

P

reventing sexual abuse depends in part on risk assessment. Unfortunately, knowledge in this area is still limited. Research to date has
focused on vulnerability to abuse by other prisoners, rather than by
staff, and on the risks for men and boys rather than for women and girls.
This caveat aside, some risk factors do stand out.
Youth, small stature, and lack of experience in correctional facilities
appear to increase the risk of sexual abuse by other prisoners. So does having a mental disability or serious mental illness. Research on sexual abuse in
correctional facilities consistently documents the vulnerability of men and
women with non-heterosexual orientations and transgender individuals. A
1982 study in a medium-security men’s facility in California, for example,
found the rate of abuse was much higher among gay prisoners (41 percent)

E XECUTIVE SUMMARY

7

Evidence-based screening
for risk of sexual abuse
must become routine
nationwide, replacing the
subjective assessments that
many facilities still rely
on and filling a vacuum
in facilities where no
targeted risk assessments
are conducted.

8

than heterosexual prisoners (9 percent). A history of sexual victimization,
either in the community or in the facility in which the person is incarcerated, tends to make people more vulnerable to subsequent sexual abuse.
Unless facility managers and administrators take decisive steps to
protect these individuals, they may be forced to live in close proximity or
even in the same cell with potential assailants. When Alexis Giraldo was
sentenced to serve time in the California correctional system, her maleto-female transgender identity and appearance as a woman triggered a
recommendation to place her in a facility with higher concentrations of
transgender prisoners, where she might be safer. Yet officials ignored the
recommendation and sent her to Folsom Prison in 2006, where she was
raped and beaten by two different cellmates.
Some correctional agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Prisons and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, now
use written instruments to screen all incoming prisoners specifically for
risk of sexual assault. Evidence-based screening must become routine nationwide, replacing the subjective assessments that many facilities still
rely on and filling a vacuum in facilities where no targeted risk assessments are conducted. The Commission’s standards in this area accelerate
progress toward this goal by setting baseline requirements for when and
how to screen prisoners for risk of being a victim or perpetrator of sexual
abuse. To be effective, the results of these screenings must drive decisions
about housing and programming. Courts have commented specifically on
the obligation of correctional agencies to gather and use screening information to protect prisoners from abuse.
The Commission is concerned that correctional facilities may rely
on protective custody and other forms of segregation (isolation or solitary
confinement) as a default form of protection. And the Commission learned
that desperate prisoners sometimes seek out segregation to escape attackers. Serving time under these conditions is exceptionally difficult and
takes a toll on mental health, particularly if the victim has a prior history
of mental illness. Segregation must be a last resort and interim measure
only. The Commission also discourages the creation of specialized units
for vulnerable groups and specifically prohibits housing prisoners based
solely on their sexual orientation or gender identity because it can lead to
demoralizing and dangerous labeling.
The Commission is also concerned about the effect of crowding on
efforts to protect vulnerable prisoners from sexual abuse. Crowded facilities are harder to supervise, and crowding systemwide makes it difficult to
carve out safe spaces for vulnerable prisoners that are less restrictive than
segregation. When Timothy Taylor was incarcerated in a Michigan prison,
internal assessments suggested that he was likely to be a target of sexual
abuse because of his small size—he was five feet tall and 120 pounds—
and diminished mental abilities, yet he was placed in a prison dormitory

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

to save bed space for new arrivals. Shortly thereafter, he was sexually assaulted by another prisoner.
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 19 States and the Federal system were operating at more than 100 percent of their highest capacity in 2007. An equal number of States operated at somewhere between 90
and 99 percent of capacity. When facilities operate at or beyond capacity,
prisoners also have fewer or no opportunities to participate in education,
job training, and other programming. Idleness and the stress of living in
crowded conditions often lead to conflict. Meaningful activities will not
end sexual abuse, but they are part of the solution. It is critical that lawmakers tackle the problem of overcrowding. If facilities and entire systems
are forced to operate beyond capacity and supervision is a pale shadow of
what it must be, our best efforts to identify and protect vulnerable individuals will be stymied.
Classification has evolved from little more than ad hoc decisions to
an increasingly objective, evidence-based process. Although knowledge
about the risk factors associated with sexual abuse is far from complete,
corrections administrators can identify and protect many vulnerable individuals from abuse.

Crowded facilities are harder
to supervise, and crowding
systemwide makes it difficult
to carve out safe spaces for
vulnerable prisoners that are
less restrictive than solitary
confinement and other
forms of segregation.

FINDING 4

Few correctional facilities are subject to the kind of
rigorous internal monitoring and external oversight that
would reveal why abuse occurs and how to prevent it.
Dramatic reductions in sexual abuse depend on both.

T

he most effective prevention efforts are targeted interventions that
reflect where, when, and under what conditions sexual abuse occurs. Sexual abuse incident reviews, as required under the Commission’s standards, produce the kind of information administrators need to
deploy staff wisely, safely manage high-risk areas, and develop more effective policies and procedures. A number of State departments of corrections
already conduct some type of review.
Correctional agencies also must collect uniform data on these incidents, including at least the data necessary to answer all questions on the
most recent version of the Bureau of Justice Statistics Survey on Sexual
Violence. In aggregate form, the data can reveal important patterns and
trends and must form the basis for corrective action plans that, along with
the aggregated data, are released to the public. Transparency is essential.
Even the most rigorous internal monitoring, however, is no substitute
for opening up correctional facilities to outside review. The Commission

E XECUTIVE SUMMARY

9

Even the most rigorous
internal monitoring is no
substitute for opening up
correctional facilities to
outside review.

10

requires detailed, robust audits of its standards by independent auditors at
least every 3 years. The auditor must be prequalified through the U.S. Department of Justice to perform audits competently and without bias. The
Commission recommends that the National Institute of Corrections design
and develop a national training program for auditors and that Congress
provide funding specifically for this purpose.
The Commission also supports external oversight beyond the mandatory audits. In particular, the Commission endorses the American Bar
Association’s 2006 resolution urging Federal, State, and territorial governments to establish independent public entities to regularly monitor and
report on the conditions in correctional facilities operating within their
jurisdiction. Oversight by inspectors general, ombudsmen, legislative committees, or other bodies would work hand-in-hand with regular audits of
the Commission’s standards.
Courts provide a crucial role, especially when other modes of oversight fail. Civil court cases can spark reforms reaching far beyond the individual plaintiffs to protect other prisoners. The Commission is convinced
that the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) that Congress enacted in
1996 has compromised the regulatory role of the courts and the ability of
incarcerated victims of sexual abuse to seek justice in court. Under the
PLRA, prisoners’ claims in court will be dismissed unless they have exhausted all “administrative remedies” available to them within the facility.
In testimony to a House Judiciary Subcommittee, Garrett Cunningham recalled, “At first, I didn’t dare tell anyone about the rape. . . . I would
have had to file a first prison grievance within 15 days [to begin the process of exhausting the facility’s administrative remedies]. . . . Even if I had
known, during those first 15 days, my only thoughts were about suicide
and. . . how to get myself into a safe place. . . so I would not be raped
again.” The Commission recommends that Congress amend two aspects
of the PLRA for victims of sexual abuse: the requirement that prisoners exhaust all internal administrative remedies before their claims can proceed
in court and the requirement to prove physical injury to receive compensatory damages, which fails to take into account the very real emotional
and psychological injuries that often follow sexual assault. In the meantime, correctional agencies must deem that victims of sexual abuse have
exhausted their administrative remedies within 90 days after the abuse is
reported—or within 48 hours in emergency situations—regardless of who
reports the incident and when it allegedly occurred.
Corrections administrators need robust mechanisms and systems
to monitor their facilities, identify problems, and implement reforms. They
must apply that discipline internally and accept it from outside. The very
nature of correctional environments demands that the government and
the public have multiple ways to watch over correctional settings and intervene when individuals are at risk.

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

FINDING 5

Many victims cannot safely and easily report
sexual abuse, and those who speak out often do so to no
avail. Reporting procedures must be improved to instill
confidence and protect individuals from retaliation
without relying on isolation. Investigations must be
thorough and competent. Perpetrators must be held
accountable through administrative sanctions and
criminal prosecution.

E

ven when prisoners are willing to report abuse, their accounts are
not necessarily taken seriously and communicated to appropriate
officials within the facility. “When I told one of the guards I trusted
how tired I was of putting up with abuse [by other youth in a Hawaii facility], he told me to just ignore it,” Cyryna Pasion told the Commission. According to a 2007 survey of youth in custody by the Texas State Auditor’s
Office, 65 percent of juveniles surveyed thought the grievance system did
not work.
Changing that dynamic begins by providing easy ways for individuals to report sexual abuse they have experienced or know about, backed
up by clear policies requiring staff and administrators to act on every allegation. Although some correctional systems and individual facilities have
made great strides in this area in recent years, the Commission’s standards
guarantee that all prisoners can easily report abuse, that staff are required
to report abuse, and that reports are taken seriously in every facility across
the country. A serious response to every report of sexual abuse is also the
best way to handle any false allegations.
Victims and witnesses often are bullied into silence and harmed
if they speak out. In a letter to the advocacy organization Just Detention
International, one prisoner conveyed a chilling threat she received from
the male officer who was abusing her: “Remember if you tell anyone anything, you’ll have to look over your shoulder for the rest of your life.” Efforts to promote reporting must be accompanied by policies and protocols
to protect victims and witnesses from retaliation. And because some incarcerated individuals will never be comfortable reporting abuse internally,
facilities must give prisoners the option of speaking confidentially with a
crisis center or other outside agency.
Facilities have a duty to thoroughly investigate every allegation of
sexual abuse without delay and to completion, regardless of whether or not
the alleged victim cooperates with investigators. Six years after the passage
of PREA, many statewide correctional systems and individual facilities now

E XECUTIVE SUMMARY

We need to create
correctional environments
in which prisoners feel safe
reporting sexual abuse
and are confident that
their allegations will be
investigated.

11

Many individuals
responsible for
investigating allegations
of sexual abuse lack the
training to be effective.
Unless investigations
produce compelling
evidence, corrections
administrators cannot
impose discipline,
prosecutors will not
indict, and juries will
not convict abusers.

12

have policies, protocols, and trained staff in place to investigate allegations
of sexual abuse. Yet there are still facilities—particularly those that confine
juveniles, those under the umbrella of community corrections, and smaller
jails—that lag behind in this crucial area. The Commission’s standard
establishing the duty to investigate is followed by a detailed standard to ensure the quality of investigations. Unless investigations produce compelling
evidence, corrections administrators cannot impose discipline, prosecutors
will not indict, and juries will not convict abusers.
In particular, when the sexual abuse has occurred recently and the
allegation is rape, facilities must offer female and male victims a forensic
exam by a specially trained professional. An evaluation of sexual assault
nurse examiner (SANE) programs published in 2003 by the National Institute of Justice found that they improve the quality of forensic evidence and
increase the ability of law enforcement to collect information, file charges,
and prosecute and convict perpetrators while also providing better emergency health care. Correctional facilities must also implement a protocol that dictates how to collect, maintain, and analyze physical evidence
and that stipulates the responsibilities of the forensic examiner and other
responders—drawing on “A National Protocol for Sexual Assault Medical
Forensic Examinations, Adults/Adolescents” created by the Department of
Justice in 2004 to improve investigations of sexual abuse in the community.
To facilitate the implementation of this standard, the Commission recommends that the Department of Justice adapt the protocol specifically for use
in correctional facilities nationwide.
The work of investigating sexual abuse in a correctional environment is complex, requiring skill and sensitivity. According to a report published in 2007 by the National Institute of Corrections, many sexual abuse
investigators are so unfamiliar with the dynamics inside a correctional
facility that they cannot operate effectively. Because the deficits in some
jurisdictions are so great, the Commission’s standard in this area requires
facilities to ensure that investigators are trained in up-to-date approaches
and specifies certain minimum training requirements. And whenever correctional agencies outsource investigations to local law enforcement agencies, they must attempt to forge a memorandum of understanding with the
agency specifying its role and responsibilities. Investigators do not work
alone; any report of sexual abuse in a correctional facility must also trigger
an immediate response from security staff; forensic, medical, and mental
health care practitioners; and the head of the facility. To meet the needs
of victims while conducting a thorough investigation, these professionals
must coordinate their efforts.
No national data have been collected on how often correctional
facilities investigate reported abuses, and there is no body of research
describing the quality of those investigations. But correctional facilities

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

substantiate allegations of sexual abuse at very low rates. According to the
Bureau of Justice Statistics, facilities substantiated just 17 percent of all
allegations of sexual violence, misconduct, and harassment investigated
in 2006. In 29 percent of the alleged incidents, investigators concluded
that sexual abuse did not occur. But in the majority of allegations (55
percent) investigators could not determine whether or not the abuse occurred. Substantiation rates in some states are considerably lower than the
rate nationally. Standards that mandate investigations and improve their
quality should increase the proportion of allegations in which the finding
is definitive and perpetrators can be held accountable.
Despite that fact that most incidents of sexual abuse constitute
a crime in all 50 States and under Federal law, very few perpetrators of
sexual abuse in correctional settings are prosecuted. Only a fraction of
cases are referred to prosecutors, and the Commission repeatedly heard
testimony that prosecutors decline most of these cases. Undoubtedly, some
investigations do not produce evidence capable of supporting a successful
prosecution. But other dynamics may be at play: some prosecutors may
not view incarcerated individuals as members of the community and as
deserving of their services as any other victim of crime.
Allegations of sexual abuse must also trigger an internal administrative investigation, and when the allegations are substantiated, the perpetrator must be disciplined. Until more cases are successfully prosecuted,
many inmate and staff perpetrators of serious sexual abuse will be subject
only to administrative discipline, making sanctions especially important.
Individuals conducting administrative investigations must base their conclusions on what the “preponderance of the evidence” shows—a standard
less stringent than that required to convict someone of a crime but adequate to protect individuals from being labeled as perpetrators and sanctioned internally without cause.
Sanctions must be fair, consistent, and sufficiently tough to deter
abuse. It is crucial that labor and management reach agreements that allow reassigning officers during an investigation when safety is at issue
and appropriate sanctions for staff perpetrators. Prisoners should never be
punished for sexual contact with staff, even if the encounter was allegedly
consensual. The power imbalance between staff and prisoners vitiates the
possibility of meaningful consent, and the threat of punishment would
deter prisoners from reporting sexual misconduct by staff.
Everyone who engages in sexual abuse in a correctional setting
must be held accountable for their actions. There has been too little
accountability for too long. The Commission’s standards in these areas
encourage incarcerated individuals and staff to report abuse and require
correctional facilities to protect those who speak out, conduct effective
investigations, and ensure appropriate punishment.

E XECUTIVE SUMMARY

Until more cases are
successfully prosecuted,
abusers will be subject
only to administrative
discipline, making it especially
important for these sanctions
to be fair and sufficiently
tough to deter abuse.

13

FINDING 6

Victims are unlikely to receive the treatment and
support known to minimize the trauma of abuse.
Correctional facilities need to ensure immediate and
ongoing access to medical and mental health care and
supportive services.

A
The psychological effects
of sexual abuse can
re-traumatize victims for
years following an assault,
and studies show that
victims have more physical
health problems than nonabused individuals.

14

s corrections administrators work to create a protective environment
in the facilities they manage, they also have a legal duty to ensure
that when systems fail and abuse occurs, victims have access to appropriate medical and mental health services. Healing from sexual abuse is
difficult; without adequate treatment, recovery may never occur.
Although sexual abuse typically leaves few visible scars, most victims report persistent, if not lifelong, mental and physical repercussions.
After Sunday Daskalea was abused on multiple occasions by staff and
other inmates in the District of Columbia jail, she became crippled by fear
and anxiety. She slept only during the day, afraid of what might happen to
her at night. Even after being released, Daskalea suffered from insomnia,
struggled with eating disorders, and spent months emotionally debilitated,
withdrawn and depressed. At age 18, Chance Martin was sexually abused
while incarcerated in the Lake County Jail in Crown Point, Indiana. “I’ve
abused drugs and alcohol and tried to kill myself on the installment plan,”
Martin told the Commission.
The psychological aftereffects of sexual abuse are well documented. They include posttraumatic stress disorder, anxiety disorders, fear of
loud noises or sudden movements, panic attacks, and intense flashbacks
to the traumatic event. Each of these consequences alone has the ability to
re-traumatize victims for years. The trauma can also lead to serious medical conditions, including cardiovascular disease, ulcers, and a weakened
immune system. Studies indicate that sexual abuse victims have poorer
physical functioning in general and more physical ailments than nonabused individuals, even after controlling for emotional disturbances such
as depression. In addition, many victims are physically injured during the
course of a sexual assault. A study of incarcerated men showed that more
than half of all sexual assaults resulted in physical injury. Moreover, the
study found that internal injuries and being knocked unconscious were
more common outcomes of sexual abuse than of other violent encounters
in prison.
Exposure to HIV and other sexually transmitted infections are other potential consequences of sexual abuse. Michael Blucker tested negative for HIV when he was admitted to the Menard Correctional Center in
Illinois, but approximately 1 year later, after being raped multiple times by

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

other prisoners, he tested positive. According to testimony before the Commission, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) lacks data
to assess the extent to which sex in correctional facilities, whether rape or
consensual, contributes to the high prevalence of HIV in prisons and jails.
One CDC study did find that individuals in confinement may contract HIV
in a variety of ways, including sexual contact.
Because of the disproportionate representation of minority men and
women in correctional settings, it is likely that the spread of these diseases
in confinement would have an even greater impact in minority communities. As such, the Commission recommends that Congress provide funding
to appropriate entities for research into whether consensual and/or nonconsensual sexual activity in the correctional system plays a role in infecting populations outside of corrections with HIV/AIDS and other sexually
transmitted infections.
It has been more than three decades since the Supreme Court established in Estelle v. Gamble that deliberate indifference to the health of prisoners is a form of cruel and unusual punishment. Since then, correctional
agencies have struggled, and sometimes failed with tragic results, to meet
the medical and mental health care needs of a large and often ill prisoner
population. Correctional health care is underfunded nearly everywhere,
and most facilities are in dire need of additional skilled and compassionate
health care practitioners. Recently, independent researchers analyzed the
Bureau of Justice Statistics’ 2002 survey of jail inmates and 2004 survey of
State and Federal prisoners and found that many prisoners with persistent
problems had never been examined by a health care professional in the
facility where they were incarcerated. The failing was much worse in jails
than in prisons: 68 percent of jail inmates with medical problems reported
never being examined, compared with 14 percent of Federal prisoners and
20 percent of State prisoners.
Given the potentially severe and long-lasting medical and mental
health consequences of sexual abuse, facilities must ensure that victims
have unimpeded access to emergency treatment and crisis intervention
and to ongoing health care for as long as necessary—care that matches
what is generally acceptable to medical and mental health care professionals. Because some victims feel pressure to conceal abuse, all health care
practitioners must have the training to know when a prisoner’s mental or
physical health problems might indicate that abuse has occurred.
Health care practitioners working in correctional facilities, like all
staff, have a duty to report any indications of sexual abuse and must alert
prisoners about their duty before providing treatment. Confidential treatment
is not in the best interest of the victim or the safety of the facility. At the
same time, they must provide care regardless of whether the victim names
the perpetrator. Without such a policy, sexual abuse victims may decide that
the risk of retaliation is too great and choose not to seek treatment.

E XECUTIVE SUMMARY

Correctional health care
is underfunded nearly
everywhere, and most
facilities are in dire need
of additional skilled and
compassionate health
care practitioners.

15

Victims are entitled to
treatment whether or not
they name the perpetrator
of the abuse.

Because some victims will never feel comfortable or safe disclosing
their experience of sexual abuse to a corrections employee, agencies must
give prisoners information about how to contact victim advocates and other support services in the community—underscoring that their communications will be private and confidential to the extent permitted by law.
Collaborations with community-based service providers can also increase
the likelihood that victims of sexual abuse are supported as they transition
from a correctional facility back to their home communities.
For some victims of sexual abuse, cost may be a barrier to treatment. In the majority of States, legislatures have passed laws authorizing
correctional agencies to charge prisoners for medical care—fees as little as
$5 that are beyond the means of many prisoners. Under the Commission’s
standards, agencies must provide emergency care to victims of sexual
abuse free of charge. Additionally, the Commission encourages correctional systems to define common and persistent aftereffects of sexual abuse as
chronic conditions and to exempt them from fees.
Financial barriers to treatment come in other forms, as well. Guidelines for distributing funds provided under the Victims of Crime Act
(VOCA) prohibit serving any incarcerated persons, including victims of
sexual abuse. Similarly, grants administered under the Violence Against
Women Act (VAWA) cannot be used to assist anyone convicted of domestic or dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking. All survivors of sexual
abuse need and deserve treatment and support services. The Commission
recommends that the VOCA grant guidelines be changed and that Congress amend VAWA.
Unimpeded access to treatment by qualified medical and mental
health care practitioners and collaboration with outside providers are critical to ensuring that victims of sexual abuse can begin to heal.

FINDING 7

Juveniles in confinement are much more likely than
incarcerated adults to be sexually abused, and they
are particularly at risk when confined with adults. To
be effective, sexual abuse prevention, investigation,
and treatment must be tailored to the developmental
capacities and needs of youth.

A

daily snapshot of juveniles in custody in 2006 showed that approximately 93,000 youth were confined in juvenile residential facilities in the United States and more than half of them were 16
years or younger. Preventing, detecting, and responding to sexual abuse in

16

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

these facilities demands age-appropriate interventions. The Commission’s
set of standards for juvenile facilities parallels those for adult prisons and
jails, with modifications to reflect the developmental capacities and needs
of youth.
When the State exercises custodial authority over children, “its responsibility to act in the place of parents (in loco parentis) obliges it to take
special care.” Youth may pass through the justice system once or twice,
never to return. Yet if they are sexually abused, they may live with lifelong
consequences that can include persistent mental illness and tendencies
toward substance abuse and criminality. Juvenile justice agencies thus
have a responsibility and a challenge: prevent sexual abuse now, or risk
long-term consequences for victims.
Rates of sexual abuse appear to be much higher for confined youth
than they are for adult prisoners. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics
(BJS), the rate of sexual abuse in adult facilities, based only on substantiated allegations captured in facility records, was 2.91 per 1,000 incarcerated prisoners in 2006. The parallel rate in juvenile facilities was more
than five times greater: 16.8 per 1,000. The actual extent of sexual abuse in
residential facilities is still unknown. BJS is currently conducting the first
nationally representative survey of confined youth.
Juveniles are ill-equipped to respond to sexual advances by older,
more experienced youth or adult caretakers. Based on reports of rampant
physical violence and sexual abuse in a juvenile correctional facility in
Plainfield, Indiana, the U.S. Department of Justice began investigating
conditions of confinement in 2004. Investigators were shocked by the age
and size disparity between many of the youth involved. Youth as old as 18
were assaulting or coercing children as young as 12; children weighing as
little as 70 pounds were sexually abused by youth outweighing them by
100 pounds.
Simply being female is a risk factor. Girls are disproportionately represented among sexual abuse victims. According to data collected by BJS in
2005–2006, 36 percent of all victims in substantiated incidents of sexual violence were female, even though girls represented only 15 percent of confined
youth in 2006. And they are much more at risk of abuse by staff than by their
peers. Pervasive misconduct at a residential facility for girls in Chalkville,
Alabama, beginning in 1994 and continuing through 2001, led 49 girls to
bring charges that male staff had fondled, raped, and sexually harassed
them. Abusive behavior is not limited to male staff. In 2005, the Department
of Justice found that numerous female staff in an Oklahoma juvenile facility
for boys had sexual relations with the youth under their care.
Youth are also vulnerable to sexual victimization while under juvenile justice supervision in the community. Nearly half (48 percent) of the
more than 1.1 million youth who received some juvenile court sanction in
2005 were placed under the supervision of State, local, or county probation

E XECUTIVE SUMMARY

Youth who are sexually
abused may live with
lifelong consequences
that can include
persistent mental illness
and tendencies toward
substance abuse and
criminality.

17

Simply being female is a
risk factor: girls are over
represented among young
victims of sexual abuse.

18

officers or counselors. A 50-year-old man who had served as a youth probation officer for 11 years with the Oregon Youth Authority was convicted of
sexually abusing boys in his care, including a 14-year-old mentally disabled
boy with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Victims and their families
had complained for years about this officer, but officials took no action.
Staff training and supervision are crucial. Staff need to understand
the distinctive nature of sexual abuse involving children and teens and its
potential consequences. Their responsibilities—including a duty to report
any information about abuse—must be clear, and they must be informed
that they will be held accountable for their actions and omissions. Administrators must uphold these policies and ensure that every report of abuse
is promptly investigated.
Although research has yet to pinpoint the characteristics of youth
who are at greatest risk of being victimized or perpetrating sexual abuse in
juvenile facilities, many of the factors associated with vulnerability to sexual abuse among adults also appear to place juveniles at risk. In addition to
screening all youth, facilities can take a simple step to protect youth from
sexual abuse: encourage all residents during intake to tell staff if they fear
being abused. This message, combined with affirmative statements about
the facility’s commitment to safety and zero tolerance of sexual abuse,
makes it more likely that vulnerable youth will seek protection when they
need it—before an assault occurs. Youth may be segregated only as a last
resort and for short periods of time when less restrictive measures are inadequate to keep them safe.
Reducing sexual abuse also requires creating conditions that encourage youth to report abuse. Internal reporting procedures must be
simple and secure; victims and witnesses must have unimpeded access to
their families, attorneys, or other legal representatives; and facilities must
provide parents and lawyers with information about the rights of residents
and internal grievance procedures. Because many youth fail to recognize
certain coercive and harmful behaviors as “abuse,” juvenile facilities must
improve sexual education programs and sexual abuse prevention curricula.
Youth who perpetrate sexual violence in juvenile facilities present
a challenge for facility administrators who must apply developmentally
appropriate interventions. They may need treatment as much as, or more
than, punishment. Studies have shown that youth who commit sexual
offenses typically have a history of severe family problems. Correctional
medical and mental health practitioners must be trained to recognize the
signs of sexual abuse and to provide age-appropriate treatment. And because young victims may lack the confidence to seek help from corrections
staff, they must have access to victim advocates in the community to ensure that they are not left without support and treatment.
More than any other group of incarcerated persons, youth incarcerated with adults are probably at the highest risk for sexual abuse.

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

According to BJS, 7.7 percent of all victims in substantiated incidents of
violence perpetrated by prisoners in adult facilities in 2005 were under
the age of 18. Data collected by BJS in 2006 show that on any given day,
almost 8,500 youth under the age of 18 are confined with adults in prisons
and jails. Civil rights attorney Deborah LaBelle told the Commission that
80 percent of the 420 boys sentenced to life without parole in Michigan,
Illinois, and Missouri reported that, within the first year of their sentence,
they had been sexually assaulted by at least one adult male prisoner. Because of the extreme risk of sexual victimization for youth in adult facilities, the Commission urges that individuals under the age of 18 be held
separately from the general population.
The Commission’s inquiry into the sexual abuse of youth in juvenile justice and adult corrections has revealed disturbing information
about its prevalence, gravity, and consequences. Hope lies in the fact that
necessary precautions and remedies are clear and rehabilitation remains a
guiding principle in the field of juvenile justice.

FINDING 8

Individuals under correctional supervision in the
community, who outnumber prisoners by more than
two to one, are at risk of sexual abuse. The nature and
consequences of the abuse are no less severe, and it
jeopardizes the likelihood of their successful reentry.

B

y the end of 2007, there were more than 5.1 million adults under
correctional supervision in the community, either on probation
or parole, and the numbers are growing. They too are at risk of
sexual abuse. As both Federal and State governments attempt to reduce
incarceration costs in the face of looming deficits, the number of individuals under some form of community supervision—before, after, or in lieu
of confinement—is likely to rise. Despite the number of individuals under
supervision in the community, there is a lack of research on this population, and responses to PREA have been slow to take root in this area of
corrections. The Commission has developed a full set of standards governing community corrections.
Community corrections encompasses a diverse array of agencies,
facilities, and supervision structures on the Federal, State, and local levels.
Supervision can occur in halfway houses, prerelease centers, treatment
facilities, and other residential settings. Nonresidential supervision can
include probation, parole, pretrial supervision, court-mandated substance
abuse treatment, court diversionary programs, day-reporting centers,

E XECUTIVE SUMMARY

Community corrections
agencies, just like prisons
and jails, have a special
responsibility to protect the
individuals they supervise
from sexual abuse.

19

Drawing and maintaining
boundaries is a challenge
even for community
corrections staff with the
best intentions, and the
autonomous nature of their
work makes it easier to
conceal sexual misconduct.

20

community service programs, probation before judgment, furloughs, electronic monitoring, and home detention.
As in other correctional settings, courts have found that sexual
abuse in community corrections violates the Eighth Amendment of the
U.S. Constitution prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment. As a result,
community corrections agencies, like prisons and jails, have a special
responsibility to protect the people they supervise. Courts also have determined that the authority staff have over the individuals they monitor
makes a truly consensual sexual relationship impossible. Community corrections agencies are accountable for sexual abuse incidents, regardless of
whether the circumstances in which the abuse occurred were under the
direct control of the agency or a separate organization working under contract with the agency. Anyone in a supervisory position can be held liable
for abuse. For example, in Smith v. Cochran, Pamela Smith was in jail but
participating in a work release program. Her supervisor on the job sexually
assaulted her, and the court ruled that important “penological responsibilities” had been delegated to him.
Although individuals under correctional supervision in the community may experience sexual abuse at the hands of other supervisees,
the dynamics of supervision make them particularly vulnerable to abuse
by staff. Coercion and threats carry great weight because individuals under supervision are typically desperate to avoid being incarcerated. Staff
also have virtually unlimited access to the individuals they supervise,
sometimes in private and intimate settings. In Ramsey County, Minnesota, for example, a male community corrections officer visiting a former
prisoner’s apartment to discuss her failure in a drug treatment program
instead requested and had sex with her.
The diverse roles and obligations of staff present risks. They operate
as enforcement officers in the interest of public safety and also function as
counselors and social workers. Drawing and maintaining boundaries is a
challenge even for staff with the best intentions. Moreover, because community corrections staff operate with significantly less direct supervision
than their counterparts in secure facilities, it is easier for them to conceal
sexual misconduct. Clear policies rooted in an ethic of zero tolerance for
sexual abuse coupled with good training can mitigate these dangers by
giving staff the direction, knowledge, and skills they need to maintain
appropriate relationships with the individuals they supervise. Of course,
preventing sexual abuse begins with hiring the right staff.
Although community corrections agencies face significant challenges in preventing abuse, they may have advantages in responding
to victims. By definition, community corrections agencies tend to have
access to skilled professionals and other resources that are beyond the
reach of many secure correctional facilities, especially prisons sited in remote locations. For example, coordinated sexual assault response teams,

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

widely recognized as an optimal way to respond to incidents of sexual abuse, exist in many communities and may be available to partner
with local correctional agencies. Partnerships with victim advocates and
counselors in the community also ensure that people under correctional
supervision are able to disclose abuse and receive treatment confidentially, if they so choose. Some individuals under supervision will disclose
abuse that occurred while they were incarcerated. Agencies must report
past abuse to the facilities where the abuse occurred. This is necessary
to trigger an investigation and also to improve the accuracy of facility
records and provide insights on reasons incarcerated victims of sexual
abuse remain silent.
The mission of community corrections is centered on helping offenders establish productive and law-abiding lives. Protecting them from
sexual abuse and helping victims recover from past abuses is an essential
part of that mission.

FINDING 9

A large and growing number of detained immigrants are
at risk of sexual abuse. Their heightened vulnerability
and unusual circumstances require special interventions.

P

reventing, detecting, and responding to sexual abuse of immigrants
in custody require special measures not included in the Commission’s standards for correctional facilities. These measures are contained in a set of supplemental standards that apply to any facility that
houses individuals detained solely because their right to remain in the
United States is in question. The Commission’s work in this area advances
efforts by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to protect detainees from sexual abuse.
In the 15 years from 1994 to 2009, the number of immigrants held
in detention pending a judicial decision about their legal right to remain in
the United States increased nearly 400 percent. For the 2009 fiscal year, ICE
has budgeted enough money to detain 33,400 people on any given night
and more than 400,000 people over the course of the year. The population
of immigration detainees includes adults, thousands of “unaccompanied”
children, and whole families confined together.
The prevalence of sexual abuse among immigration detainees is
unknown and has yet to receive the attention and research it merits, but
accounts of abuse by other detainees and staff have been coming to light
for more than 20 years. Many factors—personal and circumstantial, alone
or in combination—make immigration detainees especially vulnerable to

E XECUTIVE SUMMARY

For the 2009 fiscal year, ICE
expects to detain 33,400
people on any given night
and more than 400,000
over the course of the year.

21

The fear of deportation
is a tool in the hands
of abusive officers,
both to coerce sex and
to silence victims.

22

sexual abuse. One of the most pervasive factors is social isolation. Individuals are often confined far from family or friends and may not speak
the language of other detainees or staff. Those who have already suffered
terrifying experiences in their home countries or in the United States can
be almost defenseless by the time they are detained and may even expect
to be abused.
Preventing abuse requires precautions beyond those mandated for
other prisoners. In particular, when immigration detainees are confined in
ordinary prisons, jails, and lockups—a common practice—they must be
housed apart from the general population, but they should not be placed
in segregation. Depending on the conditions in protective custody cells
and units, the experience can enhance the feeling of aloneness already
common among immigration detainees and lead to depression and other
problems.
Families who are in ICE custody are currently detained in several
facilities in the United States. Stays are not always brief: women with children, including babies and toddlers, may be detained for days, weeks, or
even months. In testimony before a congressional subcommittee on immigration, Texas Representative Sheila Jackson noted that families in these
facilities often are “deprived of the right to live as a family unit, denied
adequate medical and mental health care, and face overly harsh disciplinary tactics.” Facilities face the challenge of protecting residents of all ages
from sexual abuse while also preserving family unity. One specific challenge is ensuring that both adults and children can report sexual abuse
in a confidential manner, which is especially important for situations in
which children are at risk of abuse within the family unit.
Because immigration detainees are confined by the agency with the
power to deport them, officers have an astounding degree of leverage—
especially when detainees are not well informed of their rights and lack
access to legal counsel. The Commission learned that officers have propositioned women whose cases they control, telling them that if they want to
be released they need to comply with their sexual demands. The fear of deportation cannot be overstated and also functions to silence many individuals who are sexually abused. Those brave enough to speak out may face
retaliation. After women detainees at the Krome immigration detention
facility in Miami reported sexual abuse by staff, several of them wrote,
“We are afraid. . . each time one of us is interviewed by investigating
officers. . . . [S]ome of the women who have given statements have either
been transferred or deported to their countries.” Transfers can completely
derail the complaint process, which has lasting consequences for victims
who may be eligible for a special visa to remain in the United States. When
staff cannot protect victims and witnesses in the facility where the abuse
occurred, ICE must consider releasing and monitoring them in the community during the course of the investigation.

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

There also are institutional barriers that block or discourage victims and witnesses from reporting abuse. Grievance procedures can seem
impossibly complex, especially for detainees who speak languages other
than English or Spanish. A 2006 audit by the U.S. Department of Homeland
Security’s Office of the Inspector General revealed that detainees often do
not receive information on reporting abuse and other grievances in a language they can understand.
Although detainees have periodic contact with immigration judges,
those judges have no jurisdiction over the conditions of their detention.
Even advocacy groups in the local community may lack the language skills
and cultural competency to assist them. Detainees need access to outside
entities able and authorized to receive and respond to reports of sexual
abuse. Specifically, facilities must provide immigration detainees with access to telephones with free, preprogrammed numbers to ICE’s Office for
Civil Rights and Civil Liberties and to the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of the Inspector General. They also must have access to telephones to contact diplomatic or consular personnel from their countries of
citizenship, along with a list of those phone numbers.
Detainees who are victims of sexual abuse also need a lifeline to
outside organizations with experience counseling immigrant victims of
crime and assurances that their communications with outside advocates
are confidential to the extent permitted by law. At the same time, facilities must still ensure that their own staff have the training to respond in
culturally appropriate ways to sexual abuse.
Protection for all immigration detainees and services for victims of
sexual abuse are not what they should be. And little is known about this
fast-growing area of confinement, one in which preventing, detecting, and
responding to sexual abuse is especially challenging.

More than other incarcerated
victims of sexual abuse,
immigration detainees depend
on outside entities for help—
from consulates to counselors
who specialize in assisting
immigrant victims of crime.

T

he Commission sunsets 60 days following the submission of its report and standards to Congress, the President, the Attorney General,
and other Federal and State officials. The real work of implementation begins then, particularly on the part of the Attorney General and his
staff. Within a year of receiving the Commission’s report and standards,
the Attorney General is required to promulgate national standards for
the detection, prevention, reduction, and punishment of detention facility
sexual abuse.
The Commission recommends that the Attorney General establish
a PREA Advisory Committee pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee
Act of 1972. The purpose of the Advisory Committee is to assist the Attorney General with the promulgation of the PREA standards and thereafter
assess their implementation and propose amendments as needed to increase their efficacy. The Commission also recommends that the Attorney

E XECUTIVE SUMMARY

23

The Commission has seen
ideas transformed
into actions that
have the potential to
improve safety. This is
just the beginning.

24

General create a full-time Special Assistant for PREA within the Office of
the Deputy Attorney General. The Special Assistant would have primary
responsibility for ensuring the implementation of the standards as central
to the national effort of eliminating prison rape.
PREA represents a sea change in public consciousness and in national commitment to protecting individuals under correctional supervision
from sexual abuse. Already, the Commission has seen ideas transformed
into actions that by all accounts have the potential to improve safety. This
is just the beginning. When the Attorney General issues mandatory standards, they will accelerate the pace of reform and ensure that the same
fundamental protections are available in every correctional and detention
setting. Our obligations, both moral and legal, require nothing less.

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

Introduction

S

exual abuse is among the most destructive of crimes, brutal and
devastating in the moment and carrying the potential to haunt
victims forever. In the recent past, our society often blamed victims of sexual abuse for being attacked, and many perpetrators
were not held accountable. Americans now recognize sexual abuse as a violent crime with life-changing consequences. Yet the public has been slow
to incorporate that perspective into its understanding of sexual violence in
correctional environments. Many still consider sexual abuse an expected
consequence of incarceration, part of the penalty and the basis for jokes;
some people doubt that incarcerated victims of sexual abuse experience
trauma or terror and may even believe they are willing participants in the
assaults against them.
In reality, sexual abuse in correctional environments is a serious
concern with dire consequences, especially for victims. Individuals confined in correctional facilities or under supervision in the community must
be protected from sexual predators. They do not relinquish their fundamental human rights when they are incarcerated or otherwise constrained.
They still have the right to be treated in a manner consistent with basic
human dignity, the right to personal safety, and the right to justice if they
become victims of crime. Prisons, jails, and other correctional environments are part of the justice system, not apart from it.
More than 7.3 million Americans are in prison, jail, a residential
facility for adults or juveniles, or supervised in the community, at a cost of
more than $68 billion annually. These numbers reflect America’s increased
reliance in recent decades on incarceration as a criminal justice tool. This
tough-on-crime approach was intended to improve public safety, and some
would argue that declining crime rates demonstrate its success. However,
it has also resulted in the largest prison population in the world and has
stretched correctional resources to their limits.
Our society depends on correctional agencies to protect the public
from dangerous individuals, to punish those who engage in criminal activity, and—most important for public safety in the long term—to change
negative patterns of behavior among the incarcerated and supervised.

INTRODUCTION

1980

Congress passes the Civil Rights
of Institutionalized Persons Act,
authorizing the U.S. Attorney General
to investigate and litigate abusive
conditions of confinement in Federal,
State, and local facilities.

1984

Filing of Cason v. Seckinger. One of
the first contemporary court cases
to address widespread abuse of
women prisoners by staff, it compelled
significant reforms in Georgia.

1985

Activist and abuse survivor Stephen
Donaldson becomes president of
Stop Prisoner Rape. Renamed Just
Detention International in 2008,
it is the only organization in the
United States dedicated exclusively
to eliminating sexual violence in
detention.

1994

In Farmer v. Brennan, the U.S. Supreme
Court rules that corrections officials
have a legal duty to protect prisoners
from sexual abuse.

1994

In Women Prisoners of District of
Columbia Dept. of Corrections v. District
of Columbia, the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia finds that
a widespread pattern and practice
of sexual abuse of women inmates
violates the Eighth Amendment of the
U.S. Constitution.

1996

The National Institute of Corrections
begins working with corrections
administrators to reduce staff sexual
misconduct.

1996

The Journal of Sex Research publishes
“Sexual Coercion Reported by Men
and Women in Prison.”

1996

Human Rights Watch publishes All Too
Familiar: Sexual Abuse of Women in
U.S. State Prisons, detailing sexual abuse
in the District of Columbia, Michigan,
and Georgia.

1997

The U.S. Department of Justice sues
the State of Arizona and intervenes
in women prisoner cases in Michigan
to challenge pervasive sexual abuse of
women prisoners during cross-gender
pat downs. Consent judgments the
following year create moratoriums on
cross-gender pat downs of women in
both States.

25

1999

The Association of State Correctional
Administrators passes a resolution
strongly encouraging each of its
member agencies to adopt and
enforce policies prohibiting all forms
of staff sexual misconduct.

1999

In Lucas v. White, three female inmates
are awarded $500,000 in damages after
male staff at a Federal prison “sold
them as slaves.” The case prompted
the Federal Bureau of Prisons to issue
Sexual Abuse/Assault Prevention and
Intervention, A System Response and
Agency Plan.

2000

A coalition of religious and human
rights groups organized by Michael
Horowitz of the Hudson Institute
presses for a Federal law to address the
sexual abuse of prisoners.

2001

Human Rights Watch publishes No
Escape: Male Rape in U.S. Prisons.

2002

Stop Prisoner Rape mobilizes 100
advocacy organizations to halt a 7UP®
commercial that jokes about prison
rape.

2002

Beginning in July 2002 and
continuing through April 2003,
Congress holds hearings on a
“Prison Rape Reduction Act.”

2003

The American Jail Association
passes a resolution to support the
implementation of policies that
prohibit staff sexual misconduct.

2003

On September 4, President Bush
signs the Prison Rape Elimination
Act.

2004

The National Institute of Corrections
launches an intensive training and
technical assistance program under
PREA.

2004

The National Institute of Justice
launches a series of research
publications in response to PREA,
beginning with Prison Rape: A Critical
Review of the Literature.

2004

The newly appointed members
of the National Prison Rape
Elimination Commission hold their
first meeting in July.

26

Institutional violence and sexual abuse in particular undermine the very
purposes of corrections. They make facilities less safe for everyone, they
consume scarce resources, and their consequences extend into our cities
and towns as 95 percent of all prisoners are one day released.
Congress affirmed the duty to protect incarcerated individuals from
sexual abuse by enacting the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003, taking
the first national step toward a new understanding of the problem. Supported by the work of advocacy groups from diverse perspectives and political positions, the House and Senate voted unanimously to pass the Act.
As part of that work, Congress created the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission to study the causes and consequences of sexual abuse in
confinement and to develop standards for eliminating abuse.

S

ince its formation, the Commission has convened public hearings and committees of experts around the country. Corrections
leaders, survivors of abuse, health care providers, researchers,
legal experts, advocates, and academics shared their knowledge
and experience with the Commission. We conducted a thorough review of
the existing literature and tasked others to conduct new studies to resolve
some of the unanswered questions about causality and intervention.
At the center of this work was our effort to develop standards to
prevent, detect, and punish sexual abuse in all correctional settings. The
Commission customized these standards to address the specific circumstances under which sexual abuse occurs in facilities for juveniles, in the
growing field of community corrections, and among immigrants detained
in the course of removal proceedings. Persons on probation and parole
or otherwise supervised in the community, either before or after their
criminal case is adjudicated, are within the scope of the standards, which
encompass staff sexual misconduct and sexual abuse between prisoners.
Although the issue of prisoners sexually assaulting staff is a serious matter, it is not included within the statutory mandate of PREA and thus is not
addressed directly in the Commission’s standards or report. However, the
Commission believes that our standards and the requirements they outline
to protect prisoners from sexual abuse will also make institutions and individual staff members safer.
The Commission consulted informally with Native American leaders and heard distressing testimony at a public hearing about the conditions of tribal detention facilities (those operated by the Bureau of Indian
Affairs and other facilities where Native Americans are detained). Correctional facilities in Indian Country are certainly within PREA’s ambit.
However, the time-consuming work of consulting with numerous and
diverse sovereign nations and entities posed an insurmountable challenge. We encourage Native American leaders to adapt the standards to

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

their cultures and communities. The Commission also hopes that military
detention facilities funded by the Federal Government and correctional
facilities in the territories will implement similar standards to protect prisoners from sexual abuse.
Two 60-day periods of public comment proved to be critical junctures in the development of the standards. The Commission received written comments from more than 225 institutions, entities, and individuals.
Additionally, both during and after the periods of public comment, we
convened a series of roundtable discussions involving key stakeholders,
including representatives of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, associations of
corrections professionals, diverse advocacy groups, law enforcement associations, large and small correctional facilities, community corrections
agencies, and survivors of sexual abuse. In the course of these discussions,
participants conveyed their particular concerns and offered important and
useful suggestions for refining the standards.
During the public comment period, the Commission also conducted
a Standards Implementation Needs Assessment (SINA) project. The Commission used the SINA process to elicit feedback on the standards through
a series of “case studies” at particular facilities. More than 40 facilities
from around the country applied to participate in the SINA process; the
Commission selected 11 sites that reflected differences in capacity, populations, and geographic settings and that included jails and prisons; facilities
for men, women, and juveniles; and community corrections facilities. Each
site visit took place over 1-and-a-half days and included a facility tour and
five structured interviews: one with the warden or superintendent, the
others with small groups discussing general issues, training, medical and
mental health, and investigations. With the exception of the meeting with
the warden or superintendent, interviews involved a variety of staff with
experience relevant to the particular interview topic.
The specific practical advice and constructive feedback we received
throughout the standards review process were extremely useful and resulted in significant and substantial revisions. One outstanding area of concern was the anticipated cost of some changes required by the standards
as originally drafted. Although concerns about cost are understandable,
Congress, State legislatures, and county and city officials must provide
adequate resources to ensure safe correctional and detention facilities. The
Commission acknowledges that this is a formidable task, especially in the
current economic climate. From the outset, we have been mindful of the
statutory prohibition against recommending standards that would impose
substantial additional costs compared to current expenditures. With the
assistance of information provided during the public comment period, the
Commission attempted to further limit potential new costs and to shape
realistic standards that represent what is minimally required to meet Congress’ mandate to eliminate sexual abuse in confinement.

INTRODUCTION

2004

The American Correctional
Association begins to adopt sexual
abuse accreditation standards in
response to PREA.

2004

The Bureau of Justice Assistance issues
the first grants to States to support
PREA reforms, ultimately providing
funding to 34 States and one territory.

2004

In Everson v. Michigan Department of
Corrections, a Federal appeals court
approves barring male staff from
supervising women prisoners to
protect privacy and prevent custodial
sexual abuse.

2005

The Office of the Inspector General
for the U.S. Department of Justice
publishes Special Report: Deterring Staff
Sexual Abuse of Federal Inmates.

2005

On March 31, the Commission
holds its first public meeting at
the University of Notre Dame Law
School in Indiana to discuss the
issue of prison sexual violence.

2005

On June 14, the Commission holds
a hearing in Washington, D.C.,
examining the cost of victimization
and why the country must confront
prison rape.

2005

The Bureau of Justice Statistics
publishes Sexual Violence Reported by
Correctional Authorities, 2004, the first
national look at reported incidents of
sexual violence in custody. Updates for
adult prison and jail populations were
published in 2006 and 2007.

2005

On August 19, the Commission
holds a hearing in San Francisco on
vulnerable populations at risk of
sexual abuse.

2005

The California legislature passes the
Sexual Abuse in Detention Elimination
Act, the first state law corollary to
PREA.

2006

On March 23, the Commission
holds a hearing in Miami exploring
how corrections professionals view
prison rape.

2006

The National Sheriffs’ Association
passes a resolution encouraging
sheriffs to vigorously enforce explicit
policies prohibiting all forms of sexual
harassment and abuse between jail
staff and detainees.

27

2006

The Vermont legislature criminalizes
staff sexual abuse of persons in
custody, the last State to do so.

2006

On June 1, the Commission holds
a hearing in Boston on juveniles at
risk of sexual abuse.

2006

A scandal at the Tallahassee Federal
Correctional Institution involving
officers allegedly smuggling
contraband to prisoners in exchange
for money and sex gains national
attention when a corrections officer
shoots and kills a U.S. Department of
Justice Special Agent serving arrest
warrants at the facility.

2006

On August 3, the Commission holds
a hearing in Detroit on reporting,
investigating, and prosecuting
prison rape.

2006

December 13–14, the Commission
holds a hearing in Los Angeles
exploring staffing and labor
relations as well as sexual abuse in
immigration facilities.

2007

The Texas legislature forms a
committee to investigate widespread
sexual abuse in the Texas Youth
Commission (TYC), ultimately
discovering hundreds of allegations by
youth against staff and implementing
reforms that included creating multiple
external mechanisms to oversee the
TYC.

2007

March 26–27, the Commission
holds a hearing in Austin to
examine lockups, detention
facilities for Native Americans, and
conditions in correctional facilities
in Texas for adults and juveniles.

2007

Beginning in November 2007 and
continuing throughout 2008, the
Commission holds roundtable
discussions with corrections
professionals and a wide range of
other interested groups.

Many of the requirements set forth in the standards reflect basic
obligations already mandated by existing laws on the health and safety of
confined persons, and many correctional systems and facilities currently
meet those mandates. To the extent that the standards create new costs,
those expenditures are necessary to fulfill the requirements outlined in
PREA. And those costs are not substantial when compared to the significance of lives damaged or destroyed by sexual abuse and the broader costs
of undermining the purposes of corrections in America.

T

he Commissioners invite readers of this final report to consider
what we discovered about sexual abuse in confinement. Our core
findings open each chapter. What follows is a discussion of the
facts that led us to reach that conclusion and to formulate specific
standards to ameliorate that aspect of the problem. The nine chapters are
grouped into three parts, beginning with a look at the prevalence and nature of sexual abuse and broad strategies to prevent abuse, ranging from
leadership, to screening, to oversight. It is followed by chapters on how to
respond to victims and perpetrators. The final part of the report encompasses chapters exploring the problem of sexual abuse among three special populations: juveniles, people under supervision in the community,
and immigration detainees.
The Commission worked assiduously to ensure the accuracy and
credibility of all sources of information. We have attempted to communicate complex concepts through a combination of personal accounts and reflections, many of them conveyed in sworn testimony to the Commission;
historic and contemporary research; data; and information about current
policies and practices provided by corrections administrators and staff. In
the case of accounts of sexual abuse and other comments by survivors, the
Commission held itself to a significantly high standard, typically requiring
that information be drawn only from court cases, most of them resolved,
or through sworn testimony to the Commission. As a result, several incidents of sexual abuse described in the report occurred many years ago.
Nevertheless, the Commission believes they illustrate continuing problems
and challenges in correctional facilities today.
Relevant standards appear in the margin of the report for easy reference and are briefly discussed in the text.* Neither the content of the report

*The Commission developed four sets of standards: Adult Prisons and Jails (including supplemental
standards for facilities with immigration detainees), Lockups, Juvenile Facilities, and Community
Corrections. The standards referenced in the margins in Parts I and II of the report—chapters
covering all correctional and detention settings—come from Adult Prisons and Jails. These
standards generally have parallels in the other sets of standards. Standards referenced in the margins
in Part III of the report—chapters exploring specific correctional populations and settings—come
from Juvenile Facilities, Community Corrections, or the supplemental standards for facilities with
immigration detainees.

28

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

nor the discussion accompanying each standard modifies the mandatory
nature of the standards. A complete list of standards is available as an
appendix to the report. Separate volumes of each set of standards also
contain helpful checklists and further discussion. Readers can learn more
about policies, practices, and programs implemented in facilities across
the country by consulting the sample of PREA Initiatives also included as
an appendix. Despite fiscal and other constraints, conscientious administrators have made impressive progress in the facilities they manage both
before and since the passage of PREA.
The Commission has formulated recommendations about what leaders in government outside corrections can do to support PREA. We discuss
these recommendations throughout the report, and a complete list is included as an appendix. In particular, additional resources are needed to
continue the research, training, and technical assistance begun and funded
through PREA and to make the aims of the legislation a reality. Also, given
the Commission’s own arduous journey, we are mindful of the resources
the Attorney General will need on receipt of our report and standards.
The Commission sunsets 60 days following the submission of our
report and standards to Congress, the President, the Attorney General,
and other Federal and State officials. The real work of implementation
begins then, on the part of the Attorney General and his staff; corrections and detention professionals throughout the United States; and the
many survivors, advocates, and service providers committed to this issue.
Within a year of receiving our report and standards, the Attorney General
is required to promulgate national standards for the detection, prevention,
reduction, and punishment of detention facility sexual abuse.
The Commissioners remain ready to assist the Attorney General,
Congress, our Nation’s many corrections and detention leaders and staff,
and others as they move forward on this matter of moral and legal consequence to incarcerated individuals, those who are responsible for their
safety, and the American public.

INTRODUCTION

2007

December 5–6, the Commission
holds a hearing in New Orleans
covering medical and mental
health care for survivors, abuse in
community corrections settings,
and oversight of correctional
facilities and agencies.

2007

The Bureau of Justice Statistics
publishes Sexual Victimization in
State and Federal Prisons Reported by
Inmates, 2007, the first national survey
on the subject.

2008

The U.S. Department of Justice Review
Panel on Prison Rape holds hearings
over the course of several months on
correctional facilities with the highest
and lowest prevalence of sexual
victimization according to the national
survey results and publishes separate
reports on rape in U.S. prisons and
U.S. jails.

2008

On May 5, the Commission releases
draft standards for adult prisons
and jails as well as for facilities
holding immigration detainees and
seeks public comment through
July 7.

2008

On June 16, the Commission
releases three sets of draft
standards covering lockups,
juvenile facilities, and community
corrections and seeks public
comment through August 15.

2008

The Bureau of Justice Statistics publishes Sexual Victimization in Local Jails
Reported by Inmates, 2007, the first
national survey on the subject.

2008

The Bureau of Justice Statistics releases
Sexual Violence Reported by Juvenile
Correctional Authorities, 2005–2006.

29

PART I
UNDERSTANDING AND
PREVENTING SEXUAL ABUSE

C H A P T E R 1: A P R O B L E M T H AT M U S T B E S O LV E D

31

Protecting prisoners from sexual abuse
remains a challenge in correctional
facilities across the country. Too often,
in what should be secure environments,
men, women, and children are raped
or abused by other incarcerated
individuals and corrections staff.

32

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

1

A Problem that Must Be Solved

A

cross the country, corrections officials are confronting the problem of sexual abuse in the facilities they manage. The sexual
abuse of prisoners is as old as prisons themselves, but recognition of the duty to protect incarcerated individuals from harm
codified in law, human rights documents, and professional standards
is a relatively recent development.1 Historically, prisons and jails were
conceived of and used solely as holding places.2 Although self-improvement and rehabilitation became a goal in theory, by the end of the 18th
century, filthy living conditions, ongoing criminality, and sexual predation
prevailed.3 Prominent English prison reformer Elizabeth Gurney Fry wrote
in 1813 of guards treating the women’s ward of London’s Newgate Prison
like a brothel.4 In 1826, in one of the first published mentions of prison
rape in the United States, the Reverend Louis Dwight, prison reformer and
founder of the Prison Discipline Society of Boston, wrote that “boys [were]
prostituted to the lust of old convicts” in institutions from Massachusetts
to Georgia.5
For more than a century, such protests fell on deaf ears, and the
sexual abuse of prisoners remained largely hidden and unexamined.6 Most
victims were silent, in many cases fearing retaliation and knowing that
authorities were unlikely to believe or help them—or even to record their
reports. The lack of reliable data made the problem even more opaque and
subject to denial.
T.J. Parsell is among countless individuals who were sexually
abused in America’s prisons and jails before the problem was widely recognized or well understood. Parsell was 17 in 1978 when he was sentenced
to serve 4 years in an adult prison in Michigan for robbing a Fotomat
with a toy gun. In testimony before the National Prison Rape Elimination
Commission years later, Parsell recalled, “[I] didn’t last 24 hours before
an inmate spiked my drink with Thorazine and then ordered me down to
his dorm. . . . [They] nearly suffocated me as they shoved my head into a
pillow to muffle my screams. . . . One of them grabbed my hair. . . . and
pulled my head down while the others took turns sodomizing me. . . .
They were unmoved by my crying.”7

C H A P T E R 1: A P R O B L E M T H AT M U S T B E S O LV E D

33

After the rape, Parsell was “too afraid to come forward, even to see
a doctor.”8 He told the Commission he felt the assailants “had stolen my
manhood, my identity, and part of my soul.” This was only the beginning
of continued violent abuse. “Being gang raped in prison has scarred me in
ways that can’t be seen or imagined. . . . I’ve undergone years of therapy to
get where I am, but I still don’t sleep well at night. I start up at the slightest
noise. And as a gay man, I blamed myself for many years. You’re degraded
so much in there that after a while you start to believe it.”
Once stories like Parsell’s began to surface, they came in waves.
Incarcerated men, women, and youth who had suffered sexual abuse by
other incarcerated individuals or corrections staff began talking about
their experiences. Their accounts prompted research, legal challenges,
advocacy, development of human rights frameworks addressing custodial rape, creation of new protocols and prevention efforts by corrections
administrators and staff, and new legislation that in combination increasingly shed light on the pervasiveness and nature of the problem. We now
know that sexual abuse while incarcerated has devastating effects on prisoners and serious repercussions for their families, correctional facilities,
and the public at large.9 We also know that some prisoners are more at
risk of being sexually abused
“Being gang raped in prison has scarred me in ways that than others. Being young and
can’t be seen or imagined. . . . I’ve undergone years of therapy incarcerated for the first time—
to get where I am, but I still don’t sleep well at night. I start like Parsell when he entered
prison—puts a person at higher
up at the slightest noise. And as a gay man, I blamed myself risk of victimization. So does
for many years. You’re degraded so much in there that being gay. And there are other
after a while you start to believe it.” risk factors. Screening and classification systems, when used
consistently, can help identify vulnerable individuals so that facilities can
plan housing and services to lessen the risk of sexual abuse. These systems need refinement, along with many other practices that reduce sexual
abuse in correctional facilities. Solutions are being designed and implemented, although much work remains to be done.
Passage of the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 ushered in a new
era of rigorous national data collection and analysis to add to our knowledge
of the nature and scope of the problem.10 Estimates of the annual incidence
rates of sexual abuse in America’s prisons, jails, and residential juvenile facilities are now available to complement more focused and in-depth studies
of specific facilities or systems.11 The data may not capture the full extent of
the problem, but they confirm its scale and the urgent need for reform.

34

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

Duty to Protect

T

he Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution forbids cruel and
unusual punishment—a ban that requires corrections staff to
protect incarcerated individuals from sexual abuse whenever the
threat is known.12 Facilities that fail to implement adequate protective measures risk exposure to civil lawsuits from current and former
prisoners and the U.S. Department of Justice. However, this was not always the case. Historically, incarcerated individuals found courts unwilling to intercede on their behalf. In 1809, for example, a court rejected
a habeas corpus petition on the grounds that it was not appropriate “to
interfere with the jailer in the exercise of the discretion vested in him, as
to the security of prisoners.”13 In the majority of decisions through the mid20th century, judges agreed that it was not their function to supervise the
discipline and treatment of incarcerated individuals.14 The Supreme Court
ended this hands-off approach with its 1974 decision in Wolff v. McDonnell,
in which the Court stated: “There is no iron curtain drawn between the
Constitution and the prisons of this country.”15
In the wake of Wolff v. McDonnell, certain aspects of prisoner rights
have become clear. For example, in the 1994 case Farmer v. Brennan, a
transgender woman alleged that corrections officials failed to protect her
from repeated sexual assaults. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that
deliberate indifference to the
substantial risk of sexual abuse “There is no iron curtain drawn between
violates incarcerated individu- and the prisons of this country.”
als’ rights under the Eighth
Amendment and that courts have an active, supervisory role in ensuring
prisoners’ safety. The court made clear that officials have a duty to protect prisoners because, “having stripped them of virtually every means of
self-protection and foreclosed their access to outside aid, the government
and its officials are not free to let the state of nature take its course.”16 Furthermore, being violently assaulted in a correctional facility is simply “not
part of the penalty that criminal offenders pay for their offenses against
society.”17
Jurisdictions cannot use insufficient funding as an excuse for failing to ensure the constitutional rights of incarcerated individuals. The Federal courts have long rejected such arguments.18 Regardless of funding,
States and the Federal Government must provide minimum conditions of
confinement to incarcerated persons to avoid the Constitution’s prohibition
against cruel and unusual punishment.19
With these decisions, courts have underscored their crucial role
in protecting the rights of incarcerated individuals. The Supreme Court
specifically emphasized the need for judicial oversight, noting that
“judicial intervention is indispensable if constitutional dictates—not to

C H A P T E R 1: A P R O B L E M T H AT M U S T B E S O LV E D

the Constitution

35

Regardless of funding, States and the Federal Government
must provide minimum conditions of confinement to
incarcerated persons to avoid the Constitution’s
prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

mention considerations of basic
humanity—are to be observed
in the prisons.”20 Courts will
intervene in instances in which
facilities tolerate unconstitutional conditions. In discussing
this oversight function, the Seventh Circuit observed that “[j]udges are not
wardens, but we must act as wardens to the limited extent that unconstitutional prison conditions force us to intervene when those responsible for
the conditions have failed to act.”21

Against the Law

A

fter conviction for a drug offense, Marilyn Shirley was placed
in a Federal facility in Fort Worth, Texas, for women in need of
specialized medical and mental health services.22 One night in
March 2000, a senior prison official, who was the only officer on
duty at the time, awakened Shirley. He ordered her from her room and took
her to the officers’ station. There, he made a call asking for a signal if the supervisor approached the camp. After he hung up the phone, he began kissing and groping Shirley and pushed her into a supply room. “The more that
I begged and pleaded for him to stop, the more violent he became,” she told
the Commission.23 “He tried to force me to perform oral sex on him.” As she
resisted, he became increasingly brutal, throwing her against the wall and
slamming her head against it repeatedly. He then violently raped her, all the
while warning that if she ever talked about it, no one would believe her.
The assault ended only when the officer received a signal over the
radio that someone was approaching. After the attack, he continued to
harass and threaten her. In her testimony, she recounted, “[I] stayed silent
for 7 months, having nowhere to hide. I went to sleep every night not knowing if [he] was going to order me out [to] the officer’s station again.”24 She
was terrified about what would happen if she reported the assault, only
informing the camp administrator on the day of her release months later.
Years after she was raped, Marilyn Shirley still experienced paralyzing panic attacks and intense nightmares. Fear continued to dominate her
life, and she took five different medications to treat her conditions. “I see his
face everywhere. Every day I relive this rape,” she told the Commission.25
Incarcerated women have always been vulnerable to sexual coercion and abuse.26 For example, in the mid-1800s, the Indiana State Prison ran a “prostitution service” for male guards using female prisoners.27
Efforts to protect and better serve female prisoners began with a movement in the early 1800s to create separate prisons for women. It wasn’t
until 1834 that prisons began to house women separately, and it took

36

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

another four decades, until 1873, before the first women’s facility was constructed and staffed entirely by women.28 Same-sex staff for women remained the norm until the latter half of the 20th century, when women successfully challenged their exclusion from staff positions in men’s prisons.29
This in turn created opportunities for men to once again enter women’s
institutions as workers.30 Cross-gender supervision remains a concern in
women’s prisons and has become a concern in facilities for men as well, as
female staff make up an increasingly large proportion of the workforce.31
The officer who attacked Shirley was ultimately convicted and
sentenced to 12-and-a-half years in prison. However, many incidences of
sexual abuse by staff or prisoners are never prosecuted. For “The more that I begged and pleaded for him to stop,
most of this Nation’s history, no
the more violent he became,” Marilyn Shirley told the
criminal laws specifically prohibited corrections staff from Commission. “He tried to force me to perform oral sex
sexually abusing incarcerated on him.” As she resisted, the prison official became
individuals.32 Even as late as
increasingly brutal, throwing her against the wall and
1990, the majority of States and
the Federal Government did slamming her head against it repeatedly. He then violently
not have such laws.33 Today in raped her, all the while warning that if she ever talked
all 50 States, it is a crime for about it, no one would believe her.
facility staff to engage in any
sexual conduct with individuals in custody; similarly, laws prohibit such
conduct among staff working for the Federal Bureau of Prisons.34 These
laws are essential, but unfortunately, not all explicitly cover staff working in halfway houses and other community-based correctional settings.
As of January 2008, eight States did not have laws covering sexual abuse
in community corrections.
Successfully prosecuting these cases remains difficult, and sentences tend to be lenient compared to penalties for sexual abuse committed in
other settings.35 In three States, sex with a prisoner is still a misdemeanor,
not a felony, for corrections staff.36 Prisoners who commit sexual offenses
are rarely prosecuted.37 More often they receive administrative sanctions,
such as increased custody status or loss of parole.

Beginning to Count

H

ow common is sexual abuse in American correctional settings?
Historical accounts describe sexual abuse as a feature of incarceration from the beginning, but our knowledge about the
prevalence of these incidents, even today, is extremely limited.38
Only anecdotal reports of sexual abuse existed until the mid-20th century,
when Alan Davis conducted his groundbreaking study of sexual abuse in

C H A P T E R 1: A P R O B L E M T H AT M U S T B E S O LV E D

37

the Philadelphia jail system.39 Released in 1968 and based on in-person
interviews with more than 3,300 prisoners and 562 staff members during
a 2-year period, this comprehensive study estimated that at least 3 percent
of the 60,000 individuals in Philadelphia jails were sexually victimized
annually, which translates into at least 2,000 incidents of sexual abuse
in 12 months. Two-thirds of the reported incidents were completed rapes.
Young, slightly built prisoners seemed to be at extreme risk. Davis was
careful to point out that the actual prevalence was probably much higher
because many victims were reluctant to report their experiences.
Most subsequent studies have yielded considerably higher prevalence
rates, depending on the target population and the amount of time assessed.
A 1982 study in a medium-security men’s facility in California, which housed
individuals at high risk of abuse in single cells (gay men, mentally ill prisoners, and other high-risk prisoners), found that 14 percent of randomly
selected prisoners reported through an anonymous questionnaire that they
had been sexually victimized.40 Rates for gay prisoners (41 percent) were
much higher than rates for heterosexual prisoners in the facility (9 percent).
A 1996 study, also using anonymous questionnaires, surveyed prisoners and
staff in the State prison system in
Only anecdotal reports of sexual abuse existed Nebraska.41 Of the 528 men and
until the mid-20th century, when Alan Davis women prisoners who returned
conducted his groundbreaking study of completed surveys, 20 percent
reported being pressured or
sexual abuse in the Philadelphia jail system. forced to have sexual contact
at least once while incarcerated in a Nebraska State facility. In facilities for
men, the incident rate was 22 percent. Prisoners reported that staff were the
perpetrators in 18 percent of the incidents. The 264 corrections staff responding to the survey estimated a sexual abuse rate of 15 percent in the State’s
prison system.
To date, most of the research on prevalence has focused on incarcerated men; only a few studies have assessed rates among incarcerated
women. One such study, conducted in 2002, investigated rates of sexual
abuse at three Midwestern prisons for women, each housing maximum-,
medium-, and minimum-security prisoners.42 The researchers asked women about experiences of sexual abuse during the entire time they had been
incarcerated in that facility. The rate of sexual abuse in one facility—described as a “rough prison”—was 19 percent.43 Many respondents in this
facility “cited problems with inadequate surveillance, predatory staff, noncaring and unresponsive staff, and policies that protected rather than punished staff and inmate sexual predators.” Two other facilities had rates of
6 and 8 percent. A little more than half of the reported perpetrators were
staff. Only about one-third of the victims reported the incidents to prison
officials. Victims who did not report explained that they feared retaliation
and that no one would believe them.

38

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

More recently, a study conducted from March 2005 to June 2006 of
436 women in a large southern prison found that 17 percent reported experiencing some type of sexual victimization while incarcerated, ranging
from penetration, attempted penetration, and sexual touching to sexual
abuse without physical contact; 3 percent reported completed rape.44

Understanding the Numbers

D

ifferent estimates of prevalence are partly the result of researchers using different definitions of sexual abuse.45 Some studies
count only completed acts of nonconsensual sex that involve
penetration; others include a wider range of acts, including coercion or sexual pressure, sexualized touching, voyeurism, and exposure.46
The methods researchers use to estimate the prevalence of sexual abuse
incidents also have a major impact on their findings.47 Many studies of
sexual abuse in prison involve interviews with individual prisoners. Because sexual abuse is a sensitive topic for women and men, and the stigma
associated with being a victim is real, individuals may hesitate to report
incidents and details in a face-to-face interview.48 Men may be especially
reluctant to report sex with other men, even when it involves forced sex,
for fear they will appear weak and helpless; heterosexual men in particular
may be concerned about being perceived as gay.49
Having prisoners report anonymously on survey forms about sexual abuse addresses some of these concerns, but using written forms
has drawbacks as well.50 Literacy rates are often lower among incarcerated persons; some respondents may refuse to participate because they
cannot read the survey.51 Requesting help to fill out a written survey
negates the privacy of the information, again leading to reluctance to
report sexual abuse.52 And many prisoners find it hard to trust promises
of confidentiality and anonymity in an environment characterized by a
lack of privacy and loss of control.
Recent research studies have begun to take advantage of evolving
technology, using laptop computers with touch screens and an accompanying recorded narration to guide people through surveys.53 This method
mitigates concerns about reading level and privacy. Respondents still must
believe strangers’ assurances of confidentiality, however, so the likelihood
of underreporting remains.
Although underreporting may be a large source of the problem, the
Commission recognizes that false allegations may also create inaccuracies
in prevalence levels.54 Prisoners have been known to fabricate accounts of
sexual abuse as a means to achieve some other purpose, such as a change
in housing or to manipulate other prisoners or staff. The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) and other researchers design surveys to ask questions

C H A P T E R 1: A P R O B L E M T H AT M U S T B E S O LV E D

39

of prisoners in several different ways, and they also use analytic tools
to assess data for false reports. Moreover, because an anonymous survey
captures neither the identity of the reporter nor the accused, there would
appear to be little motivation to fabricate accounts in this context, except
perhaps to damage the overall reputation of the correctional facility. The
extent to which empirical studies of sexual abuse among prisoners unwittingly capture some number of false reports deserves further research.

The First National Incidence Rates

I

n the Prison Rape Elimination Act, Congress stated that existing data
about sexual abuse in correctional facilities was not sufficient to understand the scope of the problem and respond appropriately.55 In particular, the Act called for new research to provide national incidence
rates.56 Congress tasked the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) with collecting and reporting those data. BJS launched a groundbreaking effort to discover how many prisoners each year are victims of sexual abuse by other
prisoners and by staff as well as the nature of that abuse.
In 2007, BJS surveyed incarcerated men and women in a random
sample of 146 State and Federal prisons and 282 local jails across the United States, using audio computer-assisted self-interviews. A total of 63,817
incarcerated individuals completed surveys that formed the basis of the
study: 23,398 in State and Federal prisons and 40,419 in local jails. Respondents in prison were asked about incidents of sexual abuse during the 12
months prior to the interview; those who had been incarcerated at that facility for less than 12 months were asked about their experiences since arriving. The average time of incarceration among respondents in prison was
8.5 months. Respondents in jails were asked about sexual abuse incidents
during the 6 months prior to the interview or since admission if they had
been confined in that facility for less than 6 months. The average time of
incarceration among respondents in jail was 2.6 months. All respondents
used a touch screen to respond to a questionnaire accompanied by audio
instructions delivered through headphones.57
The national scope of these surveys yields the most comprehensive
snapshot of sexual abuse in prisons and jails yet available. The data confirm that sexual abuse of prisoners is widespread, with great variation in
rates of abuse across facilities, and reveal the presence of force, coercion,
and physical injury to incarcerated victims.
In prisons in 2007, 4.5 percent of respondents reported experiencing
sexual abuse one or more times during the 12 months preceding the survey.58
Extrapolated to the national prison population, an estimated 60,500 State
and Federal prisoners were sexually abused during that 12-month period.
Ten of the facilities in the sample had comparatively high prevalence rates,

40

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

between 9.3 percent and 15.7 percent. At the other extreme, in six of the
facilities sampled, no respondents reported having been sexually abused
during this time frame. About 2 percent of all respondents reported incidents in which the perpetrator was another prisoner; 2.9 percent reported incidents perpetrated by corrections staff. (Some respondents had
been abused by both staff and other prisoners.) In cases involving staff, a
majority of the victims reported sexual activity beyond being touched in
a sexual way.
In jails, 3.2 percent of respondents reported that they had been
sexually abused at least once during the prior 6 months or since they had
been in that facility. Among those surveyed, 1.6 percent reported abuse by
another inmate, and 2 percent
reported incidents perpetrated The data confirm that sexual abuse of prisoners is
by staff.59 Published reports
widespread, with great variation in rates of abuse across
on the survey of jail inmates
include more detailed informa- facilities, and reveal the presence of force, coercion, and
tion than reports on the survey physical injury to incarcerated victims.
of State and Federal prisoners.
In jails, sexual abuse perpetrated by other inmates typically occurred in
victims’ cells or rooms, whereas incidents involving staff as perpetrators
were most likely to occur in unobserved areas, such as closets, offices,
or locked rooms. Approximately 20 percent of all victims said that they
had been physically injured during the course of the abuse; most of those
(85 percent) reported sustaining at least one serious injury. Women were
more likely than men to be sexually victimized (5 percent compared with
3 percent). Rates were higher among younger inmates: 4.6 percent among
respondents 18 to 24 years old, compared with 2.4 percent among respondents 25 years and older. Nearly a fifth (18.5 percent) of inmates who identified as homosexual and 9.8 percent who identified as bisexual or “other
orientation” reported being sexually victimized, compared with 2.7 percent of heterosexual inmates.
Until recently, what we knew about prevalence rates among incarcerated youth came mainly from facility records of investigated and
substantiated allegations of sexual abuse. These records do not reflect incidents that were never reported, those for which an investigation was
never conducted even if a report was made, and those for which there was
not enough evidence to substantiate a claim. When allegations of sexual
abuse are reported to corrections staff and recorded, those allegations, as
well as the official responses, become a part of the facility’s administrative
records. Substantiated incidents are those for which an investigation was
conducted and a finding of sexual abuse recorded. Reporting and recordkeeping policies vary greatly across facilities. For example, some facilities
record and maintain all allegations of abuse, whereas others only keep
data on incidents in which officials substantiated the allegations.

C H A P T E R 1: A P R O B L E M T H AT M U S T B E S O LV E D

41

an

42

Based on administrative records, youth are at especially high risk of
sexual abuse, whether they are confined with other youth or incarcerated
with adults. As reported by correctional facilities to BJS, the rate of sexual
abuse in adult facilities—based only on allegations reported to correctional authorities and recorded
Extrapolated to the national prison population, in administrative records—was
estimated 60,500 State and Federal prisoners were 2.91 per 1,000 incarcerated
those
sexually abused during the 12-month period. prisoners in 2006, across
facilities responding.60 In contrast, the rate in residential juvenile facilities—also reported by BJS and
based on administrative records—was more than five times greater: 16.8
per 1,000 in 2006.61 Some of this difference may be due to laws that mandate adult caregivers to report child abuse and laws specifying that all
sexual contacts with youth under a certain age are nonconsensual.62 Boys
were the victims in nearly two-thirds of substantiated incidents, but girls
were overrepresented. Thirty-six percent of all victims in substantiated
incidents across the facilities responding were girls, even though girls represented only 15 percent of youth in residential placement in 2006.63
Youth confined with adults also are at high risk of sexual abuse.
In 2005, for example, individuals under the age of 18 made up less than
1 percent of all inmates in U.S. jails.64 Yet 21 percent of all victims of substantiated incidents of sexual abuse involving jail inmates that year were
under the age of 18.65
At the time of this report, BJS is conducting the first nationally representative survey of sexual abuse among adjudicated youth in residential juvenile facilities. In a pilot study to prepare for the national survey, BJS interviewed 645 youth in nine facilities. Almost all the youth surveyed were male
(90 percent) and 15 years or older (91 percent). The facilities housed youth
with fairly serious histories: more than a quarter of the youth interviewed
had been adjudicated for perpetrating a sexual assault, compared to less
than 10 percent of youth in residential placement nationally. Facilities volunteered to participate in the pilot and were selected based on convenience.
In this study, nearly one out of every five youth surveyed—19.7
percent—reported at least one nonconsensual sexual contact during the
preceding 12 months or since they had arrived at the facility if they had
been there less than 12 months.66 Nonconsensual experiences included sex
in return for offers of favors or protection (8.7 percent), sex due to pressure
or force other than physical force (8.8 percent), and sex with physical force
or the threat of physical force (6.4 percent).
Any sexual contact with staff was considered to be nonconsensual
and is therefore included in the 19.7 percent. Sexual contact with other youth
reported as consensual is not included. Staff were just as likely as youth to
be the perpetrators of nonconsensual sexual abuse. Notably, 7.8 percent of all
youth interviewed reported sexual contacts with staff that involved physical

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

force or the threat of force; some other type of force or pressure; or sex in
return for money, protection, favors, or other kinds of special treatment.67
In addition to directly surveying individuals confined in adult
and juvenile facilities annually, BJS will continue to collect and review
administrative records. Although administrative records can only hint at
the actual rates of sexual abuse—at least for now—they have important
information to convey. There is evidence, for example, of a 21 percent
increase in allegations of sexual abuse comparing administrative records
from 2003 (when Congress passed PREA) and 2006.68 Rather than signaling an increase in actual abuse, the rise may indicate that prisoners are
more confident reporting sexual abuse when it does occur, that facilities
are keeping better records, or both.
Regular review of administrative records nationally can illuminate
who reports abuse, characteristics of perpetrators in these cases, circumstances surrounding reported incidents, and how facilities respond to reports of sexual abuse—in particular, what disciplinary or legal sanctions facilities impose on perpetrators and what treatment is provided to victims.69
In the future, BJS also will examine whether certain characteristics of facilities, such as size, security level, crowding, staff ratios, staff demographics,
and assaults on staff, are associated with higher rates of sexual abuse.70
The research by BJS, especially the surveys of incarcerated individuals, offers perhaps the most convincing data so far that some level of sexual
abuse is a reality in the vast majority of America’s prisons and jails. Important and uninvestigated areas remain: lockups, community corrections settings, detention centers for immigrants, tribal detention facilities operated
by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and those run by the military. The prevalence and scope of sexual abuse in these arenas are virtually unknown.

Facing the Numbers

E

ven conservative estimates of rates of sexual abuse translate into
high numbers of victims each year in America’s vast correctional
system.71 In just two decades—between 1987 and 2007—America’s
incarcerated population nearly tripled. At the end of 2007, the daily
population of U.S. prisons, jails, and juvenile facilities totaled approximately
2.4 million people.72 That figure only hints at the millions of people who
cycle through these facilities over the course of a year. And it does not
count individuals in pretrial detention, on probation, on parole, or under
some other form of correctional supervision in the community.73 By the
end of 2007, there were more than 5.1 million adults on probation or parole—about one in every 45 adults in the United States.74 Seventy percent of
the adult corrections population is under community corrections supervision, and the numbers are growing.75

C H A P T E R 1: A P R O B L E M T H AT M U S T B E S O LV E D

43

Dramatic increases in the prisoner population over the past 20 years
are due more to legislative changes than to increases in crime rates.76 The
“war on drugs” that began in the 1980s and continued over the last two
decades resulted in new policies requiring incarceration for drug-related
offenses that previously involved primarily probation or diversion. Coupled with mandatory-minimum
With almost 2.5 million people living behind bars sentences, many more people
on any given day—an experience that directly shapes the lives were incarcerated and for longer periods of time. The “threeof approximately 1 in 130 Americans, including youth— strikes” laws, introduced in
the United States bears a special burden to ensure 1993, mandated sentences
the safety of prisoners and to protect their rights. from 15 years to life in prison
for persons convicted of three
77
crimes. As of 2008, nearly half of the States had some form of a “threestrikes” law, although the criteria for applying the law vary across jurisdictions.78 In some jurisdictions, all three crimes must be felonies or violent
felonies for the three strikes to count. Other jurisdictions include minor
crimes, even misdemeanors, in the calculation, adding to the rapid growth
in incarceration.
Along with the rapidly increasing number of people incarcerated,
the demographics of those individuals have changed in ways that have
flooded facilities with individuals who are especially vulnerable to sexual
abuse. The number of incarcerated adult women increased by 757 percent
from 1977 to 2007.79 Legislative changes in 45 States since 1992 also made
it easier to incarcerate juveniles with adults.80 Between 1990 and 2004, the
number of juveniles sentenced to adult jails and prisons increased 208 percent; some jurisdictions incarcerate youth under the age of 16 with adults.81
The types of crimes for which people are incarcerated have changed as
well; more than half of all newly incarcerated individuals between 1985
and 2000 were imprisoned for nonviolent drug or property offenses.82
With almost 2.5 million people living behind bars on any given
day—an experience that directly shapes the lives of approximately 1 in 130
Americans, including youth—the United States bears a special burden to
ensure the safety of prisoners and to protect their rights.83

Hard to Heal

A

lthough sexual abuse typically leaves few visible scars, most
victims report persistent, if not lifelong, mental and physical
repercussions. Sexual abuse experienced in any environment
commonly invokes shock, numbness, withdrawal, and denial.84
Almost all victims of an invasive or violent sexual assault develop some
symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in the weeks after the

44

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

attack.85 These include numbing, intrusive thoughts, nightmares, insomnia, flashbacks during which the victim vividly re-experiences the event,
outbursts of anger or irritability, and panic attacks.86 For some victims,
PTSD symptoms resolve several months after the incident; for others,
PTSD becomes chronic. Victims with long-term PTSD are more likely to
develop other mental health problems as well.87
Victims of sexual abuse often struggle with long-lasting effects, including anxiety, a sense of alienation and isolation, mistrust of others,
hostility, depression, and helplessness.88 Thoughts of suicide are common.
In non-correctional settings, one-third to one-half of rape victims consider
suicide; between 17 and 19 percent actually attempt suicide.89
The closed nature of correctional facilities can lead to especially
devastating effects for sexual abuse victims. In confinement, victims cannot hide from or escape their perpetrators; they are trapped with their
assailant unless corrections officials intervene.90 The constant threat of
subsequent abuse and physical proximity to danger are likely to increase
the risk of developing PTSD and
other aftereffects.91 The conse- Although sexual abuse typically leaves few visible scars,
quences of sexual abuse may be
most victims report persistent, if not lifelong,
worse for those who are young,
have a past history of sexual mental and physical repercussions.
abuse, or have a preexisting
mental illness.92 Victims cannot easily avail themselves of support networks and resources available outside prison walls, and truly confidential
counseling in corrections is virtually nonexistent. These conditions exacerbate post-trauma responses and may prevent healing and recovery. In
her testimony before the Commission, Necole Brown described her symptoms after repeated sexual victimization while in prison: “I continue to
contend with flashbacks of what this correctional officer did to me and the
guilt, shame, and rage that comes with having been sexually violated for
so many years. I felt lost for a very long time, struggling with this. . . . I
still struggle with memories of this ordeal and take it out on friends and
family who are trying to be there for me now.”93
For some victims, the trauma of sexual abuse has physical manifestations. Sexual assault is strongly associated with chronic medical
conditions, such as insomnia, fatigue, chronic pain, nausea, ulcers, and
disturbed sleeping and eating patterns.94 Almost all victims of forced penetration also experience some type of physical injury, such as soreness,
bruising, bleeding, or lacerations.95 Some victims are brutally attacked
and sustain severe physical injuries, including concussions, broken bones,
and deep lacerations. The physical brutality may be even more extreme
when there are multiple perpetrators working together.96 Exposure to the
HIV virus and other sexually transmitted diseases is another potential
consequence of sexual abuse, one that may not be evident immediately

C H A P T E R 1: A P R O B L E M T H AT M U S T B E S O LV E D

45

following an assault. Testimony from prison rape survivors who became
HIV-positive after being raped illustrates the potential lifelong repercussions of being sexually victimized while incarcerated.97
In 1994, Keith DeBlasio was sentenced to 5 years in a minimumsecurity Federal prison for fraud.98 He was later transferred to a highsecurity facility in Milan, Michigan, and placed in a dormitory with about
150 inmates, dozens of blind
An officer at the Tucker Women’s Unit in Arkansas raped spots, and only one officer on
duty at any given time. “It was
Laura Berry in 1993. When she informed the officer that here,” DeBlasio testified “that
she thought she might be pregnant, he forced her to drink I was sexually assaulted by
quinine and turpentine in an attempt to cause an abortion. the same assailant more times
than I can even count.”99 The
sexual abuse began when the assailant moved into DeBlasio’s dormitory
after spending 3 days in segregation for “brutally assaulting another inmate in a stairwell. . . . There were numerous assaults and a long period
of ongoing abuse, especially after prison officials moved my assailant
into the same cubicle with me as my bunk mate. I couldn’t defend myself
because he had fellow gang members standing watch.”
Eventually, DeBlasio became ill. After repeated requests to medical
staff for an HIV test, he was tested and diagnosed as HIV-positive.100 DeBlasio
testified that he later learned that “prison officials knew the assailant was
emotionally disturbed, on psychotropic medications, a repeat predator with
serious mental problems, and yet they did nothing to protect me. . . . I was
a nonviolent offender, but I was given a life sentence. I was repeatedly
denied protection from a known predator with HIV.”
Sexual assaults by men against women prisoners also carry the risk
of pregnancy, another long-term consequence that may not be detected until weeks or months after the assault.101 Fear of retaliation, threats from
the perpetrator, and fear of punishment may keep incarcerated women
victims from seeking pregnancy testing or medical care once they realize that they are pregnant. The case of Berry v. Oswalt highlights these
risks.102 An officer at the Tucker Women’s Unit in Arkansas raped Laura
Berry in 1993. When she informed the officer that she thought she might
be pregnant, he forced her to drink quinine and turpentine in an attempt
to cause an abortion. When the threat of pregnancy persisted, the officer
told Berry to conceal the pregnancy and blame someone else if questioned.
The court awarded Berry $80,000 in compensation for the assault and
subsequent abuse she endured.

46

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

Far-Reaching Consequences

S

exual abuse damages individual prisoners, often in lasting ways,
but the harm does not end there. U.S. correctional facilities
release millions of people every year.103 Individuals suffering
from the psychological and physical effects of sexual abuse carry those effects home with them. Many victims require ongoing medical
and mental health care, increasing the burden on already struggling public
health care systems.104 Individuals dealing with the consequences of sexual abuse may find it difficult to reintegrate into society, relate to their families, and rebuild their lives. Some self-medicate with alcohol and drugs
to escape emotional or physical suffering.105 Some turn back to crime,
become homeless, or reenter the criminal justice system.106
Taxpayers bear much of the cost associated with the thousands of
sexual assaults in corrections, as illustrated by the testimony of Tom Cahill, an Air Force veteran. Cahill told the Commission about his arrest and
subsequent detention for civil disobedience during a labor strike at a factory in 1967. As he entered a crowded holding cell in a San Antonio jail, one
prisoner yelled, “fresh meat!”107 After lights out, “Six or seven men beat
me and raped [me] while another two dozen just looked away. I remember
being bounced off the walls and the floor and a bunk. . . . [I]t went on and
on and on. . . . [O]ne of my cellmates told me later that the guards lied and
told them I was a child molester. . . . After I was released from jail, I tried
to live a normal life, but the rape haunted me. . . . I was diagnosed with
post-traumatic stress disorder.”
Cahill estimates that “that one day I spent in jail has cost the Government and the tax payers at least $300,000,” explaining, “I’ve been hospitalized
more times than I can count and I didn’t pay for those hospitalizations, the
tax payers paid. My career as a journalist and photographer was completely
derailed. . . . For the past two decades, I’ve received a non-service connected security pension from the Veterans’ Administration at the cost of
about $200,000 in connection with the only major trauma I’ve ever suffered, the rape.”108
Sexual abuse of prisoners also places great strains on correctional
facilities. As Congress stressed in its PREA findings, sexual abuse in correctional settings “increases
the costs incurred by Federal,
Tom Cahill estimates that “that one day I spent in jail has
State, and local jurisdictions
to administer. . . prison sys- cost the Government and the tax payers at least $300,000,”
tems.”109 These costs, affecting explaining, “For the past two decades, I’ve received a nonoperations ranging from health
service connected security pension from the Veteran’s
care to housing, are extremely
hard to quantify.110 For exam- Administration at the cost of about $200,000 in connection
ple, victims suffering from the with the only major trauma I’ve ever suffered, the rape.”

C H A P T E R 1: A P R O B L E M T H AT M U S T B E S O LV E D

47

effects of sexual abuse may repeatedly seek counseling or medical care, or
break rules in an attempt to escape a perpetrator, whether or not they disclose the abuse. Although the dollar amounts may be elusive, the impact is
clear: facilities rife with sexual abuse cannot function effectively.
The sexual abuse of prisoners undermines the very purpose of
corrections in America. It is an offense against the victim, an affront to
the interests and values of civil society, and a violation of the highest
order of American legal jurisprudence, which forbids the “unnecessary
and wanton infliction of pain” upon prisoners by corrections officials or
by other prisoners.111

Answering the Call

P

rotecting prisoners from sexual abuse is, without a doubt, an
enormously daunting challenge for all involved. The reasons are
many and are discussed throughout this report. They include
gaps in understanding of the problem due to underreporting and
a lack of research, insufficient resources for responses to sexual abuse, the
challenges of training a vast workforce and enhancing safety in outdated
facilities, intricacies of dealing with vulnerable populations, and many
more. Despite these complicated factors, a growing and diverse group of
individuals, governmental entities, and nongovernmental organizations
have worked to answer the call, coming together to confront powerfully
this once hidden and unexamined problem.
Prior to PREA, there was no national understanding of the scope
of the problem, nor were there coordinated efforts to address it. Yet promising work was taking place,
The landscape is changing. Reporting hotlines paving the way for subsequent
PREA efforts. Beginning in the
and zero-tolerance posters are becoming commonplace. 1990s, civil rights litigation
Some agencies and facilities have revolutionized drew the attention of the cortheir responses to sexual abuse, instituting sexual assault rections field and the public to
the issue of staff sexual misresponse teams and organizing in-house multidisciplinary conduct.112 In response, organicommittees to address PREA. zations and individuals began
to acknowledge and address
the problem. In 1996, the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) began
providing technical assistance and training across the Nation, helping correctional systems focus on effective management to stop staff sexual misconduct, rather than reactive, crisis-driven policymaking.113 In the years
leading up to and just after PREA, well-respected professional organizations—the American Correctional Association, the American Jail Association, the American Probation and Parole Association, the Association of

48

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

State Correctional Administrators, and the National Sheriffs’ Association—
adopted resolutions strongly condemning staff sexual misconduct.114
Human rights, faith-based, and prison rape advocacy organizations
raised their voices condemning sexual abuse in confinement, creating the
consensus necessary to pass national legislation.115 PREA’s goal is zero tolerance for sexual abuse in correctional settings. The Act proposes to accomplish
this through a number of tools, including data collection, research, grants
and technical assistance to States to improve their practices, development of
national standards, and the reduction of funding to States that fail to comply
with the standards.116 PREA’s passage underscores the scope and gravity of
the problem—confirmed by the best and most recent data—and signals that
Congress is committed to ending sexual abuse in American corrections.117
Already, much work has been done in the wake of PREA. BJS has
conducted groundbreaking surveys and published other research findings
on the nature and scope of the problem. NIC continues to provide technical
assistance and training around the country—every State has received assistance in this area. The National Institute of Justice has funded research
on issues surrounding sexual abuse in correctional facilities that promises
to deepen our understanding of the best ways to prevent sexual abuse and
respond to victims and perpetrators when prevention fails. Professional organizations, including those already mentioned and the International Community Corrections Association, have led significant PREA initiatives, workshops, and trainings. And the Bureau of Justice Assistance has distributed
grants to 34 States and one territory, funding that has been used in a variety
of innovative ways. The Commission recommends that these important Federal initiatives continue.
In short, the landscape is changing. Reporting hotlines and zerotolerance posters are becoming commonplace. Some agencies and facilities
have revolutionized their responses to sexual abuse, instituting sexual assault response teams and organizing in-house multidisciplinary committees to address PREA. Training on PREA is an expected part of curricula
for corrections staff nationwide. (See the PREA Initiatives appendix for
a sample.) Though the challenge is great, these promising developments
mean that pleas for protection and justice by the likes of Elizabeth Gurney
Fry and Reverend Louis Dwight no longer fall on deaf ears. The Nation is
poised to answer the call to eliminate prison rape.
The chapters that follow discuss a crucial mechanism for eliminating prison rape—national standards developed by the Commission to
prevent and detect sexual abuse in every correctional setting and to hold
accountable those who perpetrate and permit this abuse.

C H A P T E R 1: A P R O B L E M T H AT M U S T B E S O LV E D

49

Sexual abuse is not an inevitable
feature of incarceration. Leadership
matters because corrections
administrators can create a culture
within facilities that promotes safety
instead of one that tolerates abuse.

2

Leadership Matters

T

oni Bunton heard the guard coming down the hallway. He wore
cheap cologne, and his breath smelled like cigarettes. He scuffed
his boots against the floor and opened the door to her cell in Scott
Correctional Facility, a women’s prison in Plymouth Township.
‘Come here,’ he ordered. The guard pulled Bunton into a bathroom. She
wore jogging pants, a T-shirt and socks. She was the guard’s prized possession, a pretty young thing, as he said, ‘just the way I like ‘em,’—short and
cute with brown hair, brown eyes and porcelain skin.”1
So begins a Detroit newspaper’s account of a culture inside a Michigan prison that allowed widespread sexual abuse of women prisoners by
male officers. According to Bunton, she was just 19 when the officer pushed
her against the bathroom sink and raped her, smiling as he walked away. It
took more than a decade for Bunton to speak publicly about this rape and
being the victim of seven other sexual assaults between 1993 and 1996.
When Bunton found her voice, it was one that people believed.
In February 2008, a jury in Ann Arbor determined that the Michigan
Department of Corrections, the former director of the department, and the
warden at Scott knew about the “sexually hostile prison environment,”
where nearly a third of male officers allegedly engaged in sexual misconduct and failed to protect Bunton and nine other women.2 The jury
awarded the women $15.4 million and then did something out of the
ordinary; they apologized. “We the members of the jury. . . as representatives of the citizens of Michigan, would like to express our extreme regret
and apologies for what you have been through.”3 In January 2009, the
Michigan Court of Appeals upheld the jury’s verdict.4 This case was only the
beginning. More than 500 women who are or were incarcerated in Michigan prisons are suing the State in a class action lawsuit.
Even before women in Michigan began telling their stories in court,
human rights organizations and the U.S. Department of Justice alleged
extensive sexual assaults by corrections staff over a period of years in
several women’s prisons in Michigan. In the early 1990s, advocacy groups
warned the Michigan Department of Corrections that “sexual assault and
harassment are not isolated incidents and. . . fear of reporting such incidents

C H A P T E R 2: L E A D E RS H I P M AT T E RS

51

is a significant problem.”5 It was not until a group of women brought civil
actions in 1996 and the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division filed
suit in 1997 that corrections officials in Michigan began to address the
issue. In its investigation, the Department of Justice found evidence of
criminal behavior ranging from sexual assault to officers exposing their
genitals to prisoners.6 Faced with these allegations, the Michigan Department of Corrections signed a settlement agreeing to severely limit male
corrections officers’ access to incarcerated women and to educate officers
and prisoners about sexual abuse.7
Over the last few years, corrections leaders in Michigan have implemented additional reforms, including training for officers designed to
shape a culture that prevents
8
To allow any level of sexual abuse in a correctional abuse. New work assignment
rules, including banning male
setting creates a security breach that officers from the housing units
jeopardizes the safety of staff and prisoners. where women live, were designed to prevent sexual mis9
conduct and harassment. Administrators refer all allegations of sexual
misconduct or abuse to internal affairs as well as to the Michigan State
Police for investigation, and there are now tougher legal penalties for staff
who have sexual contact with incarcerated persons.10 As of May 2009, the
approximately 2,000 women prisoners in Michigan will all be housed in a
facility in Ann Arbor with health care, education, and other programming
provided in part by the University of Michigan.11
To allow any level of sexual abuse in a correctional setting creates
a security breach that jeopardizes the safety of staff and prisoners.12 This
chapter explores the essential role of corrections administrators in preventing sexual abuse in the correctional settings they oversee. Simply stated,
the problem cannot be solved without committed, enthusiastic leadership
within the profession. The Commission has defined clear standards that
corrections administrators can champion to prevent sexual abuse and
make facilities safer for everyone—reforms in the underlying culture, hiring and promotion, and training and supervision that vanguard members
of the profession are already implementing.

From the Top Down

T

he class action lawsuit in Michigan revealed an unhealthy correctional culture in which sexual abuse flourished. Rhode Island
Corrections Director A.T. Wall explained to the Commission that
a facility’s culture is its “way of life . . . [t]he sum of the attitudes
or the norms, the values, the beliefs, of those people who live and work in it.”13
In hierarchical organizations like correctional facilities, that “way of life” is

52

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

shaped from the top down. Although changing the culture is an enormous
challenge, wise and impassioned leaders can do it.14 As Wall noted, “Culture
is not inherent. Culture is learned, and therefore, it can be changed.”15
In 2006, the Urban Institute surveyed 45 State departments of corrections about their policies and practices on preventing sexual abuse and
conducted in-depth case studies in several States.16 Not surprisingly, the
surveys and the case studies identified strong leadership as essential to
creating the kind of institutional culture necessary to eliminate sexual
abuse in correctional settings.17 In his testimony, Martin Horn, Commissioner of the New York City Department of Corrections, agreed. Culture
change “has to start at the top, and you have to talk about it. And if we
don’t talk about it, the people under us won’t,” he told the Commission.18
“[C]ulture is passed by word of mouth and by behavior. You have to walk
the walk and talk the talk. You have to do it consistently. You can’t sell out.
You have to be willing to take the anger that people may direct at you for
trying to change the culture.”
Recognizing that corrections leaders need knowledge and skills to
craft and champion reforms, the National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
has offered technical assistance and training to the field on staff sexual
misconduct since 1996. Over the years, that assistance has included executive briefings; strategies to assist executive and senior-level staff; workshops conducted in partnership with national, State, and local professional
associations; and help developing the critical management and operational
practices that minimize staff sexual misconduct. Corrections administrators in every State have received assistance from NIC. The Commission
recommends that NIC continue to conduct training and educational programs and to offer technical assistance to Federal, State, tribal, and local
authorities responsible for the prevention, investigation, and punishment
of prison rape.

Zero tolerance of sexual
abuse
The agency has a written policy
mandating zero tolerance toward all forms of sexual abuse
and enforces that policy by ensuring all of its facilities comply
with the PREA standards. The
agency employs or designates
a PREA coordinator to develop,
implement, and oversee agency
efforts to comply with the PREA
standards.

Zero Tolerance “with Teeth”

T

he positive culture Horn and Wall allude to is rooted in the idea
and ethics of zero tolerance for sexual abuse. “I’m talking about
zero tolerance with teeth,” Wall testified.19 In such cultures, staff
and incarcerated individuals understand what constitutes sexual abuse, know penalties exist for perpetration by prisoners or staff, and
believe management will treat
all incidents seriously. Staff are Good leaders not only have a policy on paper, they ensure that
alert to warning signs and prethe policy is reflected in practice by carefully assessing and
pared to implement approved
responding to attitudes, beliefs, and values that support or
procedures in response to
incidents, facilities encourage conflict with a culture of zero tolerance.

C H A P T E R 2: L E A D E RS H I P M AT T E RS

53

Contracting with other entities for the confinement of
inmates
If public correctional agencies
contract for the confinement of
their inmates, they do so only
with private agencies or other
entities, including other government agencies, committed
to eliminating sexual abuse in
their facilities, as evidenced by
their adoption of and compliance with the PREA standards.
Any new contracts or contract
renewals include the entity’s
obligation to adopt and comply
with the PREA standards and
specify that the public agency
will monitor the entity’s compliance with these standards as
part of its monitoring of the entity’s performance.

reporting of abuse, and prisoners are confident that genuine investigations
will follow. Staff also know that there are penalties for simply standing
by when sexual abuse is occurring and for non-reporting, whether the
abuse is perpetrated by prisoners or other staff. The Commission’s first
two standards require that every correctional agency have a written policy
mandating zero tolerance for all forms of sexual abuse in all correctional
settings, whether they are operated by government or by private companies working under contract with the government.
Zero-tolerance policies prohibit any sexual contact between staff,
volunteers, or contractors and incarcerated individuals. Moreover, all
forms of forced or coercive sexual contact occurring among incarcerated
persons will be fully investigated, sanctioned (if authority to do so exists), and referred for prosecution if the prohibited conduct violates State
criminal laws.20 Facilities in which administrators and management do
not emphasize a zero-tolerance culture intrinsically tolerate some level of
sexual abuse. An unclear or inconsistent policy sends mixed messages to
staff and incarcerated persons about the acceptability of sexual abuse in
that setting.
Good leaders not only have a policy on paper, they ensure that the
policy is reflected in practice by carefully assessing and responding to attitudes, beliefs, and values that support or conflict with a culture of zero tolerance. Such an assessment demands recognizing that some line officers as
well as managers may use sexual abuse and exploitation to manipulate and
control prisoners for personal gain or gratification. The abuse in Michigan
prisons was not unique. Landmark class action lawsuits describe other correctional environments in which the systemic sexual abuse of incarcerated
individuals by staff and other prisoners flourished over time.21
Creating a genuine culture of zero tolerance hinges on making the
right decisions about who to hire, retain, and promote; providing comprehensive training for staff and education for prisoners on sexual abuse; and
using modes of supervision that encourage appropriate contact between
staff and prisoners while also setting clear limits. “[I]t’s not a sprint. It’s a
marathon,” Wall explained.22

The Right Staff

I

n December 2002, while working a night shift at the Pennington County Jail in Rapid City, South Dakota, a new recruit entered a woman’s
cell three times after the facility was locked down for the night—in
clear violation of facility regulations—and sexually abused her each
time.23 Once, when she resisted, he slammed her head against the wall so
forcefully that he set off his CB radio. The recruit was under the supervision of a senior corrections officer who “was supposed to observe [him]

54

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

closely.”24 The facility also had monitoring devices, including a panel of
lights indicating whether cell doors were locked or unlocked, and the supervisor had a clear view of the victim’s cell from his post. The court
concluded that, because “entry of a correctional officer into a cell after
lockdown was an unusual and (literally) noteworthy event,” the supervisor would have known that the officer had no legitimate reason to enter the
victim’s cell, much less to enter it multiple times.25 At one point, the new
officer showed his supervisor drawings he had taken from the victim’s
cell. Despite these warnings, the supervisor did nothing to prevent the assault, nor did he document the cell entry as required or report the incident
to his superiors.
As this case illustrates, without a commitment to zero tolerance
among managers and line staff—and a willingness to intervene—sexual
abuse cannot be prevented. Hiring and retaining high-quality employees
is one of the main challenges facing corrections officials.26 As one department director noted, “We all have the responsibility to attract, hire, and
retain qualified staff in a relatively low-paying, relatively high-risk profession with relatively unpleasant working conditions and hours.”27 The kind
of culture change many administrators want and that the Commission
believes is required would greatly improve the work environment. Yet that
shift in culture depends in part on hiring, retaining, and promoting individuals who will not only refrain from sexual abuse, but also actively work
to prevent it and to reestablish safety when it occurs.28
One way to attract this caliber of staff is through strategic recruiting
efforts. Critically reviewing previous recruitment initiatives, highlighting
positive aspects of correctional employment (e.g., job stability and security), focusing on a variety of media to advertise vacancies, and personalizing the selection process may play a role in creating a strategic and proactive recruitment plan. A recent study focusing on effective recruitment
and retention of jail staff found a variety of such efforts already in place.29
These included intern programs to help students envision corrections as a
career option, community outreach to improve the image of the jail, and
mentoring and leadership programs to support new hires.
Careful vetting of all job applicants is also essential to maintaining
quality staff. The Commission’s standards require conducting criminal
background checks, making efforts to obtain relevant information from
past employers, and questioning applicants about past misconduct. For
States in which the law limits a prospective employer’s right to inquire
about previous employment, especially disciplinary actions or arrests not
leading to conviction, the Commission urges correctional agencies to ask
job applicants to sign waivers (unless they are also prohibited from doing
so by law) affirming that the applicant foregoes his or her legal right to
claim libel, defamation, or slander regarding any information provided by
previous employers.

C H A P T E R 2: L E A D E RS H I P M AT T E RS

55

Hiring and promotion
decisions

Preventing sexual abuse in correctional settings necessitates
screening for staff and prospective staff who have a history of sexual misThe agency does not hire or
conduct, either in correctional settings or in the community. To meet the
promote anyone who has enCommission’s standard prohibiting hiring or promoting anyone who has
gaged in sexual abuse in an
engaged in prior sexual abuse, administrators must thoroughly screen all
institutional setting or who has
new job applicants and make promotions contingent on a similarly careful
engaged in sexual activity in
review of every staff member’s conduct while employed. Past perpetration
the community facilitated by
of sexual abuse in any setting, including in the community and within
force, the threat of force, or coercion. Consistent with Federal,
the family, is a warning sign that an individual poses a risk that must be
State, and local law, the agency
carefully evaluated.30 Nonsexual physical abuse is also a warning sign.31
makes its best effort to contact
Even behaviors demonstrating disrespect, such as a pattern of yelling at or
all prior institutional employers
demeaning incarcerated individuals, indicate that a staff member may find
for information on substantiatit difficult to support a zero-tolerance approach to sexual abuse and indeed
ed allegations of sexual abuse;
may act to undermine such a policy.32
must run criminal background
checks for all applicants and
Biases and prejudice also may influence the willingness or ability of
employees being considered for
staff to support a zero-tolerance policy. One study found that some officers
promotion; and must examine
were more willing to protect heterosexual prisoners from abuse than those
and carefully weigh any history
with other sexual identities.33 Biases against any group, including womof criminal activity at work or in
en, create hostile environments that prevent staff from protecting these
the community, including conindividuals.34 In discussing women’s facilities, psychiatrist Terry Kupers
victions for domestic violence,
stalking, and sex offenses. The
warned, “when there is an acceptance of misogynist jokes, of. . . little slaps
agency also asks all applicants
on the bottom. . . when the management does not stop that and does not
and employees directly about
want to hear about it, that is where sexual assault occurs.”35
previous misconduct during inPsychological tests can flag many of these risk factors as well as
terviews and reviews.
positive attributes.36 Studies suggest, for example, that successful corrections officers tend to be emotionally stable—particularly when it comes
to anger and impulse control—dependable, rational, and mature.37 To
identify the best candidate for the job, the vetting process also should
explore an applicant’s willingness to foster a culture that discourages
abuse and to intervene to prevent abuse in specific situations, including
in those difficult situations in which the perpetrator is another corrections staff member.
Finally, corrections administrators face the challenge of retaining
their best staff. One way to retain corrections staff is to keep salaries competitive with other law enforce“Psychiatrist Terry Kupers warned, “[W]hen there is an ment agencies.38 Low salaries,
acceptance of misogynist jokes, of . . . little slaps on the especially in relation to other
law enforcement jobs, are one
bottom . . . when the management does not stop that and does reason people leave jobs in cornot want to hear about it, that is where sexual assault occurs.” rections for work in other professions.39 However, funds to
provide competitive salary lines are often extremely limited. Correctional
facilities urgently need support in developing competitive compensation
and benefits packages.

56

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

Promoting staff who demonstrate a commitment to preventing
sexual abuse is another way to keep good staff and send a clear message
to everyone in the facility. Over time, those promotions will produce a
higher-caliber staff and management structure and make it easier to create and sustain a safe and orderly environment. But promotions and raises
alone will not solve the problem. Even the best staff will succumb to stress
and burnout without the right guidance and support from their managers
and leaders.40

Progress in Training and Education

I

n 1997, Human Rights Watch surveyed State corrections departments
and the Federal Bureau of Prisons about steps they were taking to address the problem of prison rape. Only a few departments, including
Arkansas, Illinois, Massachusetts, North Carolina, New Hampshire,
and Virginia, responded that they trained corrections officers to recognize, prevent, and respond to sexual assault among incarcerated persons.41
When the Urban Institute surveyed 45 State departments of corrections
nearly a decade later in 2006, 36 departments reported offering training
on sexual abuse for frontline staff.42 Training initiatives also have reached
law enforcement agencies that operate lockups and other short-term holding facilities. A training curriculum specifically for law enforcement and
a guide to developing policy are now available online, and trainings have
been provided on site to individual agencies and through national and
State conferences.43 According to Susan McCampbell, President of the
Center for Innovative Public Policies, these training efforts are essential
because “very few [law enforcement] agencies have heard of PREA. The
potential impact of PREA on these facilities is different than for jails and
prisons, due to the visibility and size of the [detention] function within the
agency, the condition and flexibility of the physical plants, [and] the ability
of agencies to screen and segregate arrestees,” among other issues.44
The Commission recognizes the profession’s investment to date in
training staff. This is an area in which much has been done. The standards
in this area are designed to ensure that no facility is left behind and that
training programs everywhere meet certain basic criteria. The Commission believes most jurisdictions can meet these goals without burdensome
or unrealistic financial investment. Today there are many resources that
correctional agencies can turn to for help. For example, the Safe Prisons
Program developed by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and
the Ten Point Plan created by the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and
Correction both feature comprehensive training programs for staff.45 An
appendix in each volume of the Commission’s standards lists suggested
topics and procedures for training line staff.

C H A P T E R 2: L E A D E RS H I P M AT T E RS

Employee training
The agency trains all employees
to be able to fulfill their responsibilities under agency sexual
abuse prevention, detection,
and response policies and procedures; the PREA standards;
and relevant Federal, State,
and local law. The agency trains
all employees to communicate
effectively and professionally
with all inmates. Additionally,
the agency trains all employees on an inmate’s right to be
free from sexual abuse, the
right of inmates and employees to be free from retaliation
for reporting sexual abuse, the
dynamics of sexual abuse in
confinement, and the common
reactions of sexual abuse victims. Current employees are
educated as soon as possible
following the agency’s adoption of the PREA standards,
and the agency provides periodic refresher information to all
employees to ensure that they
know the agency’s most current
sexual abuse policies and procedures. The agency maintains
written documentation showing
employee signatures verifying
that employees understand the
training they have received.

57

Volunteer and contractor
training

The Commission’s standards in this area are based on evidence
showing that effective training programs focus on prevention and inThe agency ensures that all voltervention, include training in meeting the medical and mental health
unteers and contractors who
needs of victims, and are grounded in clear policies. They should be
have contact with inmates have
provided at the beginning of employment and be updated or expanded
been trained on their responannually.46 The main objectives of a training program on sexual abuse
sibilities under the agency’s
are to ensure that staff, volunteers, and contractors understand the facilsexual abuse prevention, deity’s or agency’s zero-tolerance policy and that no sexual abuse will be
tection, and response policies
and procedures; the PREA stantolerated, are aware of the dynamics of sexual abuse in adult and juvedards; and relevant Federal,
nile correctional settings, possess the knowledge and skills necessary to
State, and local law. The level
prevent abuse from occurring, identify early warning signs that someone
and type of training provided to
is at risk of being abused, and take the appropriate actions when they
volunteers and contractors is
learn about an incident of sexual abuse. Role-play exercises and opporbased on the services they protunities to rehearse or discuss responses to sexual abuse and misconduct
vide and level of contact they
have with inmates, but all voluncan help to dispel discomfort and are good preparation for dealing with
teers and contractors who have
actual situations.47 In addition, trainings must cover the responsibility of
contact with inmates must be
staff, volunteers, and contractors to report any signs of sexual abuse and
notified of the agency’s zero-tolthe consequences for failing to do so.
erance policy regarding sexual
The Commission requires that training also include how to commuabuse. Volunteers must also be
nicate effectively and professionally with incarcerated persons, including
trained in how to report sexual
abuse. The agency maintains
those of different races, ethnicities, cultural and religious backgrounds,
written documentation showing
ages, genders, sexual orientations, and cognitive abilities.48 Effective comvolunteer and contractor signamunication builds trust between prisoners and staff, which is essential
tures verifying that they underto create an environment in which individuals feel comfortable seeking
stand the training they have
protection and reporting abuse. Drawing on what they learn, staff should
received.
consistently model the attitudes and behaviors they expect their peers as
well as prisoners to display.49
	 To determine whether facilities are meeting mandatory requirements for training, administrators must maintain written documentation
about the training provided, including signed verification by participants that
they understand the information conveyed. This kind of documentation, and
good training generally, will help facilities defend themselves when prisoners
file lawsuits against them and may discourage litigation altogether.50
The corollary to staff training is conveying the same information
about zero tolerance and related policies to all persons incarcerated in a
facility. A strong educational
A strong educational program on sexual abuse sends the program on sexual abuse sends
message that an agency will not tolerate sexual abuse by the message that an agency
will not tolerate sexual abuse
staff or prisoners and that preventing abuse and holding by staff or prisoners and that
perpetrators accountable are top priorities. preventing abuse and holding
perpetrators accountable are top
priorities. Trainings should include information on warning signs of sexual
abuse and ways for prisoners to protect themselves.51 Equipped with this

58

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

information, incarcerated individuals are better able to protect themselves
and others by seeking help when necessary and are more likely to report
abuse when it does occur.
The Commission’s standard requires correctional facilities to inform individuals during the intake process about their right to be protected
from sexual abuse and how to report suspicions or incidents of abuse and,
soon thereafter, to engage prisoners in a detailed, interactive educational
session. Facilities have an obligation to convey information in formats accessible to all prisoners, including those who speak a language other than
English; have limited English proficiency; are deaf, visually impaired, or
otherwise disabled; or who have limited reading skills. Educational information must also reach individuals in solitary confinement and protective
custody, and facilities are required to document in writing participation
in educational sessions. As with staff training, periodic refresher courses
are important and required. The Commission also believes that crucial
information about sexual abuse, facility policies, and the rights of incarcerated persons should be widely available at all times through posters,
handbooks, and other means.52

Patrolling and Protecting

I

n his testimony before the Commission, San Francisco Sheriff Michael
Hennessey talked about daily life in a correctional facility that relies
on what’s known in the profession as direct supervision. “[T]he deputy is right there amongst them and everybody is talking to him,”
Hennessey said.53 “They’re complaining about food. They’re complaining
about their clothing. They’re complaining about their release date. And in
the meantime they can also say, ‘By the way, I think something is going
down between this inmate and that inmate.’”
In a direct supervision facility, officers are stationed in living units
and supervise incarcerated individuals by moving around and interacting
with them and with other staff members.54 Direct supervision allows officers to get to know individual prisoners. The officers’ movements and locations are, by definition, fluid and somewhat random, thus preventing dead
zones—locations and periods of time when prisoners know they will not be
watched. Direct supervision enables officers to directly observe behavior
and to intervene and prevent sexual abuse, and it also allows incarcerated
individuals easy access to staff without attracting attention, making it easier
to report sexual abuse.55 This type of supervision provides an enhanced level
of safety while also allowing incarcerated persons some privacy and movement. For these reasons, the Commission believes this is the most promising
mode of supervision for preventing sexual abuse in correctional facilities
and that agencies and facilities should use it whenever possible.

C H A P T E R 2: L E A D E RS H I P M AT T E RS

Inmate education
During the intake process, staff
informs inmates of the agency’s
zero-tolerance policy regarding
sexual abuse and how to report
incidents or suspicions of sexual abuse. Within a reasonably
brief period of time following the
intake process, the agency provides comprehensive education
to inmates regarding their right
to be free from sexual abuse
and to be free from retaliation
for reporting abuse, the dynamics of sexual abuse in confinement, the common reactions
of sexual abuse victims, and
agency sexual abuse response
policies and procedures. Current inmates are educated as
soon as possible following the
agency’s adoption of the PREA
standards, and the agency provides periodic refresher information to all inmates to ensure
that they know the agency’s
most current sexual abuse
policies and procedures. The
agency provides inmate education in formats accessible to all
inmates, including those who
are LEP, deaf, visually impaired,
or otherwise disabled as well
as inmates who have limited
reading skills. The agency maintains written documentation of
inmate participation in these
education sessions.

59

Accommodating inmates
with special needs
The agency ensures that inmates who are limited English
proficient (LEP), deaf, or disabled are able to report sexual
abuse to staff directly, through
interpretive technology, or
through non-inmate interpreters. Accommodations are made
to convey all written information
about sexual abuse policies,
including how to report sexual
abuse, verbally to inmates who
have limited reading skills or
who are visually impaired.

Inmate supervision
Security staff provides the inmate supervision necessary
to protect inmates from sexual
abuse. The upper management
officials responsible for reviewing critical incidents must
examine areas in the facility
where sexual abuse has occurred to assess whether physical barriers may have enabled
the abuse, the adequacy of
staffing levels in those areas
during different shifts, and the
need for monitoring technology
to supplement security staff
supervision (DC-1). When problems or needs are identified,
the agency takes corrective action (DC-3).

60

In reality today, many jails and prisons rely on a different method of
supervision, dictated by the structure of facilities built to confine people in
rows of cells. An officer patrols these corridors or along catwalks at designated
intervals in what is known as linear surveillance. Officers have only brief
and intermittent views of prisoners and may have little or no opportunity for
meaningful contact.56 Such supervision structures empower dominant and
predatory prisoners or groups and make preventing sexual abuse more difficult. As Cynthia Malm, a former jail administrator from Madison County,
Idaho, told the Commission, “In a linear jail, inmates often are in control of
the housing units because the officer cannot see what is happening inside
the unit at all times. The officer makes checks usually every 30 minutes,
which leaves a lot of time for inmates to engage in illicit behavior.”57
A third type, remote indirect supervision, has emerged as monitoring technologies and correctional architecture have evolved. Used primarily in high-security facilities, officers are stationed in secure control booths,
from which they observe incarcerated individuals via video and other
monitoring equipment and lock and unlock gates and doors remotely.58
Officers have only sporadic direct contact with prisoners, and the physical
barriers separating them from the individuals they are responsible for protecting can compromise their ability to intervene and stop abuse.59
The Commission’s standards require correctional facilities to provide the supervision necessary to protect incarcerated persons from sexual
abuse. The Commission believes it is possible to meet this standard in
any facility, regardless of design. Installing cameras in a linear jail, for
example, would enhance prevention and detection, if coupled with routine, unscheduled patrols by officers. Technologies are not replacements
for skilled and committed security officers, but they can greatly improve
what good officers are able to accomplish.
Sexual abuse can occur almost anywhere in a facility, but it is the
“hiding places or blind spots,” according to Sheriff Hennessey, “where
most of the mischief or illegal activity takes place.”60 Although his remark
sounds obvious, Hennessey emphasizes the point because facilities can be
rife with blind spots. They include areas that may not be routinely supervised—the chapel, for example, or work areas such as the kitchen during
off-hours. Showers tend to be a danger spot as well as empty hallways,
closets, and stairwells. Any place out of an officer’s line of sight or too dim
to see clearly poses a risk. Corrections professionals believe that there is a
particularly high risk for sexual assault by other incarcerated individuals
when they are housed together in a cell or in crowded dormitories.61
Because eliminating blind spots is a key to effective supervision,
the Commission’s standard requires management to examine areas in the
facility where sexual abuse has occurred to assess whether physical barriers, inadequate staffing, or lack of monitoring technology may have contributed to its occurrence and to undertake needed improvements.

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

Adding Electronic Eyes and Ears

M

Assessment and use of
monitoring technology

onitoring blind spots before abuse occurs is an even betThe agency uses video moniter way to protect prisoners and avoid lawsuits. Michelle
toring systems and other
Tafoya was assigned to cooking and cleaning duties in the
cost-effective and appropriate
Huerfano County, Colorado, jail where she was detained.62
technology to supplement its
sexual abuse prevention, deThe jail had installed surveillance cameras in areas where past sexual
tection, and response efforts.
assaults had occurred, but not in the kitchen, because it had never been
The agency assesses, at least
the site of a sexual assault. On two occasions in December 2001 when Taannually, the feasibility of and
foya was on kitchen duty alone, a male officer who knew her whereabouts
need for new or additional
sexually assaulted her. In deciding this case, the court noted that the facilmonitoring technology and deity “knew that blind spots remained even after the installation of the new
velops a plan for securing such
technology.
cameras, and knew that having some cameras in the jail was not enough
to deter assaults in [remaining] unmonitored areas.”63
The Commission’s standard in this area requires correctional facilities to make use of cost-effective and appropriate monitoring technologies to aid staff supervision by assessing, at least annually, the need for
and feasibility of incorporating additional monitoring equipment or new
technologies. Commander Donald Rodriguez of the Los Angeles County
Sheriff’s Department told the Commission that cameras, if well-placed,
discourage prisoners and staff from engaging in abuse; increase the number of areas that staff can monitor at one time; and, when cameras capture
misconduct or abuse on video, provide an objective record of what happened to support investigations.64 Many facilities now use closed-circuit
television video surveillance, in
which video cameras transmit a “[T]he deputy is right there amongst them and everybody
signal to a limited set of moni- is talking to him,” Hennessey said. “They’re complaining
tors. Digital video recorders alabout food. They’re complaining about their clothing. They’re
low images to be stored directly
complaining about their release date. And in the meantime
on a computer hard drive in
greatly compacted formats, per- they can also say, ‘By the way, I think something is going
mitting staff to quickly review down between this inmate and that inmate.’”
footage. Cameras equipped with
motion or vibration sensors that trigger recording or send an alert to a
central control monitor provide an efficient way to monitor isolated or intermittently used areas, such as stairways, closets, chapels, and property
storage rooms. Some facilities also use audio surveillance technologies.
Radio frequency identification (RFID) is another technology, albeit
an expensive one, with the potential to reduce sexual assault in correctional environments. RFID tags are commonly used in security access cards,
smart cards used in credit and debit transactions, and for tracking shipments. Corrections staff can use RFID to track the movements of prisoners
and staff and plot them on a two-dimensional computer-generated grid,
showing their locations at all times.65

C H A P T E R 2: L E A D E RS H I P M AT T E RS

61

Limits to cross-gender viewing and searches
Except in the case of emergency, the facility prohibits
cross-gender strip and visual
body cavity searches. Except
in the case of emergency or
other extraordinary or unforeseen circumstances, the facility restricts nonmedical staff
from viewing inmates of the opposite gender who are nude or
performing bodily functions and
similarly restricts cross-gender
pat-down searches. Medical
practitioners conduct examinations of transgender individuals
to determine their genital status only in private settings and
only when an individual’s genital status is unknown.

62

RFID has already stirred interest among corrections officials. The
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation tested an RFID
system to track prisoners and found that it lowered rates of violence, illegal
conduct, and property damage in its facilities (as well as detecting people
going through the food line more than once).66 The Commission recommends that NIC provide technical assistance to Federal, State, tribal, and
local authorities who plan to introduce or enhance monitoring technology
in their correctional facilities.

Setting Limits on Cross-Gender Supervision

C

lothed pat-down searches, strip searches, body cavity searches,
and visually observing individuals while undressed are necessary security procedures. However, searches carried out by staff
of the opposite gender heighten the potential for abuse. Ironically,
rules that required officers to meet a daily quota of pat-down searches for
weapons, drugs, or other contraband—five pat-downs per shift—facilitated
some of the abuse that occurred in women’s prisons across Michigan in
the 1990s. A Detroit newspaper account reported that “[s]ome officers did it
the proper way, quickly and with professionalism. But others exploited this
directive, picking out the pretty women to search, the ones who were young
and had long sentences.”67
Former Michigan prisoner Toni Bunton, a plaintiff in the class action lawsuit, recalled one incident that took place in the prison’s recreation
yard. “Give me a shakedown,” an officer commanded Bunton.68 According
to what she wrote in her prison journal, she lifted her arms, and the officer “rubbed his hands down her neck, across her back and around to her
chest. He caressed her breasts. He rubbed her stomach. He squeezed her
buttocks, rubbing up and down her thighs. His hand brushed against her
pelvic bone, as he pulled himself closer to her. Another officer watched.
‘That’s the way you do it,’ the second officer said.”
State corrections officials claimed they had written policies prohibiting the abuse of authority in this context and did not realize some officers
took advantage of the requirement to pat-down prisoners. Today, those
requirements have changed in Michigan. Only women staff are permitted
to search incarcerated women, except in cases of emergency.
In the Commission’s view, the risks are present whether the officers
are female or male.69 Case law, policy, and common perceptions of sexual
abuse in correctional facilities have focused on male officers abusing their
authority with female prisoners.70 Historically, few women worked in corrections, but this situation is changing rapidly. As Martin Horn told the
Commission, “Forty percent of my officers are women. My last three recruit classes, approximately 50 percent of the new officers are women. In

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

the next 3 years, one-third of my workforce is eligible to retire. Three years
from today more than 50 percent of the officers in New York City will be
women supervising men. We’re going to have to deal with this issue of
cross-gender supervision.”71
Some of the women who have joined corrections, like some of the
men, are willing to cross the line to use their authority in sexually abusive
ways. “[W]e have to be very careful and very attentive to our female staff
who work with male inmates as well as our male staff who work with
females,” Richard Stalder, past president of the Association of State Correctional Administrators and the former Louisiana Corrections Secretary,
told the Commission.72
The Commission understands that cross-gender supervision can
have benefits for incarcerated persons and staff. Many experienced corrections professionals believe, for example, that women officers have a calming effect in male units. The Commission’s standard on this issue is not
intended to discourage the practice generally or to limit em- “Give me a shakedown,” an officer commanded Bunton.
ployment opportunities for men
According to what she wrote in her prison journal, she lifted
or women. To prevent abuse,
however, the standard on this her arms, and the officer “rubbed his hands down her neck,
subject strictly prohibits non- across her back and around to her chest. He caressed her
medical staff from conducting
breasts. He rubbed her stomach. He squeezed her buttocks,
cross-gender strip and visual
body cavity searches—except rubbing up and down her thighs. His hand brushed against her
in the case of emergency— pelvic bone, as he pulled himself closer to her. Another officer
because of their extraordinarily watched. ‘That’s the way you do it,’ the second officer said.”
intrusive nature. The standard
also mandates that corrections administrators restrict nonmedical staff
from conducting cross-gender pat-down searches and viewing prisoners
of the opposite gender who are nude or performing bodily functions except in emergency situations or under other extraordinary or unforeseen
circumstances.
Several courts have recognized that prolonged and direct viewing
by male staff violates an incarcerated woman’s right to privacy. In Jordan
v. Gardner, women at the Washington Correction Center for Women, containing minimum- and medium-security units and a special needs center,
challenged a cross-gender supervision policy based on the claim that it violated their Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment.73 Prior to January 1989, the facility had a policy that allowed only
women officers to search women prisoners. On July 5, 1989, a new warden—
citing the need for an increase in the number of searches—ordered corrections officers of either gender to conduct searches. The court noted that
the warden adopted this policy despite the fact that more than 85 percent
of women in the facility had reported a history of past sexual abuse and

C H A P T E R 2: L E A D E RS H I P M AT T E RS

63

that facility staff warned the warden about the psychological impact crossgender searches would have on these women. In light of these facts, the
court found that the policy violated the Eighth Amendment because the
warden was deliberately indifferent to the pain it would cause so many
women in the facility.
In Colman v. Vasquez, the plaintiff had a documented history of
sexual abuse and was placed in a Federal prison program for survivors of
sexual abuse.74 Despite her history, male officers forced her to endure multiple pat-down searches that sometimes included inappropriate touching
and unwarranted sexual advances. The court found that the circumstances could violate the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and its more general guarantee of a right to some measure
of bodily privacy.75 States also may be liable for sexual abuse if facilities
have a policy and practice of permitting male staff to view and supervise incarcerated women, especially in isolated or remote settings, without
female staff present.76
Some courts have found that incarcerated men hold a right to privacy that protects them from certain conduct as well. In Wilson v. City of
Kalamazoo, corrections staff forced newly booked men to strip and placed
them in cells naked, without any covering.77 Each man was monitored by
video surveillance, at times by female corrections officers. In finding that
these men had some right to privacy, the court noted that the “plaintiffs
were denied any and all means of shielding their private body parts from
viewing by others, at least by video surveillance, for at least six, and as
many as 18, hours.”78 These decisions and others echo the Supreme Court’s
declaration in Turner v. Safley that “prison walls do not form a barrier
separating prison inmates from the protections of the Constitution.”79

Bargaining with the Unions

B

oth labor and management have a stake in reducing sexual
abuse in correctional facilities. Collective bargaining agreements
should feature an explicit commitment from unions and their
members as well as management to support a zero-tolerance
approach to sexual abuse. Without such a commitment, there is little common ground upon which to build when negotiating about policies, procedures, and training.
Cooperation between unions and management in many areas is
essential if the Commission’s standards are to be real and meaningful in
practice. Management also should involve union representatives when a
facility assesses and considers implementing new technologies, partly because staff members are more likely to embrace new technologies when

64

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

unions understand them and can articulate their benefits. For example,
staff may be initially apprehensive about the introduction of surveillance
technologies, such as cameras. Union representatives can explain that
these technologies help protect staff from false allegations of sexual misconduct and make the work environment safer.
A particularly thorny issue in management–union relations, and
one with significant repercussions in the area of sexual abuse, concerns
management’s authority to reassign or sanction staff. For example, in
some States when a staff member bids on and wins a job, it becomes his
or hers to keep. In this situation, union rules may prevent facility management from moving the staff member to another assignment against his or
her will.80
The case of Riley v. Olk-Long illustrates how such bidding systems can
make it difficult to ensure safety and hold abusers accountable.81 In January
1995, two women at the Iowa Correctional Institution for Women reported
that a male officer had sexually assaulted them. The facility conducted an
investigation. Although it was deemed inconclusive, the officer received
a 10-day suspension for threatening “‘to get the snitch’” who reported
his behavior.82 In June 1995, a
report circulated that the same
“[T]he union was never against the principle of PREA,” but
officer had picked up a paroled
it was “concerned about the process. . . . Working with the
prisoner at a bus stop en route
union is important to success in implementing PREA.”
to her work release program.
He allegedly took her home,
had sex with her, and later drove her to her destination. His supervisor
investigated the report but could not substantiate it because the former
prisoner did not report the incident to her residential correctional facility
or her parole officer. In October 1995, the officer accosted Pamela Riley.
He asked if she was having sex with her roommate and if he could watch.
Approximately 10 days later, he entered her room during a lockdown and
attempted to reach under her nightshirt but left when she resisted. On
another occasion, he rubbed against her from behind while grabbing her
breasts. Riley was afraid to report the harassment and abuse for fear she
would not be believed and would be disciplined. The officer remained in
his post until someone actually witnessed him sexually abuse Riley when
he went into her room during a routine head count of prisoners in November 1995. At that point, nearly a year after the initial reports, the officer
was terminated. He was charged and pled guilty to sexual misconduct.
In responding to a civil suit against the facility, prison officials contended that the collective bargaining agreement with the union precluded
them from either permanently assigning the officer to an area where he
did not have direct contact with prisoners or assigning another employee
to shadow him. They also argued that under the agreement, they believed

C H A P T E R 2: L E A D E RS H I P M AT T E RS

65

that they had insufficient cause to fire him. The court did not agree, however. The warden and the director of security were held personally liable
and were required to pay monetary damages. An appellate court later upheld this decision, maintaining that the collective bargaining agreement
did not change the fact that the facility was “responsible for providing a
safe environment for inmates” and had failed to do so.83
Given challenges like these, it is crucial that labor and management
reach agreements that allow reassignment of officers when safety is at issue. Wisconsin’s Department of Corrections brought in union leadership
in the beginning of its PREA initiative and engaged in early collaboration
on policy and practice regarding sexual abuse.84 Rick Raemisch, the Secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Corrections, said that “the union
was never against the principle of PREA,” but it was “concerned about the
process. . . . Working with the union is important to success in implementing PREA.”85
Administrators can also devise creative interim solutions to protect incarcerated persons, such as paid administrative leave and surprise
observations by supervisors.86 Technological monitoring may also be
useful to deter or document abuse while an investigation is ongoing.
Collective bargaining agreements also should support disciplinary
sanctions for perpetrators of sexual abuse. Such agreements protect both the
facility and the union. Wayne
“When we as leaders can connect your standards to the Meyers, a staff representative
approaches that we are taking to foster the changes we for the American Federation
of State, County, and Municipal
seek, then the values of PREA will take root in our agencies. Employees, told the Commission,
They will outlast the Commission and they will outlast us.” “[A]s a union rep, we give them
due process, but they’re a safety
and security issue to us. And if they are found guilty and did commit this,
we’re not interested in having them work with us either.”87
Corrections staff may have appeal rights if they are terminated from
their job. A National Academy of Public Administrators panel, formed at
the Commission’s request, found that unions have often negotiated to ensure a grievance procedure that offers resolution by arbitration, which may
run counter to zero-tolerance responses to sexual abuse.88 According to
Joseph Gunn, former Executive Director of the California Corrections Independent Review Panel, the appeals process in California is flawed in just
that way. A staff member who has been disciplined may appeal to a State
Personnel Board and, “[i]n the majority of cases that are appealed to this
board, they overturn management’s recommendations for discipline, and
all that does is weaken management’s authority and also enhance the code
of silence.”89 The Pennsylvania State Police’s disciplinary process, which
also applies to the Department of Corrections, provides a better model.

66

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

Serious acts of misconduct mandate dismissal, and management’s decision is final when a serious infraction has occurred.
With strong leadership and clear policies, corrections administrators can foster a culture within every facility that promotes safety. The
Commission intends for its standards to support these efforts. As veteran
professional and director of the Rhode Island Department of Corrections,
A.T. Wall said, “When we as leaders can connect your standards to the approaches that we are taking to foster the changes we seek, then the values
of PREA will take root in our agencies. They will outlast the Commission
and they will outlast us.”90

C H A P T E R 2: L E A D E RS H I P M AT T E RS

67

Certain individuals are more at risk of
sexual abuse than others. Corrections
administrators must routinely do more
to identify those who are vulnerable
and protect them in ways that do not
leave them isolated and without access
to rehabilitative programming.

3

Unequal Risk:
Vulnerability and Victimization

J

ust weeks after entering Clemens Unit, a State prison in Brazoria
County, Texas, Rodney Hulin began pleading with prison officials to
protect him from other prisoners who were repeatedly beating and
raping him and forcing him to perform oral sex. “I’m afraid to go to
sleep, to shower or just about anything else. I am afraid that when I am
doing these things, I might die at any time. Please, sir, help me.”1
Rodney was 16 years old when he entered Clemens Unit in 1995 and
small even for his age, weighing about 125 pounds and standing just 5’2”
tall. He had been convicted of second-degree arson with property damage
totaling less than $500 as a result of setting a neighborhood dumpster on
fire, and he had been sentenced to 8 years in adult prison.2 Rodney’s mother,
Linda Bruntmyer, told the Commission the whole family was
“[W]e have many, many special needs populations in our jails
afraid that Rodney would be
and prisons. . . . [T]hey’re going to need a different kind of
“targeted by older and tougher
inmates.”3 Indeed, the first rape attention than someone who is not fragile.”
occurred almost immediately
and was confirmed by a medical examination that revealed tears in Rodney’s rectum. Despite Rodney’s pleas to be moved out of the general population, after receiving medical treatment he was returned to the same unit
where he had been raped. Rodney continued to write urgent requests for a
transfer; these requests were also denied. According to Bruntmyer, prison
staff told her son that he did not meet “emergency criteria” and that he
needed to “grow up.”4 Desperate, Rodney started breaking rules so that
staff would place him temporarily in the prison’s disciplinary segregation
unit, where his attackers could not reach him.5 Officials eventually moved
Rodney to a segregated unit, but the transfer came too late. After only 75
days in the facility, Rodney committed suicide by hanging himself in his
prison cell.6
Courts have clearly established that correctional facilities have
a duty to protect incarcerated persons from harm and cannot display
“deliberate indifference.”7 Rodney’s tragic experience at Clemens Unit raises
some hard questions: Why didn’t Rodney’s age, his obvious physical

C H A P T E R 3: U N EQ UA L R IS K : V U L N E R A B I L I T Y A N D V I C T I M I Z AT I O N

69

vulnerability, and his palpable fear trigger a response that protected him
from repeated rapes when he entered Clemens? How can corrections
officials protect the Rodney Hulins under their care? As the past president
of the Association of State Correctional Administrators and the former
Louisiana Corrections Secretary Richard Stalder told the Commission,
“[W]e have many, many special needs populations in our jails and prisons. . . .
[T]hey’re going to need a different kind of attention than someone who is
not fragile.”8
A limited amount of research points to factors that increase the risk
of sexual abuse in confinement.9 Most of this research has focused on the
risks of being abused by other prisoners rather than by staff and on vulnerability factors for men and boys rather than women and girls. This chapter
discusses those factors and also explores what corrections administrators
can do to identify and protect vulnerable individuals.

Young, Small, and Naive

Y

ou can’t show any fear, they pick up on that. You gotta show
strength. . . . Never look down, like you’re afraid to look ‘em in
the eye. . . . You gotta be a man all the time, and a man according to the standards in here.”10 As the comment above suggests,
abusive prisoners notice and take advantage of any sign of fear, loneliness,
or uncertainty. Younger, smaller individuals and those who are unfamiliar with prison culture—both male and female—are more vulnerable to
abuse, partly because they feel overwhelmed and appear ill at ease.11 Initial offers of friendship or protection may suddenly become manipulative
or morph into demands for “payback.”12
Chance Martin was 18 years old and still in high school when he
was arrested for possession of hashish and detained in a county jail in Indiana in 1973. He told the Commission, “I must have looked as scared and
dejected as I felt, because this guy came up and sat on the bunk next to
me and said, ‘Let’s cheer you up
“You can’t show any fear, they pick up on that. You gotta and play some cards.’ I couldn’t
show strength. . . . Never look down, like you’re afraid to even figure out what they were
playing. . . but then they said,
look ‘em in the eye. . . . You gotta be a man all the time, ‘Okay. You lost. Pay up.’”13 Payand a man according to the standards in here.” ment turned out to be a brutal
gang rape by at least six men.
Martin never reported the rape that happened on his first day in jail, but
he told the Commission that he carries the scars of that experience with
him every day.
Corrections officers also may target inexperienced or naive prisoners. Interviews with women residing in California prisons have indicated

70

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

that some male corrections officers seek out “younger female prisoners
who are new to the prison system or unfamiliar with the prison environment” and those serving short sentences who “want to go home” and,
therefore, are less likely to file complaints.14 In another case, for example,
the court found that female staff members at an alternative juvenile facility for those with learning disabilities and mental illness had sexually
targeted younger male residents.15

“Turned Out” or Traumatized

T

.J. Parsell was raped for the first time in 1978 when he entered
Riverside Correctional Facility in Ionia, Michigan. His experience
illustrates how being known as a victim literally attracts predators. “I hoped no one would find out about it, but as I walked
the yard in a daze, other inmates pointed and laughed,” he told the Commission.16 “Once an inmate has been turned out, he’s considered a target
wherever he goes.” According to Robert Dumond, a researcher and clinician with expertise in prison sexual abuse, the culture inside men’s correctional facilities makes it extremely difficult for prisoners to change such
perceptions, even over time.17 Unless facility managers and administrators
take decisive steps to protect these individuals, they may end up being
abused throughout their terms of incarceration.
Even if survivors are not branded as easy targets, the emotional
scars of being previously sexually abused—either inside the facility or previously in the community—can create a vulnerability to future abuse. Sexual abuse prior to incarceration appears to be much more common among
incarcerated women than men. Studies found that from 31 to 59 percent of
incarcerated women reported being sexually abused as children, and 23 to
53 percent reported experiencing sexual abuse as adults.18 The Bureau of
Justice Statistics also found that incarcerated mentally ill prisoners were
more than twice as likely to have a history of prior sexual abuse as the general incarcerated population.19 Past victimization may contribute to feelings
of helplessness in the face of danger and inhibit victims’ ability to seek protection.20 Effects of these prior experiences, coupled with social messages
that threats and acts of victimization are inescapable parts of life, put them
at increased risk of further exploitation.21
Peddle v. Sawyer documents how a male corrections officer in a Federal women’s prison in Danbury, Connecticut, sexually assaulted a prisoner, Sharon Peddle, whose case file described a history of sexual abuse
and vulnerability to being manipulated by men she viewed as authority
figures.22 The officer, who had been investigated several times for sexually abusing other prisoners, read Peddle’s case file without authorization.
He then sexually assaulted her regularly throughout 1995 and 1996 and

C H A P T E R 3: U N EQ UA L R IS K : V U L N E R A B I L I T Y A N D V I C T I M I Z AT I O N

71

threatened to have her transferred to another facility, away from her family members, if she told anyone or refused to submit to him. Other officers
were aware of the abuse, and some even helped to facilitate it. A fellow
officer in the housing unit would call Peddle out of her cell and leave her
with the abusive officer in an area where they would not be observed.
Even after she was reassigned to a special mental health unit for victims
of chronic abuse, the officer followed her. He arranged to be reassigned to
the unit and “regularly woke Ms. Peddle and took her to the TV room or
stairwell where he compelled her to submit to oral and vaginal sex.”23 After
more than a year of raping Peddle, the officer was arrested and pled guilty
to six counts of sexual abuse.

Disabled and At Risk

U

nlike being young or inexperienced, some risk factors may be
longer-lasting. Physical and developmental disabilities and mental illnesses can significantly affect an individual’s ability to
function and remain safe in a correctional facility. Individuals
with severe developmental disabilities are at especially high risk of being
sexually abused. Their naivety, tendency to misinterpret social cues, and
desire to fit in make many developmentally disabled individuals vulnerable to manipulation and control by others.24 If they’ve previously lived in
group homes or other institutions, they may have been conditioned to follow directions from others without regard to their best interests or safety
and may have a history of mistreatment and abuse by the time they enter
a correctional facility.25
Past traumatic experiences condition some developmentally disabled men and women to expect abuse and view submission as a requirement for survival. Prisoners in Kuskokwim Correctional Center in Bethel,
Alaska, brutally assaulted a developmentally disabled inmate in his 40s
and a much younger man. According to Sean Brown, the attorney who represented the men and who prevailed in a civil lawsuit against the department of corrections, “One of the [victims] had his eyebrows ripped off, was
kicked and hit, and was sexually assaulted with a toilet plunger”—abuses
that occurred not over the course of minutes or hours, but over 3 days.26
For men, women, and juveniles coping with serious mental illness,
both the disease itself and the treatment can render them extremely vulnerable.27 Symptoms ranging
“One of the [victims] had his eyebrows ripped off, from hallucinations and parawas kicked and hit, and was sexually assaulted with noia to anxiety and depression
may make it difficult to build
a toilet plunger”—abuses that occurred not over the kind of supportive social
the course of minutes or hours, but over 3 days. networks that could protect

72

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

prisoners from sexual abuse.28 Psychotropic medications often have side
effects, such as sleepiness, slowed reactions, uncontrolled movements,
and withdrawal, that increase a person’s vulnerability as well.29 Moreover,
medications are often dispensed in open areas of the facility during peak
traffic periods, such as around meal times, effectively “outing” people with
a mental illness.
Dumond told the Commission that “[j]ails and prisons in the United
States have become the de facto psychiatric facilities of the 21st century,”
housing more mentally ill individuals than public and private psychological facilities combined.30 The data back up this assertion: a survey of prisoners in 2006 suggests that more than half of all individuals incarcerated
in State prisons suffer from some form of mental health problem and that
the rate in local jails is even higher.31

Gender Rules

R

esearch on sexual abuse in correctional facilities consistently
documents the vulnerability of men and women with nonheterosexual orientations (gay, lesbian, or bisexual) as well as
individuals whose sex at birth and current gender identity do
not correspond (transgender or intersex).32 Scott Long, Director of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Rights Program at Human Rights
Watch, told the Commission, “[E]very day, the lives and the physical
integrity of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people are at stake
within our prison systems.”33 The discrimination, hostility, and violence
members of these groups often face in American society are amplified in
correctional environments and may be expressed by staff as well as other
incarcerated persons.34
Men’s correctional facilities tend to have very rigid cultures that reward extreme masculinity and aggression and perpetuate negative stereotypes about men who act or appear different.35 In this environment, gay,
bisexual, and gender-nonconforming individuals are often the targets of
sexual abuse precisely because the dominant “straight” males expect and
demand submission.36 Criminal justice research indicates that some officials “erroneously assume that inmates who are homosexual or presumed
to be homosexual are consenting to the sexual act,” which may cause them
to ignore those incidents.37
Male-to-female transgender individuals are at special risk. Dean
Spade, founder of the Sylvia Rivera Law Project, testified before the Commission that one of his transgender clients was deliberately placed in a
cell with a convicted sex offender to be raped.38 The assaults continued
for more than 24 hours, and her injuries were so severe that she had to be
hospitalized. Legal cases confirm the targeting of transgender individuals.

C H A P T E R 3: U N EQ UA L R IS K : V U L N E R A B I L I T Y A N D V I C T I M I Z AT I O N

73

In 2008, a male officer at the Correctional Treatment Facility in the District
of Columbia was convicted of sexually assaulting a transgender individual
in the restroom by forcing her to perform fellatio on him.39
Like the individual just discussed, most male-to-female transgender
individuals who are incarcerated are placed in men’s prisons, even if they
have undergone surgery or hormone therapies to develop overtly feminine
traits.40 Their obvious gender nonconformity puts them at extremely high
risk for abuse.41 Cecilia Chung,
“[E]very day, the lives and the physical integrity of lesbian, a transgender woman, testified
before the Commission about
gay, bisexual, and transgender people are at stake her experience of being placed
within our prison systems.” in the “gay pod” at the San
Francisco jail in 1993. “Unfortunately, the gay pod contained all kinds of inmates, and that includes sexual
predators. . . . One of the inmates sexually propositioned me, and it caught
me off guard. I was too intimidated to deny him. I did not know what would
happen to me if I said no. . . . I had sex out of fear.”42 In determining whether
to house transgender individuals in men’s or women’s facilities, the Commission requires individualized determinations based on other factors in
addition to the person’s current genital status.
Lesbian and bisexual women also are targeted in women’s correctional settings. One study reported that a quarter of the women sexually
abused in several Midwestern correctional facilities were either lesbian or
bisexual—a higher proportion than their representation in the correctional
population.43 The majority of the abuse of lesbian women was perpetuated
by male corrections officers. One woman from an Illinois prison told Human Rights Watch that some male corrections officers regarded her sexual
orientation as a challenge and recalled one officer saying, “You need a
good man,” before he sexually assaulted her.44

Screening and Classification of Prisoners

W

hen Glen Goord, former Commissioner of the New York
State Department of Correctional Services, testified before the Commission, he talked about classification as
an integral part of prevention. “[P]lacing resources and
emphasis on classification allows us to address a potential problem even
before it starts.”45
In the most basic terms, classification is the process of assessing
and sorting prisoners to promote safety and security within facilities and
meet the needs of individual prisoners. Over the decades, classification
has evolved from little more than ad hoc decisions to an increasingly
objective, evidence-based process—the “principal management tool for

74

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

allocating scarce prison resources efficiently and minimizing the potential for violence. . . .”46
Classification needs to be objective and free of individual biases.
According to James Austin, the former Executive Vice President of the
National Council on Crime and Delinquency, “Without an objective classification system, it is impossible to determine which inmates should be
separated from one another, how staff should be deployed, how best to
control crowding, how to avoid unnecessary litigation, and how to plan
the next generation of correctional facilities. Without classification, a correctional facility can never be truly secure.”47
There are two forms of classification: external and internal. External classification determines which security level and facility within the
system is most appropriate, based on the person’s crime or the charges
against them; their criminal history and any escape attempts; and other
significant factors, including age and gang affiliation.48 Internal classification occurs when someone enters a facility and focuses primarily on
how that person should be housed and the programming and resources required based on his or her past conduct, vulnerabilities, and special needs,
such as mental or physical health care.49 Some facilities, particularly jails
and jurisdictions with limited security levels or capacity, conduct these
screenings concurrently; the availability of bed space often significantly
affects screening decisions.
Whatever the process, careful screening for risk of sexual abuse
as a victim or perpetrator must occur during both external and internal
classifications to protect vulnerable prisoners.50 Without this process, vulnerable individuals may be forced to live in close proximity or even in the
same cell with sexual assailants. Screening is a critical part of the classification process when trying to prevent sexual abuse by other incarcerated individuals. Unfortunately, there is not yet research on how to screen
individuals to protect them from abuse by staff.
Because many characteristics that make individuals susceptible to
abuse may not be immediately apparent, careful screening is important to
identify special needs and vulnerabilities.51 In the past, screening focused
primarily on spotting predatory prisoners, based primarily on their past
offenses.52 However, there is almost no research on risk factors for perpetration of sexual abuse while incarcerated, thus making it challenging to
identify potential abusers.53 Fairly consistent evidence, however, identifies
characteristics that increase a prisoner’s risk of sexual victimization. Evidence-based, objective screening instruments designed to identify these
risk factors are vital tools to protect vulnerable individuals from abuse by
other prisoners.54 Use of information gained from effective screening enables corrections staff to plan for safety and needed resources. Standardizing the process also reduces the chance that a staff member’s personal
views or lack of expertise will bias assessments.

C H A P T E R 3: U N EQ UA L R IS K : V U L N E R A B I L I T Y A N D V I C T I M I Z AT I O N

Screening for risk
of victimization and
abusiveness
All inmates are screened during intake, during the initial
classification process, and at
all subsequent classification
reviews to assess their risk of
being sexually abused by other
inmates or sexually abusive
toward other inmates. Employees must conduct this screening using a written screening
instrument tailored to the gender of the population being
screened. Although additional
factors may be considered, particularly to account for emerging research and the agency’s
own data analysis, screening
instruments must contain the
criteria described below. All
screening instruments must
be made available to the public
upon request.
At a minimum, employees use the
following criteria to screen male
inmates for risk of victimization:
mental or physical disability, young
age, slight build, first incarceration
in prison or jail, nonviolent history,
prior convictions for sex offenses
against an adult or child, sexual orientation of gay or bisexual, gender
nonconformance (e.g., transgender
or intersex identity), prior sexual
victimization, and the inmate’s own
perception of vulnerability.
At a minimum, employees use the
following criteria to screen male
inmates for risk of being sexually
abusive: prior acts of sexual abuse
and prior convictions for violent offenses.
At a minimum, employees use the
following criteria to screen female
inmates for risk of sexual victimization: prior sexual victimization
and the inmate’s own perception
of vulnerability.
At a minimum, employees use the
following criteria to screen female
inmates for risk of being sexually
abusive: prior acts of sexual abuse.

75

Facilities are required to use a written instrument to guide the
screening process. The first of the Commission’s standards on the subject specifies areas of inquiry that every instrument must cover when
Qualified medical or mental
screening men and, separately, women. As National Institute of Correchealth practitioners ask intions (NIC) Director Morris Thigpen testified, to be effective, screening
mates about prior sexual victim“systems need to be responsive to gender differences.”55 The screening
ization and abusiveness during
process also must solicit incarcerated persons’ views about their own vulmedical and mental health renerability. A NIC study supports this aspect of the standard, finding their
ception and intake screenings.
If an inmate discloses prior
perspectives to be essential.56 In addition to looking for markers of vulsexual victimization or abusivenerability, the standard requires screening for signs that a prisoner may
ness, whether it occurred in an
abuse others. Although there is much less research on perpetration than
institutional setting or in the
victimization, facilities must at least screen men for prior acts of sexual
community, during a medical
abuse and convictions for violent offenses and women for prior acts of
or mental health reception or
sexual abuse.
intake screening, the practitioner provides the appropriate
Some correctional agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Prisreferral for treatment, based
ons and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, now
on his or her professional judguse written instruments to screen all incoming prisoners specifically for
ment. Any information related to
risk of sexual assault. Evidence-based screening should become routine
sexual victimization or abusivenationwide, replacing the subjective assessments that many facilities still
ness that occurred in an instirely on and filling a vacuum for facilities that do not conduct targeted risk
tutional setting must be strictly
limited to medical and mental
assessments.57 The Commission intends for its standards in this area to
health practitioners and other
accelerate progress toward this goal by setting baseline requirements for
staff, as required by agency
when and how to screen prisoners for risk of being a victim or perpetrator
policy and Federal, State, or
of sexual assault and how to use the results of these screenings.
local law, to inform treatment
Correctional health care practitioners have an important role to
plans and security and manageplay in the screening process as well. Most correctional facilities conment decisions, including housing, bed, work, education, and
duct brief medical and mental health assessments during intake and more
program assignments. Medical
comprehensive evaluations a week or two later.58 According to the Comand mental health practitioners
mission’s standard on this aspect of screening, staff must inquire about
must obtain informed consent
any past experience as a victim or perpetrator of sexual abuse. Staff also
from inmates before reporting
must clearly inform prisoners that they are not required to answer such
information about prior sexual
questions and should explain that any information they do provide will be
victimization that did not occur
in an institutional setting, ungiven to other staff on a need-to-know basis as governed by law or agency
less the inmate is under the
policy. If a prisoner discloses information about sexual victimization that
age of 18.
occurred in the community, the standard requires correctional health
practitioners to obtain informed consent from the prisoner—unless the
person is under the age of 18—
before sharing any information
Over the decades, classification has evolved from little about that victimization with
more than ad hoc decisions to an increasingly objective, facility staff responsible for
evidence-based process—the “principal management tool making housing, program, education, and work placements.
for allocating scarce prison resources efficiently and The standards also require that
minimizing the potential for violence. . . .” all screeners receive training in

Medical and mental health
screenings—history of
sexual abuse

76

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

how to inquire about sensitive personal information, ranging from disabilities to sexual orientation.59
Screening an individual only at intake is not sufficient. Even the
most skilled interviewers may fail to elicit complete answers during the
initial screening. Additionally, some risk factors, such as mental illness;
fear of being assaulted; and a propensity to manipulate, control, or abuse
others, may develop or become apparent only after a person has spent
some time confined in a facility.60 For these reasons, the Commission mandates regular review of sexual abuse risk assessments: recommending reviews within 6 months of the initial screening and every year thereafter
in prisons, and within 60 days of the initial screening and every 90 days
thereafter in jails.
The research underlying risk assessment continues to evolve even
as this report goes to press, and requirements outlined in the standards
are only a starting point. The Commission urges corrections administrators to craft and refine their screening instruments to reflect the latest research. Tailoring screening instruments to reflect the demographic
and site-specific culture of the facilities these administrators operate as
well as what they learn about the characteristics of victims and perpetrators through regular review of their own incident data will enhance the
instruments’ effectiveness. NIC advises correctional agencies to review
their screening protocols and classification systems annually and conduct
a formal evaluation every 3 years.61

Using Screening to Enhance Safety

T

Use of screening information
Employees use information from
the risk screening (SC-1) to inform housing, bed, work, education, and program assignments
with the goal of keeping separate
those inmates at high risk of being sexually victimized from those
at high risk of being sexually
abusive. The facility makes individualized determinations about
how to ensure the safety of each
inmate. Lesbian, gay, bisexual,
transgender, or other gendernonconforming inmates are not
placed in particular facilities,
units, or wings solely on the
basis of their sexual orientation, genital status, or gender
identity. Inmates at high risk
for sexual victimization may be
placed in segregated housing
only as a last resort and then
only until an alternative means
of separation from likely abusers
can be arranged. To the extent
possible, risk of sexual victimization should not limit access to
programs, education, and work
opportunities.

o be effective, the results of these screenings must then drive decisions about housing and programming. When Kenneth Young was
sentenced to 5 years in prison for a counterfeit deal amounting to
$42 in 1988, he described himself as “small, young, white, and
effeminate.”62 After a few months in a lower-security facility, Young was
placed in a two-person cell in a high-security Federal prison in Lewisburg,
Pennsylvania, among prisoners convicted of serious crimes. Young’s first
cellmate continuously threatened him with sexual abuse. After repeated requests, Young was moved, only to face immediate assaults and threats from
his new cellmate. This new cellmate eventually attached a razor blade to a
toothbrush and, holding it to Young’s throat, forced him to perform a sexual
act. Young wrote letters to prison officials detailing this attack and others to
no avail. Finally, he became so desperate for help that he flooded his cell to
attract officers’ attention. As punishment, Young was placed in a “dry cell”
with no access to running water, a toilet, or a shower for 96 hours.
In ruling in Young’s favor in Young v. Quinlan, the court stated,
“It would be an abomination of the Constitution to force a prisoner to live

C H A P T E R 3: U N EQ UA L R IS K : V U L N E R A B I L I T Y A N D V I C T I M I Z AT I O N

77

in his own excrement for four days. . .” and noted that prison officials
subjected Young to “dehumanizing conditions” while ignoring his urgent
pleas for help.63
Courts have commented specifically on the obligation of correctional agencies to gather and use screening information to protect prisoners
from abuse. While awaiting trial in a State prison in Puerto Rico in 1999,
Jesús Manuel Calderón-Ortiz was detained in a housing unit with violent
prisoners.64 The lone officer on duty, stationed in an enclosed control area
at the entrance of the unit, could not see into the cells, and made no patrols
that day. No one intervened when four prisoners from Calderón-Ortiz’s unit
entered his cell, threw a blanket over his face, and threatened to kill him.
They then gang-raped him for more than half an hour, leaving him unable
to move because of his injuries.
In deciding in his favor, the First Circuit concurred with allegations
that “‘housing inmates without adequate regard to their custody and security needs and/or adequate classification is “unreasonably dangerous”. . .’”
and stated that “‘at a constitutional minimum [correctional facilities] must
adopt some system of classifying and housing prisoners to assure [sic]
that a prisoner’s propensity for
No one intervened when four prisoners from violence as well as an inmate’s
Calderón-Ortiz’ unit entered his cell, threw a emotional and physical health
blanket over his face, and threatened to kill him. be accounted for so as to minimize the risk of harm from
They then gang-raped him for more than half an hour, fellow inmates to which the
leaving him unable to move because of his injuries. prisoners are now exposed.’”65

Protection Not Segregation

T

he Commission’s second standard on screening requires correctional agencies and facilities to use the information gathered to
separate vulnerable individuals from likely abusers in housing,
employment, education, and other programming.
When Alexis Giraldo was sentenced to serve time in the California
correctional system, her male-to-female transgender identity and appearance
as a woman triggered a recommendation to place her in a facility with higher
concentrations of transgender prisoners, where she might be safer.66 Officials
ignored this recommendation and sent her to Folsom Prison in 2006.
At Folsom, a male prisoner employed as a lieutenant’s clerk requested Giraldo as his cellmate; the facility granted this request. He then
“‘sexually harassed, assaulted, raped, and threatened’ [her] on a daily basis.”67 Soon thereafter, the cellmate introduced Giraldo to another prisoner,
who subsequently requested Giraldo as his cellmate. That request was also
granted. Giraldo’s new cellmate also raped and beat her daily. It was only

78

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

after her cellmate attacked her with a box cutter and raped her that officials moved Giraldo to a more protected environment. In ruling on this
case, an appellate court in California found that “the relationship between
them is protective by nature, such that the jailer has control over the prisoner, who is deprived of the normal opportunity to protect himself from
harm inflicted by others. This. . . is the epitome of a special relationship,
imposing a duty of care on a jailer owed to a prisoner.”68
Even when corrections administrators intend to fulfill their “duty
of care,” they sometimes intervene too late. Kendell Spruce said he was
“scared to death” when he entered an Arkansas State prison in 1991 at the
age of 28.69 Within 2 weeks, he was raped at knifepoint. Afterward, officials placed him in protective custody, but he was not safe there either. The
unit also housed known sexual offenders, who often become the targets
of abuse in prison. “I was put in a [double] cell with a rapist who had fullblown AIDS. Within 2 days he forced me to give. . . him oral sex and anally
raped me. I yelled for guards, but it was so loud in there, no one came to
help me.”70 Spruce began to break prison rules, believing that the punishment—administrative segregation, which involved being locked day and
night in a cell alone—was the only thing that would save him.
Kendell Spruce’s experience reveals failures in screening and classification, day-to-day management of bed space, and supervision that are not
unusual. Corrections staff may rely on segregation units to protect vulnerable
prisoners from sexual abuse, and some victims experiencing severe assaults
may seek transfer to segregation to escape their attackers. These placements
are intended to be temporary but, in practice, can last for months.71
Relying on segregation in any form to protect vulnerable prisoners
from sexual abuse presents several serious problems. These units typically
cannot accommodate everyone needing protection.72 Additionally, the living conditions in protective custody may be as restrictive as those imposed
to punish prisoners. In a typical protective custody unit, individuals are
placed in maximum-security cells.73 Privileges are greatly reduced, with
as little as an hour a day outside the cell for exercise, extremely limited
contact with other prisoners, and reduced or no access to educational or
recreational programs.74
Professor Vincent M. Nathan, a consultant to the U.S. Department
of Justice in several investigations conducted under the authority of the
Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, contends that all types of
segregation “carry with them a level of control that is punitive in effect
if not in intent,” and noted that any programming available is likely to be
presented via closed circuit television.75 Serving time under these conditions is exceptionally difficult and takes a toll on mental health, particularly if the victim has a prior history of mental illness.76 Studies confirm
that psychological distress increases along with the degree of restrictions
in segregation.77

C H A P T E R 3: U N EQ UA L R IS K : V U L N E R A B I L I T Y A N D V I C T I M I Z AT I O N

79

The Commission’s standards allow facilities to segregate victims
or potential victims of sexual abuse only as a last resort. The standard
permits facilities to place individuals in protective custody, especially if
they request it, but only on a short-term basis. When an individual is vulnerable to sexual abuse and feels threatened, providing protective custody
while other remedies are arranged may be the only way to prevent an attack.78 While aiming to keep these placements short-term, facilities must
also provide programming, employment, and education to every extent
possible: the Seventh Circuit has applied the principle of equal protection
in this area.79 Moreover, research suggests that academic and vocational
programs are associated with lower recidivism and better employment opportunities after release.80
When prisoners at high risk of victimization cannot be safely
housed anywhere other than in segregation, the Commission suggests
that facilities consider a transfer to another facility. The Commission
discourages the creation of specialized units for vulnerable groups, and
the standard specifically prohibits housing assignments based solely on
a person’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or genital status because
this practice can lead to labeling that is both demoralizing and dangerous.81 Many corrections administrators agree. San Francisco Sheriff
Michael Hennessey told the Commission that his city’s jails no longer have
so-called gay units.82

The Risks of Crowding

I

n Taylor v. Michigan Department of Corrections, the court described
Timothy Taylor as “five foot tall, 120 pounds. . . mildly mentally retarded with an IQ of 66, . . . youthful looking features, and [suffering from] a seizure disorder.”83 The court also noted that Taylor had a
history of suicidal behavior. Despite assessments within the facility that
Taylor “belonged to a class of prisoners likely to be a target of sexual pressure in prison and that he could easily be in danger if placed in the general
prison population,” he was transferred to a prison dormitory to save bed
space for new arrivals.84 Soon after moving into the dormitory in September 1985, another prisoner sexually assaulted Taylor.
Crowding is both a risk factor—environmental rather than personal—
and a real barrier to carving out safe spaces for vulnerable prisoners. In
2007, 19 States and the Federal
As a facility’s population expands, prisoners also system were operating at more
of their highhave fewer or no opportunities to participate in than 100 percent
85
est capacity. An equal number
education and job training. Idleness and the stress of of States operated at somewhere
living in crowded conditions lead to conflict. between 90 and 99 percent of

80

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

capacity. One study found that facilities designed for 1,800 women held
almost 4,000, and cells designed for four women held eight.86
Forced to accommodate a larger prisoner population than most facilities were designed to house, administrators have taken drastic measures.87 Cells designed for one person now hold two, with double-celling
now the norm in many facilities, significantly increasing the opportunities for sexual abuse.88 Many corrections administrators make use of any
unoccupied space as housing.89 Facilities convert day rooms, cafeterias,
classrooms, storage areas, and basements into makeshift dormitories, with
intrinsic risk for abuse and supervision challenges.90
Larger prison and jail populations, combined with staff shortages,
typically mean that officers have more people to supervise, making it harder for officers to prevent abuse.91 An Oregon corrections officer described
a dorm in his facility with 88 prisoners and only one officer “working
the floor.”92 As a facility’s population expands, prisoners also have fewer
or no opportunities to participate in education and job training. Idleness
and the stress of living in crowded conditions lead to conflict.93 Employment, education, and other programming prepare incarcerated individuals
to become law-abiding members of communities instead of individuals so
damaged by abuse they have little hope of success after release.94 Meaningful activities will not end sexual abuse, but they are part of the solution.
It is critical that lawmakers tackle the problem of overcrowding
head on. As Timothy Taylor’s experience illustrates, vulnerable individuals become even more vulnerable under these conditions. If facilities and
entire systems are forced to operate beyond capacity and supervision is
a pale shadow of what it must be, our best efforts to identify vulnerable
individuals through objective screening and to protect them from sexual
assault by acting on those assessments will fall far short of the goal PREA
is designed to reach.

C H A P T E R 3: U N EQ UA L R IS K : V U L N E R A B I L I T Y A N D V I C T I M I Z AT I O N

81

Few correctional facilities are subject to
the kind of rigorous internal monitoring
and external oversight that would reveal
why abuse occurs and how to prevent it.
Dramatic reductions in sexual abuse
depend on both.

4

Inside and Out:
Strengthening Oversight

B

eginning in fall 2003, the Texas Youth Commission (TYC), the
agency responsible for the care and custody of all youth committed to Texas juvenile facilities, began receiving reports of sexual
misconduct at the West Texas State School.1 Concerned school
staff reported that the assistant superintendent and the school principal
called boys out of their dorm rooms during the night to spend time alone
with them.2 TYC administrators in Austin did not respond to those reports
for nearly a year. Finally, in late 2004, a high-ranking TYC director who
knew one of the suspected administrators was sent to the school to investigate. Despite the fact that the school’s security log showed that boys were
indeed being called out of their rooms to be with the assistant superintendent after hours and that he had unauthorized access to the student grievance box, the TYC official declared the allegations of sexual abuse to be
unfounded and urged one of the staff members who had reported abuse to
be more supportive of the administration.3
A few months later, in February 2005, two boys approached a volunteer math tutor and told him something “icky” was going on.4 One boy
confided that the assistant superintendent was sexually abusing Both men were allowed to resign quietly; the principal
him and claimed he could name subsequently became principal of a charter school in another
five other boys who were simipart of Texas. The school’s superintendent was briefly
larly victimized. Later that week,
the tutor witnessed the same man suspended but later promoted. The high-ranking TYC director
escorting students to a conference who failed to uncover any abuse received no sanctions.
room near his office after hours.
The tutor immediately informed the state police agency, the Texas Rangers, who conducted a thorough investigation and uncovered long-standing
sexual abuse by the assistant superintendent and the school principal.
A subsequent internal investigation by the TYC’s Inspector General confirmed the Rangers’ findings—noting that the assistant superintendent and school principal had taken boys into darkened broom closets
and out on the grounds in golf carts at night and sexually molested them.
The internal investigation also alluded to a pervasive culture of secrecy,

C H A P T E R 4 : I N S I D E A N D O U T: S T R E N G T H E N I N G O V E R S I G H T

83

Sexual abuse incident
reviews
The facility treats all instances
of sexual abuse as critical incidents to be examined by a team
of upper management officials,
with input from line supervisors,
investigators, and medical/
mental health practitioners.
The review team evaluates
each incident of sexual abuse
to identify any policy, training,
or other issues related to the
incident that indicate a need
to change policy or practice to
better prevent, detect, and/or
respond to incidents of sexual
abuse. The review team also
considers whether incidents
were motivated by racial or
other group dynamics at the facility. When incidents are determined to be motivated by racial
or other group dynamics, upper
management officials immediately notify the agency head
and begin taking steps to rectify those underlying problems.
The sexual abuse incident review takes place at the conclusion of every sexual abuse
investigation, unless the allegation was determined to be
unfounded. The review team
prepares a report of its findings and recommendations for
improvement and submits it to
the facility head.

84

suppression of reporting, and retaliation.5 Corrections staff had threatened
victims with lengthened sentences and lack of services after release if they
reported the abuse; boys who dared to complain were punished. The report
noted that the superintendent had received multiple reports of wrongdoing by the assistant superintendent but failed to respond properly or report
the allegations to more senior administrators in Austin. Both men were
allowed to resign quietly; the principal subsequently became principal of
a charter school in another part of Texas. The school’s superintendent was
briefly suspended but later promoted. The high-ranking TYC director who
failed to uncover any abuse received no sanctions.6 Until 2007, a story of
extensive sexual victimization, deliberate indifference, and massive coverup seemed to just fade away in the vast landscape of West Texas.
Indeed, what stands out most in the story up to this point is the
complete lack of accountability. The only people watching out for the children were the staff, yet when they diligently reported the incidents, their
reports were ignored. At the time, the systems and mechanisms were not
in place that would have made it impossible for TYC officials to look the
other way. This chapter describes such systems and mechanisms: ones
corrections administrators create and manage internally to monitor themselves, and others that are intentionally beyond their direct control but that
have significant impact on reducing sexual abuse in correctional facilities.

Incident Reviews: Micro to Macro

I

ncidents of sexual abuse are as dangerous to a facility’s overall safety
as nonsexual assaults. They constitute a breach of security that demands a full inquiry into what factors allowed sexual abuse to occur.
The Commission’s standards establish two levels of review: at the incident level following any occurrence of abuse and at the facility or agency
level at regularly planned intervals.
The most effective prevention efforts are targeted interventions that
reflect where, when, and under what conditions sexual abuse occurs as well
as how staff respond. That knowledge can be gained through routine incident reviews following every report of sexual abuse. These reviews reveal patterns, such as vulnerable locations, times of highest risk, and other conditions.
Although investigations to substantiate allegations and collect the evidence
necessary to support sanctions or criminal prosecution offer many insights,
they are not enough. Systematic incident reviews generate information administrators need to make efficient use of limited resources, deploy staff wisely,
safely manage high-risk areas, and develop more effective policies and procedures.7 A number of State departments of corrections already conduct some
type of review of sexual abuse incidents, including departments in Alabama,
Arizona, Colorado, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Utah.8

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

Data collection
The Commission’s standard on this subject requires correctional
facilities to treat every report of sexual abuse as a critical incident to be
The agency collects accurate,
uniform data for every reported
examined by a team of upper management officials, with input from line
incident of sexual abuse using
supervisors, investigators, and medical and mental health practitioners.
a standardized instrument and
The sexual abuse incident review takes place at the conclusion of every
set of definitions. The agency
sexual abuse investigation, unless the allegation was determined to be
aggregates the incident-based
unfounded. By reviewing all facts and circumstances surrounding an incisexual abuse data at least
dent and the quality of the facility’s response, officials can spot problems
annually. The incident-based
data collected includes, at a
and take steps to remedy them.
minimum, the data necessary
A critical incident review may reveal, for example, dangerous, unto answer all questions from
monitored areas of a facility, housing assignments that put vulnerable inthe most recent version of the
dividuals at risk of sexual abuse, officers who are not complying with
BJS Survey on Sexual Violence.
facility regulations, divisive racial dynamics motivating sexual abuse, or
Data are obtained from multislow responses by frontline staff. A review will also reveal what is working
ple sources, including reports,
investigation files, and sexual
well: This might include reporting mechanisms, screening for risk of vicabuse incident reviews. The
timization, collection of forensic evidence, or cooperation between investiagency also obtains incidentgators and mental health staff. A clear protocol should guide the review so
based and aggregated data
that staff conduct each one in the same way. The Commission’s standard
from every facility with which it
requires the review team to prepare a report for the facility head that sumcontracts for the confinement
marizes the review’s findings and recommendations.
of its inmates.
As Doug Dretke, former Director of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, told the Commission: “Internal accountability begins with
knowing what is actually occurring within a prison facility.”9 The Commission’s standards require correctional agencies to collect uniform data
on every reported incident of
sexual abuse from sources that A critical incident review may reveal, for example,
must include investigation files
dangerous, unmonitored areas of a facility, housing
and incident reviews and to
aggregate those data at least assignments that put vulnerable individuals at risk of
annually.10 Agencies must col- sexual abuse, officers who are not complying with facility
lect information from each faregulations, divisive racial dynamics motivating sexual
cility or program with which
an agency contracts. At a mini- abuse, or slow responses by frontline staff.
mum, facilities must collect the
data necessary to answer all questions on the most recent version of the
Bureau of Justice Statistics’ Survey on Sexual Violence. The Commission
encourages administrators to collect any additional data that would help
them understand and address the problem of sexual abuse in their systems.
Aggregate data are especially useful in documenting patterns and
trends and in measuring performance within facilities and throughout
entire correctional systems. The Commission urges standardization of
the questions across jurisdictions so that information can be compared.
Uniform data collection puts an end to each department (or correctional facility) creating its own reports and analysis with different rules for

C H A P T E R 4 : I N S I D E A N D O U T: S T R E N G T H E N I N G O V E R S I G H T

85

Data storage, publication,
and destruction

interpretation; instead, information can be compared across systems
and over time.11 Former Secretary of the North Carolina Department of
The agency ensures that the
Correction Theodis Beck told the Commission about the benefits of collectcollected sexual abuse data
ing and tracking data statewide: “Data related to inmate-on-inmate assaults
are properly stored, securely
and inappropriate relationships between staff and inmates are maintained
retained, and protected. The
electronically in the Department’s offender population unified system. . . .
agency makes all aggregated
The database tracks information regarding perpetrators of sexual violence,
sexual abuse data, from facilivictims of sexual violence, and inmates involved in inappropriate relationties under its direct control and
those with which it contracts,
ships with employees. Th[ese] data [are] readily accessible for analysis and
readily available to the public
help. . . correctional staff to make appropriate housing assignments and
at least annually through its
provide proper supervision of these inmates.”12
Web site or, if it does not have
Correctional agencies must report these data to the proper officials
one, through other means. Beand
make
aggregate sexual abuse data available to the public to review at
fore making aggregated sexual
least annually through their Web sites or, if an agency does not have a Web
abuse data publicly available,
the agency removes all personsite, through other means. The objective is transparency that meets the
al identifiers from the data. The
public’s right to be accurately informed about the functioning of a crucial
agency maintains sexual abuse
government institution and that also protects corrections administrators
data for at least 10 years after
and all staff from false impressions or accusations about sexual abuse in
the date of its initial collection
the facilities they operate.13
unless Federal, State, or local
Because sexual abuse databases will include names and sensitive
law allows for the disposal of
official information in less than
personal information, security is required to safeguard the privacy of in10 years.
dividuals involved in sexual abuse incidents and guarantee the integrity
of the data. Suggested security restrictions include limiting the number of
persons who have access to the data and storing the data in an encrypted
form in a secure location. Before publishing aggregate data or releasing
them to anyone outside of the agency, all personal identifiers must be removed so that individual prisoners cannot be identified. The Commission’s
standard requires agencies to retain their sexual abuse data for at least 10
years unless State law mandates earlier disposal.
The data that correctional agencies collect, aggregate, and review
form the basis for taking action to reduce sexual abuse. According to the
Commission’s standard, each
“We can’t make a dent in this problem if we don’t facility must formulate corrective action plans based on what
have a full understanding of what is really going on the data reveal about trends,
inside our facilities. . . . With accurate data in hand, patterns, and persistent probour final step is to critically examine our actions lems. Beck put it this way: “We
and our outcomes.” can’t make a dent in this problem if we don’t have a full understanding of what is really
going on inside our facilities. . . . With accurate data in hand, our final step
is to critically examine our actions and our outcomes.”14 The standards
also require correctional agencies to prepare annual reports that describe
problems, the specific action plans a facility will follow to correct them,

86

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

and action plans for the agency as a whole. The annual report also must
compare the current year’s data and action plans with those from prior
years and assess the agency’s progress in addressing sexual abuse. Administrators are required to submit their reports to the appropriate legislative
body and make them readily available to the public through the agency’s
Web site or through other means.

Independent Audits

R

outine incident reviews, data collection, and analysis allow administrators to spot and correct problems before they spiral out
of control and to refine good practices. Yet even the most rigorous internal monitoring cannot replace the value of opening up
correctional facilities to review by outsiders. In her testimony before the
Commission, Professor Michele Deitch, a nationally recognized expert in
oversight of correctional systems, talked about how internal and external
mechanisms work together to help corrections leaders operate safe and humane facilities, contending, “Effective prison management demands both
internal accountability measures and external scrutiny. The two go handin-hand, and neither is a replacement for the other.”15
Any time institutions bear responsibility for the control of dependent individuals, it is imperative that there be outside reviews to ensure
the proper treatment and safety of persons in their care. To meet this imperative, the Commission requires detailed, robust audits by qualified
independent auditors in all correctional facilities to measure compliance
with the standards. Independent audits give corrections administrators
the opportunity to receive objective feedback on their performance from
skilled reviewers and enhance the public’s understanding of what goes on
behind the walls of America’s prisons and jails.
Audits are not a new idea. The American Correctional Association
(ACA), the leading corrections professional organization in the country,
has issued professional standards and accredited correctional facilities
based on audits of compliance with those standards since the 1970s.16 ACA
accreditation is an extensive, labor-intensive process for both auditors and
corrections administrators. It involves a review of documents supporting
the facility’s compliance with the standards and a 3-day in-person audit
of the facility. ACA then submits the results of its inquiry to a three-tofive-member panel of the Commission on Accreditation for Corrections—
professionals across a range of disciplines with expertise in correctional
practice. During a hearing, a facility representative has the opportunity to
discuss issues and address concerns from the panel before it makes a recommendation about accreditation. Correctional facilities pay ACA to audit
them, and the process is strictly voluntary.

C H A P T E R 4 : I N S I D E A N D O U T: S T R E N G T H E N I N G O V E R S I G H T

Data review for corrective
action
The agency reviews, analyzes,
and uses all sexual abuse data,
including incident-based and
aggregated data, to assess and
improve the effectiveness of its
sexual abuse prevention, detection, and response policies,
practices, and training. Using
these data, the agency identifies problem areas, including
any racial dynamics underpinning patterns of sexual abuse,
takes corrective action on an
ongoing basis, and, at least annually, prepares a report of its
findings and corrective actions
for each facility as well as the
agency as a whole. The annual
report also includes a comparison of the current year’s data
and corrective actions with
those from prior years and provides an assessment of the
agency’s progress in addressing sexual abuse. The agency’s
report is approved by the agency head, submitted to the appropriate legislative body, and
made readily available to the
public through its Web site or,
if it does not have one, through
other means. The agency may
redact specific material from
the reports when publication
would present a clear and specific threat to the safety and security of a facility, but it must
indicate the nature of the material redacted.

87

Audits of standards
The public agency ensures that
all of its facilities, including contract facilities, are audited to
measure compliance with the
PREA standards. Audits must
be conducted at least every
three years by independent and
qualified auditors. The public or
contracted agency allows the
auditor to enter and tour facilities, review documents, and
interview staff and inmates, as
deemed appropriate by the auditor, to conduct comprehensive
audits. The public agency ensures that the report of the
auditor’s findings and the public or contracted agency’s plan
for corrective action (DC-3) are
published on the appropriate
agency’s Web site if it has one
or are otherwise made readily
available to the public.

Although ACA has been a leader in promoting accountability within the corrections profession and publishes a list of all accredited facilities
on its Web site, ACA audits and their results also are not always available
to the public. These audits are the property of each jurisdiction to publish
or not; as a matter of policy, ACA does not release them. Additionally, the
ACA standards are less comprehensive than the Commission’s standards
in terms of the causes of sexual abuse and the mechanisms necessary to
prevent and respond to abuse.
In its standards, the Commission outlines an audit process that promotes transparency as well as accountability. Specifically, the Commission
requires independent audits to measure compliance with its standards at
least every 3 years. The independence of the auditor is crucial. The individual or entity cannot be employed by the correctional agency but may be
a staff or contract worker hired by the jurisdiction or someone authorized
by law, regulation, or the judiciary to perform audits. The auditor must be
prequalified through the U.S. Department of Justice to perform audits competently and without bias. The Commission recommends that the National
Institute of Corrections design and develop a national training program
for this purpose. The ability to operate without constraint is crucial. The
auditor must have unfettered access to all parts of the facility as well as
all documents, staff, and prisoners. The agency must publish the auditor’s
report on its Web site, if it has one, or otherwise make it easily available
to the public.
The comprehensive information generated by independent audits
and the corresponding corrective action plans—coupled with the rigor and
transparency of the process—will enhance public confidence in correctional agencies and their willingness and ability to prevent sexual abuse.
When audits show an agency struggling or failing to prevent sexual abuse,
outsiders will have the data they need to intervene.

Beyond Audits

I

n February 2007, as Texas Youth Commission Director Dwight Harris
sat before the Texas Senate Finance Committee presenting his agency’s
fiscal needs, a senator confronted him with the allegations of sexual
abuse at the West Texas State School. A legislative staffer had been
tipped off a few months earlier in October 2006.17 Harris tried to assure the
Committee that “his staff had done everything in their power to address”
the problem—even claiming that staff had alerted the Texas Rangers—and
that the investigation was closed.18 Not persuaded, the Texas Legislature
formed a Joint Select Committee on Operation and Management of the TYC
to investigate the entire system.

88

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

The Ranger who conducted the 2005 investigation at the West Texas State School testified before the Committee about what he had seen,
remembering, “When I interviewed the victims. . . I saw kids with fear
in their eyes, kids who knew they were trapped in an institution within
a system that would not respond to their cries for help.”19 After deploying
investigators throughout the State, the Committee found that youth had
filed a stunning 750 complaints of sexual misconduct against TYC corrections officers and other TYC staff since 2000. In June 2007,20 the Texas Legislature enacted a series of reforms, including multiple external oversight
mechanisms for the TYC. The two administrators were ultimately indicted
on various charges, including sexual assault and improper sexual activity
with persons in custody.21 Outcomes for the victims in the West Texas State
School are unknown.
In the end, it took outsiders with authority—the Texas Legislature—
to reveal the sexual abuse of children within the TYC and to hold those responsible for the abuse accountable. But the legislature did not stop there.
In addition to the Joint Committee, the legislature created a permanent
ombudsman to oversee the TYC. Will Harrell currently occupies that post
and believes his role is important even in facilities in which administrators and staff are working diligently to do the right thing. “If you walk by
a problem every single day, you begin to think that’s just the way that it
is,” Harrell testified to the Commission.22 “To bring in external fresh eyes
is usually helpful to a local administrator.”
Many corrections administrators share Harrell’s views. “It’s a good
thing when outsiders come in and take a look at the place, and there may
be something that I can be doing a little bit better,” Joseph Oxley, former
Sheriff of Monmouth County, New Jersey, told the Commission.23 Across
the country, there is growing recognition that the watchful eyes of outsiders can help transform institutions that had been “insular, “When I interviewed the victims. . . I saw kids with
opaque places,” in the words of
fear in their eyes, kids who knew they were trapped in
Matthew Cate, Secretary of the
an institution within a system that would not respond
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and to their cries for help.”
former Inspector General of
the department.24 The problem of sexual abuse, in particular, “cannot be
solved without some form of public oversight of our Nation’s prisons and
jails,” Cate told the Commission.25
For some time now, several States and localities have been developing forms of external oversight that vary widely in scope, function, and
authority—from ombudsmen like Harrell to Ohio’s eight-member legislative committee, also forged in the wake of allegations of sexual and other
abuse of juveniles. Other examples of correctional oversight include what
appears to be a unique grand jury system in Oregon, a board of visitors in

C H A P T E R 4 : I N S I D E A N D O U T: S T R E N G T H E N I N G O V E R S I G H T

89

Maine, and a Prison Society in Pennsylvania. A board of correction monitors New York City jails, whereas in Los Angeles, the Office of Independent
Review oversees every investigation of officer misconduct.
In 2006, many of the Nation’s corrections leaders, along with lawmakers, judges, journalists, advocates, and scholars, participated in a
conference at which they reached consensus about the value of and need
for external oversight of America’s prisons and jails.26 Based on that consensus, the American Bar Association (ABA) adopted a formal resolution
urging Federal, State, and territorial governments to “establish public
entities that are independent of any correctional agency to regularly
monitor and report publicly on the conditions in all prisons, jails, and
other adult and juvenile correctional and detention facilities operating
within their jurisdiction.”27
Although the resolution does not impose a particular model of external oversight and acknowledges the value of multiple forms of oversight, its 20 requirements capture the characteristics that experts and
practitioners generally agree
“It’s a good thing when outsiders come in and are necessary to achieve true
take a look at the place, and there may be accountability and transparen28
something that I can be doing a little bit better.” cy. Perhaps most important,
the person or body overseeing
corrections must operate independently of any public or private entity that
could exert enough pressure to compromise or corrupt its work.
Beyond independence, other key characteristics include the authority and capacity to monitor facilities and examine past abuses to prevent
future problems; a mandate to regularly inspect facilities without necessarily providing advance notice; unfettered and confidential access to prisoners, staff, documents, and other materials; a holistic approach, drawing
on diverse sources of information; a mandate to publicly report findings
and require a prompt and public response from the correctional agency;
and adequate resources and control over its budget.29 The Commission
believes that when external oversight is strong in these ways, everyone’s
interests are served, perhaps especially those of corrections administrators
who depend on educated legislatures and the public to support significant
reform in the facilities they manage.
Several oversight entities incorporate at least some of these factors.
California’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) is one of the most complex in terms of formal authority and operational design. As a matter of
law, the OIG has a “golden key” to California’s State-run prisons and juvenile facilities. OIG staff have the authority to enter any facility at any time
and speak to any person or review any documentation. The OIG also has
subpoena powers, authority to arrest and to seek search warrants, and a
mandate to provide real-time oversight of the department’s own internal
affairs investigations. In addition, a special ombudsman within the OIG is

90

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

specifically tasked to investigate reports of sexual abuse that the department may have mishandled.30 To ensure transparency, the OIG is required
to post results of its semiannual facility audits and other facility reviews
on its Web site, along with summaries describing the outcomes of criminal and administrative investigations and the department’s own staff disciplinary processes. Complete institutional separation from the California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, a 6-year appointment for
the inspector general with removal only for cause, and a budget determined by caseload strengthen the OIG’s independence.31
External oversight by inspectors general, ombudsmen, legislative
committees, or other bodies would work hand-in-hand with regular audits of the Commission’s standards. The Commission endorses the ABA’s
resolution on external oversight and urges governments to act quickly to
create forms of external oversight strong enough to make all correctional
facilities more transparent, accountable, and, ultimately, safe.

When Protection Requires Court Intervention

C

ourts cannot replace internal monitoring, audits, and ombudsmen or inspectors general, yet society depends on them when
other modes of oversight fail or are lacking altogether. According to Margo Schlanger, an expert on prison litigation, court
orders have had an enormous impact on the Nation’s jails and prisons.
“In requiring or forbidding specified policies and practices, court orders
are a major part of the regulatory backdrop against which many types of
governmental and nongovernmental actors operate.”32 Beyond the reforms
courts usher in, their scrutiny of abuses elicits attention from the public
and reaction from lawmakers in a way that almost no other form of oversight can accomplish.
Corrections officials themselves have told us that they rely in part on
litigation to command the resources they need to protect prisoners from sexual abuse. In her testimony before a House Judiciary Subcommittee, former
Warden of San Quentin State Prison and former head of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Jeanne Woodford said, “Any good
prison administrator should not fear the involvement of the courts. From my
experience over the last 30 years as a corrections official, I have come to understand the importance of court oversight. The courts have been especially
crucial during recent years, as California’s prison population has exploded,
and prison officials have been faced with the daunting task of running outdated and severely overcrowded facilities. . . . All of this court intervention
has been necessary because of my state’s unwillingness to provide the Department with the resources it requires. These lawsuits have helped the state
make dramatic improvements to its deeply flawed prison system.”33

C H A P T E R 4 : I N S I D E A N D O U T: S T R E N G T H E N I N G O V E R S I G H T

91

Cason v. Seckinger, filed in 1984, was one of the first court cases to
reveal pervasive sexual abuse and compel system-wide reforms.34 The case
against the Georgia Department of Corrections grew to include more than
200 women prisoners, many of whom experienced sexual abuse by staff,
among other unconstitutional conditions. Clear procedures for reporting and
investigating complaints of abuse, treatment and counseling for victims,
and staff training were among the requirements imposed by the magistrate
judge in this case and accepted by the department.35 Most importantly, corrections staff were specifically prohibited from sexually harassing or abusing women prisoners.
As discussed, State facilities have a duty to protect those under their
supervision. The Supreme Court has held that, “When the State takes a
person into its custody and holds him there against his will, the Constitution imposes upon it a correCivil court cases such as Cason v. Seckinger have the sponding duty to assume some
responsibility for his safety and
potential to spark reforms reaching far beyond the general well-being.”36 If prisindividual plaintiffs to protect other prisoners. oners are sexually abused because the correctional facility
failed to protect them, they have a right to seek justice in court.37 This
could take the form of financial compensation for past abuses that corrections officials could and should have prevented or “injunctive relief,”
which requires the facility to put specific protections in place to prevent
sexual abuse in the future.
Civil court cases such as Cason v. Seckinger have the potential to
spark reforms reaching far beyond the individual plaintiffs to protect other
prisoners. This is true for individual and class-action lawsuits alike. In
February 2009, for example, a panel of three Federal judges announced
its preliminary intention to order California to reduce its prison population by as much as a third. The court found that California’s “desperately
overcrowded” facilities violate prisoners’ rights under the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment.38 The
judges issued the decision after a trial in two long-running cases brought
by prisoners who claimed that medical staff could not provide adequate
health care in such overcrowded facilities.39
Beginning in the 1960s, successful prisoner litigation secured important improvements in prison conditions and increased protection for
prisoners’ rights. Concerned about a perceived rise in frivolous lawsuits by
prisoners, Congress enacted the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) in 1996
to “reduce the quantity and improve the quality of prisoner [law]suits.”40
This occurred despite the fact that the number of lawsuits had remained
relatively stable between 1993 and 1996, even with a substantial increase
in the prison population.41

92

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

Statements by sponsors of the PLRA indicate that the law was never
intended to erode the constitutional rights of prisoners.42 But the PLRA
requirements present such serious hurdles that they block access to the
courts for many victims of sexual abuse. The dire consequences for individual victims are obvious. What is perhaps less apparent is the way the
law has constrained the ability of courts to play the role that is a part of
their mandate.
The PLRA’s provisions apply to all Federal civil suits about prison
life that incarcerated persons may bring, including claims based on physical abuse, sexual abuse, and use of excessive force.43 Under the PLRA,
corrections officials can move to have prisoners’ legal claims dismissed
for failure to properly exhaust “administrative remedies” before filing suit.
Correctional agencies define those remedies and the grievance process,
which typically includes filling out specific complaint forms within specific
time frames and moving through several levels of appeal. Any mistakes,
such as using an incorrect form, may forever bar an incarcerated individual
from real access to the courts.44
Jeanne Woodford testified before a House Judiciary Subcommittee
that “it is absurd to expect prisoners to file grievances. . . without ever
making a mistake.”45 Woodford reminded the subcommittee members that
“[m]any of these prisoners are mentally ill or barely literate.” 46 Woodford
went on to give examples of circumstances that may derail any prisoner’s
claim completely, noting that “prisoners may be transferred from one institution to another or paroled before they are able to fulfill each level
of appeal. Grievances may be
rejected because the prisoner Jeanne Woodford testified before a House Judiciary
could not clearly articulate his
Subcommittee that “it is absurd to expect prisoners
complaint, or for a minor problem such as using handwriting to file grievances. . . without ever making a mistake.”
that is too small.” 47
Woodford reminded the subcommittee members that
The more convoluted or “[m]any of these prisoners are mentally ill or barely literate.”
technical the process, the more
likely prisoners will fail in their efforts to exhaust their administrative
remedies. Facilities’ deadlines for filing a grievance or an appeal are usually very short; prisoners have at most 3 weeks to begin the grievance process, and in some facilities, the window is only 48 hours.48 In civil lawsuits
against schools or hospitals, by contrast, the statute of limitations is typically no less than 1 year.
Garrett Cunningham was raped in the prison laundry by the officer charged with supervising his work. Even before the rape, Cunningham
was frightened. The officer had made lewd comments, watched him while
he showered, and touched him inappropriately during searches for contraband.49 When Cunningham reported the abuse to the Assistant Warden of
the Luther Unit in Navasota, Texas, and to his second in command, they

C H A P T E R 4 : I N S I D E A N D O U T: S T R E N G T H E N I N G O V E R S I G H T

93

Exhaustion of administrative
remedies
Under agency policy, an inmate
has exhausted his or her administrative remedies with regard
to a claim of sexual abuse either (1) when the agency makes
a final decision on the merits
of the report of abuse (regardless of whether the report was
made by the inmate, made by
a third party, or forwarded from
an outside official or office) or
(2) when 90 days have passed
since the report was made,
whichever occurs sooner. A report of sexual abuse triggers
the 90-day exhaustion period
regardless of the length of time
that has passed between the
abuse and the report. An inmate seeking immediate protection from imminent sexual
abuse will be deemed to have
exhausted his or her administrative remedies 48 hours after notifying any agency staff
member of his or her need for
protection.

94

said he was exaggerating. Even the prison psychologist offered no real
help. One day in September 2000, the officer assaulted Cunningham as he
finished his job in the prison’s laundry, knocking him to the floor. The officer was literally twice his weight and could have easily overpowered him,
but he handcuffed Cunningham and then violently raped him. Cunningham testified that, “When I screamed from the terrible pain, [the officer]
told me to shut up. . . . After it was over, I was dazed. He took me to the
shower in handcuffs, turned on the water and put me under it. I was crying
under the shower and saw blood running down my legs.”50
Afterward, the officer warned Cunningham that if he reported
what happened he would have him transferred to a rougher unit where
prison gang members would rape him repeatedly. He told Cunningham
that prison officials were his friends and would do nothing. Cunningham
was too frightened to file a grievance. As he testified before a House Judiciary Subcommittee, “At first, I didn’t dare tell anyone about the rape. . . .
[To begin the process of exhausting the facility’s administrative remedies]
I would have had to file a first prison grievance within 15 days. . . . I had
no idea, at that point, that I was even required to file a grievance in order
to bring a lawsuit. Even if I had known, during those first 15 days, my only
thoughts were about suicide and. . . how to get myself into a safe place. . .
so I would not be raped again.”52 Instead, he wrote twice to internal affairs
for help and requested a private interview with an investigator, but they
never responded. The officer was never prosecuted but was later convicted
for sexual offenses against another prisoner in the Luther Unit. He never
served time.
“For me, I have found no justice,” Cunningham told members of the
Subcommittee.52 “Because I didn’t file a grievance with the friends of [the
assailant] within 15 days of being raped by him, I was forever barred from
filing a lawsuit about it in Federal court. My hope is that Congress will
acknowledge the realities of prison life, which makes ‘exhausting administrative remedies’ under the PLRA impossible at times.”53
At least one court has held that officials cannot “play hide-andseek with administrative remedies” and that a remedy that is “unknown
and unknowable is unavailable.”54 But simple awareness of the grievance
procedure from a facility handbook may not be enough. Incarcerated persons experiencing the trauma of sexual abuse, as well as those with vulnerabilities such as mental illness or developmental disadvantages, may
have extreme difficulty filling out the correct forms and meeting the strict
deadlines. (See Chapter 5 for a detailed discussion of what correctional facilities must do to facilitate the reporting of sexual abuse.)
The PLRA also requires plaintiffs to prove physical injury to receive
compensatory damages.55 A few courts have found that sexual assault
alone does not constitute a “physical injury” as defined in the PLRA.56 That

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

requirement and these court rulings fail to take into account the very real
emotional and psychological injuries that often follow sexual assault, ranging from temporary fear and emotional numbness to nightmares and major depressive episodes that can
occur months or years after an “At first, I didn’t dare tell anyone about the rape. . . .
assault. In the words of the SecI would have had to file a first prison grievance within
ond Circuit, determining that
sexual assault meets the physi- 15 days. . . . I had no idea, at that point, that I was even
cal injury requirement of the required to file a grievance in order to bring a lawsuit.
PLRA is “a matter of common
Even if I had known, during those first 15 days, my only
sense.”57 Medical professionals,
corrections experts, and victim thoughts were about suicide and. . . how to get myself into
advocates have provided exten- a safe place. . . so I would not be raped again.”
sive information indicating that
requiring individuals who are sexually abused in correctional facilities to
exhaust all available administrative remedies has consequences far beyond the PLRA’s objective. The Commission also is convinced that victims
of sexual abuse are losing vital avenues for relief because they cannot
prove physical injury as defined in the PLRA. Victims deserve their day
in court.
The Commission recommends that Congress amend the administrative exhaustion provision and physical injury requirement in the PLRA
to remove barriers to the courts for victims of sexual abuse. In the meantime, corrections officials must take immediate steps to change unreasonable administrative policies. The Commission understands that officials
should have an opportunity to investigate and respond to a complaint before having to defend themselves in court. This is both fair and conserves
scarce resources in the way the framers of PLRA intended. However, there
is no reason that a sexually victimized prisoner should have to file a grievance within several days or weeks after being sexually assaulted or successfully complete every step of a complex process to seek protection and
compensation in court.
The Commission’s standard requires corrections agencies to adopt
a policy stating that a victim of sexual abuse is deemed to have exhausted
his or her administrative remedies within 90 days after the incident of
sexual abuse is reported, even if someone other than the victim makes the
report and regardless of when the abuse allegedly occurred. Finally, the
standard recognizes that there may be emergency situations in which a
prisoner is in immediate danger and only a court order will provide protection. In such cases, the standard requires correctional agencies to deem
that all administrative remedies have been exhausted within 48 hours after the report is made.

C H A P T E R 4 : I N S I D E A N D O U T: S T R E N G T H E N I N G O V E R S I G H T

95

Oversight by the Department of Justice

C

orrectional facilities are also subject to oversight by the U.S. Department of Justice. The Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons
Act, passed in 1980, allows the department to investigate any correctional facility suspected of routinely subjecting prisoners to
“egregious or flagrant conditions” in violation of the U.S. Constitution.58 The
investigations culminate in “finding letters” that include recommendations
for specific reforms that can then become the basis of court-filed civil complaints. By statute and practice, the Special Litigation Section takes a problem-solving approach and tries to work cooperatively with agencies under
investigation. The strength of the evidence gathered and the threat of costly
litigation is usually enough to compel reforms; the lawsuits are most often
settled, usually with a settlement agreement filed simultaneously with the
court complaint.
In 2006, for example, the Department of Justice began a broad investigation of the King County Jail in Seattle.59 Although the Federal investigation covered a range of problems, a “string of allegations” against
King County corrections officers for sexual misconduct trigLeaders need robust mechanisms and systems gered Federal involvement.60
to monitor their facilities, identify problems, and In a report prepared following
implement reforms. They need to apply that discipline the agency’s request for assisinternally and to accept it from outside. tance from the National Institute of Corrections and released
around the same time that the
Department of Justice launched its investigation, the department found
that “a sexualized work environment, meager training and poor communication [were] among the root causes of the string of sexual-misconduct
allegations against corrections officers with the King County Department
of Adult and Juvenile Detention.”61 Corrections officials signaled their willingness to cooperate with Federal investigators and hired consultants to
suggest how to curtail sexual misconduct within the main jail.62
The Department of Justice concluded its investigation approximately
1 year later, in November 2007, finding that persistent conditions in the
county jail violated the constitutional rights of prisoners.63 Among the many
specific failings outlined in its finding letter, the department found that the
King County Jail lacked the mechanisms necessary to thoroughly investigate complaints of sexual abuse, noting that, “A number of these investigations remain open, while others have been closed with ‘undetermined’ or
‘non-sustained’ findings and ‘no discipline due to timeliness.’. . . Essential
elements of an internal investigation system includes [sic] a comprehensive
investigation procedures manual, and adequately trained investigators to
implement the investigations process. [King County Correctional Facility]

96

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

is lacking in both of these essential elements.”64 The letter required jail
administrators and county officials to work cooperatively with the Department of Justice to resolve the problems and avoid a lawsuit.
It took a year of negotiation for the two parties to agree on specific
reforms, although corrections officials disagreed with the department’s finding that the constitutional rights of prisoners were violated.65 The reforms
approved in January 2009 by the Metropolitan King County Council include
commitments to improve internal investigations, medical and mental health
care, and suicide prevention to benefit victims of sexual abuse and prevent
future incidence of abuse.66 Nationally recognized experts will monitor the
agreement, which will remain in effect for up to 3 years.
As this case illustrates, Federal investigations are a potentially powerful form of oversight, but only a few correctional agencies have come
under the scrutiny of the Special Litigation Section in recent years.67 The
Commission urges the Department of Justice to provide adequate resources to the Special Litigation Section.
The Department of Justice also has authority to criminally prosecute anyone “acting under color of state law” for violating a prisoner’s
constitutional rights.68 Criminal prosecution at the Federal level is essential when local jurisdictions lack the political will or resources to prosecute
cases of sexual abuse. Criminal prosecutions should be used in addition
to, not instead of, systemic reform of policies and practices that fosters a
culture of safety.
Preventing sexual abuse in any correctional facility fundamentally
rests with the leadership of that facility and each staff member’s ability
and willingness to make protecting prisoners a priority. But good intentions and commitment are not enough. Leaders need robust mechanisms
and systems to monitor their facilities, identify problems, and implement
reforms. They need to apply that discipline internally and to accept it from
outside. The very nature of prisons, jails, and other correctional settings
demands that government and the public have multiple means to watch
over them and to intervene when both the institution and individuals are
at risk.

C H A P T E R 4 : I N S I D E A N D O U T: S T R E N G T H E N I N G O V E R S I G H T

97

PART II
RESPONDING TO VICTIMS
AND PERPETRATORS

Many victims cannot safely and easily
report sexual abuse, and those who speak
out often do so to no avail. Reporting
procedures must be improved to instill
confidence and protect individuals from
retaliation without relying on isolation.
Investigations must be thorough and
competent. Perpetrators must be held
accountable through administrative
sanctions and criminal prosecution.

5

Reporting, Investigation,
and Punishment

W

hen Dana Ragsdale entered the Federal Detention Center in
Philadelphia in summer 2003, she carried with her a history of childhood sexual abuse. Early during her stay there,
another prisoner told Ragsdale that a male officer had sexually assaulted her. As a survivor of sexual abuse, this deeply concerned
Ragsdale. In testimony to the Commission, she said she had wanted to
report the incident—both to protect the other woman and because she
feared for her own safety—but was afraid of speaking out. “I wanted to
tell someone, but I knew that inmates who file reports against corrections
officials are usually put into isolation. I did not want to be put in the special housing unit, lose my privileges or spend nearly every hour of the day
in my cell. Inmates who make reports are often labeled as snitches and
risk retaliation by corrections officers or other inmates. I stayed silent and
prayed that I would not be victimized.”1
Ragsdale only reported the abuse when she was transferred to a
correctional facility in Danbury, Connecticut, with a warden known for her
commitment to take allegations of sexual abuse seriously, and Ragsdale
also met a staff member she felt she could trust. “I was literally in a state of
panic, shaking and sweating profusely like I am right now as I gave them
a description of the guard and the name of the inmate being abused. . . .
Looking back on it, it was terrifying to be in a situation where I felt completely unsafe, particularly in view of my own history of sexual abuse.”2
Like Dana Ragsdale, many prisoners are reluctant to report abuse
they know about or have experienced. This chapter explores reasons why
prisoners, as well as staff, stay silent and how to earn their confidence and
promote reporting. This chapter also discusses how to achieve significant
improvements in investigating allegations of abuse in confinement and
in punishing perpetrators—challenging areas in correctional practice, law
enforcement, and prosecution.

C H A P T E R 5: R E P O R T I N G , I N V ES T I G AT I O N , A N D P U N IS H M E N T

101

Inmate reporting
The facility provides multiple
internal ways for inmates to
report easily, privately, and securely sexual abuse, retaliation
by other inmates or staff for reporting sexual abuse, and staff
neglect or violation of responsibilities that may have contributed to an incident of sexual
abuse. The facility also provides
at least one way for inmates to
report the abuse to an outside
public entity or office not affiliated with the agency that
has agreed to receive reports
and forward them to the facility head (RP-2), except when an
inmate requests confidentiality.
Staff accepts reports made verbally, in writing, anonymously,
and from third parties and immediately puts into writing any
verbal reports.

Third-party reporting
The facility receives and investigates all third-party reports
of sexual abuse (IN-1). At the
conclusion of the investigation,
the facility notifies in writing
the third-party individual who
reported the abuse and the inmate named in the third-party
report of the outcome of the
investigation. The facility distributes publicly information on
how to report sexual abuse on
behalf of an inmate.

102

Breaking the Silence

T

he persistent silence surrounding incidents of sexual abuse in
correctional facilities is a reality that both victims and professionals in the field acknowledge. Capturing the extent of underreporting is difficult, however, and involves giving individuals in
confinement an opportunity to provide information about sexual abuse in
their facilities on anonymous surveys, collecting information from facilities’ administrative records on incidents of abuse known to corrections officials, and comparing the two sets of data. As a result of PREA, the Bureau
of Justice Statistics is much closer to providing these comparisons.3
Although the degree of underreporting is not known, solutions to
the problem are clear: Efforts to increase reporting begin by providing easy
ways for individuals to communicate information about sexual abuse they
have experienced or know about to staff or corrections officials, backed
up by a clear policy requiring authorities and staff to act on every allegation. Even when prisoners are willing to report abuse, their accounts are
not necessarily taken seriously and communicated to appropriate officials
within the facility. “When I told one of the guards I trusted how tired I was
of putting up with abuse [by other youth in the facility], he told me to just
ignore it,” Cyryna Pasion told the Commission.4 Kendell Spruce testified to
the Commission that he was raped by 27 different inmates. “I reported it,
but it didn’t ever get me anywhere.”5 And Garrett Cunningham wrote twice
to internal affairs and requested a private interview with an investigator to
report an officer who had violently raped him and was continuing to touch
him inappropriately, but he told the Commission, “They never addressed
my concerns and failed to take precautions to protect me.”6
Although some correctional systems and individual facilities have
made great strides in this area in recent years, the Commission crafted its
standards to guarantee that reporting is encouraged and taken seriously
in every correctional facility. A serious response to all reports of abuse
that follows clear protocols is also the best way to efficiently handle any
false allegations of abuse, which are a concern to many corrections staff
and administrators. The standards ensure that anyone can report abuse—
including prisoners’ friends or family members—and know that the allegations will result in an immediate response from the facility. The standards
require all staff to act on reports of abuse conveyed verbally or in writing,
including anonymous written reports.
Additionally, all employees and volunteers—including those who
provide medical and mental health services—have a duty to report sexual
abuse. That means they must report any information about or suspicion of
abuse, whether it occurred in their facility or another correctional facility.
In nearly every correctional facility today, employees already have a duty
to report, but fewer facilities extend that obligation to volunteers.7 Administrators must forward reports about sexual abuse that occurred in another

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

facility to the head of that facility. Importantly, unless the law of the jurisStaff and facility head
reporting duties
diction states otherwise, the duty to report is not contingent on receiving
consent from the provider of the information. Facility administrators need
All staff members are required
to report immediately and acto know about abuse to prevent it in the future and to hold perpetrators according to agency policy any
countable. At the same time, the sensitive nature of the information means
knowledge, suspicion, or inforit must be shared only among staff who have a critical need to know, and
mation they receive regarding
prisoners must be clearly informed that all staff have a duty to report.
an incident of sexual abuse
Preparing staff to meet their obligations is essential. Staff should
that occurred in an institutional
be educated about the type of information they might hear or receive in
setting; retaliation against inmates or staff who reported
writing, trained on how to respond to allegations of abuse as well as less
abuse; and any staff neglect
clear signs that abuse might be occurring, and informed that they will
or violation of responsibilities
be held accountable if they fail to follow reporting procedures.8 Mandathat may have contributed to
tory reporting policies are powerful antidotes to the code of silence. As
an incident of sexual abuse or
Matthew Cate, former Inspector General overseeing corrections in Caliretaliation. Apart from reporting
fornia, told the Commission, these defensive postures are common among
to designated supervisors or officials, staff must not reveal any
correctional officers, just as they are among “individuals in any stressful
information related to a sexual
profession, the military, officers on the street, physicians. . . or nurses in
abuse report to anyone other
an operating room.”9
than those who need to know,
Some incarcerated individuals will never be comfortable reporting
as specified in agency policy,
abuse internally. For this reason, the Commission’s standard on inmate reto make treatment, investigaporting requires that prisoners have the option of speaking confidentially
tion, and other security and
management decisions. Unless
with a community-based crisis center or other outside agency. This reotherwise precluded by Federal,
quirement reflects what some corrections professionals and other experts
State, or local law, medical and
agree to be the preferred practice. As New York City Corrections Director
mental health practitioners are
Martin Horn told the Commission, “I believe very deeply, and we do this in
required to report sexual abuse
New York, that. . . there must be confidential means of reporting.”10 Inforand must inform inmates of
mation about how to contact the outside agency should be widely posted
their duty to report at the initiation of services. If the victim is
in the facility and otherwise readily available. The correctional facility
under the age of 18 or considand the outside agency must formalize their agreement in a memorandum
ered a vulnerable adult under
of understanding specifying that the outside agency has agreed to accept
a State or local vulnerable perreports of sexual abuse from prisoners and forward them to the head of the
sons statute, the facility head
facility unless the prisoner wants the report to remain confidential.
must report the allegation to
Experience in the Arkansas Department of Correction demonstrates
the designated State or local
services agency under applicathat access to hotlines operated by the internal affairs investigative divible mandatory reporting laws.
sion can promote reports of sexual abuse that otherwise might remain
hidden and convince incarcerated individuals that the facility is committed to ending sexual abuse. According to Chief Deputy Director of Institutions Ray Hobbs, “The inmates have new confidence that they will be
taken seriously. . . . The first sign was the implementation of the hotline.
We had a highly visible case, in
the media too, of a male staff
“When I told one of the guards I trusted how tired
member who sexually abused a
male inmate. The staff member I was of putting up with abuse [by other youth in the facility],
was sneaky and even took the he told me to just ignore it.”

C H A P T E R 5: R E P O R T I N G , I N V ES T I G AT I O N , A N D P U N IS H M E N T

103

Reporting to other
confinement facilities
When the facility receives an
allegation that an inmate was
sexually abused while confined
at another facility, the head of
the facility where the report
was made notifies in writing the
head of the facility where the
alleged abuse occurred. The
head of the facility where the alleged abuse occurred ensures
the allegation is investigated.

lens off the cameras so he wouldn’t be seen. He failed to transfer [another]
inmate, as he had promised him, and the inmate squealed on him through
the hotline.”11 Importantly, this report to the hotline resulted in action on
the part of the administration, leading to sanctions for the sexual misconduct. Hobbs told the Commission, “The staff copped-out to it. He was
prosecuted and got 5 to 7 years in prison.”
As illustrated by this example, successful efforts to enhance reporting depend both on the accessibility and safety of mechanisms to report
and on serious and timely responses by officials once reports are made.
Staff should clearly convey these factors, as well as information on ways
to report abuse, during sessions to educate prisoners about sexual abuse,
their right to be safe, and the facility’s policies. Easy-to-read posters and
brochures, available in the native languages of the facility’s prisoner population, should capture the same information.
The results of a proactive approach to reporting can be dramatic.
In 2006, the North Carolina Department of Correction received just 31
reports of sexual abuse. The following year, after revising its reporting
policies and raising awareness among prisoners and staff, the number of
reports jumped to 151. According to Correctional Planner Charlotte Price,
“It was a big increase, which we felt was positive, because staff were more
aware and inmates were coming forward. . . . The awareness has been our
biggest change, and it has helped on every level, including investigations.
It has been a positive experience for both staff and inmates.”12 Sharp increases in reporting should be expected when constructive reforms make
prisoners feel safer reporting abuse and more confident that the facility
will take action. Facilities should be prepared to communicate to the public that increased reporting is a positive development and does not necessarily reflect a rise in actual abuse.

Protection from Retaliation

N

ecole Brown was sexually abused over the course of 5 years by
a corrections officer she first encountered in a Michigan State
prison in 1996 who stalked and victimized her even while she
was on parole. In her testimony to the Commission, she recalled
that the officer “constantly threatened me, that if I told anybody, he would
make sure that I would either be punished by being sent to administrative
seg[regation] or that I would lose my privileges such as the phone, visits
with my family and friends, and even that I would not be allowed to leave
the prison. . . He had the ability to write me up for so-called misconduct
any time he wanted. . . [T]he more tickets I got, the more good time I lost,
meaning the release on parole would be delayed. I felt like I had to do the
things that he asked me to do so I could survive in prison and to be able

104

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

Agreements with outside
to come home.”13 When Brown finally reported the abuse and sought help
public entities and
from an attorney, the retaliation grew worse and involved other staff. “Corcommunity service providers
rectional officers would interrupt my attorney visits, withhold my mail,
The agency maintains or atsearch me or try to degrade me in front of other people for no reason.”
tempts to enter into memoVictims of sexual abuse are silenced by threats as well as by actions
randa of understanding (MOUs)
taken against them, and some are punished when they do speak out. Reor other agreements with an
taliation by staff can include unwarranted disciplinary action, unfavorable
outside public entity or office
that is able to receive and imchanges in housing and work assignments, and threats of violence against
mediately forward inmate rethe victim or even the victim’s family. In a letter to the advocacy organizaports of sexual abuse to facility
tion Just Detention International, one prisoner conveyed a chilling threat
heads (RE-1). The agency also
she received from the male officer who was abusing her: “Remember if you
maintains or attempts to enter
tell anyone anything, you’ll have to look over your shoulder for the rest of
into MOUs or other agreements
your life.”14 An incarcerated person who reports sexual abuse perpetrated
with community service providers that are able to: (1) provide
by another prisoner also risks retaliation, which can range from violence,
inmates with confidential emoto being shunned by other prisoners, to being falsely reported for breaking
tional support services related
facility rules.
to sexual abuse and (2) help
Isela Gutierrez, who coordinates the Texas Coalition Advocating
victims of sexual abuse during
Justice for Juveniles, told the Commission about a 2007 survey of 3,279
their transition from incarcerayouth in custody by the Texas State Auditor’s Office that suggests that
tion to the community (RE-3,
MM-3). The agency maintains
youth have little confidence that the reporting process is credible and safe.
copies of agreements or docuSixty-five percent of juveniles surveyed thought the grievance system did
mentation showing attempts to
not work, and 43 percent indicated they had firsthand knowledge of resienter into agreements.
dents who experienced retaliation after filing grievances related to physical or sexual abuse. Moreover, half of the juveniles surveyed felt that the
Texas Youth Commission did not take immediate action regarding their
safety and welfare.15
The culture of the correctional environment can make staff and
offenders fearful of reporting. In Baron v. Hickey, a correctional officer
reported misconduct that he observed in his facility in 2003.16 As a result,
his tires were slashed, he was called a “rat,” and coworkers threatened
him.17 He complained more than 30 times to leadership and ultimately
resigned. He filed suit against the agency for these retaliatory actions and
was awarded $500,000 in damages.
Correctional facilities have to demonstrate a commitment to protecting individuals who report abuse from retaliation. As former Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Correction Kathleen Dennehy
told the Commission, “We need
to create environments where “Remember if you tell anyone anything, you’ll have to look
inmates fully disclose incidents over your shoulder for the rest of your life.”
of sexual violence.”18 The Commission’s standard in this area requires facilities to monitor prisoners and
staff who report abuse for at least 90 days to ensure that they are not experiencing retaliation or threats. If threats or actual retaliation do occur, the
facility must take immediate action to stop the threatening behavior. The

C H A P T E R 5: R E P O R T I N G , I N V ES T I G AT I O N , A N D P U N IS H M E N T

105

Agency protection against
retaliation
The agency protects all inmates
and staff who report sexual
abuse or cooperate with sexual
abuse investigations from retaliation by other inmates or staff.
The agency employs multiple
protection measures, including
housing changes or transfers
for inmate victims or abusers,
removal of alleged staff or inmate abusers from contact
with victims, and emotional
support services for inmates
or staff who fear retaliation for
reporting sexual abuse or cooperating with investigations. The
agency monitors the conduct
and/or treatment of inmates or
staff who have reported sexual
abuse or cooperated with investigations, including any inmate
disciplinary reports, housing, or
program changes, for at least
90 days following their report
or cooperation to see if there
are changes that may suggest
possible retaliation by inmates
or staff. The agency discusses
any changes with the appropriate inmate or staff member as
part of its efforts to determine
if retaliation is taking place
and, when confirmed, immediately takes steps to protect the
inmate or staff member.

106

standard also requires facilities to take affirmative steps to prevent retaliation. Such precautions also may be essential to the investigation because
victims and witnesses who feel intimidated are less likely to cooperate
with investigators.
Protective measures may include moving a prisoner to a different
housing unit, transferring them to a different facility, or adjusting staff
work assignments. Transfers, however, should not be an automatic response, especially since they may involve disrupting an investigation, provision of needed services, and in some cases access to family. Talking to
prisoners about their safety concerns can be constructive and suggest a
range of possible precautions. Case-by-case assessments will help prevent
transfers that prisoners could perceive as punitive. Because segregation
can have a negative impact on a prisoner’s mental health, staff should
only use segregation when absolutely necessary to ensure the safety of the
prisoner and integrity of the investigative process.19 As noted above, some
prisoners who would otherwise report abuse remain silent because they
cannot bear the restrictions of life in segregation.

Investigating Without Fail

E

ventually Necole Brown contacted a lawyer, who helped her report the officer who was abusing her. “Investigators interviewed
me, but failed to follow up on information about my complaint,”
Brown told the Commission.20 She testified that the local prosecutor also declined to pursue the case because he believed the evidence was
insufficient. The Commission’s standards on investigation are intended to
ensure that every allegation of sexual abuse is thoroughly investigated.
The stakes are high: failure to investigate allegations sends a message to
staff and prisoners that speaking out may put the victim at risk but has
no consequences for the abuser. In such environments, silence prevails
and abuse flourishes. Unless investigations produce compelling evidence,
corrections administrators cannot impose discipline, prosecutors will not
indict, and juries will not convict abusers.
Six years after the passage of PREA, many statewide correctional
systems and individual facilities now have policies, protocols, and staff
in place to investigate allegations of sexual abuse. (See the PREA Initiatives appendix for a sample.) Prison and jail staff across the country have
attended professional training programs on investigating sexual abuse.
According to Lorie Brisbin, an investigator working for the Idaho Department of Correction, PREA was a catalyst for improving investigations in
facilities statewide, and the results have been dramatic: “We have a case
that is going through the courts right now [where one prisoner raped another prisoner]. Our staff did such a good job securing the crime scene

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

Duty to investigate
that it is a solid case. This would not have happened before PREA. . . .
21
We have never had an inmate-inmate prosecution at all.” The Georgia
The facility investigates all allegations of sexual abuse, includDepartment of Corrections also implemented sweeping reforms, including
ing third-party and anonymous
a policy to investigate all allegations of sexual abuse and the provision of
reports, and notifies victims
specialized training for investigators. According to Angela Grant, Deputy
and/or other complainants in
Warden of Care and Treatment at Pulaski State Prison, “We have investiwriting of investigation outgators now who only deal with sexual assault cases. There are specialists
comes and any disciplinary or
in all four of our regions. We are doing more thorough investigations. We
criminal sanctions, regardless
of the source of the allegation.
referred eight cases in 2007 for prosecution. . . . We are now more proac22
All investigations are carried
tive and definitely pursue these cases all the way to prosecution.”
through to completion, regardAlthough advances such as those in Idaho and Georgia are exless of whether the alleged
tremely encouraging, there are still facilities—particularly those that conabuser or victim remains at the
fine juveniles, those under the umbrella of community corrections, and
facility.
smaller jails—that lag behind in this crucial area.23 Weaknesses and gaps
are not necessarily for lack of effort. Training and resources specifically for
staff of juvenile facilities, for example, have only been available recently.24
The Commission’s first standard on investigation is clear: facilities
have a duty to immediately and thoroughly investigate every allegation of
sexual abuse to completion, including reports by third parties and anonymous reports. Investigators must pursue direct and circumstantial evidence,
whether or not the alleged victim confirms that the abuse occurred and
is willing to cooperate. Even if
the person who reported the The stakes are high: failure to investigate allegations sends
abuse later wants to withdraw
a message to staff and prisoners that speaking out may put
the complaint, the investigation
must continue if the facts indi- the victim at risk but has no consequences for the abuser.
cate that abuse may have oc- In such environments, silence prevails and abuse flourishes.
curred. The transfer or release
of prisoners involved in an investigation, either as victims or witnesses,
and the reassignment, termination, or resignation of involved staff may
complicate an investigation but do not justify closing it before completion.
Complainants must be notified in writing about the outcome of the investigation and any disciplinary or criminal sanctions imposed, consistent
with what laws in the jurisdiction allow.
Allegations of sexual abuse always warrant an administrative investigation; a criminal investigation is often necessary as well. Criminal
and administrative investigations conform to different rules and procedures. A criminal investigation focuses on determining whether there is
sufficient evidence to prove that the alleged abuser violated specific criminal statutes and, therefore, should be prosecuted. The focus of a criminal
investigation is relatively narrow, the standard of proof stringent, and the
potential penalties severe. An administrative investigation, which is wider
in scope, is two pronged: first, it focuses on whether sufficient evidence
exists to demonstrate that the alleged abuser violated agency policies and

C H A P T E R 5: R E P O R T I N G , I N V ES T I G AT I O N , A N D P U N IS H M E N T

107

Agreements with outside law
enforcement agencies
If an agency does not have the
legal authority to conduct criminal investigations or has elected to permit an outside agency
to conduct criminal or administrative investigations of staff or
inmates, the agency maintains
or attempts to enter into a written MOU or other agreement
specific to investigations of
sexual abuse with the law enforcement agency responsible
for conducting investigations.
If the agency confines inmates
under the age of 18 or other
inmates who fall under State
and local vulnerable persons
statutes, the agency maintains or attempts to enter into
an MOU with the designated
State or local services agency
with the jurisdiction and authority to conduct investigations
related to the sexual abuse of
vulnerable persons within confinement facilities. When the
agency already has an existing agreement or long-standing
policy covering responsibilities
for all criminal investigations,
including sexual abuse investigations, it does not need to enter into a new agreement. The
agency maintains a copy of the
agreement or documentation
showing attempts to enter into
an agreement.

should be disciplined; second, it assesses whether training, practices, or
policies should be revised to prevent future sexual abuse.
Many correctional agencies rely on outside law enforcement agencies to conduct criminal investigations, and some agencies enlist outsiders to conduct administrative investigations, although that practice is less
common. Whenever agencies outsource investigations, the Commission’s
standards require that the correctional agency attempt to develop a memorandum of understanding with the law enforcement agency; the Commission suggests specifying roles and responsibilities in the agreement.
More than a mere formality, such agreements can improve the quality of
investigations. According to Kimberly Hendricks, PREA coordinator in the
Oregon Department of Corrections, the department’s memorandum of understanding enabled law enforcement to begin investigating much sooner
following an allegation of abuse. “Everyone is clear [about] roles and timelines. It got a more rapid response. It has improved the information flow.”25
The Commission’s standard establishing the duty to investigate is
followed by a detailed standard to ensure the quality of investigations.
The quality of an investigation and resulting written report will determine
whether the process is viewed as credible and greatly influences decisions
to prosecute and/or impose administrative sanctions. As stated in this
standard, effective sexual abuse investigations are prompt, thorough, objective, and conducted by individuals who have received special training
in sexual abuse investigations. Additionally, the standard specifies that all
investigations must meet the following requirements:
•	 Investigations are initiated and completed within the timeframes
established by the highest-ranking facility official, and the highestranking official approves the final investigative report.
•	 Investigators gather direct and circumstantial evidence, including physical and DNA evidence when available; interview alleged
victims, suspected perpetrators, and witnesses; and review prior
complaints and reports of sexual abuse involving the suspected
perpetrator.
•	 When the quality of evidence appears to support criminal prosecution, prosecutors are contacted to determine whether compelled
interviews may be an obstacle for subsequent criminal prosecution.
•	 Investigative findings are based on an analysis of the evidence
gathered and a determination of its probative value.
•	 The credibility of a victim, suspect, or witness is assessed on an
individual basis and is not determined by the person’s status as
inmate or staff.

108

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

•	 Investigations include an effort to determine whether staff negligence or collusion enabled the abuse to occur.
•	 Administrative investigations are documented in written reports
that include a description of the physical and testimonial evidence
and the reasoning behind credibility assessments.
•	 Criminal investigations are documented in a written report that
contains a thorough description of physical, testimonial, and documentary evidence and provides a proposed list of exhibits.
•	 Substantiated allegations of conduct that appears to be criminal are
referred for prosecution.
Many of these requirements are discussed in the sections that follow.

Criminal and administrative
agency investigations
Agency investigations into allegations of sexual abuse are
prompt, thorough, objective, and
conducted by investigators who
have received special training
in sexual abuse investigations
(TR-4). When outside agencies investigate sexual abuse,
the facility has a duty to keep
abreast of the investigation and
cooperate with outside investigators (RP-3). Investigations
also include the additional elements listed on pp. 108–109.

Proceeding Without Delay

T

imeliness is essential. An investigation of sexual abuse must begin as soon as possible after the alleged incident. Physical evidence degrades quickly. In addition, launching an investigation
immediately reassures victims and witnesses that officials are
taking their allegations seriously, which can facilitate cooperation and increase the likelihood of gathering strong evidence.
Completing investigations without delay is equally important. Although particularly complex investigations will take more time and deadlines should reflect that reality, the goal in every investigation must be
to work efficiently and adhere to the timeline established by the highestranking facility official. Protracted investigations undermine the facility’s
credibility and become increasingly difficult as evidence disappears and
key witnesses’ memories fade. It is unfair to victims as well as the accused
to allow allegations of sexual abuse to linger unresolved for months or
years.26 In some States (including California, Florida, Louisiana, Maryland,
and Rhode Island), an investigation must be completed within 1 year, or
no administrative discipline may be imposed.27 Such policies should put
pressure on officials to complete investigations quickly. Without strong
and committed leadership, however, these policies could become a reason
to allow investigations to linger or wither.
Of course, when victims and witnesses report abuse long after it
occurred, investigators operate under compromised circumstances. U.S.
Attorney for the Northern District of Florida Gregory Miller captured what
is at stake in his testimony to the Commission: “Delays in reporting put
the investigators at a disadvantage from the outset. During the interval
between the time when the crime is committed and when it is brought
to law enforcement’s attention, valuable physical evidence can be lost or

C H A P T E R 5: R E P O R T I N G , I N V ES T I G AT I O N , A N D P U N IS H M E N T

109

destroyed. As days and even months intervene, the victim’s memory of the
details or the date or time of the assault may blur, making it difficult to corroborate their account through prison work schedules or other means.”28
Texas prosecutor Gina DeBottis told the Commission that “if [a victim]
waits over 96 hours, it’s very difficult to collect [physical] evidence.”29 In a
2006 study of sexual abuse in the Texas prison system, research confirmed
that in a majority of substantiated cases—those in which an investigation
determined that sexual abuse occurred—reports were made on the same
day or within 2 days of the assault.30

Gathering Evidence

I

nvestigating sexual abuse that has occurred in correctional facilities is
complex, requiring skill and sensitivity.31 In some States and localities,
however, individuals responsible for investigating sexual abuse in correctional facilities receive no specialized training.32 Moreover, many
facilities around the country rely on State or local police officers, who may
have little or no experience investigating cases in a correctional facility.33
According to a report published by the National Institute of Corrections,
many sexual abuse investigators are so unfamiliar with the dynamics inside a correctional facility that they cannot operate effectively, making
mistakes that are in some instances glaring.34 A staff member in one correctional facility remembered an investigator who “came in and asked a
whole housing unit of inmates if they had witnessed an assault.”35 Serious
missteps in interviewing victims, witnesses, and suspects can undermine
or even ruin an investigation.
“[The] investigator was so frightening and insensitive,” Dana Ragsdale recalled in her testimony to the Commission.36 “He propped his feet
up on his desk, he crossed his arms, and he glared at me.” Investigators
need to understand and be reAccording to a report published by the National Institute sponsive to the dynamics of
of Corrections, many sexual abuse investigators are so victimization, not only to be
unfamiliar with the dynamics inside a correctional facility sensitive but also to be effective. Victims are often reluctant
that they cannot operate effectively, making mistakes to discuss a sexual assault with
that are in some instances glaring. someone who is or appears to
be unsympathetic to their situation.37 One corrections staff member commented, “You can’t just ask an
inmate point blank if he has been assaulted. Part of the job is building rapport with inmates. You have to lead up to these questions.”38
“In the practice of interviewing victims of sexual abuse, there are
many times when what the victim is not saying speaks volumes about what
has happened or what is not happening,” Chief Inspector of the Rhode Island

110

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

Department of Corrections Aaron Aldrich told the Commission.39 “Active
listening is so much more than just remaining silent when the victim is
speaking. It’s about getting the trust of that person. It’s about convincing
the victim that you are willing to do whatever it takes to make a bad situation better. It’s not about asking a question and receiving an answer. It’s
about asking a question and gauging a response. Each victim is different.
Some are emotionally shattered. Some are angry and exhibit negative actions. . . . [S]ome might quite coolly deny that anything ever happened or
took place.” At the most fundamental level, according to Aldrich, investigators must be able to see the prisoner as a victim. “Investigative personnel
can be trained [and] proficient [in] investigatory techniques, standards,
[and] protocols and yet fail in securing either successful prosecution or
termination of violators if they do not recognize the basic premise that an
offender can also be a victim. . . .”40
A thorough investigation obtains all direct and circumstantial evidence of the alleged incident. In most situations, investigators have to aggressively and creatively pursue corroborating evidence. When victims
and witnesses are not cooperating—out of fear or adherence to a code of
silence—or when they cooperate initially and later recant, corroboration
can clarify otherwise perplexing events and salvage an investigation. As
Cynthia Schnedar, Counsel to the Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Justice, told the Commission, “[T]he key to any successful prosecution is corroboration, corroboration, corroboration.”41
Best practices for gathering evidence include: visitor lists, camera
footage, telephone logs, staff time cards, post assignment records, descriptions of areas where incarcerated persons are not generally allowed,
statements from co-workers and housing mates, and patterns of abuse documented in past complaints and investigations.42 Gathering that evidence
requires training as well as special tools. Body wires, electronic monitoring, controlled calls, and polygraphs are among the tools that investigators
may have available to them.43
Director of the Rhode Island Department of Corrections A. T. Wall
captured the nature of this kind of investigative work in his testimony to the
Commission. In a correctional facility, “[e]verybody talks to everybody all the
time. And so an aggressive investigator has options. You talk to everybody
anywhere near the alleged perpetrator or the victim. You get statements. You
look at logs. You review camera footage. You monitor the recorded telephone
calls. You take it to the community. You talk to former cellmates who are
now living in freedom. You talk to family members. You consider controlled
phone calls. You look at possibly, in some cases. . . using a wire. And ultimately you also, as I’ve said before, have to get the investment of staff. . . .
[I]f they think the security risk is great enough or they are offended enough
by the content, they will tell you what you need to know, but you have to till
that soil by working with staff to change their attitudes.”44

C H A P T E R 5: R E P O R T I N G , I N V ES T I G AT I O N , A N D P U N IS H M E N T

111

Getting the “investment of staff” often hinges on having the support of unions. Labor and management should structure agreements in
ways that facilitate, or at least do not impede, thoroughly investigating
staff accused of sexual misconduct.45 (See Chapter 2 for more information
about collective bargaining agreements.)
Although results from polygraphs and computerized stress voice
analyzer tests do not constitute admissible evidence in a courtroom, agencies do rely on them when evaluating whether to pursue a case. Polygraph
findings or refusal to take a polygraph should never be used as the only
reason to suspend or close an investigation or as the sole basis for determining whether or not an allegation is true, however.46
Proper use of Miranda- and Garrity-type warnings is also critical.
In Garrity v. New Jersey, the Supreme Court ruled that statements taken
under threat of terminating employment are considered compelled statements and cannot be used directly or indirectly against the suspect in a
criminal investigation or prosecution.47 The standard Garrity warning includes the following notice: “If you do answer, neither your statements nor
any information or evidence
“Investigative personnel can be trained [and] proficient [in] which is gained by reason of
investigatory techniques, standards, [and] protocols and yet such statements can be used
against you in any subsequent
fail in securing either successful prosecution or termination of criminal proceeding. However,
violators if they do not recognize the basic premise that these statements may be used
an offender can also be a victim. . . .” against you in relation to subsequent departmental charges.”48
Whether and when to compel a statement depends on a variety of factors,
including the nature of the offense and the likelihood of criminal prosecution. Caution should be used in making this decision and also in determining how to use such statements and whether to share them with officers
assigned to the criminal investigation.

Analyzing the Evidence

I

n some cases, the most difficult component of an investigation is reviewing the evidence and reaching findings consistent with what the
evidence shows. Objectivity is obviously crucial. An investigator must
be able to weigh and analyze the evidence without bias toward any
party or the outcome. For example, irrelevant discrepancies in testimony
or the inability to recall detail should never become the basis for deciding that testimony is unreliable. Similarly, investigators must not scrutinize evidence in cases involving staff more strictly than evidence in cases
among prisoners.

112

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

In situations where one prisoner has allegedly abused another prisoner, “the question of consent goes to the heart of the matter,” Wall told
the Commission, “because investigators are going to have to find ways
to interpret and understand the relationship that took place. And that’s
going to be a particular challenge for the profession.”49 Distinguishing between consensual and nonconsensual sex in an environment in which sex
is traded for protection or comfort is difficult, especially absent physical
injury and witnesses. In a study of women prisoners published in 2008,
participants suggested that “young, naive, or scared offenders entered
into relationships with more aggressive women, offering commissary and
sexual intimacy in return for protection. Yet, female inmates typically saw
these relationships as consensual.”50 The study of the Texas prison system
previously mentioned revealed that line staff in one facility for women
expect the prisoners to have sex with one another and viewed it as “part
of the[ir] life style.”51 Although consensual sex may be a reality in correctional facilities for women as well as for men, when confronted with an
allegation of abuse between prisoners, investigators must not erroneously
or prematurely conclude that the encounter was not forced.
Through training, investigators can learn the characteristics of an
objective investigative process and outcome and how to recognize and
reject stereotypes that hinder objectivity.52 They may learn, for example,
not to assume that a sexual encounter is consensual simply because there
are no discernible physical injuries or because the alleged victim or perpetrator is homosexual. Although training cannot overcome deeply rooted
prejudices, when it is accompanied by good supervision, investigators are
more likely to remain objective as they weigh the evidence and formulate
their findings.
To promote objectivity when investigating allegations of sexual
abuse by staff, some correctional agencies now require that staff based
outside the facility where the incident allegedly occurred conduct the
criminal investigation. It also may be prudent to request independent law
enforcement agencies to criminally investigate high-profile cases. The
involvement of an outside law enforcement agency can reduce concerns
about conflicts of interest as well as Garrity violations that could compromise the criminal case.53
Investigators also need clear guidance on what the evidence must
show to substantiate allegations in an administrative investigation and to
refer a case to a prosecuting authority. To ensure that the standard of proof
in administrative investigations is fair and consistently applied whether
the alleged perpetrator is a staff member or a prisoner, the Commission’s
standards explicitly require investigators to base their conclusions on what
the “preponderance of the evidence” shows. This standard of proof is significantly less stringent than what is required to convict someone of a

C H A P T E R 5: R E P O R T I N G , I N V ES T I G AT I O N , A N D P U N IS H M E N T

Evidence standard for
administrative investigations
Allegations of sexual abuse are
substantiated if supported by a
preponderance of the evidence.

113

Specialized training:
Investigations
In addition to the general training provided to all employees
(TR-1), the agency ensures that
agency investigators conducting sexual abuse investigations
have received comprehensive
and up-to-date training in conducting such investigations in
confinement settings. Specialized training must include techniques for interviewing sexual
abuse victims, proper use of
Miranda- and Garrity-type warnings, sexual abuse evidence
collection in confinement settings, and the criteria and evidence required to substantiate
a case for administrative action or prosecution referral. The
agency maintains written documentation that investigators
have completed the required
specialized training in conducting sexual abuse investigations.

crime but is adequate to protect individuals from being labeled as perpetrators and punished without cause. The Commission’s standards require
the lead investigator to provide a written report of the findings, accompanied by supporting documentation, to the highest-ranking facility official.
Because specialized training for sexual abuse investigators is so important and because the deficits in some correctional systems and facilities
are so great, the Commission’s standards require facilities to ensure that
investigators are trained in the most up-to-date approaches to investigating
sexual abuse in a correctional setting and to maintain written documentation showing that investigators have completed such training. The standard on training specifies minimum components for training programs:
techniques for interviewing sexual abuse victims, proper use of Miranda
and Garrity warnings when interviewing alleged perpetrators, protocols
for collecting evidence in a correctional facility, and the evidentiary criteria required to substantiate a case for administrative sanctions and, separately, for referral to a prosecuting authority.
The Commission also recognizes that, in many correctional facilities
and their surrounding local jurisdictions, investigators are scarce. One correctional administrator commented, “We need three investigators for 500
inmates. I have one.”54 Jail administrators often have difficulty getting local
police to investigate reports of sexual abuse in their facilities.55 Several prison administrators have commented that law enforcement in their jurisdictions is stretched so thin that the State police asked the legislature to allocate
additional resources to the department of corrections so that the department
could hire internal affairs investigators with the authority to make arrests.56

Coordinating Responders

A

ny report of sexual abuse in a correctional facility must trigger
an immediate response from security staff; forensic, medical,
and mental health care practitioners; investigators; and the head
of the facility. To meet the needs of victims while conducting a
thorough investigation likely to hold perpetrators accountable, the Commission’s standards require these professionals to coordinate their efforts.
Facility administrators have a responsibility to specify the scope and nature
of what must be coordinated. Formal coordination in response to reports of
sexual abuse is already a feature in some State correctional systems, including Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Minnesota, Ohio, Oregon,
and Utah.57 Corrections departments should work with community-based
sexual abuse advocates to develop a model of coordination intended to be
truly responsive to the needs of victims in a correctional setting.58
Coordination sounds simple but can be challenging to realize in practice. Cross-training is crucial because each responder needs to understand

114

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

the impact of his or her work on the situation overall. Clear channels of
communication and flexibility are also important so that the professionals
involved can adapt how they work together based on the circumstances of
the incident and when it is reported. For example, if a prisoner reports an
illicit relationship that occurred 6 months earlier with a corrections officer,
an investigator will likely take the lead, working in coordination with any
mental health practitioners involved. In contrast, if a prisoner reports being
raped by an officer earlier that same day, a forensic medical examiner, a
housing/security officer, and medical and mental health practitioners may
take the lead initially, working closely with an investigator.
Corrections officers or other security personnel often respond to reports of sexual abuse before anyone else. Their first duty, under the Commission’s standards, is to ensure the immediate safety of the victim by
separating the victim and alleged abuser. Their other immediate actions,
as mandated under the Commission’s standards, have a significant impact
on the investigation. They are responsible for securing the crime scene and
instructing the victim not to take any actions that could destroy semen,
saliva, skin cells, hair, and other physical evidence. For many victims,
their initial instinct is to take a shower or throw away clothing they were
wearing during the assault.59 “They get rid of this evidence because of
their shame. . . and ignorance. . .” one corrections officer commented.60
Such feelings are normal and common among victims of sexual abuse.
First responders set the stage for the work of forensic examiners.
When the sexual abuse has occurred recently and the allegation is rape,
the Commission’s standards require facilities to offer the victim a forensic
exam by a specially trained professional. Sexual assault forensic examiners
and sexual assault nurse examiners (SANEs) have the knowledge and
skills to document physical findings and collect pertinent evidence from
victims, including evidence that the sexual activity was not consensual.61
They recognize what evidence is important, how to preserve it, how to
establish a chain of custody, and how to prepare the evidence for submission to a crime lab for analysis. Skill in this area is critical to successfully
investigating and prosecuting sexual abuse.
As forensic nurse Leanne Holland told the Commission, “[W]hen
I was an emergency room nurse, not that I wasn’t qualified, but I did not
have the specialized training that I have today. . . . [T]hose cases did not
go forward with prosecution, and those offenders, those perpetrators, are
most likely still out there. . . compared to last week when there were three
guilty pleas as a result of my education and training and working collaboratively with a team to, hopefully, make a difference in someone’s life.”62
An evaluation of SANE programs and multidisciplinary sexual assault response teams published in 2003 by the National Institute of Justice found
that they improve the quality of forensic evidence and increase the ability
of law enforcement to collect information, file charges, and prosecute and

C H A P T E R 5: R E P O R T I N G , I N V ES T I G AT I O N , A N D P U N IS H M E N T

Coordinated response
All actions taken in response
to an incident of sexual abuse
are coordinated among staff
first responders, medical and
mental health practitioners, investigators, and facility leadership. The facility’s coordinated
response ensures that victims
receive all necessary immediate and ongoing medical,
mental health, and support services and that investigators are
able to obtain usable evidence
to substantiate allegations and
hold perpetrators accountable.

115

Staff first responder duties
Upon learning that an inmate
was sexually abused within
a time period that still allows
for the collection of physical
evidence, the first security staff
member to respond to the report is required to (1) separate
the alleged victim and abuser;
(2) seal and preserve any crime
scene(s); and (3) instruct the
victim not to take any actions
that could destroy physical
evidence, including washing,
brushing his or her teeth, changing his or her clothes, urinating,
defecating, smoking, drinking,
or eating. If the first staff responder is a non-security staff
member, he or she is required
to instruct the victim not to take
any actions that could destroy
physical evidence and then
notify security staff.

116

convict perpetrators while also providing better emergency health care for
women who have been sexually assaulted.63
According to the International Association of Forensic Nurses, at
least 276 SANE programs operate throughout the United States and its territories. Most (75 percent) are based in hospitals, but some (25 percent)
operate in other settings.64 The Commission recognizes that specially
trained forensic examiners are not readily available in all communities,
particularly in rural areas. Forensic professionals who provided advice to
the Commission have expressed an interest in expanding the network of
trained examiners to ensure that victims of rape in any correctional facility have the option of receiving a thorough forensic exam.
Because physical evidence is crucial to a successful investigation,
the Commission’s standards require correctional facilities to implement
a protocol that dictates how to collect, maintain, and analyze physical
evidence and that stipulates the responsibilities of the forensic examiner.
In developing a custom protocol, facilities must consult the 2004 U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Violence Against Women publication “A National Protocol for Sexual Assault Medical Forensic Examinations, Adults/
Adolescents” (or subsequent editions, or similarly comprehensive and authoritative protocols developed after 2004).65 At the time of its publication,
law enforcement officials and forensic medical examiners considered the
national protocol the gold standard of sexual assault evidence protocols.
Several correctional agencies, including the Arizona Department of
Corrections, have adapted the national protocol to reflect the significant
differences of collecting forensic evidence in a confinement setting as opposed to in the community, including that the victim and perpetrator are
usually located within the same facility, that the offender may be in a position of authority, that confidentiality is seldom possible, and that victims
are less likely to cooperate with the investigation.66 Given the prevalence
of sexual abuse in correctional facilities and the need to improve evidence
collection, the Commission recommends that the Department of Justice
develop a forensic evidence protocol specifically adapted to confinement
and that can be used in all correctional facilities.
Criminal and administrative investigators should be involved as soon
as possible after an incident of sexual abuse is reported, and the Commission’s standards require investigators to coordinate their separate efforts. In
particular, individuals conducting an administrative investigation must coordinate with criminal investigators as well as prosecutors, facility administrators, and their legal counsel before taking compelled statements, which,
as discussed, cannot be used against a defendant in a criminal case.67
When responders coordinate their work, each person can be more
effective. Investigators may have more success interviewing victims and
assessing their credibility, for example, if they consult first with mental
health practitioners. Clinical input about the effects of trauma can help

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

an investigator properly assess the person’s statements, especially if the
victim appears under- or over-emotional. Even basic coordination between
investigators and victim advocates can have a benefit.68 A woman who
was sexually abused in a California prison and was initially uncooperative
later gave the investigator all the information he needed to refer the case
for prosecution after he told her that she would be able to talk confidentially with a counselor from a local rape crisis center. “My impression is
that the inmate viewed the offer of confidential counseling services as a
gesture of trust and concern,” Wendy Still, former Associate Director of
Female Offender Programs for the California Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation, told the Commission.69 (See Chapter 6 for information
about the many benefits of providing outside counseling to incarcerated
victims of sexual abuse.)
Security staff also have a role to play beyond their immediate response. For example, many correctional systems designate specific staff
to handle housing and other security issues that arise in conjunction with
allegations of sexual abuse.70 Individuals in that role should coordinate
with other responders to ensure that their decisions support the victim’s
recovery and do not unnecessarily restrict the victim’s movements within
the facility and participation in work, education, and other programming.

Unsubstantiated but Not Untrue

C

onsistently and thoroughly investigating reports of abuse encourages incarcerated persons and staff to speak out and facilitates holding perpetrators accountable. No national data have
been collected on how often correctional facilities investigate
reported abuses, and there is no body of research describing the quality
of those investigations. We do know, however, that correctional facilities
substantiate allegations of sexual abuse at very low rates. According to a
report by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, facilities substantiated just 17
percent of all allegations of sexual violence, misconduct, and harassment
investigated in 2006.71 That same year, 29 percent of allegations were determined to be “unfounded”—meaning that investigators concluded that
sexual abuse did not occur. But the majority of allegations—55 percent—
were “unsubstantiated,” which means that investigators could not determine whether or not the abuse occurred.
Substantiation rates in some States are considerably lower than
the national rate. For example, the 2006 study conducted in Texas found
that only 43 out of 1,938 allegations of sexual assaults by inmates, or approximately 2 percent, were substantiated.72 The situation in California
appears similar. “The California correctional system today houses about
167,000 human beings inside its walls,” State Senator Gloria Romero told the

C H A P T E R 5: R E P O R T I N G , I N V ES T I G AT I O N , A N D P U N IS H M E N T

Evidence protocol and
forensic medical exams
The agency follows a uniform
evidence protocol that maximizes the potential for obtaining usable physical evidence
for administrative proceedings
and criminal prosecutions.
The protocol must be adapted
from or otherwise based on
the 2004 U.S. Department of
Justice’s Office on Violence
Against Women publication “A
National Protocol for Sexual Assault Medical Forensic Examinations, Adults/Adolescents,”
subsequent updated editions,
or similarly comprehensive and
authoritative protocols developed after 2004. As part of the
agency’s evidence collection
protocol, all victims of inmateon-inmate sexually abusive
penetration or staff-on-inmate
sexually abusive penetration
are provided access to forensic medical exams performed
by qualified forensic medical
examiners. Forensic medical
exams are provided free of
charge to the victim. The facility makes available a victim advocate to accompany the victim
through the forensic medical
exam process.

117

Commission.73 “Yet when we took a look at the statistics that were reported stemming from [PREA], the State [substantiated] 23 inmate-on-inmate
sexual assaults and 75 staff-on-inmate assaults in the prison walls within
the last year. . . . If we take a look at the Division of Juvenile Justice in California, formerly known as the California Youth Authority, there were nine
[substantiated] allegations of sexual assaults that were made in a population of about 3,000. . . . So if we look at those statistics collectively, clearly
we find [that] either California is doing tremendously well, we’re very safe,
or California just hasn’t gotten it right. I tend to think it’s the latter.”
An “unsubstantiated” finding may be the result of a poor-quality
investigation or reflect the legitimate difficulty of gathering sufficient
evidence. Whatever the cause, the high proportion of unsubstantiated
allegations—coupled with a failure to understand the difference between
“unsubstantiated” and “unfounded”—can lead legislators, judges, and the
public to conclude that sexual abuse of prisoners is less prevalent and serious than it really is.
Prisoners do sometimes fabricate accounts of sexual abuse, for example, to punish or control a staff member or another inmate, to be moved
to a different housing unit,
No national data have been collected on how often or to avoid shame and
correctional facilities investigate reported abuses, and possibly also disciplinary
action when caught in a
there is no body of research describing the quality of those consensual sexual act with
investigations. We do know, however, that correctional facilities another inmate.74 There is
substantiate allegations of sexual abuse at very low rates. no reason to believe, however, that extremely low
substantiation rates are attributable to a high number of false allegations.
There is very limited research on false reporting and no consensus on rates.
The more rigorous studies of false reporting in the community (as opposed
to in confinement) suggest that rates might range from 2 to 8 percent.75 Certainly, there are motivations and rewards for falsely reporting sexual abuse
in a correctional facility that have no parallel in the community. At the same
time, the real risks associated with reporting even genuine sexual abuse
are a strong disincentive to fabricating allegations.
So why are so few allegations of sexual abuse substantiated? As
discussed, many problems can compromise the success of investigations,
starting with a lack of clear policies on reporting and investigations and
failure to establish a coordinated response. Other common problems include: too few investigators and not enough resources to support their
work, a lack of specialized training for investigators, a weak protocol for
the collection and preservation of evidence, the difficulty of investigating
delayed reports of abuse, and a lack of coordination between administrative and criminal investigators.

118

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

Prosecuting Abusers

T

he corrections officer that Dana Ragsdale reported for sexual
abuse continued to work at the Federal Detention Center in Philadelphia and at one point assaulted a woman so brutally she hemorrhaged and was sent to the hospital. He was eventually charged
with and pleaded guilty to felony counts of engaging in sexual acts with
three women prisoners, but he was not prosecuted for assaulting the woman who first confided in Ragsdale. The officer received 4 months in jail for
sexual misconduct with three incarcerated women, followed by 3 years of
probation—“in my view an inexcusably short sentence,” Ragsdale told the
Commission.76
No culture of safety and of zero tolerance for sexual abuse can
exist when perpetrators operate with impunity, without fear of serious
consequences for their behavior, and are free to retaliate against or further
victimize their accusers or others. If perpetrators are not held accountable,
victims and witnesses of abuse will view reporting as futile and remain silent.77 Punishing perpetrators also has a deterrent effect, cautioning those
who might be inclined to engage in abuse to think twice.78 And it is, of
course, what justice requires.
The reality today, however, is considerably different. Despite the
fact that most incidents of sexual abuse constitute a crime in all 50 States
and under Federal law, very few inmate and staff perpetrators of sexual
abuse in correctional settings are prosecuted. According to data collected
by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, only 33 percent of substantiated cases
of sexual abuse between prisoners and 45 percent of substantiated cases
involving staff perpetrators were referred for prosecution in 2006, the most
recent year for which data are available.79 Given that the substantiation
rate nationally is just 17 percent, the proportion of cases referred for prosecution is small indeed.
There are no national data on how many referred cases are actually prosecuted; however, the Commission repeatedly heard testimony that
prosecutors decline most referrals. Data provided by the Colorado Department of Corrections and the Federal Bureau of Prisons provide encouraging counterpoints. From 2005 to 2008, prosecutors in Colorado accepted 31
of the 65 cases referred. Over nearly a decade, from October 1999 to April
2009, 1,622 complaints of sexual abuse were submitted to the U.S. Office of
the Inspector General. During this same time period, Federal prosecutors
accepted 166 of the 321 cases presented and prevailed in 133 cases, either
by verdict, plea, or pretrial diversion.
Prosecutors cite several reasons for turning away cases: the investigations were too poorly conducted to support a successful prosecution,
the potential criminal penalties are minimal, and juries are generally unsympathetic toward incarcerated victims and unwilling to believe their

C H A P T E R 5: R E P O R T I N G , I N V ES T I G AT I O N , A N D P U N IS H M E N T

119

Agreements with the
prosecuting authority
The agency maintains or attempts to enter into a written
MOU or other agreement with
the authority responsible for
prosecuting violations of criminal law. The agency maintains a
copy of the agreement or documentation showing attempts to
enter into an agreement.

120

allegations.80 As Martin Horn told the Commission, overburdened prosecutors “choose not to prosecute crimes when committed behind bars by
individuals already serving a long sentence.”81 According to John Rees,
Commissioner of the Kentucky Department of Corrections, the difficulty
of winning cases of staff sexual misconduct is a significant disincentive
for prosecutors. In his testimony to the Commission, Rees described these
cases as “extremely difficult and extremely complicated. . . . [U]nfortunately. . . the weight of the testimony of a convicted felon is held in the
balance when put up against an individual who has not been convicted
of a felony.”82
In some jurisdictions, other dynamics are in play: some prosecutors
do not view incarcerated individuals as members of the community and
as deserving of their services as any other victim of crime. In smaller jurisdictions where the correctional facility is a major employer, a “company
town” mentality may predominate, with prosecutors reluctant to take on
cases in which the defendant is a corrections officer.
Limited views about what constitutes sexual abuse and who engages in abuse also can be a barrier to prosecution. Patricia Caruso, Director of the Michigan Department of Corrections, testified to the Commission
about a case in which a female staff member had sexually abused a male
prisoner: “I know that sometimes people feel that parties may be in love or
that it is ‘consensual.’ There may be things in the world that fit that criteria.
In prison they do not. . . . For a long time, it was more acceptable for women
[than men] to resign and go on with their life. That is not acceptable in this
department.”83 Caruso went to the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of
Michigan and talked to them specifically about issues of staff sexual misconduct.84 In her experience, stereotypes can be overcome, in this case by
educating prosecutors and juries about how female staff have helped male
prisoners escape, brought dangerous contraband into the facility, and put
other prisoners’ lives in danger by sharing confidential information.
Caruso requires prison wardens throughout Michigan to take the
same kind of initiative. “I told the wardens when you have a case of sexual
misconduct, I expect you to go personally to your local prosecutor. Part
of being a warden—I was a warden more than half of my career in this
department. . . is having a personal relationship in your community with
local law enforcement,” Caruso said.85 Jesse Neely, Executive Assistant
to the Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Correction, agreed
about the need to raise awareness. “State attorneys general and district
attorneys need to be educated regarding PREA” to become more “sympathetic to the cause,” he told the Commission.86
Dialogue between corrections professionals and prosecutors should
continue to occur through workshops and trainings organized by each
group’s professional associations. The process began through a project
sponsored by the Washington College of Law at American University and

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

funded by the National Institute of Corrections to train prosecutors on investigating allegations of staff sexual misconduct with offenders.87 There also
are national models of prosecutorial collaboration. In Massachusetts, for example, county district attorney
offices have appointed a “prison “I told the wardens when you have a case of sexual
liaison.”88 In Pennsylvania, from misconduct, I expect you to go personally to your local
1998 through 2005, corrections prosecutor.”
officials worked with district attorneys to convict 10 staff members of sexual misconduct.89 The State of
Texas has taken an unusual step. A special unit, funded through the governor’s office, is charged with prosecuting all crimes that occur within any
State correctional facility.90 Prosecutors in the unit encounter many of the
above-mentioned difficulties, but their specialized experience, according to
Chief Prosecutor Gina DeBottis, has enabled them to develop specific strategies for cases of prison sexual violence.91 The conviction rate for inmate and
staff sexual abuse is modest but increasing annually.92
The Commission’s standards require correctional agencies to attempt to formalize a relationship with the prosecuting authority in their
jurisdictions through a memorandum of understanding or other agreement. These agreements should be the basis for making cases of prison
sexual violence a higher priority for prosecutors. They can also provide
a framework for the kind of working relationship that leads to effective
investigations and more criminal convictions. As Aaron Aldrich told the
Commission, such agreements are “imperative.”93
Although prosecutors must endeavor to take on and win more cases
in court, San Francisco Sheriff Michael Hennessey reminded the Commission that just the fact of a referral can have a deterrent effect on prisoners
who might otherwise perpetrate sexual abuse. “[Confinement facilities]
have very effective grapevines, . . . and inmates know what’s taken seriously and what’s not taken seriously. And if a person is. . . booked and
charged with sexual assault in a county jail, even if there [is no] prosecution because of evidence or witness problems, they know that that has
happened. . . . [I]f [the perpetrator goes] to another institution, . . . when
the State prison officers classify that person, they’re going to red flag it. . . ,
and that may prevent sexual assault at the next facility. . . .”94

Tightening Administrative Sanctions

E

very allegation of sexual abuse must trigger an administrative
investigation; when the investigation substantiates those allegations, the perpetrator of the abuse must be disciplined. Sanctions
should never be the sole response to rape and other serious forms
of sexual abuse. Until more cases are successfully prosecuted, however,

C H A P T E R 5: R E P O R T I N G , I N V ES T I G AT I O N , A N D P U N IS H M E N T

121

many perpetrators of serious sexual abuse will be subject only to administrative discipline, making sanctions in these cases especially important.
Staff is subject to disciplinary
It is crucial that sanctions be fair, consistent, and sufficiently stringent to
sanctions up to and including
serve as a deterrent to continued abuse. Applying sanctions in an arbitrary
termination when staff has vioor biased fashion undermines their purpose and the broader mandate to
lated agency sexual abuse polidemonstrate zero tolerance to sexual abuse. Unfortunately, no national
cies. The presumptive disciplindata exist on which to base conclusions about whether correctional faciliary sanction for staff members
ties are consistently meting out discipline appropriate for the culpability
who have engaged in sexually
abusive contact or penetration
and conduct of perpetrators. The data available provide only a basic breakis termination. This presumpdown of the sanctions applied.
tion does not limit agency disAccording to data collected by the Bureau of Justice Statistics on
cretion to impose termination
substantiated incidents of sexual abuse in 2006, the sanctions for staff
for other sexual abuse policy viperpetrators of sexual abuse, applied alone or in combination, were: disolations. All terminations for vicharge (44 percent of all sanctions), demotion/diminished responsibilities
olations of agency sexual abuse
policies are to be reported to
(1 percent), reprimand/discipline (10 percent), and transfer to another falaw enforcement agencies and
cility (1 percent).95 In addition, although not technically sanctions, the outany relevant licensing bodies.
comes also included resignation prior to the investigation (26 percent) and
resignation after the investigation was completed (7 percent). When the
perpetrators of abuse were other prisoners, the Bureau of Justice Statistics
reported the following sanctions, applied alone or in combination: placement in solitary confinement (78 percent of all sanctions), cell confinement
(16 percent), placement in a higher level of custody (22 percent), loss of
privileges (20 percent), and transfer to another facility (22 percent).96
When staff perpetrate sexually abusive contact or penetration,
termination must be the presumptive sanction according to the Commission’s standards. Termination
Until more cases are successfully prosecuted, however, may also be the appropriate remany perpetrators of serious sexual abuse will be subject sponse when staff deliberately
or repeatedly violate sexual
only to administrative discipline, making sanctions abuse policies, such as the duty
in these cases especially important. to report. Union contracts affirm the ability of employers to
discipline staff for just cause, although in practice, some agreements either
limit an agency’s ability to sanction staff or provide avenues that too easily
allow sanctions to be overturned. Agencies and unions should amend such
agreements. Institutional safety is impossible without equilibrium between a union’s obligation to protect its members and management’s duty
to impose reasonable sanctions. Correctional agencies must also provide
law enforcement agencies and relevant licensing entities with the names
of all terminated staff to help prevent an employee fired for sexual abuse
from being employed by a facility in another jurisdiction and potentially
abusing prisoners there.
When prisoners perpetrate sexual abuse, the Commission’s standards require that discipline be commensurate with the nature of the

Disciplinary sanctions for
staff

122

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

abuse, the prisoner’s disciplinary history, and the sanctions imposed in
response to similar offenses by other prisoners with comparable histories.
When determining what type of sanction, if any, to impose, the disciplinary process must consider whether a mental disability or mental illness
may have contributed to the abusive behavior. Interventions designed to
address and correct underlying reasons or motivations for sexual abuse,
such as requiring the perpetrator to participate in therapy or counseling,
also must be considered.
Sanctions should support the facility’s zero-tolerance policy without being unduly punitive or counterproductive. In particular, perpetrators should not be placed for prolonged periods in disciplinary segregation
because conditions in these units have the potential to cause or aggravate
symptoms of mental illness and to limit access to needed mental health
services.97 Finally, facilities should fully integrate their disciplinary process with their classification system, triggering a review of the prisoner’s
classification to manage the risk that the person will sexually abuse other
prisoners.
Although agencies must sanction staff for sexual contact with prisoners, incarcerated persons should not be punished for their involvement,
regardless of whether or not the encounter was allegedly consensual. The
power imbalance between staff and prisoners vitiates the possibility of
meaningful consent. In addition, the threat of being punished for a relationship deemed to be consensual would deter prisoners from reporting
sexual abuse by staff.
Of course, prisoners sometimes engage in sexual relationships with
staff to further illicit activities. The U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of
the Inspector General found that Federal prisoners had engaged in sexual
relations with staff to obtain drugs; use unmonitored phones; communicate with other prisoners while in isolation; learn sensitive information
about other prisoners, such as who may be acting as an informant; or access information that could help them escape.98 Prisoners should be held
responsible for these crimes and rule violations but not for any underlying
sexual relationship with staff that facilitated their behavior.
In sum, everyone who engages in sexual abuse in a correctional
facility or other corrections setting must be held accountable for their actions. There has been too little accountability for too long. The Commission
designed its standards in this area to change the dynamic by encouraging
incarcerated individuals and staff to report abuse and by requiring correctional facilities to protect those who speak out, conduct effective investigations, and ensure appropriate punishment.

C H A P T E R 5: R E P O R T I N G , I N V ES T I G AT I O N , A N D P U N IS H M E N T

Disciplinary sanctions for
inmates
Inmates are subject to disciplinary sanctions pursuant to
a formal disciplinary process
following an administrative ruling that the inmate engaged
in inmate-on-inmate sexual
abuse or following a criminal
finding of guilt for inmate-oninmate sexual abuse. Sanctions are commensurate with
the nature and circumstances
of the abuse committed, the inmate’s disciplinary history, and
the sanctions meted out for
comparable offenses by other
inmates with similar histories.
The disciplinary process must
consider whether an inmate’s
mental disabilities or mental
illness contributed to his or
her behavior when determining
what type of sanction, if any,
should be imposed. Possible
sanctions also include interventions designed to address and
correct underlying reasons or
motivation for the abuse, such
as requiring the offending inmate to participate in therapy,
counseling, or other programs.

123

Victims are unlikely to receive the
treatment and support known to
minimize the trauma of abuse.
Correctional facilities need to ensure
immediate and ongoing access to
medical and mental health care and
supportive services.

6

Treating Trauma

I

t was a warm July night in the District of Columbia and the jail’s air
conditioning was not working, so staff left the cell doors open.1 The senior officer in charge, a woman, was known to organize events where
women inmates stripped and danced naked on the dining room tables.
As inmates and male and female
staff mingled in the heat on
Daskalea testified in court that she felt “constant stress,
this particular evening in 1995,
anxiety, and dread of imminent sexual attack.” Even her
an officer started playing loud
music in the dining room. A release from jail in August 1995 did not free her. Daskalea
crowd soon formed and several suffered from insomnia, struggled with eating disorders,
inmates began dancing. Sunday
and “spent months emotionally and psychologically
Daskalea, the victim of ongoing
sexual harassment while de- debilitated, withdrawn and depressed.”
tained at the jail, fled to her cell,
afraid of being forced to participate. After a few minutes, the officer in
charge demanded that Daskalea be brought out. The music stopped and
the crowd, which now also included maintenance workers, began chanting Daskalea’s name.
Two inmates dragged Daskalea out of her cell and into the center of
the crowd, where the officer in charge ordered her to dance. Daskalea complied, removing all her clothes except her underwear, but was so frightened that her legs trembled. Staff and inmates watched her as she danced,
“shouting and clapping; some flashed money.”2 One inmate grabbed Daskalea and rubbed baby oil all over her body. When Daskalea fell to the
floor, that inmate lay on top of her, rubbing her body against Daskalea’s.
When Daskalea was questioned about the incident a few days later, she
told the interviewer she was afraid something would happen to her if she
provided any details. Indeed, a few days later, all of her underwear was
confiscated as “contraband” and she was placed in solitary confinement,
initially without a mattress.3
This was only the latest in a string of abusive incidents Daskalea
had suffered at the facility. On one earlier occasion, an officer pulled her
out of her cell and forced her into a room where a male inmate, known for

C H A P T E R 6: T R E AT I N G T R AU M A

125

his sexual misconduct, was waiting. The man attacked Daskalea and attempted to rape her. The sexual harassment and abuse escalated over time.
Daskalea reported the abuse to jail officials and to the judge who sentenced
her; although the judge held a hearing and recommended that Daskalea
be moved out of the D.C. jail for her safety, jail authorities took no action.4
Completely without protection, Daskalea became crippled by
fear. She slept only during the day, afraid of what officers might do to
her at night. She testified in court that she felt “constant stress, anxiety,
and dread of imminent sexual attack.”5 Even her release from jail in August 1995 did not free her. Daskalea suffered from insomnia, struggled
with eating disorders, and “spent months emotionally and psychologically debilitated, withdrawn and depressed.” According to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia, “These injures are hardly surprising or unexpected in light of the abuse Daskalea suffered. . . . [I]t
does not take an expert to confirm the jury’s common sense with respect
to both their existence and cause.”6 The court awarded Daskalea compensatory damages for mental and emotional distress. Court records do
not reveal what clinical treatment, if any, Daskalea received following the
attempted rape and the extraordinary abuses she endured while confined,
but her testimony suggests that she was in urgent need of counseling and
support services while she was incarcerated and after her release.
As corrections administrators work to create a protective environment in the facilities they manage, they also have a legal duty to ensure
that when systems fail and abuse occurs, victims have unfettered access
to appropriate medical and mental health services.7 Healing from sexual
abuse is difficult under the best circumstances; without adequate treatment, recovery may never occur. This chapter describes common mental
and physical effects of sexual abuse—underscoring why treatment is so
important—and explores why many victims do not seek or receive the
medical and mental health care they need and to which they are entitled
by law.

An Assault on Body and Mind

A

s sexual assault nurse examiner Jennifer Pierce-Weeks told the
Commission, experiences of sexual abuse have the potential
to harm a person in every dimension of life: “psychological,
physical, spiritual, and social. . . .”8 Potentially long-lasting
psychological aftereffects of sexual abuse are well documented. They include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety disorders, fear of loud
noises or sudden movements, panic attacks, and intense flashbacks to the
traumatic event.9 Each of these consequences alone has the ability to retraumatize victims for years.10

126

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

Almost all victims of an invasive or violent sexual assault develop
some symptoms of PTSD, although the symptoms may not show up until
weeks or months after the abuse.11 PTSD is not unique to victims of sexual
abuse; it is a possible response to any life-changing event that is destructive
and destabilizing.12 Symptoms of PTSD vary and include sadness, explosive
anger, feelings of hopelessness, changes in memory or thinking, feeling
marked or changed in a permanent way, obsessing about the event or persons involved, relating to others differently, losing trust in others, and other
detrimental reactions.13 Some victims experience PTSD for just a few weeks
or months; for others, the symptoms are long lasting and hard to overcome.
Hope Hernandez was raped by a corrections officer in 1997 in the
hospital ward of the same jail in which Daskalea was sexually abused. In
her testimony to the Commission, Hernandez spoke about the lasting effects of sexual assault. “Although it’s been eight years, I’m still suffering
from the effects of that rape. On the one-year anniversary of this rape, I
kept seeing the guard’s face over me. . . . I wanted to see something besides
his face. . . . [M]y husband has tried to be intimate with me. All I could see
was this guard’s face flashing back in my mind, and I would become ill.”14
Such vivid flashbacks are not uncommon for victims of sexual abuse.15
Avoiding stimuli likely to trigger a flashback or other emotional responses is particularly difficult in a correctional facility, where victims may
regularly encounter the setting
where the abuse occurred—in “Although it’s been eight years, I’m still suffering from the
some cases their own cell. It
effects of that rape. On the one-year anniversary of this
also may be impossible to avoid
their abuser, causing them to rape, I kept seeing the guard’s face over me. . . . I wanted to
continually relive the incident see something besides his face. . . . [M]y husband has tried
and maintaining the trauma.16
to be intimate with me. All I could see was this guard’s face
When victims remain at risk of
flashing back in my mind, and I would become ill.” Such vivid
repeated abuse, their fears are
both rational and debilitating. flashbacks are not uncommon for victims of sexual abuse.
For this reason, the Commission’s standards require first responders to separate the victim from the
alleged abuser. (See Chapter 5 for a detailed discussion of responsibilities
of first responders.)
“I’ve abused drugs and alcohol and tried to kill myself on the installment plan,” Chance Martin told the Commission. “I couldn’t successfully commit suicide; although, I wanted to worse than anything in the
world.”17 At age 18, Martin was sexually abused while incarcerated in the
Lake County Jail in Crown Point, Indiana. Martin’s wish to end his life
is not atypical among victims of sexual abuse. In non-correctional settings, one-third to one-half of rape victims consider suicide; between 17
and 19 percent actually attempt suicide.18 Young women are particularly
susceptible to thoughts of suicide following a traumatic personal event.19

C H A P T E R 6: T R E AT I N G T R AU M A

127

For young women and girls, any experience that threatens their sense of
safety or one that unsettles their understanding of morality can lead to
thoughts of self-harm.20
There also appears to be a strong correlation between the psychological responses to trauma and self-mutilating behaviors, such as headbanging, cutting, and swallowing razors or glass.21 A study of teenage girls
who had experienced sexual
Sexual abuse and emotional and psychological responses abuse found that almost half of
may also lead to serious medical conditions. For both them suffered from clinical levmen and women, responses like chronic anxiety, hyper- els of depression, anxiety, and
arousal, sleep disturbances, and eating disorders are PTSD, and 62 percent engaged22
in self-mutilating behavior.
strongly associated with development of long-term health Victims may use self-mutilation
problems, including cardiovascular disease, ulcers, and as punishment if they blame
a weakened immune system. themselves for the abuse, or
they may be using physical
pain to block unbearably painful emotions.23 The risk of suicide and selfmutilation make it especially important for sexual abuse victims to have
immediate access to treatment and for medical and mental health care
professionals and other corrections staff to monitor survivors closely and
respond quickly to any warning signs.
Studies of incarcerated individuals also suggest that men and women victims may react differently and in varying degrees to sexual trauma.24
In addition to the psychological responses already described, reactions of
males to sexual victimization by other men in confinement may include
feeling that one has lost “status” in the facility, lack of confidence in one’s
masculinity, and feeling that one has been made more feminine as a result of the abuse.25 Male victims who did not identify as gay or bisexual prior to their incarceration may develop confusion about their sexual
orientation or gender identity if sexually victimized by other men. Other
prisoners or staff also may taunt a male victim about being a “woman”
or make the victim feel that his sexual orientation was compromised as a
result of the experience.26
Sexual abuse and emotional and psychological responses may also
lead to serious medical conditions. For both men and women, responses
like chronic anxiety, hyper-arousal, sleep disturbances, and eating disorders are strongly associated with development of long-term health problems, including cardiovascular disease, ulcers, and a weakened immune
system.27 Women victims can develop fibromyalgia, a chronic disorder
characterized by musculoskeletal pain and tender spots across the body.28
Rape of women by men also carries the risk of pregnancy.29 Studies indicate that sexual abuse victims have poorer physical functioning in general
and more physical ailments than non-abused individuals, even after controlling for emotional disturbances such as depression.30

128

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

In addition to the mental and physical problems that stem from
sexual abuse, many victims are physically injured during the course of a
sexual assault. Depending on the degree of force, the size of the perpetrator in relation to the victim, and any weapons involved, physical injuries
can include bruises, lacerations, bleeding, broken bones, concussions,
knocked-out teeth, internal injuries, and even more serious physical damages.31 Physical injuries incurred by women as a result of rape also may
lead to persistent pelvic pain, excessive menstrual bleeding and cramping,
and other gynecological disorders.32
A study of incarcerated men found that more than half of all sexual
assaults resulted in physical injury. Men assaulted by other prisoners were
somewhat more likely than those assaulted by corrections staff to be injured physically (67 percent compared with 53 percent). Only a quarter of
the injuries documented in this study—those to the anus or throat—were
a direct consequence of forced penetration. However, victims of sexual
assaults by other prisoners were more likely to sustain internal injuries or
be knocked unconscious than victims of physical but nonsexual assaults.33
Exposure to HIV and other sexually transmitted infections is another
potential consequence of sexual abuse, although if a prisoner is infected
with one of these diseases, the symptoms may not be evident for months
following an assault. Michael Blucker tested negative for HIV when he
was admitted to the Menard Correctional Center in Illinois in 1993 but, approximately a year later, after being raped multiple times by other prisoners,
Blucker tested positive.34 Although he eventually lost his lawsuit against
the corrections staff he believes were deliberately indifferent to his victimization, his case prompted Illinois legislators to pass a law protecting
prisoners against acts that have the potential to result in an “unadjudicated
death sentence.”35
In 2005–2006, 21,980 State and Federal prisoners were HIV positive
or living with AIDS.36 Researchers believe the prevalence of hepatitis C in
correctional facilities is dramatically higher, based on number of prisoners
with a history of injecting illegal drugs prior to incarceration. Sexually
transmitted infections, such as gonorrhea, syphilis, and chlamydia, are
also prevalent in the incarcerated population.37 According to testimony
before the Commission, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC) lacks data to assess the
extent to which sex in correc- A study of incarcerated men found that more than half
tional facilities, whether rape or of all sexual assaults resulted in physical injury.
consensual, contributes to the
high prevalence of HIV in prisons and jails.38 One CDC study did find that
individuals in confinement may contract HIV in a variety of ways, including sexual contact.39
The CDC has made a number of recommendations to address and
potentially mitigate the risk of HIV/AIDS for incarcerated individuals and

C H A P T E R 6: T R E AT I N G T R AU M A

129

the community, including HIV education, peer-education programs, testing, and prevention counseling for prisoners.40 The CDC study also noted
that “providing condoms to sexually active persons is an integral part of
HIV prevention interventions outside of prison.”41 The Commission does
not endorse the use of condoms in prisons and notes that sexual activity,
whether consensual or not, is generally prohibited in correctional systems,
but refers to this study because we believe that the incidence of HIV in
certain populations outside correctional systems is likely attributable in
part to such activity within correctional systems.
Because of the disproportionate representation of minority men and
women in correctional settings, it is likely that the spread of these diseases in confinement will have an even greater impact on minority men,
women, and children and their communities. As such, the Commission
recommends that funds be made available to the appropriate entities for
research into whether consensual and/or nonconsensual sexual activity
in the corrections system may play a role in infecting populations outside
corrections with HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted infections.

A Duty to Care and Unmet Needs

W

hile incarcerated in the Women’s Correctional Institute in
New Castle, Delaware, in 1995, Valerie Daniels was sexually assaulted by one of the officers working in the facility.42
The officer entered Daniels’s cell, forced her to perform oral
sex on him, and then proceeded to vaginally rape her. Daniels did not
report the rape or seek treatment until she began to feel ill and suspected
she might be pregnant. A positive pregnancy test conducted at the facility’s
health center confirmed her suspicions. Although Daniels reported feeling
upset following the rape and had a history of emotional problems as well
as developmental disabilities, she was not offered rape counseling or any
other form of therapy at the facility, but only prescribed antidepressants.
Daniels failed to persuade the court that prison officials were deliberately
indifferent to her health care needs. However, experts testified on her
behalf that antidepressants alone are not an appropriate form of treatment
for a woman who has been raped.
More than three decades have passed since the U.S. Supreme Court
established in Estelle v. Gamble that deliberate indifference to the health of
prisoners is a form of cruel and unusual punishment.43 Since then, correctional agencies have struggled, and sometimes failed with tragic results,
to meet the medical and mental health care needs of a large and often ill
prisoner population. According to surveys of prisoners conducted by the
Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) in 2004, 44 percent of people confined in
State correctional facilities and 39 percent of Federal prisoners reported a

130

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

current medical condition.44 Self-reports of mental illness are even higher.
In the same BJS survey, more than half of incarcerated individuals reported a recent history or symptoms of a mental heath problem—56 percent
of State prisoners, 45 percent of Federal prisoners, and 64 percent of jail
inmates.45 Medical and mental health care for adults and youth in confinement deserves careful attention.
BJS is also the primary source of national data about the availability of treatment. A study published in 1999 that focused on mental health
care found that only 60 percent of Federal and State prisoners and 41 percent of individuals confined in jails reported receiving necessary mental
health services.46 More recently, independent researchers analyzed BJS’
2002 survey of jail inmates and 2004 survey of State and Federal prisoners and found that many prisoners with persistent problems had never
been examined by a health care professional in the facility where they
were incarcerated.47 This problem was much worse in jails than in prisons: 68 percent of jail inmates with medical problems reported never
being examined, compared with 14 percent of Federal prisoners and 20
percent of State prisoners.
Although the National Commission on Correctional Health Care
(NCCHC) developed a set of standards that clearly define what is needed
to run a functional medical and mental health program, prisons and jails
are not required to comply with those standards.48 NCCHC accreditation
requires a fee and is strictly voluntary; many facilities elect not to engage
in this process. As a result, only 225 jails, 135 prisons, and 59 juvenile
detention facilities are currently NCCHC accredited.49
Correctional health care is seriously underfunded almost everywhere,
and most facilities are in dire need of additional skilled and compassionate
health care practitioners.50 Appropriate mental health screen- More than three decades have passed since the U.S. Supreme
ing and treatment, in conjunction
Court established in Estelle v. Gamble that deliberate
with careful classification, will
protect vulnerable prisoners indifference to the health of prisoners is a form of cruel and
from sexual victimization. (See unusual punishment. Since then, correctional agencies have
Chapter 3 for a detailed discusstruggled, and sometimes failed with tragic results, to meet
sion of risk and vulnerability.)
When abuse does occur, provid- the medical and mental health care needs of a large and often
ing appropriate treatment often ill prisoner population.
is the most effective way to promote recovery and reduce the chance that the trauma of sexual abuse will
lead to lasting or life-threatening medical or mental health problems.

C H A P T E R 6: T R E AT I N G T R AU M A

131

Access to emergency
medical and mental health
services
Victims of sexual abuse have
timely, unimpeded access to
emergency medical treatment
and crisis intervention services,
the nature and scope of which
are determined by medical and
mental health practitioners according to their professional
judgment. Treatment services
must be provided free of charge
to the victim and regardless of
whether the victim names the
abuser. If no qualified medical
or mental health practitioners
are on duty at the time a report
of recent abuse is made, security staff first responders take
preliminary steps to protect the
victim (OR-3) and immediately
notify the appropriate medical
and mental health practitioners.

132

Delivering Quality Care by Trained Professionals

G

iven the potentially severe and long-lasting medical and mental
health consequences of sexual abuse, the Commission’s standards require facilities to ensure that victims have unimpeded
access to emergency medical treatment and crisis intervention
as well as continuing medical and/or mental health evaluations and care
for as long as necessary.
Generally, emergency care after sexual assaults includes diagnosing
and treating any physical injuries, arranging for a forensic medical exam
when appropriate and with the victim’s consent, assessing the victim’s
medical and mental health needs, and planning follow-up care. Health
practitioners, not security or other staff, must determine the nature and
scope of the treatment based on their professional judgment. The quality
of this initial response is crucial. As Jennifer Pierce-Weeks told the Commission, “receiving compassionate care at the time of the assault by an
appropriately trained examiner. . . can assist all victims in their short and
long-term healing process.”51
The initial response is only the beginning. The Commission designed its standard on ongoing treatment to ensure that skilled medical
and mental health care practitioners assess and respond to a victim’s
evolving medical and mental health care needs. Victims of sexual abuse
may experience health problems that manifest weeks or months after the
abuse has occurred. In terms of ongoing medical care, the Commission
strongly urges medical staff to encourage victims to be tested for HIV and
viral hepatitis 6 to 8 weeks following an incident of abuse and to obtain
pregnancy tests in cases of vaginal penetration. These tests must be voluntary. The standard also requires facilities to conduct a mental health evaluation of all known abusers and to provide the treatment recommended.
Although diagnosing and treating emotional and psychological repercussions of sexual abuse is complex, there are a number of effective
interventions and treatment modalities.52 In particular, studies suggest
that group therapy is an effective intervention for victims of sexual abuse
because it offers a supportive environment, prevents victims from feeling
isolated, and validates their experiences and feelings.53 Because correctional facilities are closed environments, the use of group therapy should
be carefully handled—victims could be in danger if sensitive information
filters out beyond the group to other prisoners or staff. Clinicians have
used other treatment approaches with victims of sexual abuse, including psycho-education and cognitive behavioral therapy, and can easily
adapt these approaches to correctional settings.54 The challenge, clinicians agree, is finding the right intervention for victims at each stage of
the healing process.

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

Ongoing medical and mental
Incarcerated individuals often do not report sexual abuse. In such
health care for sexual abuse
cases, ensuring appropriate treatment hinges on knowing when an incarvictims and abusers
cerated individual’s mental or physical health problems might indicate that
The facility provides ongoing
abuse has occurred. For this reason, the Commission’s standards require
medical and/or mental health
correctional facilities to ensure and document that all full- and part-time
evaluation and treatment to all
medical and mental health care practitioners receive training in the detecknown victims of sexual abuse.
tion and assessment of sexual abuse. Correctional administrators seeking
The evaluation and treatment
of sexual abuse victims must
guidance on how to meet this standard can look to their peers in Alabama,
include appropriate follow-up
Minnesota, and Texas. These systems provide this kind of training to the
services, treatment plans, and,
55
health care practitioners who work in their facilities.
when necessary, referrals for
The appropriate treatment method for victims of sexual abuse may
continued care following their revary, depending on the type of facility or setting. For example, the more
lease from custody. The level of
open, communal nature of community corrections may allow for types of
medical and mental health care
provided to inmate victims must
treatment that would not work as well in more secure settings. Treatment
match the community level of
in juvenile facilities will also differ from treatment in adult facilities due to
care generally accepted by the
the psychological, cognitive, and developmental differences between youth
medical and mental health proand adults. As a result of these differences, the Commission’s Standards
fessional communities. The fafor juvenile facilities require that medical and mental health practitioners
cility conducts a mental health
working with youth be specially trained on how to provide treatment to
evaluation of all known abusers and provides treatment, as
young victims of sexual abuse.
deemed necessary by qualified
The Commission’s standard on ongoing medical and mental health
mental health practitioners.
treatment requires that care provided in correctional facilities match what
is generally acceptable to medical and mental health care professionals.
The Commission acknowledges that meeting this seemingly simple standard is a real challenge, especially for facilities in remote locations, where
specialists, community providers, and other treatment resources may
be scarce. Partnerships between
correctional systems and local “[R]eceiving compassionate care at the time of the assault by
medical and mental health care
an appropriately trained examiner. . . can assist all victims in
providers are helping to meet this
need. Hampden County, Massa- their short and long-term healing process.”
chusetts, was one of the first places to pilot such a program, referred to as Community Oriented Correctional
Health Services. Through the program, doctors, nurses, and case managers
from the community serve as the medical and mental health care practitioners in the jail. Hampden County’s success inspired other jurisdictions,
including Washington, D.C., and Ocala, Florida.56 Similar partnerships are
in place elsewhere. For example, the Connecticut Department of Correction
contracts with the University of Connecticut to provide health care to all
State prisoners. Incarcerated individuals who are victims of sexual assault
can receive free counseling and other medical and mental health services
for as long as necessary.57
Such partnerships operate with the goal of raising the quality of correctional medical and mental health care and ensuring that all victims of

C H A P T E R 6: T R E AT I N G T R AU M A

133

Specialized training: Medical
and mental health care
The agency ensures that all
full- and part-time medical and
mental health care practitioners working in its facilities
have been trained in how to
detect and assess signs of sexual abuse and that all medical
practitioners are trained in how
to preserve physical evidence
of sexual abuse. All medical
and mental health care practitioners must be trained in how
to respond effectively and professionally to victims of sexual
abuse and how and to whom to
report allegations or suspicions
of sexual abuse. The agency
maintains documentation that
medical and mental health
practitioners have received this
specialized training.

134

sexual abuse have access to adequate treatment during and after their period of confinement.58 Continued care is important to the long-term medical
and mental health of victims and also to protecting community health—
each year, jails and prisons release more than 1.5 million people with infectious diseases, many of which can spread through sexual contact.59

Addressing an Ethical Dilemma “as Old as Prisons
Are Themselves”

R

egardless of the quality of available treatment, some victims of
sexual abuse in confinement settings may be reluctant to access
medical and mental health services.60 When sexual abuse occurs
in the community, victims—unless they are children—can see
a doctor or counselor and be assured that the information they provide
will remain confidential. Anyone can understand the desire for absolute
confidentiality, especially when the circumstances involve something as
intimate as sexual abuse, but the nature of life in a correctional facility
and the goals of safety and security make that impossible. “Absolute confidentiality is a nice idea. And in an ideal world, I would concur wholeheartedly,” Art Beeler told the Commission.61 Beeler, a former warden of the
Federal Correctional Complex in Butner, North Carolina, explained that facility staff need to know when abuse occurs and who is allegedly involved
to adequately protect victims. “Without [this information], a correctional
officer or unit staff member may house the [victim] with the perpetrator’s
best buddy. Or worse yet, with the perpetrator. . . . If this information was
not available to correctional personnel, your decision in housing an offender may be, in fact, a death sentence.”62
Former Medical Director of the New Mexico Department of Corrections Mike Puisis raised the same concerns in his testimony to the
Commission, “Medical professionals [who work in correctional facilities]
should be required to report rape. . . . [M]edical ethics and patient safety
are the reasons that reporting rape should be a professional obligation.
Hopefully, the reporting of rape will result in the safety of the patient.”63
Although the potential consequences of withholding information
are clear, striking the right balance in terms of sharing sensitive information among corrections staff is not easy. As Beeler noted, “The ethical
dilemma of whom to share information with in a prison environment is
probably as old as prisons are themselves. On one side. . . is the desire that
the information not be shared with those who do not have the sensitivity
to handle the information in a professional manner. On the other side is the
need to keep staff and inmates safe and the institution secure.”64
The Commission believes that absolute confidentiality is not in the best
interest of the victim or the safety of the facility. The standards require that

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

all facility staff, including medical and mental health care practitioners,
report any allegations or suspicions of sexual abuse. Many States—including
New Mexico where Puisis worked, as well as California, Georgia, and
Texas—already have policies that meet this standard. At the same time,
correctional mental and medical health care professionals must discreetly
handle information provided by victims of sexual abuse, sharing it with
other staff only on a need-to-know basis and following clear protocols.
They also must inform prisoners of their duty to report before providing
services.
Because physician-patient confidentiality is a hallmark of medical
care in the community, doctors, nurses, and counselors must be clearly
informed about their duties as
mandatory reporters. The Com- “Absolute confidentiality is a nice idea. And in an ideal
mission’s standard on training world, I would concur wholeheartedly,” Art Beeler told the
for medical and mental health
Commission. Beeler explained that facility staff need to
practitioners requires facilities to
ensure that all full- and part-time know when abuse occurs and who is allegedly involved to
staff receive training on how and adequately protect victims.
to whom to report information
about sexual abuse. Policies on mandatory reporting must also be covered
in sexual abuse education programs for prisoners. Clear policies communicated effectively to both medical and mental health care practitioners
and prisoners ensure that everyone has the same understanding of what
mandatory reporting entails.

Offering Other Options

M

any incarcerated individuals will only access medical or
mental health treatment if they feel confident that doing
so will not put them at risk for further harm. Individuals
who testified before the Commission often expressed fear
that speaking out about abuse and naming abusers may lead to retaliation.65 Retaliation can take many different forms. Lost privileges, internal
sanctions, and threats of injury are possible when individuals name perpetrators of sexual abuse. Victims as well as witnesses may be reluctant
to seek treatment because they are afraid to name the perpetrator and
follow through with a formal complaint and investigation. (See Chapter
5 for a more detailed discussion.) For these reasons, the Commission’s
standards mandate that medical and mental health care practitioners
provide a sexual abuse victim needed treatment, regardless of whether
he or she names the perpetrator. Without this policy, sexual abuse victims may decide that the risk of further harm is too great and elect not
to access treatment.

C H A P T E R 6: T R E AT I N G T R AU M A

135

Inmate access to outside
confidential support services
In addition to providing on-site
mental health care services,
the facility provides inmates
with access to outside victim
advocates for emotional support services related to sexual
abuse. The facility provides
such access by giving inmates
the current mailing addresses
and telephone numbers, including toll-free hotline numbers,
of local, State, and/or national
victim advocacy or rape crisis
organizations and enabling
reasonable communication between inmates and these organizations. The facility ensures
that communications with such
advocates are private, confidential, and privileged, to the
extent allowable by Federal,
State, and local law. The facility
informs inmates, prior to giving
them access, of the extent to
which such communications
will be private, confidential,
and/or privileged.

The Commission realizes that some victims will never feel comfortable or safe disclosing their experience of sexual abuse to a corrections
employee. The standards, therefore, require facilities to give prisoners information about how to contact victim advocates and other support services in the community and underscore that victim communication with
outside advocates be private and confidential to the extent permitted by
law. Meeting this standard can be as simple as prominently posting tollfree hotline numbers. However, the Commission requires correctional
facilities to try to develop real relationships with community-based organizations, formalized through memoranda of understanding—not only to
fulfill this particular standard but, when possible, to ensure that victims of
sexual abuse have support as they transition from the facility back to their
home communities. Collaborations with community-based crisis centers
are currently in place in numerous States, including California, Iowa, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, and Utah.66
“Paths to Recovery,” a pilot program operated by Just Detention International (formerly Stop Prisoner Rape) in collaboration with the California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, pairs community-based rape
crisis professionals with nearby prisons. As of early 2009, the program was
being tested in two sites. Sexual abuse counselors travel to these prisons
to provide confidential services to survivors of sexual abuse regardless of
whether the abuse occurred in that facility or elsewhere. Wendy Still, former
Associate Director of Female Offender Programs and Services for the department, believes the program is accomplishing much more than its frontline
service objective. “If survivors of sexual assault know that confidential
support services are available, if they see the institution providing for their
emotional as well as medical needs, they will be more likely to access
the services and. . . feel safe enough to file these formal complaints so
that proper action may be taken against the perpetrator.”67 As Still highlighted in her testimony, the impact of providing quality treatment services
reaches beyond individual victims to foster an environment in correctional
facilities that actively discourages sexual abuse.

Eliminating Cost as a Barrier to Treatment

C

ost may also be a barrier to treatment for victims of sexual
abuse. In the majority of States, legislatures have passed laws
authorizing correctional agencies to charge prisoners for medical care.68 Fees and co-payments are viewed as a way to reduce
budget deficits and eliminate abuses of the sick call system, assuming
that prisoners are willing to pay only when they really need to see a doctor, nurse, or therapist. The problem, however, is that an unknown and
perhaps large number of prisoners who “opt out” actually need medical

136

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

or mental health care. Most incarcerated individuals have scant financial
resources, and some delay seeking treatment until their symptoms worsen
or until they need emergency care because a fee as little as $5 is beyond
their means. When New Jersey implemented a $5 co-payment for medical
care in prisons in the mid-1990s, for example, a 60 percent drop in sick
calls followed.69 Recent research across 36 States indicates that co-payment
programs reduced sick calls between 16 and 50 percent.70
Victims of sexual abuse should not have to consider whether they
can afford to see a doctor or a counselor. The Commission’s standards
require facilities to provide emergency medical and mental health care
services to victims of sexual abuse free of charge. Meeting this standard
in facilities that currently charge prisoners for emergency care will require
changes in policy and practice. Many correctional systems go further by
crafting co-pay and fee-for-service systems that include exemptions for
chronic care. Because sexual abuse can lead to ongoing medical and
mental health problems, and because victims may delay reporting abuse,
the Commission urges systems that already have such exemptions to include common and persistent aftereffects of sexual abuse among the list
of chronic health problems. For those correctional systems without such
exemptions, the Commission encourages them to consider this approach.
Financial barriers to treatment come in other forms, as well. In her
written testimony for the Commission, Sandra Matheson, Director of the
State Office of Victim/Witness
Assistance at the New Hamp- Victims of sexual abuse should not have to consider whether
shire Attorney General’s Office, they can afford to see a doctor or a counselor.
described a case involving a corrections officer at Shea Farm Halfway House in Concord and the multiple
abuses he perpetrated against women confined there during the early
2000s.71 (See Chapter 8 for more details on this case.) After describing the
physical brutality and sexual assaults women residents at Shea Farm endured, Matheson went on to explain how the New Hampshire Department
of Corrections responded when the abuse came to light.
Matheson worked with the Director of Community Corrections to
set up a meeting for women at Shea Farm to brief them on the case and
to offer support services. The department also brought in mental health
practitioners and a local rape crisis center. Because of their lack of trust
in the system after the assaults, the women were not comfortable seeking treatment from the department’s mental health practitioners; they
wanted to see a therapist within the community.72 In recognition of the
costs associated with obtaining outside treatment, Matheson helped victims file a claim with the State’s Victim Compensation Program. However, the women of Shea Farm suffered another setback: the State denied
their claims due to a rule that prohibited inmates from receiving compensation for these services.

C H A P T E R 6: T R E AT I N G T R AU M A

137

The prohibition in New Hampshire on compensating formerly incarcerated individuals stems from the 1984 Victims of Crime Act (VOCA).
Money from the Act funds victim assistance and crime compensation programs. Office for Victims of Crime guidelines prohibit using VOCA money
to serve incarcerated victims of sexual violence, even if the victimization
occurred while in custody. Similarly, grants administered under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) cannot be used to assist incarcerated
victims of sexual abuse who have been convicted of domestic or dating
violence, sexual assault, or stalking. The Commission recommends that
the VOCA grant guidelines be changed and that Congress amend VAWA
to acknowledge that all survivors of sexual abuse deserve treatment and
support services.
Unimpeded access to treatment, care by qualified medical and
mental health care practitioners, and structured collaborations with outside providers are critical to ensuring that incarcerated victims of sexual
abuse receive the medical and mental health care services they need to
heal, be safe, and begin rebuilding their lives.

138

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

PART III
SPECIAL POPULATIONS

Juveniles in confinement are much
more likely than incarcerated adults
to be sexually abused, and they are
particularly at risk when confined
with adults. To be effective, sexual
abuse prevention, investigation, and
treatment must be tailored to the
developmental capacities and
needs of youth.

7

When Children Are Involved

I

n summer 2004, the Plainfield Juvenile Correctional Facility in Indiana
housed nearly 300 boys, most between the ages of 12 and 18.1 Based
on reports of rampant physical violence and sexual abuse, the U.S. Department of Justice began investigating conditions of confinement and
the safety of the residents. That investigation revealed pervasive sexual activity of almost unimaginable proportions. Acts of sexual abuse occurred
throughout the facility—in dormitories, day rooms, the recreation area,
bathrooms and showers, storage closets, and even in the campus security
van. Sexual contact among youth was so widespread that authorities at the
facility used flow charts to document the incidents, charting each youth
involved and the nature of the sexual activities. One incident involved
eight boys; another involved 14.
The investigators were especially concerned by the “alarming” age
and size disparity between many of the youth involved and noted that
“[w]hen older, bigger, and/or more sophisticated youths have access to
younger and/or smaller youths, the risk of abuse and exploitation is particularly high.”2 Youth as old as 18 were assaulting or coercing children as
young as 12; children weighing as little as 70 pounds were sexually abused
by youth outweighing them by 100 pounds. Older youth were inappropriately housed with and had easy access to 12-year-old boys. In one case, a
16-year-old gave a 12-year-old clothing to entice him into having sex with
him in the dayroom. In another, an 18-year-old youth attempted on two
occasions to force a 12-year-old to have sex with him in a bathroom.
Very little seemed to deter abusive behavior at Plainfield. Assaults
often occurred without staff intervening or even being aware of them.
At their best, staff ratios were one staff member for 30 youth, and sometimes there was only one staff member to supervise 48 youth, decimating
the ability of staff to prevent incidents, protect vulnerable residents, or
“respond in a safe and timely manner” when sexual assaults did occur.3
Housing arrangements at Plainfield exacerbated the danger. For example,
sexual offenders were housed in large dormitories with bunk beds—a
design known to increase the risk of sexual abuse.

C H A P T E R 7: W H E N C H I L D R E N A R E I N V O LV E D

141

In its report, the Department of Justice emphasized that Plainfield
administrators had a duty under the U.S. Constitution to take reasonable
measures to protect vulnerable residents from abuse and exploitation by
more sophisticated, sexually predatory youth and also to provide a “rehabilitative environment for all young sex offenders.”4 State officials converted Plainfield into an adult facility in October 2005, shortly after they
received the report.5
A daily snapshot of juveniles in custody in 2006 showed that approximately 93,000 youth ages 20 and under were confined in juvenile facilities
in the United States; more than half (55,978) were 16 years old or younger.6
Preventing, detecting, and responding to sexual abuse in these facilities
demands age-appropriate interventions. The Commission’s standards for juvenile facilities parallel those for adult prisons and jails, with modifications
to reflect the developmental capacities and needs of children.
This chapter discusses why confined youth are especially vulnerable to sexual abuse and how to protect them, with an emphasis on standards that are significantly different in a juvenile justice context.

Heightened Vulnerability, Special Responsibility

H

istorically, the juvenile justice system was designed to provide
a therapeutic and rehabilitative environment for youth who violate the law.7 Therefore, most juvenile facilities differ from adult
prisons and jails in their theoretical emphasis on rehabilitation.
Notwithstanding recent punitive approaches to juvenile delinquency, new
scientific evidence confirms that youth are especially amenable to treatment. As the Supreme Court noted in 2005, the character of a juvenile is
less “fixed” than that of an adult.8 Researchers have identified several features of adolescence that make youth particularly open to rehabilitation, including significant and rapid changes in intellectual capacities and evidence
of positive responses to adjustments in family, peer group, school, and other
settings that influence development.9 As a result, most youth will mature out
of misdemeanor and other criminal behavior between the teenage years and
young adulthood; few youth persist in a life of crime as adults.10
Youth may pass through the system once or twice, never to return.
Yet if they are sexually abused, they may live with lifelong consequences.11
Juvenile justice agencies thus have an opportunity and a challenge: prevent sexual abuse now, or risk long-term consequences for victims.
Juveniles are not yet fully developed physically, cognitively, socially, and emotionally and are ill-equipped to respond to sexual advances
and protect themselves.12 Younger teenagers and preteens, in particular,
are unprepared to cope with sexualized coercion or aggression from older,

142

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

more experienced youth or adult corrections staff, and such abuse may
permanently damage them.13 Because of their age, youth are entitled to
even greater protections from abuse and unnecessary pain than incarcerated adults. Youth in criminal justice settings have a right to “bodily integrity” under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, as would any child in
school.14 Indeed, when the State exercises custodial authority over children,
“its responsibility to act in the place of parents (in loco parentis) obliges it to
take special care to protect those in its charge, and that protection must be
concerned with dangers from others and self-inflicted harm.”15
It is especially egregious when staff are the perpetrators of sexual
abuse against youth and when facilities fail to hold perpetrators accountable. Over a period of almost a year in 1997 and 1998, L.C. was allegedly sexually abused by two
staff members of the residenYouth may pass through the system once or twice, never to
tial juvenile detention facility
in Chalkville, Alabama.16 On return. Yet if they are sexually abused, they may live with
one occasion, when L.C. was lifelong consequences. Juvenile justice agencies thus have
16 years old, she was granted
an opportunity and a challenge: prevent sexual abuse now,
a pass to travel to another town
or risk long-term consequences for victims.
to visit her mother. A Chalkville
corrections officer followed her
there without her knowledge and coerced her into meeting him at a local
restaurant. By threatening to use his authority over her at the facility, he
made her accompany him to a motel. Once at the motel, he raped her. These
off-site rapes happened on two occasions. The officer repeatedly made sexually explicit statements to L.C., said she didn’t seem like a virgin, and told
her about having sex with other girls at the facility. L.C. submitted a written
complaint reporting the abuse to the facility superintendent, but he wrote
back that “he could not control the actions of Chalkville Campus’ employees
when they were off-site.”17
The State’s obligation to protect youth in juvenile facilities covers
not just staff but also residents, contract employees, and volunteers. The
story of A.S., a 15-year-old girl at Chalkville, illustrates the harm caused by
failure to protect youth from sexual abuse. Over a period of months beginning in September 2000, a male security guard employed by the Department of Youth Services (DYS) allegedly sexually abused A.S.18 One night,
when agency records confirm that he escorted her back to her cottage,
the security guard raped her. He continued to threaten and harass her for
the rest of his time at the facility. Eight months later, when allegations of
sexual abuse at Chalkville reached the police, the assailant was placed
on administrative leave. The girl continued to fear for her safety, however, because other staff on leave for sexual abuse still visited the facility.
When DYS took no action to reassure her, her emotional trauma escalated

C H A P T E R 7: W H E N C H I L D R E N A R E I N V O LV E D

143

until she became suicidal. She was placed in in-patient care, where she
remained for the duration of her sentence.
The pervasive misconduct at Chalkville and the systemic failure to
respond led 49 girls to bring charges that “male staff had fondled, raped
and sexually harassed” them.19 DYS officials received notices about sexual
abuse in the form of letters, complaint forms, and incident reports beginning in 1994 and continuing into 2001.20 Although DYS investigated some
of the complaints, it ignored many because the girls were “presumed to be
liars and troublemakers.”21 One
The officer repeatedly made sexually explicit statements court opinion noted that—with
the number of complaints of
to L.C., said she didn’t seem like a virgin, and told her sexual abuse over such a long
about having sex with other girls at the facility. period of time, often involving
the same staff members—any
“reasonable supervisor should have realized that he or she had a bigger
problem.”22 Ultimately, the pervasiveness of the abuse was impossible for
the State to ignore, and legislation was passed making custodial sexual
misconduct a crime.23 Fifteen employees were fired or resigned as a result
of the allegations. The litigation ended with a $12.5 million settlement.24
The gravity of what happened in Chalkville cannot be overstated;
the risk and consequences of abuse among confined youth deserve serious attention. Rates of sexual abuse appear to be much higher for youth
in confinement than they are for adult prisoners. This is true of recorded
allegations of sexual abuse as well as incidents that investigators deemed
“substantiated.” The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) found that the rate
of sexual abuse in adult facilities, based only on substantiated allegations
reported to corrections authorities that were captured in administrative
records, was 2.91 per 1,000 incarcerated prisoners in 2006.25 The rate in juvenile facilities, also reported by BJS and based on administrative records,
was more than five times greater: 16.8 per 1,000 in 2006.26 This difference
in rates may be due, in part, to State and local mandatory reporting laws
specifying that sexual acts involving persons under a certain age are nonconsensual by definition and must be reported to authorities.
The actual extent of sexual abuse in residential facilities is still
unknown.27 At the time this report went to press, the best national data
available on the sexual abuse of youth in confinement were based on
juvenile facilities’ administrative records of allegations and substantiated
or unsubstantiated incidents. To be substantiated, the abuse first has to
be reported and recorded by the facility. Substantiating an allegation also
requires a formal investigation, availability of adequate and still-viable
evidence, and entering a finding that sexual abuse occurred into official
records. All these steps can be compromised by reluctance on the part
of youth or staff to report abuse or to conduct or participate in an investigation, officials’ concerns about publicity and liability, and a lack of

144

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

adequate procedures or training on how to respond to reports and investigate alleged incidents.28
As directed by PREA, BJS is now conducting the first nationally
representative survey of sexual abuse in residential detention, based on
computer-assisted interviews. Youth use a touch screen to respond to a
questionnaire accompanied by audio instructions delivered through headphones.29 This research will provide the best estimate yet on rates of abuse
in juvenile facilities and allow comparisons with BJS’ groundbreaking sexual abuse surveys of adult prisoners. A pilot study of 645 residents in nine
facilities for youth adjudicated for committing severe offenses suggests
that juveniles may be more vulnerable to sexual abuse in confinement
than anyone imagined. Nearly one of every five youth surveyed (19.7 percent) reported at least one sexual contact during the preceding 12 months
or since they had arrived at that facility if they had been there less than 12
months.30 Staff were as likely as youth to perpetrate sexual abuse: nearly
8 percent of the youth interviewed reported sexual contacts with staff involving physical force or threat of force; other types of force or pressure; or
sex in return for money, protection, or other special treatment.

Who’s at Risk

I

n September 2008, the Department of Justice Review Panel on Prison
Rape prepared a report on sexual assault in Federal and State prisons
that included a comprehensive profile of common characteristics of
victims and perpetrators of
rape in adult correctional faciliYouth in juvenile detention span a wide range of ages
ties.31 To date, there has been no
similarly comprehensive study and developmental stages. In some States, youth as young
of the characteristics of youth as 6 and as old as 20 fall within juvenile court jurisdiction
who are at greatest risk of being and can be housed, at least in theory, in the same facility.
victimized or of perpetrating
This mix is fraught with danger.
sexual abuse in juvenile facilities.32 However, some characteristics—including past abuse history, small size, inexperience with the
justice system, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, and mental and
physical disabilities—may be associated with higher vulnerability to sexual abuse.
Youth in juvenile detention span a wide range of ages and developmental stages. In some States, youth as young as 6 and as old as 20 fall
within juvenile court jurisdiction and can be housed, at least in theory, in
the same facility.33 This mix is fraught with danger because younger and
smaller residents may be particularly vulnerable to force, violence, sexual
abuse, and intimidation from older and stronger residents.34 A 2005–2006

C H A P T E R 7: W H E N C H I L D R E N A R E I N V O LV E D

145

BJS survey of juvenile facilities found that, across facilities that provided
data, 60 percent of victims of substantiated incidents of sexual violence
perpetrated by other youth were 15 years of age or younger. In contrast,
victims of staff sexual violence were usually older: 65 percent of staff victims were 16 or 17, and 19 percent were 18 or above.35
Studies in the community suggest that youth with a history of
abuse or neglect may be extremely vulnerable to subsequent victimization as well—a risk that can persist into adulthood.36 President of the
National Juvenile Detention Association Leonard Dixon testified before
the Commission that “[y]outh who enter the juvenile justice system often
come to [the facility] from abusive and neglect[ful] families. In Michigan
alone, twenty percent of the juvenile justice youth have been victims of
child abuse and neglect.”37 These youth often feel powerless at the hands
of adults: a feeling likely to be heightened in the authoritarian environment of juvenile detention, where they are expected to follow all orders
issued by the adults in charge, submit to strip searches by adults, and
depend on those in authority to meet basic needs and protect them from
potential perpetrators.
Inexperience with the criminal justice system and commingling
juveniles with different offense histories also contribute to the vulnerability of thousands of confined youth. When M.W., a 14-year-old boy
weighing 98 pounds, was detained in the reception area of the West Palm
Beach, Florida, juvenile detention center after an arrest for burglary, he
was placed in a cell by himself.38 Microphones and cameras allowed staff
to monitor cells in the detention
“Youth who enter the juvenile justice system often come center, but some officers lacked
to [the facility] from abusive and neglect[ful] families. In access to the monitoring equipment, so cell doors were often
Michigan alone, twenty percent of the juvenile justice youth left open to give counselors a
have been victims of child abuse and neglect.” direct view of the youth inside.
Officers later placed another
boy in the cell with M.W. This boy was 15 years old, 6’2” tall, and weighed
160 pounds. Half an hour later, officers placed an additional boy in the cell.
This boy was 16 years old, 6’2” tall, weighed 195 pounds, and had a long
history of violent crimes.
Less than 1 hour after the boys entered the cell, one boy attempted
to force M.W. to perform oral sex while the other boy watched. An officer,
who noticed that the cell door was almost completely closed, entered and
witnessed the assault in progress. The officer pulled M.W. out of the cell
and asked if he had been hurt. However, M.W. was never given a medical
examination or provided mental health treatment while detained at the
facility. Several months after the assault, M.W. developed chronic nightmares and posttraumatic stress disorder. A court later awarded $100,000 in
compensatory damages to him and $5,575 to his father.

146

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

In many jurisdictions, the juvenile justice system is responsible not
only for the care and confinement of youth charged with crimes, but also
for youth identified as “status offenders” for violating rules that only apply to persons under a certain age. Status offenses are typically minor
and include curfew violations, running away, disobeying parental orders,
and truancy.39 Some runaways are fleeing abuse and violence at home.40
Youth who are in the custody of child protective services agencies also
may end up in the juvenile justice system for minor offenses that would
not involve the justice system if they were living with their parents.41 Although States that receive formula grants under the Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention Act of 2002 are prohibited from placing status
offenders in secure facilities, many jurisdictions take advantage of exceptions to this rule and confine youth with minor infractions in facilities for
serious offenders.42
According to national census data, approximately 4,800 status offenders were in the custody of a juvenile residential facility on census day
in 2006.43 This tally increases to nearly 20,000 (or more than one-fifth of all
youth in custody) if juveniles who have committed a technical violation,
such as a violation of probation or other valid court order, are included.44 In
2002, the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division found that 75 percent of girls in two training schools in Mississippi were confined solely for
status offenses, probation violations, or contempt of court.45 These youth
often have little or no experience with the juvenile justice system and are
particularly vulnerable to abuse or coercion by more experienced, sophisticated, and violent residents as well as by staff.
Simply being female is a risk factor. Girls are disproportionately
represented among sexual abuse victims in general and in juvenile justice
settings. The 2005–2006 BJS
survey found that 36 percent According to Jody Marksamer, Director for the Youth
of all victims in substantiated
Project of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, juvenile
incidents of sexual violence in
the State systems and local or facilities are often homophobic places that are emotionally,
private juvenile facilities pro- physically, and sexually unsafe for these youth.
viding data were female, even
though girls represented only 15 percent of youth in residential placement
in 2006.46 Girls were the victims in more than half (51 percent) of all substantiated incidents perpetrated by staff, compared to being the victims in
only 21 percent of incidents perpetrated by other youth.
During the past two decades, the number of girls in the juvenile
justice system as a whole—and in secure detention facilities in particular—increased substantially, due in part to an increase in arrests and detention for technical violations of probation.47 This shifting demographic
poses a significant challenge to the juvenile justice system and individual
facilities, which were traditionally designed to meet the needs of boys and

C H A P T E R 7: W H E N C H I L D R E N A R E I N V O LV E D

147

Obtaining information about
residents
During intake and periodically
throughout a resident’s confinement, employees obtain and
use information about each resident’s personal history and behavior to keep all residents safe
and free from sexual abuse. At
a minimum, employees attempt
to ascertain information about
prior sexual victimization or abusiveness; sexual orientation and
gender identity; current charges
and offense history; age; level of
emotional and cognitive development; physical size/stature;
mental illness or mental disabilities; intellectual/developmental
disabilities; physical disabilities;
and any other specific information about individual residents
that may indicate heightened
needs for supervision, additional safety precautions, or
separation from certain other
residents. This information may
be ascertained through conversations with residents at intake
and medical and mental health
screenings; during classification
assessments; and by reviewing
court records, case files, facility
behavioral records, and other
relevant documentation from
the residents’ files. Medical and
mental health practitioners are
the only staff permitted to talk
with residents to gather information about their sexual orientation or gender identity, prior
sexual victimization, history of
engaging in sexual abuse, mental health status, and mental
or physical disabilities. If the
facility does not have medical
or mental health practitioners
available, residents are given an
opportunity to discuss any safety concerns or sensitive issues
privately with another employee.

148

may not have enough women staff to supervise and monitor girls who
enter the system.
Facilities also may be ill-equipped to protect gay, lesbian, bisexual,
and gender-nonconforming youth. According to Jody Marksamer, Director
for the Youth Project of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, juvenile
facilities are often homophobic places that are emotionally, physically, and
sexually unsafe for these youth.48 A lawsuit filed by the Hawaii chapter
of the American Civil Liberties Union provides a stark illustration of how
youth who are gay, transgender, or merely perceived to be gay may be
threatened by staff or assaulted and harassed by other youth. This case resulted in a $25,000 settlement to be used for developing new policies at the
facility and a $600,000 settlement to three plaintiffs who were subjected to
unwanted sexual touching, threatened with rape, and repeatedly harassed
because of their sexual orientation.49
Transgender girls are especially vulnerable. Despite their feminine
gender and appearance, they are almost always placed in boys’ facilities,
where they are expected to shower and sleep with boys.50 Cyryna Pasion
told the Commission about the sexual abuse she faced as a transgender
girl in the Hawaii Youth Correctional Facility in 2004 and 2005.51 Placed
in a boys’ unit against the advice of medical staff and counselors, Cyryna
suffered sexual harassment, unwanted touching, taunting, and threats of
violence and rape. “I felt tortured and alone,” she told the Commission.52
“The boys threatened to beat me up if I wrote a complaint. . . .”
Youth with physical and mental disabilities who are dependent on
others for care are another vulnerable group and may have special difficulty comprehending and communicating danger.53 “Robert,” a severely
mentally disabled 15-year-old boy with an IQ of 32, was raped by another
resident after corrections officers at the Leon Regional Juvenile Detention
Center in Tallahassee, Florida, delegated the duties of bathing and changing Robert’s diaper to a 17-year-old sex offender.54 For these actions, the
older boy was later convicted of one count of sexual battery on a victim
with a mental defect.55 There are no national data on the prevalence of
cognitive and emotional disorders among confined youth, but studies suggest rates are much higher than in the general population of U.S. youth.56
Disorders most commonly noted among confined youth in juvenile facilities include depression, attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, learning
disabilities, posttraumatic stress disorder, and developmental disabilities.57

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

Identifying and Protecting Vulnerable Youth

W

Placement of residents in
housing, bed, program,
education, and work
assignments

ithout evidence-based information on risk factors for confined youth, juvenile facilities are at a disadvantage in
identifying potential victims and perpetrators, yet they can
Employees use all information
obtained about the resident at inbe held liable for failing to separate vulnerable residents
58
take and subsequently to make
from those most likely to harm them. Judgments about placements are
placement decisions for each
frequently made through informal procedures, which may be swayed by
resident on an individualized
bias and are rarely consistent enough to be fair and effective.59 The Combasis with the goal of keeping
mission’s standard on obtaining information about residents of juvenile
all residents safe and free from
facilities requires a more stringent approach to screening. Until more resexual abuse. When determining
housing, bed, program, educasearch on vulnerability factors for confined youth is conducted, agency
tion and work assignments for
and facility staff should use available evidence and professional judgment
residents, employees must take
to develop screening and information-gathering protocols that take into
into account a resident’s age;
account the risk of sexual abuse in juvenile facilities, and they should
the nature of his or her offense;
develop procedures to keep residents safe without penalizing those who
any mental or physical disability
are vulnerable.
or mental illness; any history of
sexual victimization or engagAt a minimum, facility staff must attempt to gather information
ing in sexual abuse; his or her
about the risk factors described above—both during intake and periodlevel of emotional and cognitive
ically throughout a youth’s confinement. A variety of sources can prodevelopment; his or her identifivide this information, including facility records, case files, conversations
cation as lesbian, gay, bisexual,
with residents, and court records. Judges often have wide, although by
or transgender; and any other
no means absolute, discretion to take into account many factors when
information obtained about the
resident (AP-1). Residents may
making sentencing determinations.60 As a result, facility staff should look
be isolated from others only as
to judicial opinions, which may shed light on certain vulnerabilities or
a last resort when less restricother relevant characteristics in the information-gathering process. Betive measures are inadequate to
cause addressing certain personal issues can be traumatic for youth, the
keep them and other residents
standard limits questioning about sexual orientation, gender identity, prior
safe, and then only until an alsexual victimization, history of engaging in sexual abuse, and mental and
ternative means of keeping all
residents safe can be arranged.
physical health to medical and mental health practitioners. In addition to
screening, facilities can take a simple step to protect youth from sexual
abuse: encourage all residents during intake to tell staff if they fear being
abused. This message, combined with affirmative statements about the
facility’s commitment to safety and zero tolerance of sexual abuse, makes
it more likely that vulnerable youth will seek protection when they need
it—before an assault occurs.
The Commission’s standard on the placement of youth in juvenile facilities mandates that staff use all information about the risk of sexual abuse
to determine safe housing,
bed, program, education, and “Robert,” a severely mentally disabled 15-year-old boy with
work assignments. Any inforan IQ of 32, was raped by another resident after corrections
mation that may indicate heightened vulnerability to sexual officers. . . delegated the duties of bathing and changing
abuse, including those elements Robert’s diaper to a 17-year-old sex offender.

C H A P T E R 7: W H E N C H I L D R E N A R E I N V O LV E D

149

Resident reporting
The facility provides multiple
internal ways for residents to
report easily, privately, and securely sexual abuse, retaliation
by other residents or staff for
reporting sexual abuse, and
staff neglect or violation of responsibilities that may have contributed to an incident of sexual
abuse. The facility also provides
at least one way for residents to
report the abuse to an outside
public entity or office not affiliated with the agency that has
agreed to receive reports and
forward them to the facility head
(RP-3). Staff accepts reports
made verbally, in writing, anonymously, and from third parties
and immediately puts into writing any verbal reports.

Third-party reporting
The facility receives and investigates all third-party reports
of sexual abuse and refers all
third-party reports of abuse to
the designated State or local
services agency with the authority to conduct investigations
into allegations of sexual abuse
involving child victims (IN-1 and
RP-4). At the conclusion of the
investigation, the facility notifies in writing the third-party
individual who reported the
abuse and the resident named
in the third-party report of the
outcome of the investigation.
The facility distributes information on how to report sexual
abuse on behalf of a resident
to residents’ parents or legal
guardians, attorneys, and the
public.

150

identified in the standard, must be taken into consideration in determining
appropriate placements. The Commission strongly discourages the practice of segregating vulnerable residents because isolation may aggravate
symptoms of mental illness and limit access to education, programming,
and mental health services. Youth may be segregated as a last resort for
short periods when less restrictive measures are inadequate to keep them
and other residents safe.61
In cases of ongoing danger, the Commission suggests that facilities consider transferring vulnerable youth to other facilities better able
to meet their needs. Because vulnerability factors, the mix of potential
predators and victims, and other characteristics change over time, staff
must reassess residents periodically and adjust placements when necessary to keep all residents safe from sexual abuse. If an incident of sexual
abuse occurs and is discovered, staff must reassess placement decisions
for the victim and, if the abuse was perpetrated by another resident, for
the perpetrator as well.

Encouraging Reporting

R

educing sexual abuse requires creating conditions in which every incident is reported and triggers an immediate response.
Just crossing that first hurdle can be a challenge, however.62
Many youth are reluctant to report abuse for understandable
reasons. They must weigh the ramifications of disclosure, including
shame, stigma, the risk that they won’t be believed, the possibility that
they will be housed in isolation, and retaliation by perpetrators. Staff who
sexually abuse youth may threaten to extend their period of confinement
or move them to a more restrictive housing unit or even to a different
facility if they report the abuse.63
Recognizing the developmental, emotional, and systemic barriers
that discourage youth from reporting sexual abuse, the Commission’s standards require internal reporting procedures to be easy, private, and secure;
teenagers and even younger children cannot be expected to follow complicated or impractical grievance procedures. Specifically, the Commission requires facility staff to accept reports from victims and third parties verbally
or in writing, including anonymous reports. The standard on reporting also
requires that agencies provide youth with at least one way to report sexual
abuse to a person or entity not affiliated with the facility or agency.
Many confined youth will look to their parents or to another known
and trusted adult in a time of crisis. For this reason, and because juveniles
are unlikely to comprehend or appreciate the complex legal procedures involved in a claim of sexual abuse, the Commission requires facilities to provide residents with unimpeded access to their families, attorneys, or other

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

Resident access to outside
legal representatives. Under the Commission’s standards, information about
support services and legal
the facility’s grievance system and sexual abuse must be made available to
representation
parents and lawyers, who can help residents understand their rights and
In addition to providing on-site
procedures within the facility.
mental health care services,
Reforms designed to make it easier for youth to report sexual abuse
the facility provides residents
must be grounded in education for residents on the nature of sexual abuse,
with access to outside victhe facility’s policy of zero tolerance of sexual abuse, procedures for retim advocates for emotional
support services related to
porting abuse, and the facility’s response to allegations. Because many
sexual abuse. The facility proyouth fail to recognize certain coercive and harmful behaviors as “rape”
vides such access by giving
or “abuse”—particularly if they come from backgrounds in which this conresidents the current mailing
duct has occurred—juvenile facilities should work to improve sexual eduaddresses and telephone numcation programs and sexual abuse prevention curricula.
bers, including toll-free hotline
Educational materials and presentations for youth will be of little
numbers, of local, State, and/
or national victim advocacy or
value, however, if they do not use age-appropriate language and concrete
rape crisis organizations and
examples, especially when discussing how to report abuse. Given the
enabling reasonable communirange of ages in many facilities, a one-size-fits-all approach will not work.
cation between residents and
Presentations, materials, and follow-up contacts should be structured to
these organizations. The facilmatch the emotional, cognitive, and sexual development of particular age
ity ensures that communication
groupings of children and teens and must reach youth who speak limited
with such advocates is private,
to the extent allowable by Fedor no English, have limited reading skills, are visually impaired, or are
eral, State, and local law. The
deaf. Agencies must also implement appropriate technologies and procefacility informs residents, prior
dures to ensure that youth with disabilities can report abuse and access
to giving them access, of the
medical and mental health services without relying on other residents to
extent to which such commutranslate or relay information.
nications will be private, confiTraining for staff is equally important. Staff often do not underdential, and/or privileged. The
facility also provides residents
stand the distinctive nature of sexual abuse involving children and teens
with unimpeded access to their
or its potential consequences. This kind of education must include trainattorney or other legal repreing about the nature of sexual abuse, its effects on youth, and the unique
sentation and their families.
dynamics of dealing with children and adolescents around sexual topics and reporting, coupled with training on the facility’s zero-tolerance
policies and reporting and response procedures. Staff must know that they
will be held accountable for their actions and omissions. When sexual
abuse occurs, all staff—from line staff to leadership—have the responsibility to ensure that the incident
is reported and addressed. In In 2005, the Department of Justice found that
2005, the Department of Justice
numerous female staff in an Oklahoma juvenile facility
found that numerous female
had sexual relations with male youth and concluded that
staff in an Oklahoma juvenile
facility had sexual relations the State failed to provide adequate supervision and
with male youth and concluded monitoring to protect youth.
that the State failed to provide
adequate supervision and monitoring to protect youth from inappropriate
sexual relationships with staff and other residents.64 In facilities such as
these, the failure of administrators and management to adopt and enforce

C H A P T E R 7: W H E N C H I L D R E N A R E I N V O LV E D

151

Resident education
During the intake process, staff
informs residents of the agency’s zero-tolerance policy regarding sexual abuse and how to
report incidents or suspicions
of sexual abuse in an ageappropriate fashion. Within a
reasonably brief period of time
following the intake process, the
agency provides comprehensive,
age-appropriate education to
residents regarding their right to
be free from sexual abuse and
to be free from retaliation for
reporting abuse, the dynamics
of sexual abuse in confinement,
the common reactions of sexual abuse victims, and agency
sexual abuse response policies
and procedures. Current residents are educated as soon as
possible following the agency’s
adoption of the PREA standards,
and the agency provides periodic
refresher information to all residents to ensure that they know
the agency’s most current sexual
abuse policies and procedures.
The agency provides resident
education in formats accessible
to all residents, including those
who are LEP, deaf, visually impaired, or otherwise disabled as
well as inmates who have limited
reading skills. The agency maintains written documentation of
resident participation in these
education sessions.

152

a zero-tolerance policy sends mixed messages to staff and confined youth
about the acceptability of sexual abuse in that setting.
Studies of child sexual abuse survivors outside confinement settings have found that children and youth faced with interviews and formal
investigative processes may become intimidated or demoralized; attempt
to escape the painful aftereffects of abuse or the dangers of retaliation by
denying that the incident ever occurred; and recant, change their reports,
or refuse to cooperate with investigators.65 Risks for youth in confinement
are even greater. To address these challenges, interviewers must be trained
to communicate effectively and in a manner sensitive to the specific vulnerabilities and developmental capacities of young victims.66
In spite of efforts to educate youth and train staff, some victims
will remain silent following an incident of sexual abuse. Although trauma,
fear of retaliation, and limited knowledge of legal rights and procedures
discourage reporting among adults, the impact of these factors on youth
is even greater. Youth in confinement express serious doubts that their reports will be formally investigated and recount multiple incidents in which
officers destroyed grievance forms and refused to follow through on investigations in an effort to protect themselves or their co-workers.67
The Commission’s standards mandate that administrative remedies
be deemed exhausted no later than 90 days after a report of sexual abuse
is made. State agencies must not dismiss complaints by youth who fail to
file a report within a specific time period and should not impose complicated exhaustion requirements before youth can access the courts. Legal
precedent supports this view. At least one court has found that the developmental stage of youth is integral to the question of whether a plaintiff has satisfied the administrative exhaustion requirement of the Prison
Litigation Reform Act. As long as the State has fair notice of a complaint,
juveniles’ “young age, their lack of experience with the criminal system,
and their relatively short period of confinement entitle them to greater
protection. . . .”68 When the victim of abuse seeks urgent, emergency intervention or injunctive relief from the court to prevent imminent harm, the
State agency must deem the resident’s administrative remedies exhausted
48 hours after the report.
The Commission requires that any report of sexual abuse received
in any form trigger an agency response and investigation. To be successful, investigators of sexual abuse in juvenile settings need special skills. To
ensure that investigators have the knowledge and skills to work sensitively
and effectively with child and teen victims of sexual assault, the Commission requires special training. Investigators should understand the developmental capacities and sexual development of children, build rapport
with the youth in a safe and private space, pay attention to physical cues
from the youth, ask open-ended questions that eventually shift to specific
details, and remain nonjudgmental throughout the interview.69

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

Helping Young Victims Heal

Y

outh who are sexually abused in confinement and other justice
settings are likely to experience serious and long-standing emotional and psychological consequences throughout adolescence
and into adulthood.70 Because the experience of sexual abuse
is severely damaging, it can increase tendencies toward criminality and
substance abuse among youth in confinement.71 Other potential long-term
effects include major and persistent depression and posttraumatic stress
disorder. Like adult victims of sexual abuse, youth may experience significant problems with impulse control, flashbacks, dissociative episodes, anger, persistent distrust and withdrawal, loss of faith, hopelessness, despair,
and a poor sense of self resulting in shame, guilt, and self-blame.72 A history of childhood sexual abuse is strongly correlated with higher rates of
attempted suicide, alcohol dependence, nicotine dependence, social anxiety, and divorce.73 For those with a history of sexual abuse, victimization
in confinement may recall past experiences and replicate prior traumas,
exacerbating negative outcomes.74
Sensitivities about sexual development and body changes add to
the damage that may occur as a result of sexual abuse. In 2000, two girls
with histories of mental health problems were subjected to numerous invasive strip searches in juvenile detention facilities in Connecticut.75 Facility
staff performed several of these searches without any reasonable suspicion
that the girls had contraband or posed any other threat. The U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit, in its decision regarding the searches, quoted the Supreme Court’s view on the vulnerability of children: “‘youth. . .
is a. . . condition of life when a person may be most susceptible. . . to psychological damage.’”76 Because of this, the court reasoned that “children
are especially susceptible to possible traumas from strip searches.”77 The
court ultimately found that several of the searches were unconstitutional
after balancing “the risks to the psychological health of the children from
performing the searches and the risks to their well-being and to institutional safety from not performing the searches.”78
Studies suggest that justice-involved girls tend to have higher rates
of major depression and anxiety disorders, including posttraumatic stress
disorder and somatization, than their male counterparts.79 Adding to the
complexity, girls are more likely than boys to enter the juvenile justice
system with histories of physical and sexual abuse, which can lead to
significant and long-lasting mental health problems. These may be compounded if sexual trauma reoccurs.80 Unfortunately, mental health and
other services in many juvenile facilities are “generic, coeducational, and
not gender-sensitive or trauma-informed.”81
Medical and mental health practitioners must be able to recognize the signs of sexual abuse and should understand and know how to

C H A P T E R 7: W H E N C H I L D R E N A R E I N V O LV E D

Accommodating residents
with special needs
The agency ensures that residents who are limited English
proficient (LEP), deaf, or disabled
are able to report sexual abuse
to staff directly, through interpretive technology, or through
non-resident interpreters. Accommodations are made to convey
all written information about sexual abuse policies, including how
to report sexual abuse, verbally
to residents who have limited
reading skills or who are visually
impaired.

Employee training
The agency trains all employees
to be able to fulfill their responsibilities under agency sexual
abuse prevention, detection, and
response policies and procedures; the PREA standards; and
under relevant Federal, State,
and local law. The agency trains
all employees to communicate
effectively and professionally
with all residents. Additionally,
the agency trains all employees
on a resident’s right to be free
from sexual abuse, the right of
residents and employees to be
free from retaliation for reporting sexual abuse, the dynamics
of sexual abuse in confinement,
and the common reactions of
sexual abuse victims. Current
employees are educated as soon
as possible following the agency’s adoption of the PREA standards, and the agency provides
periodic refresher information to
all employees to ensure that they
know the agency’s most current
sexual abuse policies and procedures. The agency maintains
written documentation showing
employee signatures verifying
that employees understand the
training they have received.

153

Specialized training:
Investigations
In addition to the general training
provided to all employees (TR-1),
the agency ensures that agency
investigators conducting sexual
abuse investigations have received comprehensive and upto-date training in conducting
such investigations in confinement settings. Specialized training must include techniques for
interviewing young sexual abuse
victims, proper use of Mirandaand Garrity-type warnings, sexual abuse evidence collection in
confinement settings, and the
criteria and evidence required to
substantiate a case for administrative action or prosecution
referral. The agency maintains
written documentation that
investigators have completed
the required specialized training in conducting sexual abuse
investigations.

Specialized training: Medical
and mental health care
The agency ensures that all
full- and part-time medical and
mental health care practitioners
working in its facilities have been
trained in how to detect and assess signs of sexual abuse and
that all medical practitioners are
trained in how to preserve physical evidence of sexual abuse. All
medical and mental health care
practitioners must be trained
in how to respond effectively
and professionally to young victims of sexual abuse and how
and to whom to report allegations or suspicions of sexual
abuse. The agency maintains
documentation that medical and
mental health practitioners have
received this specialized training.

154

respond to the developmental and psychological needs of young victims.
They must also be trained in the provision of ongoing age-appropriate
treatment and care. To ensure staff are prepared to meet these complex
obligations, the Commission requires that all full- and part-time medical
and mental health care practitioners receive special training.
Sexual abuse incidents occurring within a facility often leave victims without enough confidence in the environment or its staff to report
the incident or seek help within the facility. To ensure that young victims
receive the care and support they need, facilities must provide residents
with access to emotional support from outside victim advocates as well,
such as local, State, or national victim support groups, rape crisis organizations, or toll-free abuse hotlines. Perhaps the most effective way to provide access to these services is to establish relationships with community
service organizations and transition services, thereby linking residents to
the range of services available in the community.

Responding to Young Perpetrators

Y

outh who perpetrate sexual violence in juvenile facilities present
a particularly complicated challenge for facility administrators,
who must apply developmentally appropriate discipline or other
interventions. Youthful perpetrators of sexual abuse may need
treatment as much as, or more than, punishment. Studies have shown
that youth who commit sexual offenses typically have a history of severe
family problems, separation from parents, neglect, physical abuse, sexual
abuse, social awkwardness or isolation, and academic or behavioral problems at school.82 In addition, developmental research suggests that adolescent immaturity and inexperience may limit a youth’s decision-making
capacity, especially in highly stressful environments, and cause youth to
make poor, shortsighted judgments.83 Successful treatment models address
multiple aspects of a child’s life, including behavior modification, family
relations, peer relations, and academic performance.84
When abuse perpetrated by a resident is discovered in juvenile justice settings, interventions and decisions about punishment must take into
account the social, sexual, emotional, and cognitive development of the
juvenile as well as any mental health problems that may have contributed
to the abusive behavior. Accordingly, treatment, counseling, educational
programs, disciplinary sanctions, and other interventions must ensure the
safety of all residents and staff while working to rehabilitate the young
perpetrator so that he or she can interact with others in a safe and constructive manner.
If a facility decides to impose disciplinary sanctions on a juvenile
perpetrator, the discipline must be proportional to the offense committed

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

and commensurate with the perpetrator’s disciplinary history. Discipline
also should be consistent with that meted out to other residents for similar conduct and with similar disciplinary histories. Juvenile disciplinary sanctions should be fully integrated with screening and placement
decisions to promote safety and security. Any act of sexual abuse by a
juvenile perpetrator must trigger a reassessment of placement decisions
to address the individual’s risk of being sexually abusive toward other
residents. Disciplining residents with prolonged periods of isolation, however, is potentially very dangerous for the resident, and the Commission
strongly discourages this practice.85 The facility also must ensure that the
perpetrator understands his or her rights and responsibilities during the
disciplinary process. These safeguards will promote fairness and legitimacy in the system of discipline and foster a sense of responsibility and
accountability on the part of the perpetrator.
Discipline must also account for the stage of the youth’s psychosocial and sexual development. Adolescence is a time of sexual confusion
and experimentation. This developmental reality should be kept in mind
when determining interventions, supports, and sanctions.86

Confined with the Grown-Ups

A

Exhaustion of administrative
remedies
Under agency policy, a resident
has exhausted his or her administrative remedies with regard to
a claim of sexual abuse either
(1) when the agency makes a
final decision on the merits of
the report of abuse (regardless
of whether the report was made
by the resident, made by a third
party, or forwarded from an outside official or office) or (2) when
90 days have passed since
the report was made, whichever occurs sooner. A report of
sexual abuse triggers the 90day exhaustion period regardless of the length of time that
has passed between the abuse
and the report. A resident seeking immediate protection from
imminent sexual abuse will be
deemed to have exhausted his
or her administrative remedies
48 hours after notifying any
agency staff member of his or
her need for protection.

lthough the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of
2002 prohibits the incarceration of juveniles with adults except
in very limited circumstances, this protection does not apply to
youth who are prosecuted as adults.87 Approximately 200,000
youth are tried as adults each year; in some States, there is no minimum
age at which a youth can be tried as an adult.88 Between 1990 and 2004, the
number of juveniles in adult jails increased 208 percent.89 Currently, children as young as 13 and 14 are housed in adult facilities.90 Data collected in
2006 show that, on any given day, almost 8,500 youth under the age of 18
are confined with adults in adult prisons and jails.91 Two-thirds are held in
jails, and the others are incarcerated in State and Federal prisons.92
In terms of risk for sexual abuse while in confinement, youth incarcerated in adult prisons and jails are probably at the highest risk of
all. For example, juveniles comprised less than 1 percent of Youthful perpetrators of sexual abuse may need treatment
jail inmates in 2005, yet they as much as, or more than, punishment.
accounted for 21 percent of all
victims of substantiated incidents of inmate-perpetrated sexual violence in
jails that year.93 Although the risks appear somewhat lower, youth do not
fare much better in State prisons. Youth accounted for less than 0.2 percent
of all inmates under State correctional control, yet in 2005 they represented
0.9 percent of all victims of substantiated incidents of inmate-perpetrated

C H A P T E R 7: W H E N C H I L D R E N A R E I N V O LV E D

155

Interventions for residents
who engage in sexual abuse

sexual violence. To give the bigger picture, 7.7 percent of all victims of
substantiated violence perpetrated by people confined in adult prisons and
Residents receive appropriate injails combined were under the age of 18 in 2005.94
terventions if they engage in resAlthough only 20 percent of youth in juvenile facilities are confined
ident-on-resident sexual abuse.
for a violent offense, nearly 50 percent of adult prisoners are violent offendDecisions regarding which types
ers sentenced for greater lengths of time than youth in juvenile facilities.95
of interventions to use in parThe environment is especially difficult for juveniles to navigate safely beticular cases, including treatcause many adult facilities fail to provide juveniles with basic services,
ment, counseling, educational
programs, or disciplinary sancsuch as prison survival skills, family counseling, career training, and edutions, are made with the goal of
cational programming.96 Research consistently shows that youthful prispromoting improved behavior by
oners who lack the experience and knowledge to cope with the volatile,
the resident and ensuring the
predatory environment common in prisons and jails are at greater risk for
safety of other residents and
sexual abuse while housed there.97 Recent efforts have hinted at the extent
staff. When imposing disciplinof the problem by bringing to light the previously undocumented stories of
ary sanctions in lieu of or in addition to other interventions, the
young prisoners who were sexually victimized.98
facility informs residents of their
Civil rights attorney Deborah LaBelle told the Commission that 80
rights and responsibilities during
percent of the 420 boys sentenced to life without parole in three States—
the disciplinary process, includMichigan, Illinois, and Missouri—reported that, within the first year of
ing how to appeal sanctions,
their sentence, they had been sexually assaulted by at least one adult male
and only imposes sanctions
prisoner.99 She also told the Commission that girls as young as 14 years old
commensurate with the type
of violation committed and the
were being housed along with adult women under the supervision of male
resident’s disciplinary history. Instaff and asserted that girls confined in an adult prison are 20 times more
tervention decisions must take
likely to be sexually assaulted by staff than by prisoners in the general
into account the social, sexual,
population.100 Risks of negative effects following sexual assault, such as
emotional, and cognitive develsuicide, are compounded by the lack of special programming for juveniles
opment of the resident and the
in most State adult facilities.101
resident’s mental health status.
Confining youth with an adult and more experienced criminal
population has very little deterrent value and has failed to improve public
safety.102 In fact, a recent study found that youth transferred to the criminal justice system are more likely to reoffend.103 As long as youth remain
in adult prisons and jails, facility staff and State administrators must
recognize this group as an esCivil rights attorney Deborah LaBelle told the Commission that pecially vulnerable population
requiring additional protec80 percent of the 420 boys sentenced to life without parole in tion. Accordingly, the Commisthree States—Michigan, Illinois, and Missouri—reported that, sion has designed a number of
within the first year of their sentence, they had been sexually standards to protect vulnerable
populations within adult faciliassaulted by at least one adult male prisoner. ties, including youth. Specifically, the Commission requires
that, during intake into adult prisons and jails, agency staff screen prisoners for risk of victimization, including youthfulness in age or appearance, and use the information gathered to make appropriate housing,
bed, work, education, and program assignments.

156

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

Because of the extreme risk of sexual victimization for youth in adult
facilities, the Commission urges that individuals below the age of 18 be held
separately from the general population. This may present difficulties for
smaller facilities, where separating youth from adults might mean housing
youth in an infirmary or in administrative segregation. Transferring such
youth to facilities more suited to their needs should be considered; in any
case, careful attention should be paid to ensure that youth have the support, education, and programming necessary for healthy development.

At Risk While Under Community Supervision

Y

outh are also vulnerable to sexual victimization while under
juvenile justice supervision in the community. Nearly half (48
percent) of the more than 1.1 million youth who received some
juvenile court sanction in 2005 were placed under the supervision of State, local, or county probation officers or counselors.104 These
youth can be assigned to a wide range of community settings, such as
small group homes, therapeutic foster care, therapeutic day centers, and
day and evening reporting centers.105 Not much is known about the prevalence of sexual abuse among youth supervised in the community. Despite
the lack of data, however, sexual abuse does occur.
In October 2005, a 50-year-old man who had served as a youth probation officer for 11 years with the Oregon Youth Authority (OYA) was sentenced to 80 years in prison for sexually abusing the boys in his care.106
Victims and their families complained to OYA officials for years about this
officer, but they took no action and the man continued to supervise young
boys.107 D.B., a 14-year-old mentally disabled boy with ADHD, fell under the
officer’s supervision in 1994 after the boy was arrested for firing a cap gun in
his front yard. The officer promised D.B.’s grandmother that “the boy would
receive the best treatment the state had to offer.”108 She reluctantly gave up
custody of D.B., and the boy was placed in Lakeside Shelter in Corvallis,
Oregon, which conducts mental health evaluations.109 The grandmother became concerned that something was wrong when the officer “began to rub
her grandson’s back, neck and shoulders ‘erotically’” during a meeting to
plan his treatment.110 An investigation later revealed that the officer checked
D.B. out of the shelter on several occasions, taking him to his home for
hours at a time. When shelter officials recommended that D.B. be placed in
a more secure facility, the probation officer intercepted the order and had
him placed in a foster home in Portland instead, where a police affidavit
later confirmed that the man was “a frequent visitor.”111 Although the boy’s
grandmother wrote repeatedly to OYA officials reporting her suspicions of
sexual abuse, D.B. was left in the foster home under the officer’s supervision
for nearly a year.

C H A P T E R 7: W H E N C H I L D R E N A R E I N V O LV E D

157

While D.B.’s grandmother “fought unsuccessfully” to protect him,
another developmentally disabled boy, A.M., was placed on the officer’s
caseload.112 Although A.M. never said anything about sexual abuse while
under the officer’s supervision, his aunt became suspicious when she found
out that A.M. spent nights at the man’s home. The officer also tried to cut off
communication between A.M. and his aunt. She too reported her concern to
the authorities, but they told her that she was being “‘overly sensitive [and]
that [the officer] was a good caseworker’. . . .”113 In 1998, the officer placed
A.M. in the same foster home where D.B had been abused. When his aunt
visited the home, she discovered that it had photos of naked men on the
walls and several sexually explicit statues. She confronted the officer, then
called his supervisor, who told her, “‘Officer M. knows what he’s doing,
and we really don’t have another place for [A.M.].’” The boy remained under the officer’s supervision for 4 years, until he was sent to prison at age
18 for commission of an assault.
It wasn’t until the officer was finally arrested for the sexual abuse
of minors in 2004 that A.M. began to describe the abuses he had suffered. His
aunt stated that, “Everything you can imagine happening to a child happened
to him” under the officer’s care.114 The probation officer was charged with the
sexual abuse of five boys and more than 70 counts of sex crimes with minors.
But reporting the abuse began to haunt A.M.; his aunt reported that his “mood
turned dark and he was having trouble coping—afraid that if the trial became
too public, he would be labeled a homosexual and a snitch.” Just 5 days before
he was scheduled for release from prison in January 2005, A.M. hanged himself. Law enforcement officials said that “at least seven additional victims. . .
[were] either unwilling or too emotionally unstable to testify.”
As with other corrections staff, the men and women who supervise youth in the community should be adequately supervised to ensure
they do not engage in abuse. Even well-intentioned staff should be trained
in how to maintain appropriate
boundaries with the youth they
“Everything you can imagine happening to a child supervise and must be clearhappened to him” under the officer’s care. The probation ly informed that any sexual
officer was charged with the sexual abuse of five boys misconduct will be punished.
and more than 70 counts of sex crimes with minors. Similar to the Commission’s approach to youth in other correctional settings, the community
corrections standards recognize that juveniles are less developed than
adults and therefore are especially vulnerable to abuse. Accordingly, education about sexual abuse for youth under supervision must incorporate ageappropriate information and methods.
Youth under community supervision may have more access to services and protections provided by the community than confined youth; they
are protected by State or local vulnerable persons statutes, for example. To

158

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

take advantage of existing protections, the Commission requires that agencies convey reports of sexual abuse made by youth to the entity responsible
for enforcing these statutes and also outsource investigations regarding allegations of sexual abuse to this entity. Youth who do not feel comfortable
reporting sexual abuse internally would then have this avenue, among others, for reporting abuse and accessing support services.
The Commission’s inquiry into the sexual abuse of youth in juvenile
justice and adult corrections has revealed disturbing information about the
prevalence, gravity, and consequences. Youth deserve, and are legally entitled to, care and protection; hope lies in the fact that necessary precautions
and remedies are clear and rehabilitation remains a guiding principle in the
field of juvenile justice.

C H A P T E R 7: W H E N C H I L D R E N A R E I N V O LV E D

159

Individuals under correctional
supervision in the community, who
outnumber prisoners by more than
two to one, are at risk of sexual abuse.
The nature and consequences of
the abuse are no less severe, and
it jeopardizes the likelihood of their
successful reentry.

8

Community Corrections:
The Next Frontier

T

he Shea Farm Halfway House in Concord, New Hampshire, is a
minimum-security facility for women transitioning back to the
community after being incarcerated in State prison. In 2002, an
officer who had been accused of sexual harassment against a
woman corrections officer at another facility was transferred to become
the night supervisor at Shea Farm. In this position, he had a significant
amount of power over the approximately 45 women living there. “He
had the authority to lower their security classification, approve or limit
overnight leave requests, telephone privileges, and/or visits with family
members, and essentially, he had the ability to write the women up for
disciplinary infractions and ‘send them back behind bars,’” Sandra Matheson, Director of the State Office of Victim/Witness Assistance at the New
Hampshire Attorney General’s Office, told the Commission.1 As Matheson
and others would later learn, he used this power to repeatedly sexually
abuse and violently assault residents. According to Matheson, he told the
women that nobody would believe them, that he was a good friend of the
Director of Community Corrections, and that if the Director did not believe
a corrections officer who had accused him of acting inappropriately, the
Director certainly would not believe them.2
Despite these warnings, in June 2005, one woman came forward
to report the abuse. After a lengthy State police investigation, the supervisor was indicted on 54 charges involving 12 different women in the
halfway house. The charges included multiple counts of violent sexual
assault; vaginal, oral, and anal rape; and punching and choking the
women in his care.
As Kimberly Hendricks, PREA Coordinator for the Oregon Department of Corrections, observed, “PREA is not just about prisons.”3 Individuals under community supervision are also at risk of sexual abuse. By the
end of 2007, there were more than 5.1 million adults under supervision in
the community, either on probation or parole.4 This figure translates to
about one out of every 45 adults in the United States, and the numbers are
growing.5 During 2007, the community supervision population expanded
by more than 100,000 people.6 Seventy percent of the adult corrections

CHAPTER 8: COMMUNIT Y CORRECTIONS: THE NE XT FRONTIER

161

population is now under some form of community corrections supervision.7 As both Federal and State governments attempt to reduce incarceration costs in the face of looming deficits, the number of individuals
under some form of community supervision—before, after, or in lieu of
confinement—is likely to rise. With this expected increase comes a greater burden to ensure that these women, men, and children are protected
from sexual abuse.
Leaders in community corrections have already undertaken
promising efforts to address the problem of sexual abuse. For nearly a
decade, the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) has provided information, training, and technical assistance to the field on staff sexual
misconduct.8 For example, in 2005, NIC convened a town hall meeting at
the American Probation and Parole Association National Training Conference and held a meeting of Statewide Probation and Parole Network
executives in 2008. CommuniAs both Federal and State governments attempt ty corrections professionals
from around the country disto reduce incarceration costs in the face of looming deficits, cussed implications of PREA
the number of individuals under some form of community for their work and outlined a
supervision—before, after, or in lieu of confinement— systematic approach for dealis likely to rise. With this expected increase comes ing with sexual abuse in com-9
munity corrections settings.
a greater burden to ensure that these women, men, As this report goes to press,
and children are protected from sexual abuse. the American Probation and
Parole Association, in conjunction with the International Community Corrections Association and
the Pretrial Justice Institute, is developing a handbook for frontline
community corrections staff and supervisors on preventing and responding to sexual abuse.10
In addition to standards governing secure correctional settings,
the Commission has developed a full set of standards for community
corrections. Standards addressed here emphasize aspects of community
corrections that distinguish it from traditional custodial settings. This
chapter discusses the wide range of practices known collectively as community corrections; dynamics and circumstances of supervising people
in the community that increase the risk of sexual abuse by staff or by
other supervisees; and reasons why efforts to prevent, detect, and respond to sexual abuse have taken shape more gradually in this segment
of corrections.

162

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

Many and Varied

C

ommunity corrections is an umbrella term encompassing a diverse array of agencies, facilities, and supervision structures on
the Federal, State, and local levels. The Commission’s standards
define community corrections as the “supervision of individuals, whether adults or juveniles, in a community setting as a condition
of incarceration, pretrial release, probation, parole, or post-release supervision.”11 Supervision can occur in halfway houses like Shea Farm, prerelease centers, treatment facilities, and other places where individuals
reside pursuant to a court order or condition of supervision for purposes
of confinement, care, and/or treatment. These facilities may be owned by
public, private, or nonprofit agencies.
Supervision provided in a community-based residential facility is
similar to what may occur in a prison, jail, or juvenile facility, but there are
also significant differences. Residents in community corrections facilities
usually are allowed to work, attend school, participate in treatment and
other support programs in the community, and receive medical care in the
community. Consequently, their supervision extends beyond the walls of
a facility. Thus, they have greater freedom than individuals confined in
prisons, jails, or secure juvenile facilities.
Nonresidential supervision is even more diverse and less structured. It can include probation, parole, pretrial supervision, courtmandated substance abuse treatment, court diversionary programs,
day-reporting centers, community service programs, probation before
judgment, furloughs, electronic monitoring, and home detention. Individuals generally live in their own homes and have an even greater degree of freedom, as long as they abide by the conditions of their release
agreement. They may report to a community corrections officer to update
their status or for drug testing, or an officer may visit them at their home
or workplace. These meetings may take place at predetermined times or
randomly, and they can occur at any hour, day or night.
There is also great variety in the number and type of agencies
responsible for providing residential and nonresidential supervision in
the community. Responsibility for community corrections may reside
with the judiciary, the executive branch, departments of corrections, or
some combination of these or other government entities.12 In the Federal
system, courts—specifically Federal judges—are responsible for supervising individuals in the community. Each State varies in the way community corrections is organized and operated. A State’s department of
corrections may control community supervision, or supervision may be
decentralized, with authority over community corrections located at the
county or municipal level.13

CHAPTER 8: COMMUNIT Y CORRECTIONS: THE NE XT FRONTIER

163

Contracting to house or
supervise defendants/
offenders under community
corrections authority

In some States, a separate statewide agency oversees community
corrections; in other States, authority resides with the State in some localities, whereas other localities administer their own system.14 In addition,
government entities often contract with for-profit and nonprofit organizaIf public community corrections
tions to operate residential facilities, conduct nonresidential supervision,
agencies contract for housing or
and provide programming.15 The mix of entities involved in community
supervision of their defendants/
corrections in a particular jurisdiction, and the wide range of operational
offenders, they do so only with
private agencies or other entimodels around the country, make it uniquely challenging to develop and
ties, including nonprofit or other
implement regulations to protect individuals from sexual abuse.
government agencies, commitIncreasing reliance on contractors to provide direct services will
ted to eliminating sexual abuse,
likely
accompany
the rapid growth of community corrections.16 Contracas evidenced by their adoption
tors are often the most cost-effective way to provide a wide variety of serof and compliance with the
vices, especially over a large geographic area.17 Governments contract with
PREA standards. Any new contracts or contract renewals inother public agencies, nonprofit organizations, and private corporations to
clude the entity’s obligation to
provide services. Outsourcing carries the risk, however, that contractors
adopt and comply with the PREA
will fail to adhere to the agency’s policies and meet the same standards.
standards and specify that the
This is particularly troubling when the policies concern the safety of indipublic agency will monitor the
viduals under supervision.
entity’s compliance with these
Community corrections agencies are accountable for sexual abuse
standards as part of its monitoring of the entity’s performance.
incidents, regardless of whether the circumstances in which the abuse
Only in emergency circumstancoccurred were under the direct control of the agency or a separate organies, in which all reasonable atzation working under contract with the agency.18 Community corrections
tempts to find a private agency
authorities should make special provisions so that people under their
or other entity in compliance
jurisdiction who are supervised by others remain safe from sexual abuse.
with the PREA standards have
The Commission’s standards mandate that community corrections agenfailed, should a contract be
entered into with an entity that
cies must make certain that any public or private entities contracted to
fails to comply with these stanprovide residential housing or supervision are committed to eliminating
dards. The public agency must
sexual abuse and adhere to the community corrections agency’s polidocument these efforts.
cies and procedures as well as the standards for responding to sexual
abuse incidents. They must also ensure that contract entities and their
staff are trained about sexual abuse and their roles in implementing
the agency’s policies and procedures. Community corrections agencies
must contract only with orgaThe mix of entities involved in community corrections nizations committed to elimiin a particular jurisdiction, and the wide range of nating sexual abuse. Only in
operational models around the country, emergency situations, after
make it uniquely challenging to failing to find an organization
that meets the Commission’s
develop and implement regulations to standards, can the agency
protect individuals from sexual abuse. use another organization.

164

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

Prevalence Unknown

D

Data collection

The agency or facility collects
espite the increasingly high number of people under some form
accurate, uniform data for evof community supervision, there is a lack of research on this
ery reported incident of sexual
population.19 Although the Bureau of Justice Statistics now conabuse using a standardized inducts comprehensive national surveys of people confined in
strument and set of definitions.
prisons, jails, and juvenile facilities to assess rates of sexual abuse, no
The agency aggregates the
incident-based sexual abuse
similar survey of people under supervision in the community has been
data at least annually. The
conducted. This leaves a critical gap in knowledge about the prevalence of
incident-based data collected
sexual abuse, both in residential and nonresidential settings.
includes, at a minimum, the
The Commission’s standards require community corrections agendata necessary to answer all
cies to regularly and systematically collect data on staff sexual abuse as
questions from the most recent
well as abuse that occurs between persons under supervision in the comversion of the BJS Survey on
Sexual Violence. Data are obmunity. Although improving administrative data does not negate the need
tained from multiple sources,
for surveys and other research, it will increase knowledge about prevaincluding reports, investigation
lence of sexual abuse in community corrections settings. The data will
files, and sexual abuse incident
also help community corrections agencies develop a more complete unreviews. The agency also obderstanding of the circumstances under which sexual abuse occurs; risk
tains incident-based and agfactors associated with victimization and perpetration; and how sexual
gregated data from every
community corrections facility
abuse may relate to community reintegration, recidivism, and other issues.
with which it contracts.
Using this information, community corrections agencies can then develop
and implement informed policies and procedures to prevent sexual abuse.
Community corrections agencies also have an opportunity to increase understanding of the prevalence of sexual abuse in custody by
collecting data on reports of
prior sexual abuse that occurred Although some victims of sexual abuse in secure
while individuals were confined facilities report the abuse while still incarcerated,
in a prison, jail, or a juvenile
others do not disclose their experience until after
residential facility. Although
some victims of sexual abuse in they are released.
secure facilities report the abuse
while still incarcerated, others do not disclose their experience until after
they are released.20 Collecting these data and reporting back to the facilities
where the abuse occurred will help administrators of those facilities maintain more accurate records of sexual abuse and will also provide insights on
reasons people choose not to report abuse until they are released. With this
information, correctional facilities can begin to address gaps in reporting
structures and data collection and, most importantly, the safety concerns of
victims who delay reporting until after they are released.

CHAPTER 8: COMMUNIT Y CORRECTIONS: THE NE XT FRONTIER

165

Employee training
The agency or facility trains all
employees to be able to fulfill
their responsibilities under agency or facility sexual abuse prevention, detection, and response
policies and procedures; the
PREA standards; and under relevant Federal, State, and local
law. The agency or facility trains
all employees to communicate
effectively and professionally
with all defendants/offenders.
Additionally, the agency or facility trains all employees on a
defendant/offender’s right to
be free from sexual abuse, the
right of defendants/offenders
and employees to be free from
retaliation for reporting sexual
abuse, the dynamics of sexual
abuse, and the common reactions of sexual abuse victims.
Current employees are educated as soon as possible following
the agency’s or facility’s adoption of the PREA standards, and
the agency or facility provides
periodic refresher information
to all employees to ensure that
they know the agency’s or facility’s most current sexual abuse
policies and procedures. The
agency or facility maintains written documentation showing employee signatures verifying that
employees understand the training they have received.

Same Rights and Protections

A

s in other correctional settings, courts have found that sexual
abuse in community corrections violates the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibiting cruel and unusual
punishment.21 As a result, community corrections agencies,
like prisons and jails, have a special responsibility to protect the people
they supervise.
When determining liability, courts also have determined that the
authority staff have over the individuals they monitor makes a truly consensual sexual relationship impossible.22 Courts will look closely at an agency’s
efforts to prevent sexual abuse, including staff training, reporting policies,
and how the agency investigates allegations, sanctions perpetrators, and
responds to victims.23 Finally, courts will look to make sure that community
corrections agencies protect anyone who reports abuse from retaliation.24
Judicial decisions have also expanded protection of individuals in
community corrections by holding agencies responsible for the actions of
anyone in a supervisory position.25 For example, in Smith v. Cochran, Pamela
Smith was in jail but on a work release program and assigned to the Department of Public Safety (DPS). While working there, Smith’s supervisor on
the job sexually assaulted her.26 After her release, Smith filed a lawsuit,
alleging an Eighth Amendment violation. Although the DPS supervisor
claimed that, because they were co-workers, the Eighth Amendment did
not apply, the court ruled that “[i]mportant penological responsibilities
were delegated to him as an employee of DPS” and that individuals “acting
under that delegated authority also bore the duty under the Eighth Amendment to refrain from using excessive force against prisoners.”27
Gaps in legal protection under the law remain, however. Although
42 States and the District of Columbia specifically prohibit sexual contact or abuse between community corrections staff and individuals they
monitor, many limit coverage to staff with “supervisory or disciplinary authority.”28 This definition overlooks the possibility of a community corrections staff member who does not directly supervise a parolee but who can
still influence that person’s community corrections status. For example, a
nonsupervisory staff member may retaliate against someone who resists
sexual advances by persuading
their supervisor to change the
As in other correctional settings, courts have found parolee’s status or by reporting
that sexual abuse in community corrections violates false parole violations. A parolthe Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibiting ee might be coerced into sexual
cruel and unusual punishment. As a result, community relations with a community
corrections officer if threatened
corrections agencies, like prisons and jails, have a special with the possibility of losing
responsibility to protect the people they supervise. parole or probation status.

166

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

Only 25 States, the District of Columbia, and the Federal Government have statutes explicitly stating that consent is not a defense to allegations of staff sexual misconduct.29 In Marion County, Illinois, a male
community corrections supervisor was jailed for an alleged relationship
with a former prisoner in home detention. The officer was charged with
three felony counts of sexual misconduct for engaging in a relationship
with a woman he was monitoring on home detention. According to the Marion County prosecutor, the relationship was “consensual” but “completely
inappropriate.”30
Even when State laws are explicit, some agencies have taken the
step of instituting policies stating that staff are not permitted to engage in
sexual relationships with any individual under the agency’s supervision.31
In Prince William County, Virginia, two women officers were arrested for
having sexual relations with a man on house arrest.32 In this case, it was
unclear if either woman had actual supervisory authority over the man.
However, according to State law and department policy, they were deemed
to have supervisory authority by nature of their employment.33

A Complex Relationship

A

Hiring and promotion
decisions
The agency or facility does not
hire or promote anyone who has
engaged in sexual abuse in an
institutional setting or who has
engaged in sexual activity in the
community facilitated by force,
the threat of force, or coercion.
Consistent with Federal, State,
and local law, the agency or
facility makes its best effort to
contact all prior institutional employers for information on substantiated allegations of sexual
abuse and must run criminal
background checks for all applicants and employees being
considered for promotion and
examine and carefully weigh
any history of criminal activity at
work or in the community, including convictions or adjudications
for domestic violence, stalking,
and sex offenses. The agency or
facility also asks all applicants
and employees directly about
previous misconduct during interviews and reviews.

lthough an individual confined in a locked correctional facility
obviously cannot flee a potential abuser, the relative mobility
of someone under supervision in the community is no guarantee of safety. Less structured environments and highly personal
modes of supervision carry unique risks. Individuals under community
supervision may experience sexual abuse at the hands of other supervisees, but the dynamics of community corrections may make them more
vulnerable to staff sexual abuse.
In both residential and nonresidential community supervision,
staff have virtually unlimited access to individuals, sometimes in private
and intimate settings. Barbara Broderick, Chief Probation Officer for the
Maricopa County Adult Probation and Parole Department in
Less structured environments and highly personal modes
Arizona, described the risks to
of supervision carry unique risks. Individuals under
the Commission, noting that
“staff contact clients in their community supervision may experience sexual abuse
homes, at their places of busi- at the hands of other supervisees, but the dynamics of
ness, at community offices, at
community corrections may make them more vulnerable
counseling offices and educational programs, etc.”34 In to staff sexual abuse.
Ramsey County, Minnesota, for
example, a male community corrections officer, visiting a former prisoner’s apartment to discuss her failure in a drug treatment program, instead

CHAPTER 8: COMMUNIT Y CORRECTIONS: THE NE XT FRONTIER

167

Screening for risk of
victimization and
abusiveness
All defendants/offenders are
screened during intake to assess
their risk of being sexually abused
by other defendants/offenders
or sexually abusive toward other
defendants/offenders. Employees
must review information received
with the defendant/offender as
well as discussions with the
defendant/offender. Employees
must conduct this screening using a written screening instrument tailored to the gender of
the population being screened.
Although additional factors may
be considered, particularly to account for emerging research and
the agency’s or facility’s own data
analysis, screening instruments
must contain the criteria described below. For defendants/
offenders under the age of 18 or
applicable age of majority within
that jurisdiction, screening must
be conducted by medical or mental health practitioners. If the facility does not have medical or
mental health practitioners available, these young defendants/
offenders are given an opportunity to participate in screenings
in private. All screening instruments must be made available
to the public upon request.
At a minimum, employees use the
following criteria to screen male
defendants/offenders for risk of
victimization: mental or physical
disability, young age, slight build,
nonviolent history, prior convictions
for sex offenses against an adult or
child, sexual orientation of gay or
bisexual, gender nonconformance
(e.g., transgender or intersex identity), prior sexual victimization, and
the defendant/offender’s own perception of vulnerability.
(continued on adjoining page)

168

requested and had sex with her.35 Broderick also noted that because community corrections staff work with significantly less direct supervision
than their counterparts in secure correctional facilities, it is much easier
for them to conceal sexual abuses, “making the task of detecting and responding to abuse all the more difficult.”36
Thomas Beauclair, Deputy Director of NIC, made similar points
in his testimony to the Commission. “Community corrections workers
generally work autonomously and have large caseloads. . . . [M]uch of
their work allows significant discretion and is done outside normal office
parameters and away from supervisors and peers. . . . [B]y the very nature
of their work, staff and offenders can be put in difficult situations.”37
The different roles staff are called upon to play also present risks.
Staff not only monitor and try to control the behavior of individuals they
supervise, they also aim to facilitate behavior change.38 They operate as
enforcement officers in the interest of public safety and also function as
counselors and social workers, helping with job preparation, determining appropriate living environments, recommending treatment programs,
and providing moral support. Drawing and maintaining boundaries is a
challenge even for staff with the best intentions.39 The ambiguity of the
supervisor’s role may be especially pronounced in smaller communities,
where staff are already familiar with some of the individuals they supervise, perhaps from school or previous employment, and also know and
interact with their families. These connections may influence staff to relax
the professional boundaries their role requires.40
An individual’s conditional release status gives supervising officers significant leverage, which can also be used to facilitate sexual
abuse. As Barbara Broderick pointed out, “the issue of intimidation or
retaliation may be [even] greater when the abuse occurs outside of an
institutional setting.”41 Staff may explicitly or implicitly threaten to revoke an offender’s community status and return them to prison or jail
by falsely reporting that the offender has not complied with the terms
and conditions of their release. Such threats carry great weight because
individuals under supervision in the community are typically desperate
to avoid being incarcerated. Unlike in a prison or jail setting, where other
staff or prisoners may be in a position to confirm or deny that the person
violated a regulation, in the community corrections context, there may
be no one to challenge the supervisor’s version of events other than the
individual in question. This power imbalance makes people under community corrections supervision extremely vulnerable to staff who abuse
their authority.42
Clear policies rooted in an ethic of zero tolerance of sexual abuse
coupled with good training can mitigate these dangers by giving staff the
direction, knowledge, and skills they need to maintain appropriate relationships with the individuals they supervise.43

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

Of course, preventing sexual abuse begins with hiring the right
staff. Community corrections agencies must be committed to thoroughly vetting all job applicants by conducting criminal background checks,
making diligent efforts to consult prior employers, and directly questioning applicants about any previous misconduct. Agencies should also elicit
applicants’ views about maintaining appropriate relationships with the
individuals they supervise. The Commission’s standards expressly prohibit hiring or promoting anyone with a history of sexual abuse.

Screening and Responding

H

aving trained staff screen individuals during intake is essential
to preventing sexual abuse in residential community corrections
settings. The Commission’s standards require staff to use a written screening instrument to identify individuals who may be
potential victims or perpetrators of sexual abuse. Effective and systematic
screenings are critical to preventing future sexual abuse and providing
appropriate support services to victims. Research on the most effective
methods for screening sexual abusers and victims in community corrections is evolving. However, it is clear that screening strategies must address
the full range of factors affecting the conduct of individuals under supervision.44 Criteria and risk factors may differ, depending on age, developmental stage, gender identity, and whether the individual is male or female.
The Commission’s standards require screening at intake and recommend
reviews on a periodic basis, depending on the length of involvement of the
person under residential supervision. The Commission also urges staff to
review the screening results within 60 days of the initial screening and
every 90 days thereafter. Screening strategies and assessment instruments
should also be reviewed over time for effectiveness and suitability. The
Commission encourages community corrections officials to consult emerging research to ensure the most up-to-date screening instruments are used
in the community corrections arena.
The use of objective risk and needs assessments to develop treatment and other programming plans is the core of any good community
corrections program.45 Results from screenings and assessments enable
community corrections agencies to effectively assign people to programs
that will provide the most benefit while reducing risks to others and the
community at large.46 Information from secure facilities about sexual victimization or aggression involving former prisoners also substantially improves the screening and placement process. Jeff Renzi, Associate Director
of Planning and Research at the Rhode Island Department of Corrections,
spoke about the importance of alerting community corrections staff to
known victims and perpetrators of sexual abuse in confinement when

CHAPTER 8: COMMUNIT Y CORRECTIONS: THE NE XT FRONTIER

Screening for risk of
victimization and
abusiveness
(continued from adjoining page)
At a minimum, employees use the
following criteria to screen male
defendants/offenders for risk of
being sexually abusive: prior acts
of sexual abuse and prior convictions for violent offenses.
At a minimum, employees use the
following criteria to screen female
defendants/offenders for risk of
sexual victimization: prior sexual
victimization and the defendant/
offender’s own perception of vulnerability.
At a minimum, employees use the
following criteria to screen female
defendants/offenders for risk of
being sexually abusive: prior acts of
sexual abuse.

Use of screening information
Employees use information from
the risk screening (SC-1) to inform housing, bed, work, education, and program assignments.
In many community corrections
facilities, it is difficult, if not impossible, to keep defendants/
offenders totally separate or
segregated from each other.
However, the facility can determine, based on the screening
information, whether a particular
defendant/offender should receive greater supervision, should
have more frequent contact with
staff, or is more appropriately
housed in some alternative type
of placement. The facility makes
individualized determinations
about how to ensure the safety
of each defendant/offender.
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or other gender-nonconforming defendants/offenders are
not placed in particular housing
assignments solely on the basis
of their sexual orientation, genital status, or gender identity.

169

Staff and agency or facility
head reporting duties
All staff members are required
to report immediately and according to agency or facility policy any knowledge, suspicion, or
information they receive regarding an incident of sexual abuse
that occurred in a facility setting or while under supervision;
retaliation against defendants/
offenders or staff who reported
abuse; and any staff neglect
or violation of responsibilities
that may have contributed to
an incident of sexual abuse or
retaliation. Apart from reporting
to designated supervisors or officials, staff must not reveal any
information related to a sexual
abuse report to anyone other
than those who need to know,
as specified in agency or facility
policy, to make treatment, investigation, and other security and
management decisions. Unless
otherwise precluded by Federal,
State, or local law, staff medical
and mental health practitioners
are required to report sexual
abuse and must inform defendants/offenders of their duty
to report at the initiation of services. If the victim is under the
age of 18 or applicable age of
majority within that jurisdiction,
or considered a vulnerable adult
under a State or local vulnerable
persons statute, staff must report the allegation to the designated State or local services
agency under applicable mandatory reporting laws.

he said, “No one is walking out tomorrow without probation and parole
knowing who is a victim and a perpetrator.”47 Upon learning of sexual victimization or abusiveness during initial screenings or from staff at secure
facilities, community corrections officers must consider that information
when making decisions about work assignments, treatment or interventions, appropriate housing, and the type of supervision that may be necessary to ensure safety and successful reintegration.

Duty to Report

T

he silence surrounding sexual abuse may be even greater in the
field of community corrections than in some prisons, jails, lockups, and juvenile facilities, especially in the arena of nonresidential supervision. Staff may mistakenly believe that consensual
relationships with individuals under their supervision are permissible,
and individuals under supervision are often afraid to resist or report staff
who perpetrate sexual misconduct.
Staff who work in the field of community corrections have a duty
to report any knowledge or suspicion of sexual abuse involving individuals under supervision. This obligation, according to the Commission’s
standards, is no different than what is required of any other corrections
staff member. All corrections staff must receive training on their agency’s
reporting policies and protocols to fulfill their responsibilities.48 In addition to developing clear zero-tolerance policies and training staff in their
implementation, administrators should consistently discipline staff when
they fail to uphold their duty to report.
If individuals in community corrections report sexual abuse that
occurred while they were incarcerated, community corrections staff may
find themselves serving as “first responders” to abuse incidents that are
long past. In these situations, the community corrections agency must
report back to the facility where the incident occurred or to the agency
overseeing that facility. Correctional facilities have an obligation under the
Commission’s standards to thoroughly investigate every report of sexual
abuse, regardless of whether or not the victim is still incarcerated in the
facility where the incident took place. (See Chapter 5 for detailed discussion of reporting and investigation.)
Although this requirement seems simple enough, Jacqueline Kotkin,
Field Services Executive for the Vermont Department of Corrections, told
the Commission, “Because proThe silence surrounding sexual abuse may be even greater bation and parole may be organizationally and geographically
in the field of community corrections than in some removed from prison, jail and
prisons, jails, lockups, and juvenile facilities. other corrections residential

170

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

settings, reporting allegations of prior institutional abuse often proves
challenging.”49 Kotkin stressed the importance of developing “clear, understandable procedures” for reporting allegations in accordance with department policies and State laws.50 For example, in North Carolina, the Division
of Community Corrections (part of the Department of Corrections) has a
policy requiring any report of sexual abuse involving an employee or agent
of the Department of Corrections be forwarded to the head of the department.51 This kind of clear directive enables community corrections staff to
know what to do when they receive reports of past sexual abuse. Although
such procedures are essential everywhere, they are easier to develop in
States such as North Carolina with a unified correctional system.52 In decentralized systems, it may be useful to designate a particular entity that
could act as a clearinghouse for this type of information, ensuring that
administrators receive information about sexual abuse that occurred in a
facility they manage.

Reporting to other agencies
or facilities
When the agency or facility receives an allegation that a defendant/offender was sexually
abused while in a community
corrections facility or while under supervision, the head of the
agency or facility where the report was made notifies in writing
the head of the agency or facility where the alleged abuse occurred. The head of the agency
or facility where the alleged
abuse occurred ensures the allegation is investigated.

Coordinated response

A Real Communal Effort

R

All actions taken in response to
an allegation of sexual abuse
are coordinated among staff
first responders, medical and
mental health practitioners, investigators, and agency or facility leadership. The agency’s or
facility’s coordinated response
ensures that victims receive all
necessary immediate and ongoing medical, mental health,
and support services and that
investigators are able to obtain
usable evidence to substantiate
allegations and hold perpetrators accountable.

esponding effectively to an incident of sexual abuse requires
cooperation and coordination among a range of professionals:
agency staff who will be first responders, forensic specialists,
mental health professionals, victim advocates, investigators,
prosecutors, and agency leadership. Because community corrections operates in the community, rather than apart from it, these agencies may
have access to skilled professionals with experience in responding to
sexual abuse. In her testimony before the Commission, Anadora Moss,
President of The Moss Group, Inc., stressed the importance of collaborating with community partners in the context of community corrections.
“In partnering with groups such as faith based organizations, sexual
assault experts, counseling professionals, and law enforcement, the community corrections universe must wrap these partnerships around the
mission of reentry. . . for all clients and offenders suffering from sexual
victimization.”53
Coordinated sexual assault response teams (SARTs) are widely recognized as an optimal way to respond to incidents of sexual abuse. SARTs
exist in many communities and
may be available to partner
SARTs exist in many communities and may be available
with local correctional agencies.
Where SARTs do not exist, the to partner with local correctional agencies.
Commission’s standards require
community corrections agencies to ensure multidisciplinary collaboration
by some other means. The U.S. Department of Justice’s “A National Protocol
for Sexual Assault Medical Forensic Examinations: Adults/Adolescents” is

CHAPTER 8: COMMUNIT Y CORRECTIONS: THE NE XT FRONTIER

171

Agreements with outside
public entities and
community service providers
The agency or facility maintains
or attempts to enter into written
memoranda of understanding
(MOUs) or other agreements
with an outside public entity
or office that is able to receive and immediately forward
defendant/offender reports of
sexual abuse to agency or facility heads (RE-1). The agency
also maintains or attempts
to enter into MOUs or other
agreements with community
service providers that are able
to: (1) provide defendants/offenders with confidential emotional support services related
to sexual abuse and (2) help
victims of sexual abuse during
their transition from a community corrections facility into the
community. The agency or facility maintains copies of written
agreements or documentation
showing attempts to enter into
agreements.

Agreements with outside law
enforcement agencies
If an agency or facility does not
have the legal authority to conduct criminal investigations or
has elected to permit an outside
agency to conduct criminal or
administrative investigations of
staff or defendants/offenders,
the agency or facility maintains
or attempts to enter into a written MOU or other agreement
specific to investigations of sexual abuse with the law enforcement agency responsible for
conducting investigations. If the
agency or facility confines defendants/offenders under the
age of 18 or applicable age of
(continued on adjoining page)

172

the recommended resource.54 (Appendix A of the protocol provides methods
to customize sexual abuse investigations for diverse community settings.55)
Establishing formal partnerships with victim advocates and other
support services in the community is essential. Individuals under community supervision may not be comfortable reporting recent or past sexual
abuse to a staff member of the agency. Although some individuals have
constructive relationships with their supervising officers, that is not always the case. When staff perpetrate the abuse, it may be difficult or impossible for individuals to be confident that the agency will believe abuse
allegations and protect them from retaliation. Therefore, the Commission’s
standards require that individuals under supervision have the option of
reporting abuse to an outside agency and are able to request confidentiality, if they prefer.
Additionally, community-based advocates are likely to be the only
source of professional counseling for victims of sexual abuse. As discussed
in detail in Chapter 6, medical and mental health effects of sexual abuse
may be severe and long-lasting. The trauma of recent or past sexual abuse
may hinder a person’s ability to integrate into the community, restore connections with family or other intimates, refrain from abuse of alcohol or
other drugs, and find and maintain stable employment. Without the necessary support, victims may find themselves violating conditions of supervision and perhaps facing incarceration as a result.56 In the most extreme
cases, individuals who were sexually abused while incarcerated may act
out their anger by perpetrating physical or sexual violence when they return to the community.57 For all these reasons, community corrections
agencies have an obligation to ensure that victims of sexual abuse receive
the ongoing mental health care they need to heal. Fulfilling that requirement depends on forging strong and formal partnerships with communitybased victim advocates and other appropriate services providers.
The Commission’s standards require community corrections agencies to attempt to establish memoranda of understanding (MOUs) with
appropriate community-based agencies to receive reports of sexual abuse
and immediately forward that information to the agency, unless the person had requested confidentiality, and to provide emotional support and
other specialized services to victims. If partnerships with local service
providers are not possible, victims must be given information about how
to contact regional or national groups that can meet these needs.
The work of investigating and prosecuting sexual abuse also
is challenging, requiring cooperation among corrections administrators, investigators, medical and mental health care providers, victim
advocates, prosecutors, and others. Very few community corrections
agencies employ their own investigative staff. Smaller agencies simply
cannot afford to hire investigators, and even some larger agencies do
not have legal authority to conduct criminal investigations.58 As a result,

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

community corrections agencies typically depend on local police, State
bureaus of criminal investigation, or some other law enforcement entity
to investigate allegations of sexual abuse.
Reliance on outside law enforcement entities to conduct these investigations creates a need for agreement on the roles and responsibilities of outside investigators as well as the agency’s expectations in terms
of timeliness, gathering and sharing evidence, informing victims, and
other key issues. The Commission’s standards mandate that community
corrections agencies attempt to establish MOUs or other formal agreements with outside law enforcement agencies. For some community corrections agencies, forging such agreements is new terrain. Even when
agencies rely on external investigators, however, community corrections
staff will be the first responders and, therefore, need clear direction and
training on how to secure a crime scene and preserve evidence.
Formal agreements with prosecuting authorities are just as important; diligent attempts to establish MOUs with prosecutors are also
required under the Commission’s standards. One of the most effective
ways to demonstrate zero tolerance is to prosecute perpetrators to the
full extent permitted by law. In some jurisdictions, however, prosecutors
do not prioritize these cases and may be even less aware and informed
about sexual abuse in community corrections than about abuse that occurs in prisons, jails, and juvenile facilities.59 In the process of forging
an MOU, community corrections officials have opportunities to educate
prosecutors about the reality and repercussions of sexual abuse in this
context. They also can learn from prosecutors about how to improve investigations so that more perpetrators are held accountable.
The Director of Probation and Parole for Louisiana, Eugenie Powers,
told the Commission, “To the extent that offenders are treated humanely
while they are detained or incarcerated, it is expected they will integrate
more successfully into the community.”60 Community corrections has the
opportunity to strengthen the success of this transition by protecting men,
women, and youth from sexual abuse while they engage in the difficult
work of establishing productive, law-abiding lives.

CHAPTER 8: COMMUNIT Y CORRECTIONS: THE NE XT FRONTIER

Agreements with outside law
enforcement agencies
(continued from adjoining page)

majority within that jurisdiction,
or other defendants/offenders
who fall under State and local
vulnerable persons statutes,
the agency or facility maintains
or attempts to enter into an MOU
with the designated State or local services agency with the
jurisdiction and authority to conduct investigations related to the
sexual abuse of vulnerable persons within community corrections facilities. When the agency
or facility already has an existing
agreement or long-standing policy covering responsibilities for
all criminal investigations, including sexual abuse investigations,
it does not need to enter into a
new agreement. The agency or
facility maintains a copy of the
written agreement or documentation showing attempts to enter
into an agreement.

Agreements with the
prosecuting authority
The agency or facility maintains
or attempts to enter into a written MOU or other agreement with
the authority responsible for prosecuting violations of criminal law.
The agency or facility maintains a
copy of the written agreement or
documentation showing attempts
to enter into an agreement.

173

A large and growing number of
detained immigrants are at risk
of sexual abuse. Their heightened
vulnerability and unusual
circumstances require special
interventions.

9

On the Margins:
Immigrants in Detention

T

he Krome immigration detention facility in Miami, Florida,
opened in 1980. As early as 1983, reports of sexual abuse began to
emerge.1 These reports persisted for years and ranged from rape
to sexual molestation to trading sex for favors.2 In May 1990, the
Federal Bureau of Investigation began investigating sexual and physical
abuse at Krome.3 Despite the glare of publicity and an ongoing investigation, the abuse apparently continued. In early 1991, a woman detainee said
she was raped by a staff member in the health clinic. Advocates were told
an investigation had been conducted and the U.S. Department of Justice
would produce findings. An official report was never made public, and it
appears no disciplinary or legal actions were taken.
More than 8 years later, in August 1998, officers at Krome wrote a
memo complaining about the treatment of women and children, reporting
that criminal and male detainees shared the same restroom with minors,
women and children ate their meals on the floor, and there were only
six beds for 39 women to sleep or sit on.4 In their complaint, they noted
that when officers had reported concerns in the past, they were labeled as
troublemakers. Again, no action was taken.
Widespread reports of sexual abuse at Krome resurfaced in May
2000; some of the same staff implicated in the sex scandal in 1990 were
subjects of the new allegations as well.5 In her testimony before the Commission, Cheryl Little, of the Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center, reported
that sexual abuse at Krome appeared to be pervasive and involved allegations against at least 15 Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS)
officers and one public health service officer. A Department of Justice investigation that year revealed that roughly 10 percent of female detainees
at Krome had come forward with reports of sexual misconduct by INS
officers that included sexual harassment, fondling during searches, and
sexual assault.6 Two women were impregnated by officers during their
time at Krome.7 As recently as 2008, the Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center reported sexual abuse at the Krome facility.
The prevalence of sexual abuse in immigration detention facilities is unknown, but accounts of abuse by staff and by detainees have

CHAPTER 9: ON THE MARGINS: IMMIGRANTS IN DETENTION

175

been coming to light for more than 20 years. As a group, immigration
detainees are especially vulnerable to sexual abuse and its effects while
detained due to social, cultural, and language isolation; poor understanding of U.S. culture and the subThe prevalence of sexual abuse in immigration detention culture of U.S. prisons; and the
facilities is unknown, but accounts of abuse by staff and by often traumatic experiences
in their
detainees have been coming to light for more than they have endured
8
culture of origin. Preventing,
20 years. As a group, immigration detainees are especially detecting, and responding to
vulnerable to sexual abuse and its effects while detained sexual abuse of immigrants
due to social, cultural, and language isolation; poor in custody requires special
measures not included in the
understanding of U.S. culture and the subculture of Commission’s standards for
U.S. prisons; and the often traumatic experiences correctional facilities. These
they have endured in their culture of origin. measures are contained in a
set of supplemental standards
that apply to any facility that houses individuals detained solely because
their right to remain in the United States is in question.
This chapter discusses the special circumstances and vulnerabilities of adult and child immigration detainees—a subject that has yet to
receive the attention and research it merits—and how the Commission’s
supplemental standards can decrease their risk of sexual abuse and ensure
they receive help if victimized.
The Commission’s work in this area will advance efforts by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to protect detainees from sexual
abuse. ICE first published standards regarding the treatment of detainees
in detention in 2000. When ICE updated and reconfigured those standards
as performance-based detention standards in 2008, it expanded the standards to include sexual abuse prevention. Although the ICE standards are
not enforceable in court, they cover important topics, such as screening
and classification of detainees and procedures for reporting sexual abuse.
The Commission’s standards build upon and in some areas exceed the ICE
standards by including more specific requirements. Combined, the two
sets of standards can make detention safer for hundreds of thousands of
immigrants—individuals we have a duty to protect as long as they remain
in our custody.

Knowing Who They Are

I

n the 15 years from 1994 to 2009, the number of immigrants held in
detention pending a judicial decision about their legal right to remain
in the United States increased nearly 400 percent.9 For the 2009 fiscal
year, ICE budgeted enough money to detain 33,400 people on any given
night and more than 400,000 people over the course of the year.10

176

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

Who comprises this increasingly large group of de facto prisoners? As Asa Hutchinson, Former Under Secretary for Border and
Transportation Security at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security,
noted, most immigrants in detention do not have criminal backgrounds.11
Approximately one out of every 10 immigration detainees is seeking
asylum—petitioning for safe haven in the United States, often after fleeing
severe and life-threatening violence in his or her home country.12 Other
categories of detainees include adults and children who entered the country
without the proper documentation, families confined together, and thousands of “unaccompanied” children without families in the United States.
Unaccompanied minors from birth to age 18 are generally transferred from the Department of Homeland Security custody to the Office
of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) and may remain in custody for several
months.13 In 2008, an estimated 10,350 unaccompanied children were
transferred into ORR custody.14 ORR places unaccompanied children and
teenagers in a variety of settings, including foster care, shelters, group
homes, and secure juvenile detention facilities. A few detainees have committed crimes that place them at risk of deportation.
What all immigration detainees have in common is an indeterminate
wait while their immigration case proceeds through the court system. For
adults, the waiting can take place in “service processing centers” operated
by ICE, contract detention facilities, local jails, State and Federal prisons—
where they may commingle with the general prisoner population—and
short-term detention facilities run by Customs and Border Protection (“Border
Patrol”). ICE also has two family facilities specifically to house parents and
children together.

Isolated and Defenseless

M

any factors—personal and circumstantial, alone or in
combination—make immigration detainees especially vulnerable to sexual abuse. One of the most pervasive factors is
social isolation. As Anne Wideman, a clinical psychologist
from Arizona, told the Commission, “Many immigrants have shared with me
that they don’t fit into their particular group in detention. Either they’re too
home country or they’re too Americanized to fit into their particular group.
This increases their isolation and their lack of protection [from] violence.”15
The isolation and confusion immigration detainees experience inside a locked facility is often exacerbated because they are far from family, friends, lawyers, and, in some cases, anyone who even speaks their
language. Shiu-Ming Cheer, a legal advocate with the South Asian Network
in Los Angeles, told the Commission, “Vietnamese-speaking detainees have
been held in rural Texas jails for years without any information given to them
in their native language. This increases the likelihood of sexual abuse.”16
CHAPTER 9: ON THE MARGINS: IMMIGRANTS IN DETENTION

177

Some detainees left their home countries because of life-threatening
civil and political unrest or to escape physical or sexual abuse from family
members. Many of them have witnessed beatings, rapes, or killings and
experienced severe physical and sexual assault themselves before immigrating to the United States. Asylum seekers and refugees who fled violence or starvation in their home countries often have posttraumatic stress
disorder (PTSD) and other
Immigration officers “hold the key”—or at least it trauma responses.17 Hallmarks
include difficulty problem-solvcan appear that way. Little told the Commission that ing and a sense of hopelessness
deportation officers have propositioned women and lack of control, all of which
whose cases they control, telling them that if they make individuals more suscepwant to be released they need to comply with the tible to sexual victimization
and also less likely to report
officers’ sexual demands. it.18 “They become easily overwhelmed by what is happening
to them and have difficulty deciding on and following through with a
course of action to change the situation,” Wideman testified.19
A 2003 study by Physicians for Human Rights, based on interviews
with 70 detained asylum seekers, found that detention has a particularly
debilitating impact on them, especially on torture survivors, noting, “Detention can induce fear, isolation and hopelessness, and exacerbate the
severe psychological distress frequently exhibited by asylum seekers who
are already traumatized.”20 A quarter of the asylum seekers interviewed
reported having been sexually assaulted prior to immigrating. Not surprisingly, the study found extremely high levels of depression (86 percent),
anxiety (77 percent), PTSD (50 percent), and worsened psychological
health (70 percent) among asylum-seeking detainees.
Children in detention also are particularly vulnerable. The Border
Patrol apprehended an estimated 90,000 children along the southern U.S.
border in 2007, and most were quickly repatriated.21 Some may be detained
in Border Patrol facilities, however, while awaiting repatriation. In these
holding centers, children are often in close proximity with adults and,
therefore, in danger of sexual abuse. Some detained children have suffered
through terrifying experiences that may have stripped away their defenses
and even led them to expect abuse. “Some of these children are victims of
human trafficking, brought to the U.S. for sexual exploitation or forced labor. Other children are smuggled into the U.S. on thousand-mile journeys,
at each stop of the way at incredibly high risk for abuse and sexual exploitation,” Sergio Medina, Field Coordinator with Lutheran Immigration and
Refugee Service, told the Commission.22 Once in detention, the aftereffects
of traumas they have experienced, coupled with fear of their circumstances
and of the adults in charge, leave them extremely vulnerable to sexual
abuse by adult caretakers and also by predatory youth.

178

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

Immigration detainees may be especially vulnerable to sexual
abuse by staff because they are confined by the same agency with the
power to deport them. In this context, officers who are inclined to abuse
their authority have an astounding degree of leverage, especially when detainees are not well-informed of their rights and lack access to legal counsel. In the words of Cheryl Little, immigration officers “hold the key”—or
at least it can appear that way.23 Little told the Commission that deportation officers have propositioned women whose cases they control, telling
them that if they want to be released they need to comply with the officers’
sexual demands.

Reason to Remain Silent

A

s in other correctional settings, immigration detainees fear retaliation by perpetrators, that their reports will not be believed,
and that reports will be handled in a way that is damaging.
However, for immigrants, the fear of deportation is an additional and critical barrier. Immigration detainees’ greatest fear is often of
causing any trouble that might damage their case.24
After women detainees at the Krome immigration detention facility in Miami reported sexual abuse by staff, several of them wrote to then
Attorney General Janet Reno, telling her, “We are afraid. . . each time one
of us is interviewed by investigating officers. . . . [S]ome of the women
who have given statements have either been transferred or deported to
their countries.”25 At one point, two of the women whom officers viewed
as “‘ringleaders’” behind the
allegations were transferred to “We are afraid. . . each time one of us is interviewed by
the maximum security Federal
investigating officers. . . . [S]ome of the women who
Detention Center in downtown
Miami and held in isolation for have given statements have either been transferred or
12 and 13 days, respectively.26 deported to their countries.”
During this time, staff did not
allow them to call their attorneys or their families, and they had no access
to recreation; they were even denied shampoo and combs. When they appeared before the grand jury, their hair had not been combed for 10 days.
The determination of the victims at Krome to seek justice and
protection is unusual. Fearing the possibility of retaliatory deportation,
immigration detainees tend to be less likely than other prisoners to challenge the conditions of their confinement.27 Families are threatened with
separation, creating enormous pressure on parents that they will lose their
children if a family member causes disruption.28 For asylum seekers, the
prospect of deportation often carries especially severe consequences. And
if detainees come from countries where prisoners are routinely treated

CHAPTER 9: ON THE MARGINS: IMMIGRANTS IN DETENTION

179

poorly or even tortured, they may be unlikely to believe that detention officers will protect them from sexual abuse even if they do report it.29
The fear of stigma if they report sexual victimization also may be
more severe for some immigrant victims than for others in confinement.
In many cultures, families and
“[A] detainee tried to touch me in my personal place, communities view victims of
and it made me very uncomfortable. . . . The others were sexual assault very unsympathetically after the abuse bemaking fun of me. The last time, I pushed him and told him comes known.30 Sexual abuse
to go. I defended myself and I was put in segregation. victims may be perceived as
The guards didn’t give me an opportunity to explain. disgracing the family and even
They just told me it was my fault. . . .” be at risk for retaliation by their
own family members. This added danger, coupled with unfamiliarity with the processes of reporting or
even with the right to report, makes it even less likely that immigration
detainees will disclose sexual abuse experiences.
Reporting sexual abuse can be especially difficult for detained children. Most of them do not have guardians, attorneys, or advocates whom
they trust and can confide in. One unaccompanied minor, a 17-year-old
boy detained in the San Francisco Bay area, was the victim of ongoing
sexual abuse by a staff member. According to Tom Plummer, Staff Attorney for Legal Services for Children in San Francisco, the alleged conduct
included the staff person visiting the boy’s bedroom during evening bed
checks, sitting on the bed with him, touching him on the face and neck,
kissing him, and expressing intimate affection and physical attraction.31
The boy reported the abuse to staff on at least four occasions. When no
one took action to stop the behavior, he felt forced to disclose his sexual
victimization during a house meeting in front of his peers.
Another teenage boy, interviewed by Physicians for Human Rights,
recalled that: “[A] detainee tried to touch me in my personal place, and it
made me very uncomfortable. . . . The others were making fun of me. The
last time, I pushed him and told him to go. I defended myself and I was
put in segregation. The guards didn’t give me an opportunity to explain.
They just told me it was my fault. . . . I told one of the officers that another
detainee bothered me and touched me in the night. I was ashamed to tell
the officer, but I tried. The officer didn’t pay attention. He said he can’t do
anything. . . [now] I am afraid to complain because I fear I will be put in
segregation.”32 Forty percent of asylum-seeking detainees interviewed by
Physicians for Human Rights reported that they had been threatened with
disciplinary segregation while detained; 26 percent were actually placed in
segregation at some time during their detention.33
An atmosphere of intimidation in a facility can also suppress reporting.34 Fifty-four percent of detainees interviewed by Physicians for
Human Rights reported that they had experienced verbal abuse while in

180

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

detention, including being called criminals and liars and being yelled and
sworn at, often in circumstances they did not understand.”35 This is not
an environment in which victims of sexual abuse are likely to speak out.
There are other institutional barriers that block or discourage victims and witnesses from reporting abuse. The ICE detention standards
require the posting of information about how to report sexual abuse.36 A
“sexual assault awareness” poster is to be displayed in English and Spanish with a “sexual assault awareness information” pamphlet distributed in
most detention facilities.37 The poster encourages victims of a sexual abuse
to report the assault and promises confidentiality for the reported information. Posters may not be enough to inform all detainees of their rights and
the process, however, especially those who are not fluent in the language.
And grievance procedures can seem impossibly complex, especially for
detainees who speak languages other than English or Spanish.
A 2006 audit by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Office of the Inspector General revealed that detainees often do not receive
information on reporting and grievance procedures in a language they can
understand.38 Detainees who don’t speak English or Spanish must request
assistance from others to translate materials they are given or to write letters or fill out forms reporting the abuse—a serious barrier given the sensitive nature of the subject matter.39 Additionally, if victims of sexual abuse
see other complaints go unanswered, from poor medical care to denial
of religious services, they may have little confidence that their claims of
sexual abuse will be treated any differently.40

Screen and Separate

Supplement to
Screening for risk of
victimization and abusiveness
The facility makes every reasonable effort to obtain institutional and criminal records
of immigration detainees in its
custody prior to screening for
risk of victimization and abusiveness. Screening of immigration detainees is conducted by
employees who are culturally
competent.

Supplement to
Use of screening information
Any facility that houses both
inmates and immigration detainees houses all immigration
detainees separately from other
inmates in the facility and provides heightened protection for
immigration detainees who are
identified as particularly vulnerable to sexual abuse by other
detainees through the screening process (SC-1). To the extent
possible, immigration detainees
have full access to programs, education, and work opportunities.

T

he Commission’s standards for adult prisons and jails require
that specific criteria be used to screen all incarcerated persons
for risk of victimization and abusiveness. (See Chapter 3 for a
detailed discussion of screening.) In the immigration context, additional precautions are required. Although most immigrants in detention
do not have criminal histories, the Commission’s supplemental standards
require facilities to make every reasonable effort to obtain and review the
prior institutional and criminal records of all immigration detainees before
screening them for risk of victimization and abusiveness.
Additionally, when immigration detainees are confined in prisons,
jails, and lockups, the supplemental standards require separate housing
for immigrants. Bryan Lonegan, who provides legal assistance to immigrants detained in northern New Jersey jails, told the Commission, “when
those [immigrants] were detained last week, they were all held in the same
jail with the people who were jumping the turnstiles, people who were
there for shoplifting or drug offenses. . . . The point is, that within the jails

CHAPTER 9: ON THE MARGINS: IMMIGRANTS IN DETENTION

181

Supplement to
Inmate education
Sexual abuse education (TR-3)
for immigration detainees is
provided at a time and in a
manner that is separate from
information provided about
their immigration cases, in detainees’ own languages and
in terms that are culturally appropriate, and is conducted by
a qualified individual with experience communicating about
these issues with a diverse
population.

Detainee handbook
Every detainee is provided with
an ICE Detainee Handbook upon
admission to the facility, and a
replacement is provided whenever a detainee’s handbook is
lost or damaged. The Detainee
Handbook contains notice of the
agency’s zero-tolerance policy
toward sexual abuse and contains all the agency’s policies
related to sexual abuse, including information about how to
report an incident of sexual
abuse and the detainees’ rights
and responsibilities related to
sexual abuse. The Detainee
Handbook will inform immigration detainees how to contact
organizations in the community
that provide sexual abuse counseling and legal advocacy for detainee victims of sexual abuse.
The Detainee Handbook will also
inform detainees how to contact
the Office for Civil Rights and
Civil Liberties, the Office of the
Inspector General (OIG) for the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and diplomatic or consular personnel.

182

that I work in northern New Jersey, there is no way to distinguish potential
violators from the people who would be violated.”41
Screening must also look for signs of heightened vulnerability. Currently, the initial assessment required by the ICE detention standards does
not include screening for all of the characteristics that may indicate vulnerability to abuse, such as self-reported history of past abuse, gender, sexual
orientation, or physical appearance.42 Recognizing that some immigration
detainees are more at risk of sexual abuse than others, the supplemental
standards require culturally competent employees to assess all detainees
for risk of victimization and abusiveness and to provide heightened protection for individuals identified as vulnerable. Today, not all facilities take
even basic precautions, such as separating detainees by gender or age.
The Commission also is concerned that the default mode of protection for vulnerable detainees has become housing them in conditions approaching isolation. Depending on conditions in protective custody cells
and units, isolation can enhance the feeling of aloneness already common
among immigration detainees and lead to depression and other problems.43
For individuals from cultures that emphasize close interpersonal connections, isolation may be particularly destructive. Language barriers further
intensify the isolation experience of protective custody. Detainees also
may experience segregation as punishment and remain silent instead of
reporting sexual abuse.

Educate to Protect

I

mmigration detainees will be less vulnerable to sexual abuse if they
know their rights and the protections and support available to them.
The Commission’s supplemental standard on inmate education mandates that sexual abuse education for immigration detainees be provided in the detainees’ own language, in terms that are culturally appropriate,
and that it be conducted by a qualified individual with experience communicating about these issues to a diverse population.
ICE has made progress toward meeting this requirement through
its own standard mandating facilities to provide information about sexual
abuse through an orientation handbook, an orientation video, and a poster
encouraging detainees who become victims of sexual abuse to report the
assault to “any staff person you trust.”44 However, a 2006 audit of five detention facilities by the Homeland Security’s Office of the Inspector General found that all five facilities distributed handbooks to detainees that did
not explain the process for reporting allegations related to abuse. Some detainees were not aware that they could report allegations related to abuse
or civil rights violations directly to the Department of Homeland Security’s
Office of the Inspector General or that there were reporting procedures for
officer’s sexual misconduct.45
N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

The Commission’s standards not only require every detainee to
receive a handbook upon admission to the facility—as ICE’s own standards already mandate—but also outline information that the handbook
must cover: the agency’s zero-tolerance policy toward sexual abuse and all
the related policies, how to report an incident of sexual abuse, detainees’
rights and responsibilities in regard to sexual abuse, and how to contact
organizations in the community that provide sexual abuse counseling and
legal advocacy for detainee victims of sexual abuse. When facilities receive
reports of sexual abuse, the supplemental standard regarding data collection requires them to record the victim’s immigration status and to update
that information at the conclusion of the investigation.

Lifelines to the Outside World

C

Supplement to
Data collection
The facility collects additional
data whenever an immigration
detainee is the victim or perpetrator of an incident of sexual
abuse in custody. The additional
incident-based data collected indicate whether the victim and/
or perpetrator was an immigration detainee, his or her status
at the initiation of the investigation, and his or her status at the
conclusion of the investigation.

Supplement to
Inmate reporting

The agency provides immigraonfinement, by definition, involves separating individuals
tion detainees with access to
from the community, at least to some degree. Immigration detelephones with free, preprotainees, more than other confined populations, are likely to
grammed numbers to ICE’s
be almost entirely cut off from the world outside the facility
Office for Civil Rights and Civil
in which they are residing. Individuals are often held in remote faciliLiberties and the DHS OIG. In
addition, the agency must proties, far from family or friends, and may be linguistically and culturally
vide immigration detainees with
isolated within the detention setting. Often advocacy groups in the sura list of phone numbers for diprounding community lack the language skills and cultural competency
lomatic or consular personnel
to assist them.
from their countries of citizenDiocesan Migrant and Refugee Services administers ICE’s Legal
ship and access to telephones
Orientation Program to detention facilities in and around El Paso, Texas.
to contact such personnel.
According to Iliana Holguin, the organization’s Executive Director, “Many
times the [Legal Orientation Program] is the only opportunity that detainees have to ask a nongovernmental official for information related to their
particular case, for an explanation of the court system which they will
soon be forced to navigate, and to express their concerns regarding the
conditions of their detention or report any abuses that may have occurred
while being detained.”46 Although detainees have periodic contact with
immigration judges, those judges have no jurisdiction over the conditions
of their detention.
Preventing and responding to sexual abuse among immigration
detainees requires ensuring that detainees can easily contact outside entities authorized to receive and respond to reports of sexual abuse. The
Commission’s standards in this area echo what ICE’s own standard already requires: facilities must provide immigration detainees with access
to telephones with free, preprogrammed numbers to ICE’s OfImmigration detainees, more than other confined
fice for Civil Rights and Civil
Liberties and to the Department populations, are likely to be almost entirely cut off from
of Homeland Security’s Office the world outside the facility in which they are residing.
CHAPTER 9: ON THE MARGINS: IMMIGRANTS IN DETENTION

183

Supplement to
Inmate access to outside
confidential support services
All immigration detainees have
access to outside victim advocates who have experience working with immigration detainees
or immigrant victims of crime
for emotional support services
related to sexual abuse. The
facility provides such access by
giving immigration detainees the
current mailing addresses and
telephone numbers, including
toll-free hotline numbers, of local,
State, and/or national organizations that provide these services and enabling reasonable
communication between immigration detainees and these organizations. The facility ensures
that communications with such
advocates is private, confidential, and privileged to the extent
allowable by Federal, State, and
local law. The facility informs immigration detainees, prior to giving them access, of the extent
to which such communications
will be private, confidential, and/
or privileged.

Supplement to
Agreements with outside
public entities and community service providers
Any facility that houses immigration detainees maintains or attempts to enter into memoranda
of understanding (MOUs) or other agreements with one or more
local or, if not available, national
organizations that provide legal
advocacy and confidential emotional support services for immigrant victims of crime (RE-3,
MM-3). The agency maintains
copies of agreements or documentation showing attempts to
enter into agreements.

184

of the Inspector General. They also must have access to telephones to contact diplomatic or consular personnel from their countries of citizenship,
along with a list of those phone numbers.47
Although many facilities have a telephone system, a U.S. Government Accounting Office (GAO) investigation in 2007 found widespread
problems. Of the 17 facilities GAO visited that used this system, 16 had
problems that restricted detainees’ abilities to reach their consulates, nongovernmental organizations, pro bono legal assistance providers, and the
Department of Homeland Security’s Office of the Inspector General complaint hotline. The contractor detainee telephone system was extremely
cumbersome and complicated to use. “For example, at Pamunkey Regional
Jail [in Hanover, Virginia] the automated system required eight different
actions by the user to place a call. One of these actions added further
confusion by instructing a detainee to select ‘collect call’ in order to make
a pro bono telephone system call.”48 GAO also found that the Inspector
General’s number was blocked or otherwise restricted at 12 of the facilities.
Immigration detainees who are victims of abuse also need a lifeline
to organizations with experience providing support and counseling for
immigrant victims of crime. Attorneys and paralegals are not generally
trained in how to counsel individuals who have been raped or have been
victims of sexual assault.49 For these reasons, the Commission’s supplemental standards require facilities to attempt to reach formal agreements,
such as a memorandum of understanding, with one or more local or, if not
available, national organizations equipped to provide both legal advocacy
and confidential emotional support services to immigration detainees who
are victims of sexual abuse. The standards also require facilities to make
contact information for these organizations easily accessible and to ensure
that detainees can communicate with outside advocates on a confidential
basis, to the extent allowed by law.

Culturally Appropriate and Effective

E

ven though the Commission’s supplemental standards emphasize
the need to link victims of sexual abuse with culturally competent outside advocates, facilities still must ensure that their own
staff can respond appropriately to sexual abuse. The first line of
response to sexual abuse in detention facilities may be staff and frontline
providers, yet most are not trained to respond to sexual victimization.
In her testimony before the Commission, Anne Wideman observed
that medical staff in detention facilities often are not available to respond
to sexual abuse victims and that staff are not well trained in detecting or
following up on sexual abuse.50 According to Cheryl Little, doctors evaluating sexual abuse victims at the Krome detention facility in Miami did

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

not even conduct a gynecological exam after reported incidents of sexual
victimization.51 Bryan Lonegan believes there are other forces at work as
well: “The pressure on the medical staff is to limit the cost of medical care
inside the facility. And with that, people look the other way.”52 Lonegan
has known of practitioners who provided a substandard level of care. “I
had a client who had anal fissures because he had AIDS, and for that he
was given Motrin.”
A report by two refugee advocacy organizations examining family
detention facilities found inadequate medical and mental health services,
including lack of access to doctors and inappropriate treatment of serious symptoms. The report concluded that “staff should receive continued
specialized training in the unique physical and psychological needs of
immigrant families.”53 Some immigrants come from cultures in which
emotional distress is expressed somatically.54 In its report, Physicians for
Human Rights recommended that facility staff should receive training in
how physical symptoms and complaints may serve as indicators of sexual
abuse.55
In July 2008, Congress repealed the statutory ban against visits or
migration to the United States by HIV-positive persons.56 As this report
went to press, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is considering modifying its regulations to remove HIV from the list of communicable diseases. Currently, immigrants known to be HIV-positive request
a waiver to seek legal status in the United States—a requirement that applies to all immigrants with communicable diseases.57 Because of this additional administrative hurdle and the possibility that requests for waivers
can be denied, the Commission’s supplemental standards require facilities
to counsel all detainees about the immigration consequences of a positive
HIV test at the time they are offered testing. Medical practitioners should
keep abreast of the most current state of the law regarding HIV status and
its consequences for the immigration process.
Addressing deficiencies in correctional health care is a complex and
vexing issue, requiring training for staff and other interventions mandated
in the Commission’s core standards. (See Chapter 6 for more information.)
The Commission designed its supplemental standard on staff training to
ensure that all staff can at least identify signs of sexual abuse among immigration detainees and provide an initial response that is culturally appropriate and effective. The mixture of languages, cultural traditions, and
personal experiences represented among immigration detainees nationally
makes adequate training a significant challenge. Detainees come from cultures with differing notions of appropriate sexual behavior, and their own
experiences of sexual abuse vary widely, along with how they understand
the repercussions of reporting abuse to government authorities.
The Commission’s supplemental standard on training aims to be
responsive to these realities by requiring that all employees, including

CHAPTER 9: ON THE MARGINS: IMMIGRANTS IN DETENTION

Supplement to
Employee training and
specialized training of
investigators and medical
and mental health care
Any facility that holds immigration detainees provides special
additional training to employees,
including medical and mental
health practitioners and investigators. This additional training
includes the following topics: cultural sensitivity toward diverse
understandings of acceptable
and unacceptable sexual behavior, appropriate terms and
concepts to use when discussing sex and sexual abuse with a
culturally diverse population,
sensitivity and awareness regarding past trauma that may
have been experienced by immigration detainees, and knowledge of all existing resources
for immigration detainees both
inside and outside the facility
that provide treatment and counseling for trauma and legal advocacy for victims.

Supplement to
Ongoing medical and mental
health care for sexual abuse
victims and abusers
All immigration detainees are
counseled about the immigration consequences of a positive
HIV test at the time they are
offered HIV testing.

185

Supplement to
Protection of detainee
victims and witnesses
ICE never removes from the
country or transfers to another
facility immigration detainees
who report sexual abuse before
the investigation of that abuse
is completed, except at the
detainee victim’s request. ICE
considers releasing detainees
who are victims of or witnesses
to abuse and monitoring them
in the community to protect
them from retaliation or further
abuse during the course of the
investigation.

medical and mental health practitioners and investigators, be trained in
cultural sensitivity toward diverse understandings of acceptable and unacceptable sexual behavior, appropriate terms and concepts to use when
discussing sex and sexual abuse with a culturally diverse population, sensitivity and awareness regarding past trauma that immigration detainees
may have experienced, and knowledge of all existing support services for
detainees, both within and outside the facility.

Justice Interrupted: Transfers and Removals

I

n testifying before the Commission, Bryan Lonegan described what
happened after a detainee in El Paso lodged a complaint about sexual
abuse: “He made the complaint, and the next thing you know he was
sent over to New Mexico. And then he was bounced back to Texas
again and then back down into New Mexico. And during that time he was
trying to maintain correspondence with somebody who would address his
complaint. And every time he was transferred, he lost his legal papers, he
lost his documents. He was never able to receive [the] documents back.”58
Immigration detainees are housed in hundreds of facilities around
the country and are often transferred among facilities as they await a decision in their court case.59 Reasons for transfers usually involve space
availability, cost, and security. The experience of frequent transfers is obviously hard on detainees and
compromises their ability to
“He made the complaint, and the next thing you know build and present a strong case
he was sent over to New Mexico. And then he was in immigration court. When a
bounced back to Texas again and then back down into New detainee is the victim of sexual
Mexico. And during that time he was trying to maintain abuse, transfers interrupt—and
sometimes completely derail—
correspondence with somebody who would address the complaint process, as the
his complaint. And every time he was transferred, he story of the detainee from El
lost his legal papers, he lost his documents. He was Paso illustrates. Additionally,
immigrants who are victims of
never able to receive [the] documents back.” certain sex crimes may be eligible for a special visa that allows them to remain in the country, so it is critically important that an
investigative finding be made while the detainee still has an opportunity
to apply for such a visa.60
In some cases, ICE decides to transfer a known victim or witness of
sexual abuse to protect the person from subsequent abuse or retaliation for
reporting. Although protective measures are essential and mandated, the
Commission’s supplemental standard on protection forbids transferring or

186

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

deporting a detainee who reports sexual abuse until an investigation has
been completed, except at the detainee’s own request.
When staff cannot protect victims and witnesses in the facility
where the abuse occurred, ICE must consider releasing and monitoring
them in the community during the course of the investigation. Immigration detainees are in civil custody, and most have not committed crimes
in the United States. Furthermore, research has shown that immigrants
can be supervised in the community without undue risk of flight. A test of
intensive community supervision in New York City from February 1997 to
March 2000 showed that 91 percent of participants attended all required
court hearings.61 The test also found community supervision was more
cost-effective than detention.

Screening of immigration
detainees in family facilities
Family facilities develop screening criteria to identify those families and family members who
may be at risk of being sexually
victimized that will not lead to
the separation of families. Housing, program, educational, and
work assignments are made in
a manner that protects families
and in all cases prioritizes keeping families together.

Reporting of sexual abuse in
family facilities

Specifically for Families

F

amilies who are in ICE custody are currently detained in several
facilities in the United States. Stays are not always brief: women
with children, including babies and toddlers, may be detained
for days, weeks, or even months.62 Although families can be held
in Customs and Border Protection facilities—typically for short periods of
time—and in regular detention facilities operated by or under contract with
ICE, most parents and children who are detained together are housed in one
of two family detention facilities, operated exclusively for this purpose.
In testimony before a congressional subcommittee on immigration,
Texas Representative Sheila Jackson noted that family facilities often are
modeled on the criminal justice system. Immigrants in these facilities are
“deprived of the right to live as a family unit, denied adequate medical
and mental health care, and face overly harsh disciplinary tactics.”63 The
Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Services report concluded that, in addition to the need for specialized training about immigrant families, “[a]ll
staff training should be based upon a child and family welfare model
and not a criminal or juvenile justice model.”64 The report also found
health care to be inadequate, citing the inability of adults and children to
get access to doctors and inappropriate treatment of serious symptoms.
Compounding these conditions, Michelle Brané, Director of the Detention
and Asylum Program for Women’s Refugee Commission, contends that
families are sometimes threatened with separation, creating enormous
pressure on parents that they will lose their children if a family member
causes disruption.65
According to the Commission’s standards, housing and other placement decisions based on a child or adult’s risk of sexual abuse must preserve the integrity of the family unit and strive to keep members together.

CHAPTER 9: ON THE MARGINS: IMMIGRANTS IN DETENTION

The facility provides parents with
the ability to report sexual abuse
in a manner that is confidential
from their children. The facility
also provides children with the
ability to report abuse by a parent confidentially to staff.

Investigations in family
facilities
Parents are questioned confidentially by investigators about
any incident of sexual abuse,
away from their children. A
parent or parents are present
when a child is questioned by
investigators about any incident
of sexual abuse, unless (1) the
child has alleged abuse by the
parent or (2) staff suspects
abuse by the parent. The decision to exclude a parent from
an interview based on staff suspicion of abuse by that parent
is always made by a qualified
mental health practitioner.

187

Access to medical and
mental health care in family
facilities
All family members are offered
mental health counseling (as
required in MM-2 and MM-3)
when one family member is a
victim of sexual abuse in the
facility. Following an incident of
sexual abuse, parents and adult
family members are examined
confidentially by medical and
mental health practitioners and
away from children. Following
an incident of sexual abuse, a
parent or parents are allowed
to be present during all medical and mental health examinations of a minor child, unless
(1) that child has alleged sexual
abuse by the parent or (2) staff
suspects abuse by the parent.
The decision to exclude a parent
from an examination based on
staff suspicion of abuse by that
parent is always made by a qualified mental health practitioner.
In the event that a child is sexually abused, a qualified mental
health practitioner interviews the
child to determine whether either
parent was present or aware of
the abuse and whether the parent or parents were threatened
in connection with the abuse.

188

Screening criteria used in facilities for adults and those used in facilities
for children are generally inappropriate in a family context. The purpose
of family facilities is to keep families together, so protection cannot be
accomplished by separating individuals on the basis of age, gender, or
sexuality. There is almost no research to suggest what screening criteria
might be appropriate, so the burden is on ICE to develop good protocols
that protect individuals from abuse while maintaining family unity.
Disincentives for reporting abuse may be even greater when parents and children are confined together with little or no privacy. Under the
Commission’s standards, facilities must somehow ensure that both adults
and children can report abuse in a confidential manner. This is especially
important in the situations where children are at risk of abuse within the
family unit.
Family facilities must be sensitive to parents’ desire to protect their
children from sexual abuse and even from hearing about abuse unnecessarily because that may disturb a child. Facilities also must be responsive to the discomfort a parent might feel discussing sexual abuse in front
of their children. The Commission’s standards require investigators and
health care practitioners to question parents confidentially, away from
their children, about any incident of sexual abuse. On the other hand,
when children are known or suspected to be victims of sexual abuse, the
standards require parents to be present when investigators are questioning
their children and allow parents to be present during medical and mental
health exams, unless the parent is the alleged abuser. A qualified mental
health practitioner must make the decision to exclude a parent from an
interview or medial exam based on suspicion of abuse.
Florida immigrant advocate Cheryl Little concluded her testimony
to the Commission by stating, “Detainees [in Florida] have paid a heavy
price for sexual misconduct by their jailers and the message to victims is
clear: Complain and you are transferred to a remote facility far removed
from your lawyer and loved ones or, worse, you risk deportation. . . . The
message to abusive guards is likewise clear: No matter the seriousness of
the abuse, you are not likely to be punished or held accountable for your
acts.”66 The decades of unchecked sexual abuses at the Krome facility are
one example, albeit extreme, that protections for immigration detainees
and accountability for perpetrators are not what they should be. Almost
equally concerning, we know less about this area of confinement than any
other, yet it is one of the fastest growing and an area in which preventing,
detecting, and responding to abuse is especially challenging.

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

APPENDICES

Appendix A

Endnotes

PART I: UNDERSTANDING AND PREVENTING SEXUAL ABUSE
Chapter 1. A Problem that Must Be Solved
1. Clemmer, D. (1940). The prison community. Boston: Christopher Publishing House (hereafter Clemmer, The prison
community).
2. The Eighth Amendment, proportionality, and the changing meaning of “punishments.” (2009). Harvard Law Review,
122(3), 960–981.
3. McShane, M. (2008). Prisons in America. El Paso, TX: LFB
Scholarly Publishing LLC.
4. Craig, R. L. (2006). Women in corrections: Elizabeth Gurney Fry. Journal of Correctional Education. 57(2), 141–144.
5. Dumond, R., & Dumond, D. (2002). The treatment of sexual
assault victims. In C. Hensley (Ed.), Prison sex: Practice and
policy (pp. 67–87). Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers,
Inc. (hereafter Dumond, “Treatment”).
6. Alan Davis conducted his groundbreaking study of sexual
abuse in jail systems during this period. Davis, A. J. (1968).
Sexual assaults in the Philadelphia prison system and sheriff’s vans. Transaction, 6(2), 8–16 (hereafter Davis, “Sexual
assaults”).
7. Testimony of Parsell, T. J. (2005, August 19). At Risk: Sexual
Abuse and Vulnerable Groups Behind Bars (p. 33). San Francisco: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public
Hearing.
8. Ibid., at 34.
9. Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003, 42 U.S.C. § 15601, et
seq. (hereafter PREA).
10. Ibid.
11. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2004). Data collections for the
Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs (hereafter
BJS, Data collections).
12. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (hereafter Farmer).
13. Bayard, M. (1983). Inside justice. London: Farleigh Dickinson University Press, p. 225.
14. Stroud v. Swope, 187 F.2d 850, 851–852 (9th Cir. 1951).
15. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 555–556 (1974).
16. Farmer, at 833.

APPENDIX A: ENDNOTES

17. Ibid., at 834 (citing Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981)).
18. See Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 370
(1992); Stone v. City and County of San Francisco, 968 F.2d 850,
858 (9th Cir. 1992); Moore v. Morgan, 922 F.2d 1553, 1557 n.
4 (11th Cir. 1991); Monmouth County Correctional Institutional
Inmates v. Lanzaro, 834 F.2d 326, 336–337 (3d Cir. 1987); Lareau v. Manson, 651 F.2d 96, 104 (2d Cir. 1981); Battle v. Anderson, 564 F.2d 388, 396 (10th Cir. 1977); Thomas v. Baca, 514
F.Supp.2d 1201, 1218 (C.D.Cal. 2007).
19. See Harris v. Thigpen, 941 F.2d 1495, 1509 (11th Cir. 1991);
Wellman v. Faulkner, 715 F.2d 269, 274 (7th Cir. 1983).
20. Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 354 (1981).
21. Harris v. Fleming, 839 F.2d 1232, 1235 (7th Cir. 1988).
22. Testimony of Shirley, M. (2005, June 14). The Cost of Victimization: Why Our Nation Must Confront Prison Rape (p.
67). Washington, D.C.: National Prison Rape Elimination
Commission Public Hearing.
23. Ibid., at 69.
24. Ibid., at 71.
25. Ibid., at 73.
26. Browne, A., & Lichter, E. (2001). Imprisonment in the
United States. In J. Worell (Ed.), Encyclopedia of women and
gender: Sex similarities and differences and the impact of society on gender (Vol. 1). San Diego: Academic Press (hereafter
Browne, “Imprisonment”); Young, V., & Reviere, R. (2005).
Women behind bars: Gender & race in U.S. prisons. Boulder,
CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers (hereafter Young, Women
behind bars); Rafter, N. (1990). Partial justice: Women, prisons, and social control (2nd ed., rev.). New Brunswick, NJ:
Transaction Publishers (hereafter Rafter, Partial justice).
27. Freedman, E. (1981). Their sisters’ keepers: Women’s prison
reform in America, 1830–1930. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, p. 16.
28. Young, Women behind bars; Rafter, Partial justice.
29. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e
et seq. See Griffin v. Michigan DOC, 654 F.Supp. 690 (E.D.
Mich. 1982); Harden v. Dayton Human Rehabilitation Center,
520 F.Supp. 769 (S.D. Ohio 1981); Smith, B. (2003). Watching

191

you, watching me. Yale Journal of Law & Feminism, 15(2),
225–288.
30. See Jurado, R. (1999). The essence of her womanhood:
Defining the privacy rights of women prisoners and the
employment rights of women guards. American University
Journal of Gender Social Policy & Law, 7(1), 21–53.
31. U.S. Department of Labor. (2007). Quick facts: Employment
status for women and men in 2007. Women’s Bureau Web site.
Available at http://www.dol.gov/wb/factsheets/Qf-ESWM07.
htm
32. Smith, B. (2008). Prosecuting sexual violence in correctional settings: Examining prosecutors’ perceptions. American University, Washington College of Law Research Paper
No. 2008-50 (hereafter Smith, Prosecuting sexual violence);
National Institute of Corrections. (2006). State criminal laws
prohibiting sexual misconduct with offenders in 1990. Available at http://nicic.org/Downloads/PDF/Library/021770.pdf
33. Smith, Prosecuting sexual violence.
34. National Institute of Corrections/Washington College of
Law Project on Addressing Prison Rape. (2008). State laws
prohibiting sexual misconduct with individuals in custody checklist. American University, Washington College of
Law Web site. Available at https://www.wcl.american.edu/
nic/legal_responses_to_prison_rape/fifty_state_checklist.
pdf?rd=1
35. Smith, Prosecuting sexual violence.
36. National Institute of Corrections/Washington College of
Law Project on Addressing Prison Rape. (2008). Fifty-state
survey of criminal laws prohibiting the sexual abuse of individuals in custody. American University, Washington College
of Law Web site. Available at http://www.wcl.american.edu/
nic/responses.cfm
37. Smith, Prosecuting sexual violence; Testimony of Worthy,
K. (2006, August 3). Reporting, Investigating, and Prosecuting
Prison Rape: What Is Needed to Make the Process Work? (p.
217). Detroit: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission
Public Hearing.
38. Clemmer, The prison community.
39. Davis, “Sexual assaults.”
40. Wooden, W. S., & Parker, J. (1982). Men behind bars: Sexual exploitation in prison. New York: Plenum Press.
41. Struckman-Johnson, C., Struckman-Johnson, D., Rucker, L.,
Bumby, K., & Donaldson, S. (1996). Sexual coercion reported by
men and women in prison. Journal of Sex Research, 33(1), 67–76.
42. Struckman-Johnson, C., & Struckman-Johnson, D. (2002).
Sexual coercion reported by women in three Midwestern
prisons. Journal of Sex Research, 39(3), 217–227 (hereafter
Struckman-Johnson, “Sexual coercion reported by women”).
43. Ibid., at 224–225.
44. Blackburn, A., Mullings, J., & Marquart, J. (2008). Sexual
assault in prison and beyond: Toward an understanding of
lifetime sexual assault among incarcerated women. The Prison
Journal, 88(3), 351–377.
45. Jones, T. R., & Pratt, T. C. (2008). The
����������������������
prevalence of sexual violence in prison: The state of the knowledge base and
implications for evidence-based correctional policy making.
International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative

192

Criminology, 52(3), 280–295 (hereafter Jones, “Prevalence of
sexual violence”).
46. Gaes, G., & Goldberg, A. (2004). Prison rape: A critical
review of the literature. National Institute of Justice Working
Paper. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.
47. Jones, “Prevalence of sexual violence.”
48. Bowling, A. (2005). Mode of questionnaire administration can have serious effects on data quality. Journal of Public
Health, 27(3), 281–291.
49. Donaldson, S. (1994). Rape trauma syndrome in male prisoners. Los Angeles: Just Detention International (hereafter
Donaldson, Rape trauma).
50. Aquilino, W. S. (1994). Interview mode effects in surveys
of drug and alcohol use. Public Opinion Quarterly, 58(2), 210–
240 (hereafter Aquilino, “Interview mode effects”).
51. Greenberg, E., Dunleavy, E., Kutner, M., & White, S.
(2006). Literacy behind bars: Results from the 2003 National
Assessment of Adult Literacy Prison Survey. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences.
52. Aquilino, “Interview mode effects” (stating that in studies
involving sensitive information, two key factors influencing
willingness to participate are the confidentiality and anonymity of the responses provided).
53. BJS, Data collections.
54. Beck, A. J., & Harrison, P. M. (2008). Sexual victimization
in State and Federal prisons reported by inmates, 2007. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics (hereafter Beck, State and
Federal prisons, 2007); Struckman-Johnson, “Sexual coercion
reported by women.”
55. PREA, at § 15601.
56. Ibid., at § 15602(4).
57. Beck, State and Federal prisons, 2007; Beck, A. J., & Harrison, P. M. (2008). Sexual victimization in local jails reported by
inmates, 2007. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,
Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics (hereafter Beck, Local jails, 2007).
58. Beck, State and Federal prisons, 2007.
59. Beck, Local jails, 2007.
60. Beck, A. J., Harrison, P. M., & Adams, D. B. (2007). Sexual violence reported by correctional authorities, 2006. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice
Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics (hereafter Beck, Correctional authorities, 2006).
61. Beck, A. J., Adams, D. B., & Guerino, P. (2008). Sexual violence reported by juvenile correctional authorities, 2005–2006.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics (hereafter Beck,
Juvenile correctional authorities, 2005–2006).
62. Beck, Correctional authorities, 2006.
63. Beck, Juvenile correctional authorities, 2005–2006.
64. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
(2006). Juvenile offenders and victims: 2006 national report.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

65. Beck, A. J., & Harrison, P. M. (2006). Sexual violence
reported by correctional authorities, 2005. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau
of Justice Statistics.
66. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2007, August 28). Data presented at the Prison Rape Elimination Act Workshop: National
Survey of Youth in Custody. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.
67. Ibid.
68. Beck, Correctional authorities, 2006.
69. BJS, Data collections; Beck, Correctional authorities 2006;
Beck, Juvenile correctional authorities, 2005–2006.
70. Beck, State and Federal prisons, 2007.
71. Struckman-Johnson, “Sexual coercion reported by women.”
72. West, H. C., & Sabol, W. J. (2009). Prisoners in 2007. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
73. Useem, B. (2008). Prison state: The challenge of mass
incarceration. New York: Cambridge University Press.
74. Glaze, L. E., & Bonczar, T. P. (2008). Probation and parole
in the United States—2007 statistical tables. Bureau of Justice Statistics Web site. Available at http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/
abstract/ppus07st.htm
75. National Institute of Corrections. (n.d.). Essay: Specialized caseloads. Community Corrections Quarterly. Available at
http://www.nicic.org/pubs/pre/period13.pdf
76. Browne, “Imprisonment.”
77. Clark, J., Austin, J., & Henry, D. A. (1997). “Three strikes
and you’re out”: A review of State legislation. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,
National Institute of Justice; Walsh, J. E. (2007). Three strikes
laws (historical guides to controversial issues in America).
Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group.
78. Total Criminal Defense, Inc. (2008). Understanding “three
strikes and you’re out” laws. Total Criminal Defense Web site.
Available at http://www.totalcriminaldefense.com/overview/
three-strikes-law.aspx
79. Talvi, S. (2007). Women behind bars: The crisis of women
in the U.S. prison system. Emeryville, CA: Seal Press.
80. Austin, J., Johnson, K. D., & Gregoriou, M. (2000). Juveniles
in adult prisons and jails: A national assessment. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,
Bureau of Justice Assistance; Snyder, H., & Sickmund, M. (1999).
Juvenile offenders and victims: 1999 national report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
81. Hartney, C. (2006). Fact sheet: Youth under age 18 in the
adult criminal justice system. National Council on Crime and
Delinquency Web site. Available at http://www.nccdcrc.org/
nccd/pubs/2006may_factsheet_youthadult.pdf; Equal Justice Initiative. (2007). Cruel and unusual: Sentencing 13- and
14-year-old children to die in prison. Montgomery, AL: Author.
82. Mauer, M. (1999). Race to incarcerate. New York: The New
Press.
83. Sabol, W. J., Minton, T. D., & Harrison, P. M. (2007). Prison
and jail inmates at midyear 2006. Washington, D.C.: U.S.

APPENDIX A: ENDNOTES

Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of
Justice Statistics (stating that “At midyear 2006, 750 persons
per 100,000 U.S. residents were in prison or jail, the equivalent to 1 in every 133 residents.”).
84. Resick, P. A. (1993). The psychological impact of rape.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 8(2), 223–255; Burgess, A.
W., & Holmstrom, L. L. (1974). Rape trauma syndrome. American Journal of Psychiatry, 131(9), 981–986 (hereafter Burgess,
“Rape trauma”); Council on Scientific Affairs, American
Medical Association. (1992). Violence against women: Relevance for medical practitioners. JAMA, 267(23), 3184–3189
(hereafter AMA, “Violence against women”); Donaldson,
Rape trauma.
85. American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and
statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-IV-TR. Washington, D.C.: Author (hereafter APA, Manual of mental disorders);
Resnick, H., Acierno, R., Holmes, M., Kilpatrick, D., & Jager,
N. (1999). Prevention of post-rape psychopathology: Preliminary findings of a controlled acute rape treatment study. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 13(4), 359–370.
86. APA, Manual of mental disorders.
87. Hensley, L. G. (2002). Treatment of survivors of rape: Issue
and interventions. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 24,
330–347 (hereafter Hensley, “Treatment of survivors”).
88. AMA, “Violence against women”; Koss, M. P., & Harvey,
M. R. (1991). The rape victim: Clinical and community interventions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications (hereafter
Koss, The rape victim); Donaldson, Rape trauma.
89. AMA, “Violence against women.”
90. Dumond, “Treatment”; Donaldson, Rape trauma.
91. APA, Manual of mental disorders.
92. Dumond, R. W. (2003). Confronting America’s most
ignored crime problem: The Prison Rape Elimination Act of
2003. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the
Law, 31(3), 354–360; Burgess, “Rape trauma.”
93. Testimony of Brown, N. (2006, August 3). Reporting, Investigating, and Prosecuting Prison Rape: What Is Needed to Make
the Process Work? (p. 29). Detroit: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.
94. Koss, The rape victim; Golding, J. M. (1999). Sexual-assault
history and long-term physical health problems: Evidence
from clinical and population epidemiology. Current Directions
in Psychological Science, 8(6), 191–194; Hensley, “Treatment of
survivors”; Scarce, M. (2001). Male on male rape. New York:
Basic Books.
95. AMA, “Violence against women.”
96. Mariner, J. (2001). Rape scenarios. In No escape: Male rape
in U.S. prisons. New York: Human Rights Watch.
97. Dannenberg, A. L., McNeil, J. G., Brundage, J. F., &
Brookmeyer, R. (1996). Survival and HIV infection: Mortality
follow-up of 4,147 HIV seropositive military service applicants.
JAMA, 276(21), 1743–1746.
98. Testimony of DeBlasio, K. (2005, June 14). The Cost of
Victimization: Why Our Nation Must Confront Prison Rape
(p. 84). Washington, D.C.: National Prison Rape Elimination
Commission Public Hearing (hereafter NPREC Testimony of
DeBlasio); Ross, J. I. (2006, April 18). Jailhouse blue. American

193

Civil Liberties Union of Texas Web site. Available at http://
www.aclutx.org/projects/article.php?aid=276&cid=16
99. NPREC Testimony of DeBlasio, at 85.
100. Ibid., at 87.
101. Holmes, M. M., Resnick, H. S., & Kilpatrick, D. G. (1996).
Rape-related pregnancy: Estimates and characteristics from
a national sample of women. American Journal of Obstetric Gynecology. 175(22), 320–325; Jenny, C., Hooton, T. M.,
Bowers, A., Copass, M. K., Krieger, J. N., Hillier, S. L., et al.
(1990). Sexually transmitted disease in victims of rape. New
England Journal of Medicine, 322(11), 713–716.
102. Berry v. Oswalt, 143 F.3d 1127 (8th Cir. 1998).
103. Hughes, T., & Wilson, D. J. (2003). Reentry trends in the
United States. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,
Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics; Petersilia, J. (2005). Hard time: Ex-offenders returning home after
prison. Corrections Today, 67(2), 66 (stating that 93 percent of
prisoners will eventually be released).
104. Lovell, D., Gagliardi, G. J., & Peterson, P. D. (2002).
Recidivism and use of services among persons with mental
illness after release from prison. Psychiatric Services, 53(10),
1290–1296 (stating that few people receive clinically meaningful levels of service during the first year after release).
105. Ullman, S. E., Townsend, S. M., Starzynski, L. L., & Long, L.
M. (2006). Correlates of comorbid PTSD and polysubstance use
in sexual assault victims. Violence and Victims, 21(6), 725–743.
106. PREA, at §15601(14)(A); Petersilia, J. (2001). When prisoners return to communities: Political, economic, and social
consequences. Federal Probation, 65(1), 3–8.
107. Testimony of Cahill, T. (2005, June 14). The Cost of Victimization: Why Our Nation Must Confront Prison Rape (p.
80). Washington, D.C.: National Prison Rape Elimination
Commission Public Hearing.
108. Ibid., at 82.
109. PREA, at §15601(14)(A).
110. James, D. J., & Glaze, L. E. (2006). Mental health problems
of prison and jail inmates. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department
of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics; Maruschak, L. M. (2008). Medical problems of prisoners.

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
111. Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 173 (1976) (holding that
“punishment must not involve the unnecessary and wanton
infliction of pain” or “be grossly out of proportion to the severity of crime” to avoid implicating the Eighth Amendment).
The Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause offers similar
protection to pretrial detainees. See Mariner, J. (2001). Legal
context. In No escape: Male rape in U.S. prisons. New York:
Human Rights Watch (noting that the Eighth Amendment
bars cruel and unusual punishment and so is logically limited
only to convicted individuals. However, in practice, “the standards applied to pretrial detainees under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause have followed those applied to
convicted prisoners under the Eighth.”).
112. Moss, A., & Wall, T. A. (2005). Addressing the challenge
of inmate rape. Corrections Today, 67(5), 74–78.
113. Ibid.
114. American Jail Association Board of Directors. (2003). Staff
sexual misconduct. Available at http://www.aja.org/aja/about/
resolutions.shtml#STAFF_SEXUAL_MISCONDUCT; American
Probation and Parole Association. (2003). Staff sexual misconduct.
Available at http://www.appa-net.org/eweb/Dynamicpage.
a s px? site=A PPA _ 2 &webc ode=I B _ Re solut ion &w ps _
key=825560aa-b5da-46b7-95bf-57debadaaa5c; Association of
State Correctional Administrators. (2006). Resolution #3—Establishment of policies regarding staff sexual harassment, activity
or abuse of offenders. Association of State Correctional Administrators Resolutions. Available at http://asca.net/documents/
Harassment.pdf; National Sheriffs’ Association. (2006). Development of policies on standards of conduct for jail and local
correctional facility staff. Available at http://www.sheriffs.
org/userfiles/file/2006_2NSAResolutions.pdf
115. Smith, B. V. (2008). The Prison Rape Elimination Act:
Implementation and unresolved issues. American University,
Washington College of Law Research Paper No. 2008-49
(hereafter Smith, Implementation).
116. PREA, at §§ 15602–15607; see also Smith, Implementation.
117. Public Law 108-79 §§ 3(1), (5).

Chapter 2. Leadership Matters
1. Seidel, J. (2009, January 4). Sexual assaults on female inmates
went unheeded. Detroit Free Press, p. 1 (hereafter Seidel,
“Sexual assaults”).
2. Neal v. Department of Corrections, No. 285232, *9 (Mich.
App. 1/27/2009) (hereafter Neal).
3. Seidel, J. (2009, January 7). Jury awarded $15.4 million to
inmates. Detroit Free Press, p. 2.
4. Neal at *1.
5. Everson v. Michigan Department of Corrections, 391 F.3d 737,
741 (6th Cir. 2004) (quoting the Michigan Women’s Commission report).
6. Ibid., at 743.

194

7. Settlement Agreement, Civil Action No. 97-CVB-71514-BDT,
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern
Division.
8. Seidel, “Sexual assaults.”
9. Everson v. Michigan Department of Corrections, 391 F.3d
737, 745–746 (6th Cir. 2004); Caruso, P. (2009, February 17).
Telephone interview (hereafter Caruso, Telephone interview);
Seidel, “Sexual assaults.”
10. Seidel, “Sexual assaults.”
11. Caruso, Telephone interview.
12. Owen, B., Wells, J., Pollock, J., Muscat, B., & Torres, S.
(2008). Gendered violence and safety: A contextual approach to
improving security in women’s facilities. Washington, D.C.: U.S.

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National
Institute of Justice (hereafter Owen, Gendered violence).
13. Testimony of Wall, A. T. (2006, August 3). Reporting,
Investigating, and Prosecuting Prison Rape: What Is Needed to
Make the Process Work? (p. 74). Detroit: National Prison Rape
Elimination Commission Public Hearing (hereafter NPREC
Testimony of Wall).
14. Zweig, J. M., & Blackmore, J. (2008). Research for practice:
Strategies to prevent prison rape by changing the correctional
culture. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office
of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice (hereafter
Zweig, Strategies to prevent).
15. NPREC Testimony of Wall, at 75.
16. Zweig, J., Naser, R. L., Blackmore, J., & Schaffer, M. (2006).
Addressing sexual violence in prisons: A national snapshot of
approaches and highlights of innovative strategies. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute (hereafter Zweig, Addressing sexual
violence). According to the authors, the purpose of this study
was to “provide a national snapshot of department of correction initiatives to address prison sexual violence, as well as to
identify specific practices that seemed to be, in the absence
of formal evaluations, particularly promising or innovative in
nature” (p. i).
17. Zweig, Strategies to prevent.
18. Testimony of Horn, M. (2006, March 23). Elimination of
Prison Rape: The Corrections Perspective (pp. 84–85). Miami:
The National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public
Hearing (hereafter NPREC Testimony of Horn).
19. NPREC Testimony of Wall, at 75.
20. Thompson, R. A., Nored, L. S., & Dial, K. C. (2008). The
Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA): An evaluation of policy
compliance with illustrative excerpts. Criminal Justice Policy
Review, 19(4), 414–437.
21. Cason v. Seckinger, Civil Action File No. 84-313-1-MAC
(M.D. Ga. Mar. 4, 1994); Women Prisoners v. District of
Columbia, 877 F.Supp. 634 (D.D.C. 1994); Elliott-Wilkins, T.
(2007). Texas Youth Commission: Summary report for administrative review. Dallas Morning News Web site. Available at
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/img/02-07/
0218tyc_pages1.pdf
22. NPREC Testimony of Wall, at 79.
23. Kahle v. Leonard, 477 F.3d 544, 547–548 (8th Cir. 2007).
All information about this case is taken from court records.
24. Ibid., at 547.
25. Ibid., at 548.
26. Clem, C., Krauth, B., & Wenger, P. (2000). Recruitment, hiring, and retention: Current practices in U.S. jails. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections (hereafter Clem, Recruitment).
27. Dowd, D. (2007). No vacancies? Osceola County finds keys
to attract and retain officer staff. LJN Exchange, 19–24, at 19
(hereafter Dowd, “No vacancies”).
28. National Academy of Public Administration. (2007). Eliminating prison rape: Policy and strategy. Washington, D.C.:
Author (hereafter NAPA, Eliminating prison rape).
29. Stinchcomb, J. B., McCampbell, S. W., & Leip, L. (2009).
The future is now: Recruiting, retaining, and developing the

APPENDIX A: ENDNOTES

21st century jail workforce. Naples, FL: Center for Innovative
Public Policies, Inc.
30. Clem, Recruitment; Scrivner, E. (2006). Innovations in
police recruitment and hiring: Hiring in the spirit of service.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.
31. McCampbell, S. W., & Fischer, L. S. (2002). Staff sexual
misconduct with inmates: Policy development guide for sheriffs and jail administrators. Naples, FL: Center for Innovative
Public Policies, Inc.
32. Testimony of Kupers, T. (2005, August 19). At Risk: Sexual
Abuse and Vulnerable Groups Behind Bars. San Francisco:
National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing (hereafter NPREC Testimony of Kupers).
33. Eigenberg, H. M. (2000). Correctional officers and their perceptions of homosexuality, rape and prostitution in male prisons. The Prison Journal, 80(4), 415–433 (hereafter Eigenberg,
“Correctional officers”).
34. Harrington, P. E., Spillar, K., Lonsway, K. A., Webber, R.,
Baldwin, K. A., Besser, A., et al. (2001). Recruiting and retaining women: A self-assessment guide for law enforcement. Los
Angeles: National Center for Women and Policing; Owen,
Gendered violence.
35. NPREC Testimony of Kupers, at 117.
36. Clem, Recruitment.
37. Ibid.; Dowd, “No vacancies.”
38. Corrections Independent Review Panel. (2004). Reforming corrections: Report of the Corrections Independent Review
Panel. Sacramento, CA: California Performance Review (hereafter CIRP, Reforming corrections).
39. Davenport, D. K. (2001). Performance audit, Arizona
Department of Corrections, Human Resources Management.
Phoenix: State of Arizona Office of the Auditor General; Clem,
Recruitment; CIRP, Reforming corrections.
40. Jacobs, J. B., & Olitsky, E. (2004). Leadership and correctional reform. Pace Law Review, 24(2), 477–496.
41. Mariner, J. (2001). Anomaly or epidemic: The incidence
of prisoner-on-prisoner rape. In No escape: Male rape in U.S.
prisons. New York: Human Rights Watch.
42. Zweig, Addressing sexual violence.
43. McCampbell, S. (2009, May 4). Telephone interview.
44. Ibid.
45. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. (2004).
Ohio correctional institution sexual assault abatement: A ten
point plan. Columbus: Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and
Correction; Texas Department of Criminal Justice. (2009).
Safe Prison Program. Correctional Institutions Division
Web site. Available at http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/cid/cid_
safe_prison_pgm.htm
46. Kunselman, J., Tewksbury, R., Dumond, R., & Dumond,
D. A. (2002). Nonconsensual sexual behavior. In C. Hensley (Ed.), Prison sex: Practice and policy. Boulder, CO: Lynne
Rienner Publishers, Inc.; Eigenberg, “Correctional officers”;
Zweig, Strategies to prevent.
47. Hensley, C. (2000). Prison sex: Practice and policy. Boulder,
CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc.
48. Owen, Gendered violence.

195

49. Zweig, Strategies to prevent.
50. See NPREC Standards for the Prevention, Detection,
Response, and Monitoring of Sexual Abuse in Adult Prisons
and Jails, Standards TR-1, TR-2, OR-1, and OR-3.
51. See National Institute of Corrections. (2005). Speaking up:
Discussing prison sexual assault: A tool kit designed to assist
facility staff in educating women offenders to local sexual
assault policies and practices [CD ROM]. Washington, D.C.:
Author; Owen, Gendered violence.
52. Smith, B. V. (2002). An end to silence: Prisoners’ handbook
on identifying and addressing sexual misconduct (2nd ed.).
Washington, D.C.: American University, Washington College
of Law; Smith, B. V. (1998). An end to silence: Women prisoners’ handbook on identifying and addressing sexual misconduct. Washington, D.C.: National Women’s Law Center.
53. Testimony of Hennessey, M. (2005, August 19). At Risk:
Sexual Abuse and Vulnerable Groups Behind Bars (p. 276). San
Francisco: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission
Public Hearing (hereafter NPREC Testimony of Hennessey).
54. Clem, C., Gordon, C., Sheanin, D., & Smith, T. (2006).
Direct supervision jails: 2006 sourcebook. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections,
Jails Division.
55. Wener, R. (2006). Effectiveness of the direct supervision
system of correctional design and management: A review of
the literature. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 33(3), 392–410.
56. Nelson, W. R. (1993). New generation jails. In Podular, direct
supervision jails: Information packet (pp. 25–41). Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections, Jails Division (hereafter Nelson, “New generation”).
57. Testimony of Malm, C. (2006, March 23). Elimination
of Prison Rape: The Corrections Perspective (p. 95). Miami:
National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.
58. Nelson, “New generation.”
59. Ibid.
60. NPREC Testimony of Hennessey, at 275.
61. Owen, B., & Wells, J. (2006). Staff perspectives: Sexual violence in adult prisons & jails. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections; Testimony
of Beck, A. (2005, July 19). The Systemic and Institutional
Drivers of Abuse and Lack of Safety: Personal Accounts (p. 31).
Newark, NJ: Commission on Safety and Abuse in America’s
Prisons Public Hearing.
62. Tafoya v. Salazar, 516 F.3d 912 (10th Cir. 2008). All information about this case is taken from court records.
63. Ibid., at 919.
64. Testimony of Rodriguez, R. (2006, December 13–14).
The Elimination of Prison Rape: Immigration Facilities and
Personnel/Staffing/Labor Relations (pp. 10–11). Los Angeles:
National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.
65. National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology
Center. (2005, Summer). Technology primer: Radio frequency
identification. TechBeat, 6–8.
66. Financing for RFID prison system: GE public finance will
offer special rates to states deploying cutting-edge prisoner
tracking technology. (2002, December 31). RFID Journal.

196

67. Seidel, “Sexual assaults,” at 6.
68. Ibid., at 7.
69. Smith, B. V. (2003). Watching you, watching me. Yale Journal of Law & Feminism, 15(2), 225–288.
70. Levine, K. L. (2006). No penis, no problem. Fordham
Urban Law Journal, 33, 357–405 (discussing how men are
just as constrained as women by gender stereotypes and societal expectations and, as a result, are often unable to recognize themselves as victims of sexual abuse perpetrated by
women); Beck, A. J., & Harrison, P. M. (2005). Sexual violence reported by correctional authorities, 2004. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,
Bureau of Justice Statistics.
71. NPREC Testimony of Horn, at 81.
72. Testimony of Stalder, R. (2006, March 23). Elimination of
Prison Rape: The Corrections Perspective (p. 80) Miami: National
Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.
73. Jordan v. Gardner, 986 F.2d 1521, 1525 (9th Cir. 1993). All
information about this case is taken from court records.
74. Colman v. Vasquez, 142 F.Supp.2d 226 (D. Conn. 2001).
All information about this case is taken from court records.
75. Ibid., at 232.
76. See Cash v. County of Erie, 2007 WL 2027844 (W.D.N.Y.
July 11, 2007); Herckenlaible v. Virginia Peninsula Regional Jail
Authority, 491 F.Supp.2d 544 (2007). But also see Balbridge v.
Jeffreys, 2009 WL 275669 (E.D. Mich. 2009).
77. Wilson v. City of Kalamazoo, 127 F.Supp.2d 855 (W.D.
Mich. 2000). All information about this case is taken from
court records.
78. Ibid., at 861.
79. Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 84 (1987).
80. Ingram, J. D. (2000). Prison guards and inmates of opposite gender: Equal employment opportunity versus right of
privacy. Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy, 7, 3–27 (discussing how courts have attempted equal employment laws
with constitutional privacy rights).
81. Riley v. Olk-Long, 282 F.3d 592, 594 (11th Cir. 2002). All
information about this case is taken from court records.
82. Ibid.
83. Ibid., at 597.
84. Raemisch, R. (2009, May 4). Telephone interview.
85. Ibid.
86. NAPA, Eliminating prison rape.
87. Testimony of Meyers, W. (2006, December 13–14). The Elimination of Prison Rape: Immigration Facilities and Personnel/
Staffing/Labor Relations (p. 13). Los Angeles: National Prison
Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.
88. NAPA, Eliminating prison rape.
89. Testimony of Gunn, J. (2006, December 14). The Elimination of Prison Rape: Immigration Facilities and Personnel/Staffing/Labor Relations (p. 132). Los Angeles: National Prison Rape
Elimination Commission Public Hearing.
90. NPREC Testimony of Wall, at 80.

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

Chapter 3. Vulnerability and Victimization
1. Testimony of Bruntmyer, L. (2005, June 14). The Cost of
Victimization: Why Our Nation Must Confront Prison Rape
(p. 76). Washington, D.C.: National Prison Rape Elimination
Commission Public Hearing (hereafter NPREC Testimony of
Bruntmyer). See also Mariner, J. (2001). Case history of Rodney Hulin. In No escape: Male rape in U.S. prisons. New York:
Human Rights Watch (hereafter Mariner, “Case history”).
2. Berryhill, M. (1997, August 7). What really happened to
Rodney Hulin? Houston Press.
3. NPREC Testimony of Bruntmyer, at 75.
4. Ibid., at 76.
5. Mariner, “Case history.”
6. NPREC Testimony of Bruntmyer.
7. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 833–834 (1994) (citing
Cortes-Quinones v. Jimenez-Nettleship, 842 F.2d 556, 558 (1st
Cir. 1988)).
8. Testimony of Stalder, R. (2006, March 23). Elimination of
Prison Rape: The Corrections Perspective (pp. 77–78). Miami:
National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing (hereafter NPREC Testimony of Stalder).
9. Man, C. D., & Cronan, J. P. (2001). Forecasting sexual abuse
in prison: The prison subculture of masculinity as a backdrop for “deliberate indifference. Journal of Criminal Law &
Criminology, 92(1), 127–186 (hereafter Man, “Forecasting”);
Mariner, J. (2001). Predators and victims. In No escape: Male
rape in U.S. prisons. New York: Human Rights Watch (hereafter Mariner, “Predators”). Warren, J. (2009). Risk markers
for sexual victimization and violence in prison. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,
National Institute of Justice (hereafter Warren, Risk markers).
10. Smith, N. E., & Batiuk, M. E. (1989). Sexual victimization and inmate social interaction. The Prison Journal, 69(2),
29–38, at 33.
11. Dumond, R. W. (2000). Inmate sexual assault: The plague
that persists. The Prison Journal, 80(4) 407–414; Warren, Risk
markers; Mariner, “Predators.”
12. Sisco, M. M., & Becker, J. V. (2007). Beyond predicting the
risk of sexual victimization in prison—considering inmate
options and reporting avenues for addressing an inherent
problem. Criminology & Public Policy, 6(3), 573–584 (hereafter Sisco, “Beyond predicting”); Kunselman, J., Tewksbury,
R., Dumond, R. W., & Dumond, D. A. (2002). Nonconsensual
sexual behavior. In C. Hensley (Ed.), Prison sex: Practice and
policy. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
13. Testimony of Martin, C. (2005, August 19). At Risk: Sexual
Abuse and Vulnerable Groups Behind Bars (pp. 12–13). San
Francisco: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission
Public Hearing. All details about Martin’s experiences are
based on his testimony to the Commission.
14. Thomas, D. Q. (1996). All too familiar: Sexual abuse of
women in U.S. prisons (p. 76). New York: Human Rights
Watch (hereafter Thomas, All too familiar).
15. Hill v. New Jersey Department of Corrections Commissioner,
776 A.2d 828 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2001).

APPENDIX A: ENDNOTES

16. Testimony of Parsell, T. J. (2005, August 19). At Risk: Sexual Abuse and Vulnerable Groups Behind Bars (pp. 34, 36).
San Francisco: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.
17. Testimony of Dumond, R. (2005, June 14). The Cost of Victimization: Why Our Nation Must Confront Prison Rape. Washington, D.C.: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission
Public Hearing (hereafter NPREC Testimony of Dumond).
18. Browne, A., Miller, B., & Maguin, E. (1999). Prevalence and
severity of lifetime physical and sexual victimization among
incarcerated women. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 22(3–4), 301–322; Zlotnick, C. (1997). Posttraumatic stress
disorder (PTSD), PTSD comorbidity, and childhood abuse
among incarcerated women. Journal of Nervous and Mental
Disease, 185(12), 761–763; Bloom, B., Chesney, L. M., & Owen,
B. (1994). Women in California prisons: Hidden victims of the
war on drugs. San Francisco: Center on Juvenile and Criminal
Justice.
19. James, D. J., & Glaze, L. E. (2006). Special report: Mental
health problems of prison and jail inmates. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau
of Justice Statistics (hereafter James, Mental health problems).
20. Owen, B., Wells, J., Pollock, J., Muscat, B., & Torres, S.
(2008). Gendered violence and safety: A contextual approach to
improving security in women’s facilities. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National
Institute of Justice (hereafter Owen, Gendered violence).
21. Richie, B. (1995). Compelled to crime: The gender entrapment of battered, black women. New York: Routledge.
22. Peddle v. Sawyer, 64 F. Supp. 2d 12 (D.C. Conn. 1999). All
information about this case is taken from court records.
23. Ibid., at 14.
24. McDermott, B. E., Hardison, K. A., & MacKenzie, C.
(2005). Individuals with developmental disabilities in correctional settings. In C. L. Scott & J. B. Gerbasi (Eds.), Handbook
of correctional mental health. Washington, D.C.: American
Psychiatric Publishing; Petersilia, J. R. (2001). Crime victims
with developmental disabilities. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 28(6), 655–694 (hereafter Petersilia, “Crime victims”).
25. Petersilia, “Crime victims”; Davis, L. A. (2005). People
with intellectual disabilities and sexual violence. Silver Spring,
MD: The Arc of the United States.
26. Demer, L. (2009, January 13). Assaulted inmates settle
suit with state. Anchorage Daily News, p. 1.
27. Kupers, T. (1999). Prison madness: The mental health crisis
behind bars and what we must do about it. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass (hereafter Kupers, Prison madness); Abramsky,
S., & Fellner, J. (2003). Difficulties mentally ill prisoners face
coping in prison. In Ill-equipped: U.S. prisons and offenders
with mental illness. New York: Human Rights Watch.
28. Sigurdson, C. (2000). The mad, the bad, and the abandoned: The mentally ill in prisons and jails. Corrections
Today, 88(6), 70–78.
29. National Institute of Mental Health. (2008). Mental health
medications. Bethesda, MD: U.S. Department of Health and

197

Human Services, National Institutes of Health; Kupers, Prison
madness.
30. NPREC Testimony of Dumond, at 157.
31. James, Mental health problems.
32. Wooden, W. S., & Parker, J. (1982). Men behind bars: Sexual
exploitation in prison. New York: Da Capo Press; Jenness, V.,
Maxson, C. L., Matsuda, K. N., & Sumner, J. M. (2007). Violence
in California correctional facilities: An empirical examination
of sexual assault. Irvine, CA: Center for Evidence-Based Corrections; Struckman-Johnson, C., & Struckman-Johnson, D.
(2006). A comparison of sexual coercion experiences reported
by men and women in prison. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,
21(12), 1591–1615; Mariner, “Predators.”
33. Testimony of Long, S. (2005, August 19). At Risk: Sexual
Abuse and Vulnerable Groups Behind Bars (p. 233). San Francisco: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public
Hearing (hereafter NPREC Testimony of Long).
34. Berrill, K. T. (1992). Anti-gay violence and victimization in
the United States: An overview. In G. M. Herek & K. T. Berrill
(Eds.), Hate crimes: Confronting violence against lesbians and
gay men. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; Peek, C. (2004). Breaking
out of the prison hierarchy: Transgender prisoners, rape, and
the Eighth Amendment, Santa Clara Law Review, 44, 1211–1248
(hereafter Peek, “Breaking out”).
35. Man, “Forecasting.”
36. Ibid.
37. Ibid., at 178.
38. Testimony of Spade, D. (2005, August 19). At Risk: Sexual
Abuse and Vulnerable Groups Behind Bars. San Francisco:
National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.
39. White v. United States, No. 06-CF-942 (D.C. Oct. 16 2008).
40. NPREC Testimony of Long.
41. Peek, “Breaking out”; David, E. S. (1975). The law
and transsexualism: A faltering response to a conceptual
dilemma. Connecticut Law Review, 7, 288.
42. Testimony of Chung, C. (2005, August 19). At Risk: Sexual
Abuse and Vulnerable Groups Behind Bars (pp. 23–24). San
Francisco: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission
Public Hearing.
43. Struckman-Johnson, C. J., & Struckman-Johnson, D. L.
(2002). Sexual coercion reported by women in three Midwestern prisons. Journal of Sex Research, 39(2): 217–227.
44. Thomas, All too familiar.
45. Testimony of Goord, G. (2006, March 23). Elimination
of Prison Rape: The Corrections Perspective (p. 265). Miami:
National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.
46. Hardyman, P. L., Austin, J., Alexander, J., Johnson, K.
D., & Tulloch, O. C. (2002). Internal prison classification systems: Case studies in their development and implementation
(p. 1). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National
Institute of Corrections (hereafter Hardyman, Internal prison
classification).
47. Austin, J. (1994). Managing facilities: Objective offender
classification is key to proper housing decisions. Corrections
Today, 56(4), 94–96, at 96.
48. Austin, J., & Hardyman, P. L. (2004). Objective prison classification: A guide for correctional agencies. Washington, D.C.:

198

U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections
(hereafter Austin, Objective prison classification); Hardyman,
P. L., Austin, J., & Peyton, J. (2004). Prisoner intake systems:
Assessing needs and classifying prisoners. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections
(hereafter Hardyman, Prisoner intake); Brennan, T., & Wells,
D. (1992). Importance of inmate classification in small jails.
American Jails, 6(2), 49–52.
49. Hardyman, Prisoner intake; Austin, Objective prison
classification.
50. Austin, J., Hardyman, P. L., & Brown, S. D. (2001). Critical
issues and developments in prison classification. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections, Prisons Division; Thompson, R. A. (2008). The Prison
Rape Elimination Act (PREA): An evaluation of policy compliance with illustrative excerpts. Criminal Justice Policy Review,
19(4), 414–437 (hereafter Thompson, “PREA”).
51. Austin, Objective prison classification; Sisco, “Beyond
predicting.”
52. Thompson, “PREA.”
53. Sisco, “Beyond predicting”; Owen, Gendered violence.
54. Austin, Objective prison classification.
55. Testimony of Thigpen, M. L. (2006, March 23). Elimination of Prison Rape: The Corrections Perspective (p. 280).
Miami: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public
Hearing.
56. Hardyman, Internal prison classification (citing Alexander,
J., Austin, J., Brown, S., Chan, L., He, S., & Stokes, P. (1997).
Internal prison classification systems: A field test of three
approaches. San Francisco: National Council on Crime and
Delinquency).
57. Hardyman, Internal prison classification.
58. NPREC Standards for the Prevention, Detection, Response,
and Monitoring of Sexual Abuse in Adult Prisons and Jails,
Standard MM-1, Discussion.
59. Tarzwell, S. (2006). The gender lines are marked with
razor wire: Addressing State prison policies and practices
for the management of transgender prisoners. Columbia
Human Rights Law Review, 38(1), 167–219; Written Testimony of Daley, C. (2005, August 19). At Risk: Sexual Abuse
and Vulnerable Groups Behind Bars. San Francisco: National
Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing (hereafter NPREC Testimony of Daley); Testimony of Marksamer,
J. (2005, August 19). At Risk: Sexual Abuse and Vulnerable
Groups Behind Bars. San Francisco: National Prison Rape
Elimination Commission Public Hearing (hereafter NPREC
Testimony of Marksamer).
60. Haney, C. (2001). The psychological impact of incarceration:
Implications for post-prison adjustment. Paper presented at From
Prison to Home: The Effect of Incarceration and Reentry on
Children, Families, and Communities, Washington, D.C.
61. Hardyman, Internal prison classification (citing Alexander,
J., Austin, J., Brown, S., Chan, L., He, S., & Stokes, P. (1997).
Internal prison classification systems: A field test of three
approaches. San Francisco: National Council on Crime and
Delinquency).
62. Young v. Quinlan, 960 F.2d 351, 353 n.2 (3rd Cir. 1992).
All information about this case is taken from court records.

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

63. Ibid., at 363, 364–365.
64. Calderón-Ortiz v. LaBoy-Alvarado, 300 F.3d 60 (1st Cir.
2002). All information about this case is taken from court
records.
65. Ibid., at 65 (citing Dawson v. Kendrick, 527 F.Supp. 1252,
1294 (S.D.W.Va 1981)).
66. Giraldo v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 168 Cal.App.4th 231 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008). All information about this case is taken from court records.
67. Ibid., at 239.
68. Ibid., at 250–251.
69. Testimony of Spruce, K. (2005, August 19). At Risk: Sexual
Abuse and Vulnerable Groups Behind Bars (p. 28). San Francisco:
National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.
70. Ibid., at 29.
71. Gibbons, J. J., & Katzenbach, N. (2006). Confronting confinement: Report of the Commission on Safety and Abuse in
America’s Prisons. Washington, D.C.: Vera Institute of Justice
(citing Correctional Association of New York. (2003). Lockdown New York: Disciplinary confinement in New York State
prisons. New York: Author).
72. Struckman-Johnson, C. J., Struckman-Johnson, D., Rucker,
L., Bumby, K., & Donaldson, S. (1996). Sexual coercion reported
by men and women in prison. Journal of Sex Research, 33(1),
67–76 (noting that in one survey, residents of a rural Midwestern State prison identified increased supervision as the best way
to prevent sexual abuse).
73. McShane, M. D., & Williams, F. D. (eds.). (1996). Encyclopedia of American prisons. New York: Routledge; O’Keefe, M.
L. (2008). Administrative segregation from within: A corrections perspective. The Prison Journal, 88(1), 124–143 (hereafter O’Keefe, “Administrative”).
74. O’Keefe, “Administrative.”
75. Written Testimony of Nathan, V. M. (2005, July 19). The
Systemic and Institutional Drivers of Abuse and Lack of Safety
(p. 7). Newark, NJ:
Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997a, et seq.
76. Haney, C. (2003). Mental health issues in long-term solitary and “supermax” confinement. Crime & Delinquency,
49(1), 124–156; Abramsky, S., & Fellner, J. (2003). Mentally
ill prisoners and segregation. In Ill-equipped: U.S. prisons
and offenders with mental illness. New York: Human Rights
Watch (hereafter Abramsky, “Mentally ill prisoners”); Miller,
H. A., & Young, G. R. (2006). Prison segregation: Administrative detention remedy or mental health problem? Criminal
Behavior and Mental Health, 7(1), 85–94; Bonner, R. L. (2006).
Stressful segregation housing and psychosocial vulnerability
in prison suicide ideators. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, 36(2), 250–254.
77. Pizarro, J., & Stenius, V. M. K. (2004). Supermax prisons:
Their rise, current practices, and effect on inmates. The Prison
Journal, 84(2), 248–264; Beven, G. E. (2005). Offenders with
mental illnesses in maximum- and super-maximum-security
settings. In C. L. Scott & J. B. Gerbasi (Eds.), Handbook of correctional mental health. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric
Publishing; Abramsky, “Mentally ill prisoners.”

APPENDIX A: ENDNOTES

78. Fagan, T. J., Wennerstrom, D., & Miller, J. (1996). Sexual assault of male inmates: Prevention, identification, and
intervention. Journal of Correctional Health Care, 3(1), 49–65;
NPREC Testimony of Marksamer.
79. Williams v. Lane, 851 F.2d 867, 881–883 (7th Cir. 1988)
(finding that it was correctional administrators’ responsibility to provide substantially equivalent programming).
80. Ibid.; Lawrence, S., Mears, D. P., Dubin, G., & Travis, J.
(2002). The practice and promise of prison programming.
Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute (hereafter Lawrence, The
practice) (citing Gerber, J., & Fritsch, E. (1994). The effects
of academic and vocational program participation on inmate
misconduct and reincarceration. In Prison education research
project: Final report (pp. 23–32). Huntsville, TX: Sam Houston
State University).
81. NPREC Testimony of Long; NPREC Testimony of Daley;
NPREC Testimony of Stalder, at 77.
82. Testimony of Hennessey, M. (2005, August 19). At Risk:
Sexual Abuse and Vulnerable Groups Behind Bars. San Francisco: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public
Hearing.
83. Taylor v. Michigan Department of Corrections, 69 F.3d 76,
77–78 (6th Cir. 1995). All information about this case is taken
from court records.
84. Ibid., at 78.
85. West, H. C., & Sabol, W. J. (2009). Prisoners in 2007. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
86. Warren, Risk markers. 
87. Hensley, C. (2002). Introduction: Life and sex in prison.
In Prison sex: Practice and policy (pp. 1–11). Boulder, CO:
Lynne Rienner Publishers (hereafter Hensley, “Introduction”); Haney, C. (2006). The wages of prison overcrowding:
Harmful psychological consequences and dysfunctional correctional reactions. Washington University Journal of Law and
Policy, 22, 265–293 (hereafter Haney, “The wages”).
88. Hensley, “Introduction.”
89. Ibid.
90. Sultan, B. J. (2006). The insanity of incarceration and the
maddening reentry process: A call for change and justice for
males with mental illness in United States prisons. Georgetown Journal of Poverty Law and Policy, 13(2), 357–382; Hensley, “Introduction”; Warren, Risk markers. 
91. Testimony of Beck, A. (2005, July 19). The Systemic and Institutional Drivers of Abuse and Lack of Safety: Personal Accounts
(p. 31). Newark, NJ: Commission on Safety and Abuse in America’s Prisons Public Hearing; Barrett, C. I. (2005). Does the
Prison Rape Elimination Act adequately address the problems
posed by prison overcrowding? If not, what will? New England
Law Review, 29, 391–424; Haney, “The wages.”
92. Testimony of Harkins, G. (2005, July 19). The Systemic
and Institutional Drivers of Abuse and Lack of Safety: Personal
Accounts (p. 69). Newark, NJ: Commission on Safety and
Abuse in America’s Prisons Public Hearing.
93. Haney, “The wages.”
94. Pyle, K. L. (1997). Prison employment: A long-term solution to the overcrowding crisis. Boston University Law Review,
77 (1), 151–180; Lawrence, The practice.

199

Chapter 4. Inside and Out: Strengthening Oversight
1. Swanson, D. (2007, February 18). Sex abuse reported at
youth jail: Complaints about staffers ignored, covered up,
investigation reveals. The Dallas Morning News; Blakeslee, N.
(2007, February 23). Hidden in plain sight: How did alleged
abuse at a youth facility in West Texas evade detection for
so long? The Texas Observer (hereafter Blakeslee, “Hidden”).
2. Witness Interview Summaries: Robert Freeman. (2007).
Texas Youth Commission: Summary report for administrative
review. Dallas Morning News Web site. Available at http://www.
dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/img/02-07/0218tyc_
pages1.pdf
3. Blakeslee, “Hidden.”
4. Ibid., para. 11.
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid.
7. Elias, G. (2007). How to collect and analyze data: A manual
for sheriffs and jail administrators (3rd ed.). Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections.
8. Williams, W. (2009, March 12). Telephone interview; Frigo,
J. (2009, March 20). Telephone interview; Archuletta, L.
(2009, March 12). Telephone interview; Price, C., & JordanWilliams, C. (2009, March 13). Telephone interview; Zullinger, N., Zorzina, K., Flaherty, B., & Buckley, K. (2009, April
22). Telephone interview; Fawson, D., & Dauarell, S. (2009,
April 2). Telephone interview.
9. Written Testimony of Dretke, D. (2007, December 6). Special
Topics in Preventing and Responding to Prison Rape: Medical
and Mental Health Care, Community Corrections Settings, and
Oversight (p. 2). New Orleans: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.
10. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2004). Data collections for the
Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.
11. National Academy of Public Administration. (2007). Eliminating prison rape: Policy and strategy. Washington, D.C.: Author.
12. Written Testimony of Beck, T. (2007, December 6). Special
Topics in Preventing and Responding to Prison Rape: Medical
and Mental Health Care, Community Corrections Settings, and
Oversight (p. 4). New Orleans: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing (hereafter NPREC Written
Testimony of Beck).
13. Written Testimony of Deitch, M. (2007, December 6). Special Topics in Preventing and Responding to Prison Rape: Medical and Mental Health Care, Community Corrections Settings,
and Oversight (p. 4). New Orleans: National Prison Rape
Elimination Commission Public Hearing (Hereafter NPREC
Written Testimony of Deitch).
14. NPREC Written Testimony of Beck, at 4.
15. NPREC Written Testimony of Deitch, at 4.
16. Keve, P. W. (1996). Measuring excellence: The history of
standards & accreditation. Alexandria, VA: American Correctional Association.
17. Joint Select Committee on Operation and Management of
the Texas Youth Commission. (2007). Preliminary Report
of Initial Findings and Recommendations. Texas Senate Web

200

site. Available at http://www.senate.state.tx.us/75r/senate/
commit/c885/TYC-Report.pdf
18. Blakeslee, “Hidden,” para. 2.
19. Sandberg, L. (2007, March 9). Ranger keeps promise to
kids: Investigator who broke case tells lawmakers of TYC failures. Houston Chronicle, para. 3.
20. Swanson, D. (2007, March 6). TYC sex allegations exceed
750. The Dallas Morning News.
21. Grand Jury Indictment, The State of Texas vs. Ray Edward
Brookins. February Term 2007, 143rd Judicial District Court;
Grand Jury Indictment, The State of Texas vs. John Paul
Hernandez, February Term 2007, 143rd Judicial District Court.
22. Testimony of Harrell, W. (2007, December 6). Special
Topics in Preventing and Responding to Prison Rape: Medical
and Mental Health Care, Community Corrections Settings, and
Oversight (pp. 169–170). New Orleans: National Prison Rape
Elimination Commission Public Hearing.
23. Testimony of Oxley, J. (2006, March 23). Elimination of
Prison Rape: The Corrections Perspective (p. 62). Miami: National
Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.
24. Testimony of Cate, M. (2007, December 6). Special Topics in Preventing and Responding to Prison Rape: Medical and
Mental Health Care, Community Corrections Settings, and
Oversight (p. 126). New Orleans: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.
25. Written Testimony of Cate, M. (2007, December 6). Special
Topics in Preventing and Responding to Prison Rape: Medical
and Mental Health Care, Community Corrections Settings, and
Oversight (p. 1). New Orleans: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.
26. Criminal Justice Section, American Bar Association. (2008).
104B urges oversight of correctional and detention facilities.
American Bar Association Web site. Available at http://www.
abanet.org/crimjust/policy/cjpol.html#am08104b
27. Ibid., para. 2.
28. Ibid.
29. Ibid.
30. Cate, M. L. (2007). 2007 annual report. Sacramento: State
of California Office of the Inspector General.
31. California Penal Code § 6125-6141.
32. Schlanger, M. (2006). Civil rights injunctions over time: A
case study of jail and prison court orders. New York University
Law Review, 81(2), 550–630.
33. Prepared Statement of Woodford, J. (2008, April 22). Prison
Abuse Remedies Act of 2007 (p. 81). Washington, D.C.: House
Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland
Security Hearing on H.R. 4109 (hereafter Prepared Statement
of Woodford).
34. Cason v. Seckinger, 231 F.3d 777 (11th Cir. 2000).
35. Cason v. Seckinger, Civil Action File No. 84-313-1-MAC,
Permanent Injunction (1994, March 7).
36. DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dep’t of Social Serv., 489
U.S. 189, 199–200 (1989).

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

37. Women Prisoners of the District of Columbia Dep’t of Corrections v. District of Columbia, 877 F. Supp. 634, 666 (D.D.C. 1994).
38. California’s crowded prisons [Editorial]. (2009, February
14). The New York Times, para. 1.
39. Rothfeld, M. (2009, February 10). Jurists issue tentative
ruling in lawsuit brought by inmates, who say overcrowding
in state prisons violates their right to adequate healthcare.
The Los Angeles Times.
40. Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524 (2002) (referencing the
Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 42 U.S.C. § 1997(e)(a)
(hereafter PLRA)).
41. Camp, C., & Camp, G. (1997). Corrections yearbook 1997.
Middletown, CT: Criminal Justice Institute, Inc.
42. Golden, D. (2006). The Prison Litigation Reform Act—a
proposal for closing the loophole for rapists. Washington, D.C.:
American Constitution Society for Law and Policy.
43. Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 736 (2001).
44. PRLA, § 1997(e)(a); Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (2006).
45. Prepared Statement of Woodford, at 82–83.
46. Ibid., at 83–84.
47. Ibid., at 83.
48. Herivel, T., & Wright, P. (2002). Prison nation: The warehousing of America’s poor. New York: Routledge.
49. Testimony of Cunningham, G. (2005, June 14). The Cost
of Victimization: Why our Nation Must Confront Prison Rape.
Washington, D.C.: National Prison Rape Elimination Committee Public Hearing. All information about his experience is
taken from his testimony.
50. Ibid., at 3.
51. Testimony of Cunningham, G. (2007, November 8). Testimony of Garrett Cunningham about the Prison Litigation
Reform Act (pp. 1–2). Washington, D.C.: House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.
52. Ibid., at 2.

53. Ibid., at 1–2.
54. Goebert v. Lee County, 510 F.3d 1312, 1323 (11th Cir. 2007).
See also Mitchell v. Horn, 318 F.3d 523 (3d Cir. 2003); Camp v.
Brennan, 219 F.3d 279 (3d Cir. 2000); Davis v. Berks County,
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9892, 2007 WL 516128 (E.D. Pa. 2007).
55. PLRA, § 1997(e)(e).
56. Hancock v. Payne, 2006 WL 21751, *3 (S.D.Miss 2006);
Schlanger, M., & Shay, G. (2009). Preserving the rule of law in
America’s jails and prisons: The case for amending the Prison
Litigation Reform Act. Journal of Constitutional Law, 11(1),
139–154.
57. Liner v. Goord, 196 F.3d 132, 135 (2d Cir. 1999).
58. PRLA, § 1997(a).
59. Carter, M. (2006, December 5). Inquiry into jail begins.
Seattle Times (hereafter Carter, “Inquiry”).
60. Sullivan, J. (2006, July 25). Former King County Jail guard
accused of having sex with juvenile inmates. Seattle Times,
para. 7.
61. Carter, “Inquiry,” para. 7.
62. Carter, “Inquiry”; Castro, H. (2006, December 6). Feds
look into King County Jail problems. Seattle Post-Intelligencer.
63. Comisac, R. J. (2007, November 13). Letter to the Honorable
Ron Sims about the King County Correctional Facility, p. 8.
64. Ibid.
65. King County, Department of Justice reach agreement on
proposed jail improvements [press release]. (2009, January 5).
King County, Washington.
66. Ibid.
67. Gibbons, J. J., & Katzenbach, N. (2006). Confronting confinement: Report of the Commission on Safety and Abuse in
America’s Prisons. Washington, D.C.: Vera Institute of Justice.
68. 18 U.S.C. §§ 241-242 (1996); Mariner, J. (2001). Legal context. In No escape: Male rape in U.S. prisons. New York:
Human Rights Watch.

PART II: RESPONDING TO VICTIMS AND PERPETRATORS
Chapter 5. Reporting, Investigation, and Punishment
1. Testimony of Ragsdale, D. (2006, August 3). Reporting,
Investigating, and Prosecuting Prison Rape: What Is Needed to
Make the Process Work? (p. 8). Detroit: National Prison Rape
Elimination Commission Public Hearing (hereafter NPREC
Testimony of Ragsdale).
2. Ibid., at 10, 13.
3. Beck, A., Harrison, P., & Adams, D. B. (2007). Sexual violence reported by correctional authorities, 2006. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,
Bureau of Justice Statistics (hereafter Beck, Correctional
authorities, 2006); Beck, A., & Harrison, P. (2007). Sexual victimization in State and Federal prisons reported by inmates,
2007. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of
Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

APPENDIX A: ENDNOTES

4. Testimony of Pasion, C. (2006, June 1). Elimination of Prison
Rape: Focus on Juveniles (p. 10). Boston: National Prison Rape
Elimination Commission Public Hearing.
5. Testimony of Spruce, K. (2005, August 19). At Risk: Sexual
Abuse and Vulnerable Groups Behind Bars (p. 47). San Francisco: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public
Hearing.
6. Testimony of Cunningham, G. (2005, June 14). The Cost
of Victimization: Why Our Nation Must Confront Prison Rape
(p. 63). Washington, D.C.: National Prison Rape Elimination
Commission Public Hearing.
7. National Academy of Public Administration (2007). Eliminating prison rape: Policy and strategy. Washington, D.C.:
Author (hereafter NAPA, Eliminating prison rape).

201

8. Thompson, R. A., Nored, L. S., & Dial, K. C. (2008). The
Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA): An evaluation of policy
compliance with illustrative excerpts. Criminal Justice Policy
Review, 19(4), 414–437.
9. Testimony of Cate, M. (2002, December 6). Special Topics in
Preventing and Responding to Prison Rape: Medical and Mental Health Care, Community Corrections Settings, and Oversight (p. 127). New Orleans: National Prison Rape Elimination
Commission Public Hearing.
10. Testimony of Horn, M. (2006, March 23). Elimination of
Prison Rape: The Corrections Perspective (pp. 48–49). Miami:
National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing (hereafter NPREC Testimony of Horn).
11. Hobbs, R. (2009, January 27). Telephone interview.
12. Price, C. (2009, January 29). Telephone interview.
13. Testimony of Brown, N. (2006, August 3). Reporting,
Investigating, and Prosecuting Prison Rape: What Is Needed
to Make the Process Work? (pp. 21–22, 26). Detroit: National
Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing (hereafter NPREC Testimony of Brown).
14. Testimony of Anonymous Survivor in Loretta, VA. (2008). Los
Angeles: Just Detention International Web site, para. 9. Available at http://www.justdetention.org/en/survivortestimony/
stories/loretta_va.aspx
15. Testimony of Gutierrez, I. (2007, March 27). Lockups, Native
American Detention Facilities, and Conditions in Texas Penal
and Youth Institutions (pp. 113–114). Austin, TX: National
Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.
16. Baron v. Hickey, 242 F.Supp.2d 66 (D. Mass. 2003). All
information about this case is taken from court records.
17. Ibid., 70.
18. Testimony of Dennehy, K. (2006, March 23). Elimination of Prison Rape: The Corrections Perspective (p. 107).
Miami: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public
Hearing.
19. Haney, C. (2003). Mental health issues in long-term solitary
and “supermax” confinement. Crime & Delinquency, 49(1),
124–156 (hereafter Haney, “Mental health issues”); Abramsky,
S., & Fellner, J. (2003). Mentally ill prisoners and segregation.
In Ill-equipped: U.S. prisons and offenders with mental illness.
New York: Human Rights Watch (hereafter Abramsky, “Mentally ill prisoners”); Miller, H. A., & Young, G. R. (2006). Prison
segregation: Administrative detention remedy or mental health
problem? Criminal Behavior and Mental Health, 7(1), 85–94
(hereafter Miller, “Prison segregation”); Bonner, R. L. (2006).
Successful segregation housing and psychosocial vulnerability
in prison suicide ideators. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior,
36(2), 250–254 (hereafter Bonner, “Successful segregation”).
20. NPREC Testimony of Brown, at 27.
21. Brisbin, L. (2009, January 27). Telephone interview.
22. Grant, A. (2009, January 28). Telephone interview.
23. Dennehy, K. (2009, May 5). Telephone interview.
24. Dennis, G. (2009, April 23). Telephone interview.
25. Hendricks, K. (2009, January 27). Telephone interview.
26. Testimony of Rees, J. (2006, August 3). Reporting, Investigating, and Prosecuting Prison Rape: What Is Needed to Make
the Process Work? (p. 143). Detroit: National Prison Rape

202

Elimination Commission Public Hearing (hereafter NPREC
Testimony of Rees).
27. Cal. Gov. Code § 3304(d)(2005); Fla. Stat. Ann. § 112.532(6)(a);
La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 40:2531(7)(2008); Md. Code Ann., Pub.
Safety § 3-106 (a)(2009); R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-28.6-4(a)(2008).
28. Testimony of Miller, G. (2006, August 3). Reporting, Investigating, and Prosecuting Prison Rape: What Is Needed to Make
the Process Work? (pp. 304–305). Detroit: National Prison
Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.
29. Testimony of DeBottis, G. (2006, August 3). Reporting,
Investigating, and Prosecuting Prison Rape: What Is Needed
to Make the Process Work? (p. 320). Detroit: National Prison
Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing (hereafter
NPREC Testimony of DeBottis).
30. Austin, J., Fabelo, T., Gunter, A., & McGinnis, K. (2006).
Sexual violence in the Texas prison system. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice (hereafter Austin, Sexual
violence).
31. NAPA, Eliminating prison rape.
32. Zweig, J., Naser, R. L., Blackmore, J., & Schaffer, M. (2006).
Addressing sexual violence in prisons: A national snapshot of
approaches and highlights of innovative strategies. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute (hereafter Zweig, Addressing sexual
violence).
33. NAPA, Eliminating prison rape.
34. Owen, B., McCampbell, S. W., & Wells, J. (2007). Staff
perspectives: Sexual violence in adult prisons & jails: Investigating sexual assaults in correctional facilities. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections
(hereafter Owen, Staff perspectives).
35. Ibid., at 6.
36. NPREC Testimony of Ragsdale, at 14.
37. Owen, Staff perspectives.
38. Ibid.
39. Testimony of Aldrich, A. (2006, August 3). Reporting,
Investigating, and Prosecuting Prison Rape: What Is Needed
to Make the Process Work? (pp. 170–171). Detroit: National
Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing (hereafter NPREC Testimony of Aldrich).
40. Ibid., at 166.
41. Testimony of Schnedar, C. (2006, August 3). Reporting,
Investigating, and Prosecuting Prison Rape: What Is Needed to
Make the Process Work? (p. 210). Detroit: National Prison Rape
Elimination Commission Public Hearing.
42. NAPA, Eliminating prison rape.
43. Ibid.
44. Testimony of Wall, A. T. (2006, August 3). Reporting,
Investigating, and Prosecuting Prison Rape: What Is Needed to
Make the Process Work? (p. 133). Detroit: National Prison Rape
Elimination Commission Public Hearing (hereafter NPREC
Testimony of Wall).
45. Owen, Staff perspectives.
46. 42 U.S.C. § 3796gg-8(a)-(b).
47. Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493, 497 (1967) (hereafter
Garrity).

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

48. Americans for Effective Law Enforcement. (n.d.).  Interview warnings (for disciplinary and criminal investigations).
Americans for Effective Law Enforcement Web site. Available
at http://www.aele.org/law/warnings.html 
49. NPREC Testimony of Wall, at 124.
50. Owen, B., Wells, J., Pollock, J., Muscat, B., & Torres, S.
(2008). Gendered violence and safety: A contextual approach to
improving security in women’s facilities (p. 42). Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,
National Institute of Justice.
51. Austin, Sexual violence, at 56.
52. National Institute of Corrections. (2007). Report to the Congress of the United States on the activities of the Department of
Justice in relation to the Prison Rape Elimination Act (Public
Law 108-79). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice
(hereafter NIC, Report to the Congress).
53. Gerlicher, C. (2009, May 4). Telephone interview.
54. Owen, Staff perspectives, at 16.
55. NAPA, Eliminating prison rape.
56. Ibid.
57. Williams, W. (2009, March 12). Telephone interview;
Hobbs, R. (2009, March 26). Telephone interview; Archuletta,
L. (2009, March 12). Telephone interview; Lance, T., Lajoie,
M., & Gallagher, M. (2009, March 12). Telephone interview;
Crist, D. (2009, April 28). Telephone interview; Croft, G.
(2009, April 22). Telephone interview; Hendricks, K. (2009,
April 2). Telephone interview; Durelle, S. (2009, April 2). Telephone interview.
58. Zweig, Addressing sexual violence.
59. Owen, Staff perspectives, at 6.
60. Ibid.
61. Office on Violence Against Women. (2004). A national
protocol for sexual assault medical forensic examinations:
Adults/adolescents. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Justice (hereafter OVAW, A national protocol).
62. Testimony of Holland, L. (2006, August 3). Reporting,
Investigating, and Prosecuting Prison Rape: What Is Needed to
Make the Process Work? (p. 273). Detroit: National Prison Rape
Elimination Commission Public Hearing.
63. Crandall, S., & Helitzer, D. (2003). Impact evaluation of a
sexual assault nurse examiner (SANE) program. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,
National Institute of Justice.
64. National Institute of Justice. (2007). Effective responses to
sexual assault. U.S. Department of Justice Web site. Available at
http://www.ojp.gov/nij/topics/crime/rape-sexual-violence/
response.htm
65. OVAW, A national protocol.
66. Frigo, J. (2009, January 29). Telephone interview.
67. Garrity.
68. Zweig, Addressing sexual violence; OVAW, A national protocol.
69. Written Testimony of Still, W. (2007, December 5). Special Topics in Preventing and Responding to Prison Rape: Medical and Mental Health Care, Community Corrections Settings, and Oversight
(p. 3). New Orleans: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.

APPENDIX A: ENDNOTES

70. Zweig, Addressing sexual violence.
71. Beck, Correctional authorities, 2006.
72. Austin, Sexual violence.
73. Testimony of Romero, G. (2005, August 19). At Risk: Sexual Abuse and Vulnerable Groups Behind Bars (pp. 60–62).
San Francisco: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.
74. Zweig, Addressing sexual violence; Owen, Staff perspectives.
75. Longsway, K. A., Archambault, J., & Lisak, D. (2009). False
reports: Moving beyond the issue to successfully investigate
and prosecute non-stranger sexual assault. Alexandria, VA:
American Prosecutors Research Institute, National Center for
Prosecution of Violence Against Women. The Voice, 3(1), 1–12.
76. NPREC Testimony of Ragsdale, at 16; See also Daughen,
J. (2005, June 28). He gets 4 months for jailhouse sex. The
Philadelphia Inquirer.
77. Thomas, D. Q. (1996). All too familiar: Sexual abuse of
women in U.S. State prisons. New York: Human Rights Watch;
NPREC Testimony of Ragsdale, at 13–14.
78. Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Justice. (2005). Deterring staff sexual abuse of Federal inmates.
Washington, D.C.: Author (hereafter OIG, Deterring staff).
79. Beck, Correctional authorities, 2006.
80. Smith, B. V., & Yarussi, J. (2008). Prosecuting sexual
violence in correctional settings: Examining prosecutors’ perceptions. American University, Washington College of Law
Research Paper No. 2008-50.
81. NPREC Testimony of Horn, at 16.
82. NPREC Testimony of Rees, at 120–121.
83. Testimony of Caruso, P. (2006, August 3). Reporting, Investigating, and Prosecuting Prison Rape: What Is Needed to Make
the Process Work? (pp. 87, 90). Detroit: National Prison Rape
Elimination Commission Public Hearing.
84. Ibid., at 87.
85. Ibid., at 88.
86. Neely, J. (2009, March 27). Telephone interview.
87. NIC, Report to the Congress.
88. Zweig, Addressing sexual violence.
89. Ibid.
90. NPREC Testimony of DeBottis, at 314.
91. Ibid., at 317.
92. DeBottis, G. (2009, April 6). Telephone interview.
93. NPREC Testimony of Aldrich, at 167.
94. Testimony of Hennessy, M. (2005, August 19). At Risk:
Sexual Abuse and Vulnerable Groups Behind Bars (pp. 278–
279). San Francisco: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.
95. Beck, Correctional authorities, 2006.
96. Ibid.
97. Haney, “Mental health issues”; Abramsky, “Mentally ill
prisoners”; Miller, “Prison segregation”; Bonner, “Successful
segregation.”
98. OIG, Deterring staff.

203

Chapter 6. Treating Trauma
1. Daskalea v. District of Columbia, 227 F.3d 433 (D.C. Cir. 2000).
All information about this case is taken from court records.
2. Ibid., at 439.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid., at 444.
6. Ibid.
7. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 103 (1976). See also Hoptowit
v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1253 (9th Cir. 1982); Inmates of Allegheny County Jail v. Pierce, 612 F.2d 754, 763 (3d Cir. 1979); Bowring v. Godwin, 551 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1977).
8. Testimony of Pierce-Weeks, J. (2007, December 5). Special
Topics in Preventing and Responding to Prison Rape: Medical
and Mental Health Care, Community Corrections Settings, and
Oversight (p. 126). New Orleans: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing (hereafter NPREC Testimony of Pierce-Weeks).
9. Foa, E., & Riggs, D. (1993). Posttraumatic stress disorder
and rape. In J. M. Oldham, M. B. Riba, & A. Tasman (Eds.),
Review of psychiatry. Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric
Press (hereafter Foa, “Posttraumatic stress”).
10. Resick, P. (1993). The psychological impact of rape. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 8(2), 223–255.
11. American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and
statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-IV-TR. Washington, D.C.: Author; Resnick, H., Acierno, R., Holmes, M.,
Kilpatrick, D. G., & Jager, N. (1999). Prevention of post-rape
psychopathology: Preliminary findings of a controlled acute
rape treatment study. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 13(4),
359–370.
12. Dumond, R. W., & Dumond, D. A. (2002). Treatment of
sexual assault victims. In C. Hensley (Ed.), Prison sex: Practice & policy. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers (hereafter Dumond, “Treatment”).
13. Stop Prisoner Rape. (2006). Hope for healing: Information for survivors of sexual assault in detention. Los Angeles:
Author.
14. Testimony of Hernandez, H. (2005, August 19). At Risk:
Sexual Abuse and Vulnerable Groups Behind Bars (p. 21). San
Francisco: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission
Public Hearing.
15. Duke, L. A., Allena, D. N., Rozeeb, P. D., & Bommaritto,
M. (2008). The sensitivity and specificity of flashbacks and
nightmares to trauma. Anxiety Disorders, 22(2), 319–327; Halligan, S. L. (2003). Posttraumatic stress disorder following
assault: The role of cognitive processing, trauma memory,
and appraisals. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
71(3), 419–431; Brewin, C. R. (2001). A cognitive neuroscience account of posttraumatic disorder and its treatment.
Behavior Research and Therapy, 39(4), 373–393.
16. Dumond, “Treatment.”
17. Testimony of Martin, C. (2005, August 19). At Risk: Sexual
Abuse and Vulnerable Groups Behind Bars (p. 16). San Francisco: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public
Hearing.

204

18. Council on Scientific Affairs, American Medical Association. (1992). Violence against women: Relevance for medical
practitioners. JAMA, 267(23), 3184–3189.
19. Ibid.; Waldrop, A., Hanson, R. F., Resnick, H. S., Kilpatrick,
D. G., Naugle, A. E., & Saunders, B. E. (2007). Risk factors for
suicidal behavior among a national sample of adolescents:
Implications for prevention. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 20(5),
869–879.
20. Gutierrez, P., Thakkar, R., & Kuczen, C. (2000). ������
Exploration of the relationship between physical and/or sexual
abuse, attitudes about life and death, and suicidal ideation in
young women. Death Studies, 24(6), 675–688.
21. Brier, J., & Gil, E. (1998). Self-mutilation in clinical and
general population samples: Prevalence, correlates, and functions. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 68(4), 609–620
(hereafter Brier, “Self-mutilation”).
22. Cyr, M., McDuff, P., Wright, J., Thériault, C., & Cinq-Mars,
C. (2005). Clinical correlates and repetition of self-harming
behaviors among female adolescent victims of sexual abuse.
Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 14(2), 49–68.
23. Brier, “Self-mutilation.”
24. Dumond, “Treatment”; Struckman-Johnson, C., & Struckman-Johnson, D. (2006). A comparison of sexual coercion
experiences reported by men and women in prison. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 21(12), 1591–1615.
25. Dumond, R. W. (1992). Male sexual assault victims in
incarcerated settings. International Journal of the Sociology of
Law, 20(2), 135–157.
26. Donaldson, S. (1993). Prisoner rape education tapes: Overview for jail/prison administrators and staff. Brandon, VT:
Safer Society Press.
27. Newman, A. B., Enright, P. L., Manolio, T. A., Haponik, E.
F., & Wahl, P. W. (1997). Sleep disturbance, psychosocial correlates, and cardiovascular disease in 5,201 older adults: The
cardiovascular health study. Journal of American Geriatric
Sociology, 45(1), 1–7. See also Clum, G., Nishith, P., & Resick,
P. (2001). Trauma-related sleep disturbance and self-reported
physical health symptoms in treatment-seeking female rape
victims. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 189(9), 618–
622; Koss, M. P., & Harvey, M. R. (1991). The rape victim: Clinical and community interventions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
(hereafter Koss, The rape victim); Golding, J. M. (1999). Sexual-assault history and long-term physical health problems:
Evidence from clinical and population epidemiology. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 8(6), 191–194 (hereafter
Golding, “Sexual-assault history and long-term”); Hensley, L.
G. (2002). Treatment of survivors of rape: Issue and interventions. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 24(4), 330–347;
Scarce, M. (2001). Male on male rape. New York: Basic Books.
28. Golding, “Sexual-assault history and long-term.”
29. Holmes, M. M., Resnick, H. S., & Kilpatrick, D. G. (1996).
Rape-related pregnancy: Estimates and characteristics from
a national sample of women. American Journal of Obstetric
Gynecology, 175(2), 320–325; Jenny, C., Hooton, T. M., Bowers,
A., Copass, M. K., Krieger, J. N., Hillier, S. L., et al. (1990).

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

Sexually transmitted disease in victims of rape. New England
Journal of Medicine, 322(11), 713–716.
30. Golding, J. M. (1994). Sexual assault history and limitations in physical functioning in two general population samples. Research in Nursing and Health, 19(1), 33–44.
31. Mariner, J. (2001). Body and soul: The physical and psychological injury of prison rape. In No escape: Male rape in
U.S. prisons. New York: Human Rights Watch.
32. Golding, “Sexual-assault history and long-term.”
33. Wolff, N., & Shi, J. (2009). Contextualization of physical
and sexual assault in male prisons: Incidents and their aftermath. Journal of Correctional Health Care, 15(1), 58–77.
34. Word for word/prison rape; From thief to cellblock sex
slave: A convict’s testimony. (1997, October 19). The New York
Times.
35. Dickey, F. (2002, November 3). Rape, how funny is it? The
Los Angeles Times.
36. Maruschak, L. M. (2008). HIV in prisons, 2006. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
37. Hammett, T. M. (2009). Sexually transmitted diseases and
incarceration. Current Opinion in Infectious Diseases, 22(1),
77–81.
38. Testimony of Potter, R. (2005, June 14). The Cost of Victimization: Why Our Nation Must Confront Prison Rape. Washington, D.C.: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission
Public Hearing.
39. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2006). HIV
transmission among male inmates in a State prison system—
Georgia, 1992–2005. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report,
55(15), 421–428.
40. Ibid.
41. Ibid., para. 13.
42. Daniels v. Delaware, 120 F.Supp.2d 411, 417 (D.C. Del. 2000).
All information about this case is taken from court records.
43. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 103 (1976).
44. Maruschak, L. (2008). Medical problems of prisoners.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
45. James, D., & Glaze, L. (2006). Mental health problems
of prison and jail inmates. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice
Statistics.
46. Ditton, P. (1999). Mental health and treatment of inmates
and probationers. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
47. Wilper, A. P., Woolhandler, S., Boyd, J. W., Lasser, K. E.,
McCormick, D., Bor, D. H., et al. (2009).  The health and
health care of U.S. prisoners: Results of a nationwide survey.
American Journal of Public Health, 99(4), 666–672.
48. Abramsky, S., & Fellner, J. (2003). Inadequate mental health
treatment in prisons. In Ill-equipped: U.S. prisons and offenders with mental illness. New York: Human Rights Watch.
49. Piatek, E. (2009, April 30). Email correspondence.
50. Clemmitt, M. (2007). Prison health care. CQ Researcher,
17(1).

APPENDIX A: ENDNOTES

51. NPREC Testimony of Pierce-Weeks, at 126.
52. Koss, M. (1993). Rape: Scope, impact, interventions
and public policy responses. American Psychologist, 48(10),
1062–1069.
53. Koss, The rape victim.
54. Ibid.; Foa, E. B., & Rothbaum, B. O. (2001). Treating the
trauma of rape: Cognitive-behavioral therapy for PTSD. New
York: Guilford Press; Foa, “Posttraumatic stress.”
55. Williams, W., & Yarborough, R. (2009, March 12). Telephone interview; Crist, D. (2009, April 28). Telephone interview; Blount, C. (2007, June 7). Presentation to the American
Correctional Health Services Association’s Multidisciplinary
Professional Development Conference, Reno, Nevada. 
56. Community Oriented Correctional Health Services. (2009).
Sites. Community Oriented Correctional Health Services Web
site. Available at http://www.cochs.org/implementations
57. Gallagher, M. (2009, March 18). Email correspondence.
58. Gibbons, J. J., & Katzenbach, N. (2006). Confronting confinement: A report of the Commission on Safety and Abuse in
America’s Prisons. Washington, D.C.: Vera Institute of Justice.
59. National Commission on Correctional Health Care. (2002).
Health status of soon-to-be-released inmates: A report to Congress. Chicago: Author.
60. Kimerling, R., & Calhoun, K. S. (1994). Somatic symptoms, social support, and treatment seeking among sexual
assault victims. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
62(2), 333–340; Draucker, C. B. (1999). The psychotherapeutic
needs of women who have been sexually assaulted. Perspectives in Psychiatric Care, 35(1), 18–29.
61. Testimony of Beeler, A. (2007, December 5). Special Topics in
Preventing and Responding to Prison Rape: Medical and Mental
Health Care, Community Corrections Settings, and Oversight
(p. 210). New Orleans: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing (hereafter NPREC Testimony of Beeler).
62. Ibid., at 209–210.
63. Testimony of Puisis, M. (2007, December 5). Special Topics in Preventing and Responding to Prison Rape: Medical and
Mental Health Care, Community Corrections Settings, and
Oversight (p. 188). New Orleans: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.
64. NPREC Testimony of Beeler, at 205. 
65. See Testimony of Hejnar, E. (2007, March 26). Lockups,
Native American Detention Facilities, and Conditions in Texas
Penal and Youth Institutions (p. 21). Austin, TX:  National
Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing; Testimony of Doe, J. (2007, March 27). Lockups, Native American Detention Facilities, and Conditions in Texas Penal and
Youth Institutions (pp. 92, 97).  Austin, TX:  National Prison
Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing; Testimony of
Soto, M. (2006, December 13). The Elimination of Prison Rape:
Immigration Facilities and Personnel/Staffing/Labor Relations
(p. 68). Los Angeles: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.
66. Dumond, R., & Dumond, D. (2007). Correctional health care
since the passage of PREA. Corrections Today, 69(5), 76–69.
67. Testimony of Still, W. (2007, December 5). Special Topics in Preventing and Responding to Prison Rape: Medical and

205

Mental Health Care, Community Corrections Settings, and
Oversight (p. 230). New Orleans: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.
68. National Institute of Corrections. (1997). Fees paid by jail
inmates: Findings from the Nation’s largest jails. Longmont,
CO: U.S. Department of Justice.
69. Peterson, M. (1996, December 2). Charging inmates for
care raises issues of health risk. The New York Times.
70. Written Testimony of Stana, R. (2000, April 6). Federal
prisons: Containing health care costs for an increasing inmate

population. Washington, D.C.: Subcommittee on Criminal
Justice Oversight Hearing.
71. Written Testimony of Matheson, S. (2007, December 5).
Special Topics in Preventing and Responding to Prison Rape:
Medical and Mental Health Care, Community Corrections
Settings, and Oversight. New Orleans: National Prison Rape
Elimination Commission Public Hearing.
72. Ibid.

PART III: SPECIAL POPULATIONS
Chapter 7. When Children Are Involved
1. Schlozman, B. J. (2005, September 9). Letter to Mitch Daniels,
Governor, Indiana, Regarding Investigation of the Plainfield
Juvenile Correctional Facility, Indiana (hereafter Bradley, Letter
to Mitch Daniels).
2. Ibid., at 6–7.
3. Ibid., at 7.
4. Ibid., at 6.
5. Settlement Agreement, United States v. State of Indiana,
the Logansport Intake/Diagnostic Facility and the South Bend
Juvenile Correctional Facility. (2006).
6. National Center for Juvenile Justice. (2008). Easy access to
the Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention Web site. Available at
http://ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/ezacjrp
7. Scott, E. S., & Grisso, T. (1997). The evolution of adolescence: A developmental perspective on juvenile justice
reform. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 88, 137–189
(hereafter Scott, “The evolution of adolescence”); In re Gault,
387 U.S. 1, 14–16 (1967).
8. Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 570 (2005) (banning death
penalty for youth who committed crime before the age of 18).
9. Steinberg, L., & Cauffman, E. (1999). A developmental perspective on serious juvenile crime: When should juveniles be
treated as adults? Federal Probation, 63, 52–57.
10. Scott, “The evolution of adolescence.”
11. Cohen, M. A., & Piquero, A. R. (2007). New evidence on the
monetary value of saving a high risk youth. Somerville, MA:
YouthBuild USA.
12. Woolard, J. L., & Reppucci, N. D. (2000). Researching juveniles’ capacities as defendants. In T. Grisso & R. G. Schwartz
(Eds.), Youth on trial: Developmental perspective on juvenile justice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press (hereafter Woolard,
“Researching juveniles”; Berliner, L., & Conte, J. R. (1990). The
process of victimization: The victim’s perspective. Child Abuse
and Neglect, 14(1), 29–40.
13. Morrissette, P. J. (1999). Post-traumatic stress disorder in
childhood sexual abuse: A synthesis and analysis of theoretical

206

models. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 16(2), 77–97;
Davenport, C., Browne, K., & Palmer, R. (1994). Opinions of the
traumatizing effects of child sexual abuse: Evidence for consensus. Child Abuse and Neglect, 18(9), 725–738; Finkelhor, D.
(1990). Early and long-term effects of child sexual abuse: An
update. Professional Psychology, 21(5), 129–140.
14. See K.M. v. Alabama Department Youth Services, 360
F.Supp.2d 1253, 1258–1259 (M.D. Ala. 2005).
15. N.G. v. Connecticut, 382 F.3d 225, 232 (2d Cir. 2004) (citing
Schall v. Martin, 467 U.S. 253, 265 (1984)).
16. Restated and Amended Consolidated Complaint, Byrd v.
Alabama Department of Youth Services (N.D. Ala. Aug.14, 2003)
(No 01433-LSC). All information about this case is taken from
court records.
17. Ibid., at 22.
18. Ibid.
19. Walton, V. (2007, May 5). Chalkville: $12.5 million paid to
end sex scandal at DYS. Birmingham News, para. 2 (hereafter
Walton, “Chalkville”).
20. Campbell v. Wood, CV-01-CO-1433-S (N.D. Ala. 2005), consolidated with Seitz v. Alabama Department of Youth Services,
CV-01-CO-2156-S (N.D. Ala. 2005).
21. Ibid.
22. Ibid.
23. Ala. Code § 14-11-31 (2004).
24. Walton, “Chalkville.”
25. Beck, A. J., Harrison, P. M., & Adams, D. B. (2007). Sexual
violence reported by correctional authorities, 2006. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,
Bureau of Justice Statistics (hereafter Beck, Correctional authorities, 2006).
26. Beck, A. J., Adams, D. B., & Guerino, P. (2008). Sexual violence reported by juvenile correctional authorities, 2005–2006.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics (hereafter Beck,
Juvenile correctional authorities, 2005–2006).
27. Beck, A. J., & Hughes, T. A. (2005). Sexual violence reported
by correctional authorities, 2004. Washington, D.C.: U.S.

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of
Justice Statistics.
28. Ziedenberg, J., & Schiraldi, V. (1998). The risks juveniles
face: Housing juveniles in adult institutions is self-destructive
and self-defeating. Corrections Today, 60(5)22–26.
29. Beck, A. J., & Harrison, P. M. (2008). Sexual victimization
in State and Federal prisons reported by inmates, 2007. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics; Beck, A. J., & Harrison, P.
M. (2008). Sexual victimization in local jails reported by inmates,
2007. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of
Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
30. Data presented at The Prison Rape Elimination Act Workshop: National Survey of Youth in Custody, Washington, D.C.
(2007, August 28).
31. McFarland, S. T., & Ellis, C. A. (2008). Report on rape in
Federal and State prisons in the U.S. based on public hearings
and review of documentary evidence by the Review Panel on
Prison Rape: Findings and best practices. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Department of Justice, Review Panel on Prison Rape.
32. Ibid.
33. King, M., & Szymanski, L. (2006). National overviews: State
juvenile justice profiles. Pittsburgh: National Center for Juvenile
Justice; Griffin, P., Torbet, P., & Szymanski, L. (1998). Trying
juveniles as adults in criminal court: An analysis of State transfer
provisions. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office
of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention.
34. Schlozman, Letter to Mitch Daniels.
35. Beck, Juvenile correctional authorities, 2005–2006.
36. Black, D. A., Heyman, R. E., & Smith Slep, A. M. (2001).
Risk factors for child sexual abuse. Aggression and Violent
Behavior, 6(2–3), 203–229; Putnam, F. W. (2003). Ten-year
research update review: Child sexual abuse. Journal of the
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 42(3),
269–278 (hereafter Putnam, “Ten-year research”) (stating
that history of prior child sexual abuse has also been correlated with higher rates of rape after age 18).
37. Testimony of Dixon, L. (2006, June 1). Elimination of Prison
Rape: Focus on Juveniles (p. 60). Boston: National Prison Rape
Elimination Commission Public Hearing.
38. State Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services v.
Whaley, 531 So.2d 723, 724 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988). All
information about this case is taken from court records.
39. Kendall, J. R. (2007). Juvenile status offenses: Treatment
and early intervention. Washington, D.C.: American Bar Association, Division for Public Education.
40. Thornberry, T. P., Huizinga, D., & Loeber, R. (2004). Causes
and correlates: Findings and implications. Juvenile Justice, 9(1),
3–19 (citing Widom, C. S. (1989). The cycle of violence. Science,
244(4901), 160–166); Zingraff, M. T., Leiter, J., Myers, K. A., &
Johnsen, M. C. (1993). Child maltreatment and youthful problem behavior. Criminology, 31(2), 173–202); Widom, C. S. (2003)
Understanding child maltreatment and juvenile delinquency,
the research. In J. Wiig & C. S. Widom (Eds.), Understanding
child maltreatment & juvenile delinquency: From research to
effective program, practice, and systemic solutions. Washington,
D.C.: Child Welfare League of America Press.

APPENDIX A: ENDNOTES

41. ABA policy and report on crossover and dual jurisdiction
youth. (2008, February). Washington, D.C.: ABA Commission on Youth at Risk. Available at http://www.abanet.org/
youthatrisk/crossoveryouthpolicy.html; Ryan, J. P., Herz, D.,
Hernandez, P. M., & Marshall, J. M. (2007). Maltreatment
and delinquency: Investigating child welfare bias in juvenile
justice processing. Children and Youth Services Review, 29(8),
1035–1050.
42. Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974,
42 U.S.C. §§ 5601, et seq. (hereafter JJDPA); 42 U.S.C. § 5633(a)
(11) (stating that exceptions to the rule include a child’s violation of a valid court order).
43. Sickmund, M., Sladky, T. J., & Kang, W. (2008). Census
of Juveniles in Residential Placement databook. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
44. Ibid.
45. Boyd, Jr., R. F. (2003, June 19). Letter to Ronnie Musgrove,
Governor of Mississippi, Re CRIPA Investigation of Oakley
and Columbia Training Schools in Raymond and Columbia,
Mississippi.
46. Beck, Juvenile correctional authorities, 2005–2006.
47. Porter, G. (2000). Detention in delinquency cases, 1988–
1997. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of
Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention; Sherman, F. T. (2005). Pathways to juvenile detention reform: Detention reform and girls. Baltimore, MD: Annie
E. Casey Foundation.
48. Testimony of Marksamer, J. (2005, August 19). At Risk:
Sexual Abuse and Vulnerable Groups Behind Bars. San Francisco: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public
Hearing (hereafter NPREC Testimony of Marksamer).
49. Niesse, M. (2006, May 11). State to pay $625,000 in youth
prison suit. Honolulu Star-Bulletin; Complaint, R.G. v. Koller
(D. Haw. Sept. 1, 2005)(No. 05-00566 JMS/LEK).
50. Marksamer, J. (2008). And by the way, do you know he
thinks he’s a girl? The failures of law, policy, and legal representation for transgender youth in juvenile delinquency
courts. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 5(1), 72–92;
NPREC Testimony of Marksamer.
51. Testimony of Pasion, C. (2005, June 1). Elimination of
Prison Rape: Focus on Juveniles (p. 4). Boston: National Prison
Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.
52. Ibid., at 10.
53. See Putnam, “Ten-year research” (finding that youth with
physical disabilities have an increased risk of sexual abuse in
the larger U.S. population).
54. Miller, C. M. (2005, October 20). Herald watchdog: Juvenile justice: State put disabled boy in sex offender’s care.
Miami Herald.
55. Donton v. State, 1 So.3d 1092, 1101 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009).
56. See Mental Health America. (2005). Position statement 51:
Children with emotional disorders in the juvenile justice system.
Alexandria, VA: Author (recognizing that percentage may be
as high as 60 to 75 percent). See also Teplin, L., Abram, K. M.,
McClelland, G. M., Dulcan, M. K., & Mericle, A. M. (2002).

207

Psychiatric disorders in youth in juvenile detention. Archives of
General Psychiatry, 59(12), 1133–1143 (finding that 70 percent of
females and 60 percent of males in detention in Chicago had a
psychiatric diagnosis other than conduct disorder).
57. Ibid.; Leone, P. E., Christle, C. A., Nelson, C. M., Skiba, R.,
Frey, A., & Jolivette, K. (2003). School failure, race and disability:
Promoting positive outcomes, decreasing vulnerability for involvement with the juvenile delinquency system. College Park, MD:
National Center on Education, Disability, and Juvenile Justice.
58. Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30 (1983) (finding that facility’s
failure to separate aggressive youth from potential victims
could demonstrate callous or reckless indifference, making
them liable for the victim’s injury).
59. Hoge, R. (2002). Standardized instruments for assessing risk and need in youthful offenders. Criminal Justice and
Behavior, 29(4), 380–396.
60. Hartjen, C. A. (2008). Youth, crime & justice: A global
inquiry. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press; Park,
J. (2008). Balancing rehabilitation and punishment: A legislative solution for unconstitutional judicial waiver policies.
George Washington Law Review, 76, 786–816.
61. Campaign for Youth Justice. (2007). Jailing juveniles: The
dangers of incarcerating youth in adult jails in America. Washington, D.C.: Author (hereafter CYJ, Jailing juveniles).
62. Testimony of Labelle, D. (2005, August 19). At Risk: Sexual abuse and Vulnerable Groups Behind Bars. San Francisco:
National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Pubic Hearing.
63. Swanson, D. J. (2007, February 18). Sex abuse reported
at youth jail: Complaints about staffers ignored, covered up,
investigation reveals. The Dallas Morning News; Blakeslee, N.
(2007, February 23). Hidden in plain sight: How did alleged
abuse at a youth facility in West Texas evade detection for so
long? The Texas Observer.
64. Acosta, R. A. (2005, June 8). Letter to Brad Henry, Governor, Oklahoma, Re Investigation of the L.E. Rader Center, Sand
Springs, Oklahoma (hereafter Acosta, Letter to Brad Henry).
65. Paine, M. L., & Hansen, D. J. (2002). Factors influencing
children to self-disclose sexual abuse. Clinical Psychology
Review, 22(2), 271–295.
66. Rosado, L. (2000, September). Talking to Teens in the Justice System: Strategies for Interviewing Adolescent Defendants,
Witnesses, and Victims. Washington, D.C.: ABA Juvenile Justice Center, Juvenile Law Center, Youth Law Center; Krebs, C.
(2007). Video: Interviewing the Child Client. Washington, D.C.:
American Bar Association, Section of Litigation.
67. See, e.g., Schlozman, Letter to Mitch Daniels; Schlozman, B.
J. (2005, August 4). Letter to Linda Lingle, Governor of Hawaii,
Re Investigation of the Hawaii Youth Correctional Facility, Kailua, Hawaii, p. 20.; Boyd, Jr., R. (2003, June 19). Letter to Ronnie
Musgrove, Governor of Mississippi, CRIPA Investigation of Oakley and Columbia Training Schools in Raymond and Columbia,
Mississippi. See also Miller, C. M. (2005, November 11). Lost
lockup tapes called coverup, Miami Herald (reporting on the
loss of tapes from the exact date and location of a rape).
68. J.P. v. Taft, 439 F.Supp.2d 793, 826 (S.D. Ohio 2006).
69. Rosado, L. (2000, September). Talking to teens in the justice system: Strategies for interviewing adolescent defendants,

208

witnesses, and victims. Washington, D.C.: ABA Juvenile Justice Center, Juvenile Law Center, Youth Law Center; Krebs, C.
(2007). Video: Interviewing the child client. Washington, D.C.:
American Bar Association, Section of Litigation.
70. Putnam, “Ten-year research”; Kilpatrick, D. G., Saunders,
B. E., & Smith, D. W. (2003). Research in brief: Youth victimization: Prevalence and implications. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National
Institute of Justice (hereafter Kilpatrick, Youth victimization).
71. See Menard, S. (2002). Short- and long-term consequences of
adolescent victimization. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention; Schlozman, Letter to Mitch Daniels.
72. Putnam, “Ten-year research”; Kilpatrick, Youth victimization.
73. Putnam, “Ten-year research.”
74. Lewis, M. (2006). Conditions of confinement: Abusive treatment. In Custody and control: Conditions of confinement in New
York’s juvenile prisons for girls. New York: Human Rights Watch
& American Civil Liberties Union (hereafter Lewis, “Condition
of confinement”).
75. N.G. v. Connecticut, 382 F.3d 225 (2d Cir. 2004).
76. Ibid., at 233 (quoting Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104,
115 (1982)).
77. Ibid. (quoting Flores v. Meese, 681 F.Supp. 644, 667 (1988)).
78. Ibid., at 237.
79. Veysey, B. M. (2003). Adolescent girls with mental health
disorders involved with the juvenile justice system. Delmar, NY:
National Center for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice (hereafter Veysey, Adolescent girls).
80. Lewis, “Conditions of confinement.”
81. Veysey, Adolescent girls, at 3.
82. Veneziano, C., Veneziano, L., & LeGrand, S. (2000). The relationship between adolescent sex offender behaviors and victim
characteristics with prior victimization. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 15(4), 363–374; Way, I., & Urbaniak, D. (2008). Delinquent histories of adolescents adjudicated for criminal sexual
conduct. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23(9), 1197–1212.
83. Woolard, “Researching juveniles”; Schmidt, M. G., Reppucci N. D., & Woolard, J. L. (2003). Effectiveness of participation as a defendant: The attorney-juvenile client relationship.
Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 21(2), 175–198.
84. Ronis, S. T., & Borduin, C. M. (2007). Individual,
����������������
Family, peer and academic characteristics of male juvenile sexual
offenders. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 35(2),153–163;
Worling, J. R., & Curwen, T. (2000). Adolescent sexual offender
recidivism: success of specialized treatment and implications
for risk prediction. Child Abuse & Neglect, 24(7), 965–982.
85. CYJ, Jailing juveniles.
86. See Acosta, Letter to Brad Henry (discussing circumstances that facilitated consensual sexual between youth in
the L.E. Rader Center).
87. JJDPA, at §5633(a)(12–13).
88. Wolfson, J. (2005). Childhood on trial: The failure of trying
and sentencing youth in adult criminal court. Washington, D.C.:
The Coalition on Juvenile Justice (stating juveniles are transferred to adult court through statutes that set juvenile court

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

jurisdiction below the age of 18, that allow prosecutors unreviewable discretion to transfer youth to adult court, that permit judges to transfer youth after judicial hearings, and that
create blended sentencing schemes that allow juveniles to be
sentenced to juvenile and adult facilities); Hahn, R., McGowan,
A., Liberman, A., Crosby, A., Fullilove, M., Johnson, R., et al.
(2007). Effects on violence of laws and policies facilitating the
transfer of juveniles from the juvenile justice system to the
adult justice system: A report on recommendations of the Task
Force on Community Preventive Services. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 56(RR-9), 1–11 (hereafter Hahn, “Effects
on violence”); See Alaska Stat. § 47.12.100(a,b) (2004) (juvenile
court may waive jurisdiction for any child after hearing if it
finds probable cause to believe minor is delinquent and child is
not amenable to rehabilitation by age 20); Del. Code Ann. tit. 10,
§§921, 1010 (2007) (child of any age who is found not amenable
to rehabilitation of the juvenile court may be referred to superior court for prosecution); Idaho Code § 20-509 (2007) (juvenile court may waive jurisdiction over child of any age who is
charged with certain enumerated violent offenses).
89. Ryan, L., & Ziedenberg, J. (eds.). (2007). The consequences
aren’t minor: The impact of trying youth as adults and strategies for reform. Washington, D.C.: Campaign for Youth Justice.
90. Equal Justice Initiative. (2007). Cruel and unusual punishment: Sentencing 13- and 14-year-old children to die in prison.
Montgomery, AL: Author.
91. William, S. J., Minton, T. D., & Harrison, P. M. (2008).
Prison and jail inmates at midyear 2006. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau
of Justice Statistics (hereafter William, Midyear 2006).
92. See Austin, J., Johnson, K. D., & Gregoriou, M. (2000).
Juveniles in adult prisons and jails: A national assessment.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Assistance, Bureau of Justice Assistance.
93. William, Midyear 2006; Beck, A. J., & Harrison, P. M.
(2006). Sexual violence reported by correctional authorities,
2005. Washington, D.C.: U.S. States Department of Justice,
Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
94. Ibid.
95. Bishop, D. M. (2000). Juvenile offenders in the adult criminal justice system. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice (Vol.
27). Chicago: University of Chicago Press (hereafter Bishop,
“Juvenile offenders”).

96. Ibid.; CYJ, Jailing juveniles.
97. Bishop, “Juvenile offenders.”
98. Parker, A., & Berger, D. (2005). The rest of their lives: Life
without parole for child offenders in the United States. New
York: Human Rights Watch; Mariner, J. (2001). Predators and
Victims. In No escape: Male rape in U.S. prisons. New York:
Human Rights Watch.
99. Testimony of LaBelle, D. (2005, August 19). At Risk: Sexual Abuse and Vulnerable Groups Behind Bars. San Francisco:
National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.
100. Ibid.
101. Reddington, F. P., & Sapp, A. D. (1997). Juveniles in adult
prisons: Problems and prospects. Journal of Crime and Justice, 20(2), 139–152; Bishop, “Juvenile offenders.”
102. See Redding, R. (2008). Juvenile transfer laws: An effective
deterrent to delinquency? Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department
of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention (describing a compilation of studies on the effectiveness of juvenile transfer laws).
103. Hahn, “Effects on violence.”
104. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (2008). Statistical briefing book. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.
105. Austin, J., Johnson, K. D., & Weitzer, R. (2005). Juvenile
justice bulletin: Alternatives to the secure detention and confinement of juvenile offenders. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
106. Saker, A. (2005, October 14). Teens’ abuser gets locked
up for life. The Oregonian.
107. Roberts, M. (2005, March 6). State failed to heed abuse
warnings. The Carter Center Web site. Available at http://
www.cartercenter.org/news/documents/doc2064.html
108. Ibid., at para 25.
109. Ibid.
110. Ibid., at para. 28.
111. Ibid., at para. 39.
112. Ibid., at para. 40.
113. Ibid., at paras. 46, 48.
114. Ibid., at paras. 63, 65, 12.

Chapter 8. Community Corrections: The Next Frontier
1. Written Testimony of Matheson, S. (2007, December 5).
Special Topics in Preventing and Responding to Prison Rape:
Medical and Mental Health Care, Community Corrections Settings, and Oversight (p. 2). New Orleans: National Prison
Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.
2. Ibid., at 3.
3. Hendricks, K. (2009, April 2). Telephone interview.
4. Glaze, L. E., & Bonczar, T. P. (2008). Probation and parole
in the United States—2007 statistical tables. Bureau of Justice

APPENDIX A: ENDNOTES

Statistics Web site. Available at http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/
abstract/ppus07st.htm
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid.
7. National Institute of Corrections. (n.d.). Essay: Specialized caseloads. Community Corrections Quarterly. Available at
http://www.nicic.org/pubs/pre/period13.pdf
8. Testimony of Moss, A. (2007, December 5). Special Topics
in Preventing and Responding to Prison Rape: Medical and

209

Mental Health Care, Community Corrections Settings, and
Oversight (p. 352). New Orleans: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing; National Institute of Corrections/Washington College of Law. (2001–2006). Training:
Addressing staff sexual misconduct with offenders. American
University Web site. Available at https://www.wcl.american.
edu/nic/training.cfm
9. See generally National Institute of Corrections. (2005, July).
PREA town hall meeting. Presentation to the American Probation and Parole Association National Training Conference,
New York (hereafter NIC, “PREA town hall”); Testimony of
Kotkin, J. (2007, December 5–6). Special Topics in Preventing
and Responding to Prison Rape: Medical and Mental Health
Care, Community Corrections Settings, and Oversight (p. 381–
384). New Orleans: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.
10. Written Testimony of Abner, C. (2007, December 5–6).
Special Topics in Preventing and Responding to Prison Rape:
Medical and Mental Health Care, Community Corrections Settings, and Oversight (p. 6). New Orleans: National Prison
Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.
11. NPREC Standards for the Prevention, Detection, Response
and Monitoring of Sexual Abuse in Community Corrections,
Glossary.
12. McCampbell, S., Buell, M., Layman, E., & Smith, B. V. (2003).
Addressing sexual misconduct in community corrections. Perspectives, 27(2), 26–37 (hereafter McCampbell, “Addressing
sexual misconduct”); State run adult community corrections
programs. (2006). Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Corrections & American University, Washington College of Law
(hereafter State run adult); Krauth, B., & Linke, L. (1999). State
organizational structures for delivering adult probation services.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute
of Corrections.
13. State run adult (citing states whose departments of corrections run community corrections—Alaska, Michigan, New
Mexico, Oklahoma, and Vermont—and states in which community corrections is decentralized—Iowa, Massachusetts,
and Tennessee).
14. State run adult (citing states in which community corrections is a different agency—Arkansas, South Carolina, and
New Jersey—and states in which community corrections
is operated locally in only some counties—Minnesota and
Alabama).
15. Testimony of Abner, C. (2007, December 5). Special Topics in
Preventing and Responding to Prison Rape: Medical and Mental
Health Care, Community Corrections Settings, and Oversight (p.
286). New Orleans: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing (hereafter NPREC Testimony of Abner).
16. Smyth, J. C. (2009, April 28). Prison crowding taking toll in
Ohio. Associated Press; Furillo, A. (2009, April 25). California
prison officials propose releasing 8,000 inmates to cut costs.
The Sacramento Bee; Bauer, S. (2009, April 22). Report: Cutting
prison population would save $2B. Associated Press.
17. Lucken, K. (1997). Privatizing discretion: “Rehabilitating”
treatment in community corrections. Crime & Delinquency,
43(3), 243–259.
18. NIC, “PREA town hall”; Comments by Malloy, D. (2005,
July). PREA town hall meeting. Presentation at the American

210

Probation and Parole Association National Training Conference, New York.
19. Testimony of Moss, A. (2007, December 5). Special Topics in Preventing and Responding to Prison Rape: Medical
and Mental Health Care, Community Corrections Settings,
and Oversight (p. 358). New Orleans: National Prison Rape
Elimination Commission Public Hearing; Harrison, P. (2008,
October 3). Email correspondence (concerning data collection from community corrections agencies).
20. See generally Testimony of Ragsdale, D. (2006, August 3).
Reporting, Investigating, and Prosecuting Prison Rape: What
Is Needed to Make the Process Work? (p. 8). Detroit: National
Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing (hereafter
NPREC Testimony of Ragsdale); Testimony of Brown, N. (2006,
August 3). Reporting, Investigating, and Prosecuting Prison
Rape: What Is Needed to Make the Process Work? (p. 31). Detroit:
National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing
(hereafter NPREC Testimony of Brown).
21. Smith v. Cochran, 339 F.3d 1205 (10th Cir. 2003) (hereafter
Smith).
22. Ibid.
23. See Campos v. Nueces County, 162 S.W.3d 778 (Tex. App.
2005).
24. Smith, B. (2005, October 4). Legal issues in addressing
prison rape in community corrections. Presentation to the
New England Council on Crime and Delinquency: Prison
Rape Elimination Act Training, Killington, Vermont.
25. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988) (finding that “a defendant in a § 1983 suit acts under color of state law when he
abuses the position given to him by the State”).
26. Smith.
27. Ibid., at 1213.
28. National Institute of Corrections/Washington College of
Law Project on Addressing Prison Rape. (2008). Fifty-state
survey of criminal laws prohibiting the sexual abuse of individuals in custody. American University, Washington College
of Law Web site. Available at http://www.wcl.american.edu/
nic/responses.cfm
29. Ibid.
30. Corrections employee faces sexual misconduct charges.
(2006, October 24). TheIndyChannel.com
31. Policies and procedures: Anti fraternization. (n.d.). NIC/
WCL Project on Addressing Prison Rape Web site. Available at
http://www.wcl.american.edu/nic/policies.cfm#anti
32. Vargas, T. (2007, August 15). Officer charged with sexual misconduct. The Washington Post; Goodman, C. (2007,
August 17). 2nd officer charged in sex scandal: Both women
accused of misconduct with same man on house arrest. The
Washington Post (hereafter Goodman, “2nd officer”).
33. Goodman, “2nd officer.”
34. Written Testimony of Broderick, B. (2007, December 5).
Special Topics in Preventing and Responding to Prison Rape:
Medical and Mental Health Care, Community Corrections Settings, and Oversight (p. 2). New Orleans: National Prison
Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing (hereafter
NPREC Written Testimony of Broderick).
35. Gustafson, P. (2007, May 22). Corrections officer admits a
sexual offense. Minneapolis Star Tribune.

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

36. NPREC Written Testimony of Broderick, at 2.
37. Testimony of Beauclair, T. (2007, December 5). Special
Topics in Preventing and Responding to Prison Rape: Medical
and Mental Health Care, Community Corrections Settings, and
Oversight (pp. 306–307). New Orleans: National Prison Rape
Elimination Commission Public Hearing.
38. Ibid., at 305–306.
39. McCampbell, “Addressing sexual misconduct.”
40. Ibid.
41. NPREC Written Testimony of Broderick, at 2.
42. Rivera, E. (2004, February 25). Ex-deputy guilty of having
sex with inmates. The Washington Post; McDonald, K. (2006,
August 7). Conduct may cost officer his job. The Journal Star;
Wang, B. (2006, January 13). Court papers report ex-sergeant
repeatedly assaulted inmates. Associated Press.
43. Simonian, N. M., & Smith, B. V. (2007, Winter). Anti-fraternization policies in community corrections: A tool to address
staff sexual misconduct in community corrections agencies.
Perspectives, 43–48.
44. Testimony of Abner, at 292.
45. Public Safety Performance Project. (2007). What works
in community corrections: An interview with Joan Petersillia.
Washington, D.C.: Pew Charitable Trusts.
46. Ibid.
47. Renzi, J. (2009, April 2). Telephone interview.
48. National Institute of Corrections. (2007). PREA statewide probation and parole direction. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Justice.
49. Written Testimony of Kotkin, J. (2007, December 5). Special Topics in Preventing and Responding to Prison Rape: Medical
and Mental Health Care, Community Corrections Settings, and
Oversight (p. 2). New Orleans: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.
50. Ibid.
51. Division of Community Corrections, North Carolina
Department of Corrections. (2008). Officer and staff requirements, policy II.F. Raleigh, N.C.: Author.
52. Renzi, J. (2008, November 12). Telephone interview;
Hahn, C. (2008, October 30). Telephone interview.

53. Written Testimony of Moss, A. (2007, December 5). Special
Topics in Preventing and Responding to Prison Rape: Medical
and Mental Health Care, Community Corrections Settings, and
Oversight (p. 4). New Orleans: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.
54. Office on Violence Against Women. (2004). A national protocol for sexual assault medical forensic examinations: Adults/
adolescents. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.
55. Ibid.
56. Comments by Walton, R. (2005, July). PREA town hall
meeting. Presentation at the American Probation and Parole
Association National Training Conference, New York.
57. Cotton, D. J., & Groth, A. N. (1982). Inmate rape: Prevention
and intervention. Journal of Prison and Jail Health, 2(1): 47–57.
58. National Institute of Corrections/Washington College of
Law. (2001–2008). Training: Investigating allegations of staff
sexual misconduct with offenders. American University Web
site. Available at https://www.wcl.american.edu/nic/training.
cfm (Although no official data were collected over nearly 10
years during training by NIC, only one agency has had any
authority to begin a criminal investigation: Maine Department of Corrections. All other investigations were conducted
by agency staff only until a criminal component became
apparent. At that point, the agency investigators continued
with administrative investigations and allowed either local or
State police to complete the criminal investigation).
59. See generally National Prison Rape Elimination Commission. (2006, August 3). Reporting, Investigating, and Prosecuting
Prison Rape: What Is Needed to Make the Process Work? Detroit:
National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing;
See also NIC/WCL Project on Addressing Prison Rape. (2006,
October 27). Improving prosecutions of allegations of sexual
abuse in correctional settings: A meeting with Federal prosecutors (attendance list on file with author).
60. See Written Testimony of Powers, E. (2007, December 5–6).
Special Topics in Preventing and Responding to Prison Rape: Medical and Mental Health Care, Community Corrections Settings,
and Oversight (p. 1). New Orleans: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.

Chapter 9. On the Margins: Immigrants in Detention
1. Stop Prisoner Rape. (2004). No refuge here: A first look at
sexual abuse in immigration detention. Los Angeles: Author
(hereafter SPR, No refuge here).
2. Testimony of Little, C. (2006, December 13). The Elimination of Prison Rape: Immigration Facilities and Personnel/Staffing/Labor Relations (p. 4). Los Angeles: National Prison Rape
Elimination Commission Public Hearing (hereafter NPREC
Testimony of Little).
3. Women’s Commission for Refugee Women and Children.
(2000). Behind locked doors: Abuse of refugee women at the
Krome Detention Center. New York: Author (hereafter WCRWC,
Behind locked doors).

APPENDIX A: ENDNOTES

4. Ibid.
5. Sachs, S. (2000, October 5). Sexual abuse reported at an
immigration center. The New York Times; WCRWC, Behind
locked doors.
6. SPR, No refuge here (citing Solomon, A. (2002, March 20–26).
The gatekeeper: Watch on the INS. Nightmare in Miami. The
Village Voice (hereafter Solomon, “The gatekeeper”).
7. Solomon, “The gatekeeper.”
8. Testimony of Wideman, A. (2006, December 13). The Elimination of Prison Rape: Immigration Facilities and Personnel/
Staffing/Labor Relations (p. 108). Los Angeles: National Prison

211

Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing (hereafter
NPREC Testimony of Wideman); SPR, No refuge here; Testimony of Lonegan, B. (2006, December 13). The Elimination
of Prison Rape: Immigration Facilities and Personnel/Staffing/
Labor Relations. (p. 117). Los Angeles: National Prison Rape
Elimination Commission Public Hearing (hereafter NPREC
Testimony of Lonegan); Dow, M. (2004). American gulag:
Inside U.S. immigration prisons. Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press; Welch, M. (2002). Detained: immigrations
laws and the expanding INS jail complex. Philadelphia: Temple
University Press (hereafter Welch, Detained).
9. Roberts, M. (2009, March 15). AP IMPACT: Immigrants face
detention, few rights. Associated Press.
10. Statement of Hayes Jr., J. T. (2009, March 3). Medical care
and treatment of immigration detainees and deaths in DRO
custody. (p. 4). Washington, D.C.: House Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Homeland Security.
11. Testimony of Hutchinson, A. (2006, December 13). The Elimination of Prison Rape: Immigration Facilities and Personnel/
Staffing/Labor Relations (p. 35). Los Angeles: National Prison
Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.
12. Ibid.
13. Chien, E., & Micek, P. (2006, March 7). For children in
immigration limbo, detention may be as good as it gets. New
America Media; Testimony of Nugent, C. (2006, December
13). The Elimination of Prison Rape: Immigration Facilities
and Personnel/Staffing/Labor Relations (p. 231). Los Angeles:
National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing; Homeland Security Act of 2002, H.R. 5710, § 462.
14. Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services. (2008). Department of Unaccompanied
Alien Children’s Services: Efforts to serve children. Washington,
D.C.: Author.
15. NPREC Testimony of Wideman, at 109.
16. Testimony of Cheer, S.-M. (2006, December 13). The Elimination of Prison Rape: Immigration Facilities and Personnel/
Staffing/Labor Relations (pp. 90–91). Los Angeles: National
Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing (hereafter NPREC Testimony of Cheer).
17. Kinzie, J. D. (2006). Immigrants and refugees: The psychiatric perspective. Transcultural Psychiatry, 43(4), 577–591; NPREC
Testimony of Wideman, at 110; Physicians for Human Rights
& the Bellevue/NYU Program for Survivors of Torture. (2003).
From persecution to prison: The health consequences of detention for asylum seekers. Boston: Author (hereafter PHR, From
persecution).
18. American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and
statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-IV-TR. Washington,
D.C.: Author; Resnick, H., Acierno, R., Holmes, M., Kilpatrick,
D., & Jager, N. (1999). Prevention of post-rape psychopathology: Preliminary findings of a controlled acute rape treatment
study. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 13(44), 359–370.
19. NPREC Testimony of Wideman, at 110.
20. PHR, From persecution, at 1.
21. Women’s Refugee Commission. (2009). Halfway home:
Unaccompanied children in immigration custody. Washington,
D.C.: Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP.

212

22. Testimony of Medina, S. (2006, December 13). The Elimination of Prison Rape: Immigration Facilities and Personnel/
Staffing/Labor Relations (pp. 222–223). Los Angeles: National
Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.
23. NPREC Testimony of Little, at 78.
24. NPREC Testimony of Wideman, at 108. 
25. NPREC Testimony of Little, at 54.
26. Ibid., at 54–55.
27. Just Detention International. (2009). Sexual abuse in U.S.
immigration detention. Los Angeles: Author.
28. Brané, M. (2009, March 19). Personal communication.
29. NPREC Testimony of Wideman, at 108–109.
30. NPREC Testimony of Cheer, at 93; Hyder, A. A., & Malik,
F. A. (2007). Violence against children: A challenge for public
health in Pakistan. Journal of Health, Population and Nutrition, 25(2): 168–178; Johnson, D. M., Pike, J. L., & Chard, K. M.
(2001). Factors predicting PTSD, depression, and dissociative
severity in female treatment-seeking childhood sexual abuse
survivors. Child Abuse & Neglect, 25(1): 179–189; Erulkar, A.
S. (2004). The experience of sexual coercion among young
people in Kenya. International Family Planning Perspectives,
30(4):182–189; Oral Statement by the OMCT Violence Against
Women Programme. (2005, March 14–April 22). United Nations
Commission on Human Rights, 61st Session, Item 12. OMCT
Web site. Available at http://www.omct.org/index.php?id=
&lang=eng&articleSet=Documents&articleId=5351
31. Testimony of Plummer, T. (2006, December 13). The Elimination of Prison Rape: Immigration Facilities and Personnel/
Staffing/Labor Relations (pp. 71–72). Los Angeles: National
Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.
32. PHR, From persecution, at 121.
33. Ibid.
34. Welch, Detained.
35. PHR, From persecution.
36. U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (2008). ICE/DRO
detention standard: Sexual abuse and assault prevention and
intervention (hereafter DHS, “Standard: Sexual abuse”); U.S.
Department of Homeland Security. (2008). ICE/DRO detention standard: Admission and release; Testimony of Tosado, R.
(2006, December 13). The Elimination of Prison Rape: Immigration Facilities and Personnel/Staffing/Labor Relations (p. 146).
Los Angeles: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission
Public Hearing (hereafter NPREC Testimony of Tosado).
37. DHS, “Standard: Sexual abuse”; NPREC Testimony of
Tosado, at 147; Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department
of Homeland Security. (2006). Treatment of immigration
detainees housed in Immigration and Customs Enforcement
facilities. Washington, D.C.: Author (hereafter OIG, Treatment
of immigration detainees).
38. OIG, Treatment of immigration detainees.
39. NPREC Testimony of Wideman, at 111–112.
40. NPREC Testimony of Cheer, at 95.
41. NPREC Testimony of Lonegan, at 101.
42. U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (2008). ICE/DRO
detention standard: Classification system.

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

43. Kerwin, D. (2001, Winter). Looking for asylum, suffering
in detention. American Bar Association Human Rights Magazine. Available at http://www.abanet.org/irr/hr/winter01/
kerwin.html
44. DHS, “Standard: Sexual abuse.”
45. OIG, Treatment of immigration detainees.
46. Testimony of Holguin, I. (2006, December 13). The Elimination of Prison Rape: Immigration Facilities and Personnel/
Staffing/Labor Relations (pp. 162–163). Los Angeles: National
Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.
47. U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (2008). ICE/DRO
detention standard: Telephone access.
48. U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2007). Alien
detention standards: Telephone access problems were pervasive
at detention facilities; other deficiencies did not show a pattern
of noncompliance. Washington, D.C.: Author, p. 12.
49. NPREC Testimony of Cheer, at 94.
50. NPREC Testimony of Wideman, at 108.
51. NPREC Testimony of Little, at 52.
52. NPREC Testimony of Lonegan, at 124.
53. Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Services & Women’s
Commission for Refugee Women and Children. (2007). Locking up family values: The detention of immigrant families. New
York: Women’s Commission for Refugee Women and Children,
p. 47 (hereafter LIRS, Locking up family values).
54. NPREC Testimony of Wideman, at 123.
55. PHR, From persecution.

APPENDIX A: ENDNOTES

56. The Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde United States Global
Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria
Reauthorization Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-293.
57. 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(3)(a,g) (stating that aliens determined
to have a communicable disease of public health significance
are bared from entry into the United States but may request
a waiver).
58. NPREC Testimony of Lonegan, at 119.
59. Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department of Homeland
Security. (2009). Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s
tracking and transfers of detainees. Washington, D.C.: Author.
60. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. (2008). Adjudicator’s field manual. Washington, D.C.: Author.
61. Sullivan, E., Mottino, F., Khashu, A., & O’Neil, M. (2000).
Testing community supervision for the INS: An evaluation of
the Appearance Assistance Program. New York: Vera Institute
of Justice.
62. Brané, M. (2008, August 14). Women’s Commission letter
to the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission.
63. Statement of Jackson, S. L. (2008, March 5). House Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border
Security and International Law Oversight Hearing on the
Department of Homeland Security, p. 70 (citing LIRS, Locking
up family values).
64. LIRS, Locking up family values, at 47.
65. Brané, M. (2009, March 19). Personal communication.
66. NPREC Testimony of Little, at 59.

213

Appendix B

National Standards

NPREC Standards for the Prevention, Detection, Response, and Monitoring
of Sexual Abuse in Adult Prisons and Jails, including Supplemental Standards
for Facilities with Immigration Detainees
I. PREVENTION AND RESPONSE PLANNING
Prevention Planning (PP)
PP-1: Zero tolerance of sexual abuse

The agency has a written policy mandating zero tolerance toward
all forms of sexual abuse and enforces that policy by ensuring
all of its facilities comply with the PREA standards. The agency
employs or designates a PREA coordinator to develop, implement,
and oversee agency efforts to comply with the PREA standards.

PP-5: Accommodating inmates with special needs

The agency ensures that inmates who are limited English proficient (LEP), deaf, or disabled are able to report sexual abuse to
staff directly, through interpretive technology, or through noninmate interpreters. Accommodations are made to convey all
written information about sexual abuse policies, including how to
report sexual abuse, verbally to inmates who have limited reading
skills or who are visually impaired.

PP-6: Hiring and promotion decisions

If public correctional agencies contract for the confinement of their
inmates, they do so only with private agencies or other entities,
including other government agencies, committed to eliminating
sexual abuse in their facilities, as evidenced by their adoption of
and compliance with the PREA standards. Any new contracts or
contract renewals include the entity’s obligation to adopt and comply with the PREA standards and specify that the public agency
will monitor the entity’s compliance with these standards as part
of its monitoring of the entity’s performance.

The agency does not hire or promote anyone who has engaged in
sexual abuse in an institutional setting or who has engaged in sexual activity in the community facilitated by force, the threat of force,
or coercion. Consistent with Federal, State, and local law, the agency
makes its best effort to contact all prior institutional employers for
information on substantiated allegations of sexual abuse; must run
criminal background checks for all applicants and employees being
considered for promotion; and must examine and carefully weigh
any history of criminal activity at work or in the community, including convictions for domestic violence, stalking, and sex offenses.
The agency also asks all applicants and employees directly about
previous misconduct during interviews and reviews.

PP-3: Inmate supervision

PP-7: Assessment and use of monitoring technology

PP-2: Contracting with other entities for the confinement of
inmates

Security staff provides the inmate supervision necessary to protect inmates from sexual abuse. The upper management officials
responsible for reviewing critical incidents must examine areas in
the facility where sexual abuse has occurred to assess whether
physical barriers may have enabled the abuse, the adequacy of
staffing levels in those areas during different shifts, and the need
for monitoring technology to supplement security staff supervision
(DC-1). When problems or needs are identified, the agency takes
corrective action (DC-3).

PP-4: Limits to cross-gender viewing and searches

Except in the case of emergency, the facility prohibits crossgender strip and visual body cavity searches. Except in the case
of emergency or other extraordinary or unforeseen circumstances,
the facility restricts nonmedical staff from viewing inmates of the
opposite gender who are nude or performing bodily functions and
similarly restricts cross-gender pat-down searches. Medical practitioners conduct examinations of transgender individuals to determine their genital status only in private settings and only when an
individual’s genital status is unknown.

A P P E N D I X B: N P R EC S TA N DA R D S — A D U LT P R I S O N S A N D JA I L S

The agency uses video monitoring systems and other cost-effective
and appropriate technology to supplement its sexual abuse prevention, detection, and response efforts. The agency assesses, at least
annually, the feasibility of and need for new or additional monitoring technology and develops a plan for securing such technology.

Response Planning (RP)
RP-1: Evidence protocol and forensic medical exams

The agency follows a uniform evidence protocol that maximizes
the potential for obtaining usable physical evidence for administrative proceedings and criminal prosecutions. The protocol must
be adapted from or otherwise based on the 2004 U.S. Department of Justice’s Office on Violence Against Women publication
“A National Protocol for Sexual Assault Medical Forensic Examinations, Adults/Adolescents,” subsequent updated editions, or
similarly comprehensive and authoritative protocols developed
after 2004. As part of the agency’s evidence collection protocol,

215

all victims of inmate-on-inmate sexually abusive penetration or
staff-on-inmate sexually abusive penetration are provided access
to forensic medical exams performed by qualified forensic medical
examiners. Forensic medical exams are provided free of charge
to the victim. The facility makes available a victim advocate to
accompany the victim through the forensic medical exam process.

RP-2: Agreements with outside public entities and community
service providers

The agency maintains or attempts to enter into memoranda of
understanding (MOUs) or other agreements with an outside public entity or office that is able to receive and immediately forward
inmate reports of sexual abuse to facility heads (RE-1). The agency
also maintains or attempts to enter into MOUs or other agreements
with community service providers that are able to: (1) provide
inmates with confidential emotional support services related to
sexual abuse and (2) help victims of sexual abuse during their
transition from incarceration to the community (RE-3, MM-3). The
agency maintains copies of agreements or documentation showing
attempts to enter into agreements.

RP-3: Agreements with outside law enforcement agencies

If an agency does not have the legal authority to conduct criminal
investigations or has elected to permit an outside agency to conduct criminal or administrative investigations of staff or inmates,
the agency maintains or attempts to enter into a written MOU or
other agreement specific to investigations of sexual abuse with
the law enforcement agency responsible for conducting investigations. If the agency confines inmates under the age of 18 or other
inmates who fall under State and local vulnerable persons statutes, the agency maintains or attempts to enter into an MOU with
the designated State or local services agency with the jurisdiction
and authority to conduct investigations related to the sexual abuse
of vulnerable persons within confinement facilities. When the
agency already has an existing agreement or long-standing policy
covering responsibilities for all criminal investigations, including
sexual abuse investigations, it does not need to enter into a new
agreement. The agency maintains a copy of the agreement or documentation showing attempts to enter into an agreement.

RP-4: Agreements with the prosecuting authority

The agency maintains or attempts to enter into a written MOU or
other agreement with the authority responsible for prosecuting violations of criminal law. The agency maintains a copy of the agreement
or documentation showing attempts to enter into an agreement.

II. PREVENTION
Training and Education (TR)
TR-1: Employee training

The agency trains all employees to be able to fulfill their responsibilities under agency sexual abuse prevention, detection, and
response policies and procedures; the PREA standards; and relevant Federal, State, and local law. The agency trains all employees
to communicate effectively and professionally with all inmates.
Additionally, the agency trains all employees on an inmate’s right
to be free from sexual abuse, the right of inmates and employees to
be free from retaliation for reporting sexual abuse, the dynamics of
sexual abuse in confinement, and the common reactions of sexual
abuse victims. Current employees are educated as soon as possible
following the agency’s adoption of the PREA standards, and the
agency provides periodic refresher information to all employees
to ensure that they know the agency’s most current sexual abuse

216

policies and procedures. The agency maintains written documentation showing employee signatures verifying that employees
understand the training they have received.

TR-2: Volunteer and contractor training

The agency ensures that all volunteers and contractors who
have contact with inmates have been trained on their responsibilities under the agency’s sexual abuse prevention, detection, and
response policies and procedures; the PREA standards; and relevant Federal, State, and local law. The level and type of training
provided to volunteers and contractors is based on the services
they provide and level of contact they have with inmates, but all
volunteers and contractors who have contact with inmates must
be notified of the agency’s zero-tolerance policy regarding sexual
abuse. Volunteers must also be trained in how to report sexual
abuse. The agency maintains written documentation showing volunteer and contractor signatures verifying that they understand
the training they have received.

TR-3: Inmate education

During the intake process, staff informs inmates of the agency’s
zero-tolerance policy regarding sexual abuse and how to report
incidents or suspicions of sexual abuse. Within a reasonably brief
period of time following the intake process, the agency provides
comprehensive education to inmates regarding their right to be
free from sexual abuse and to be free from retaliation for reporting abuse, the dynamics of sexual abuse in confinement, the common reactions of sexual abuse victims, and agency sexual abuse
response policies and procedures. Current inmates are educated
as soon as possible following the agency’s adoption of the PREA
standards, and the agency provides periodic refresher information
to all inmates to ensure that they know the agency’s most current
sexual abuse policies and procedures. The agency provides inmate
education in formats accessible to all inmates, including those who
are LEP, deaf, visually impaired, or otherwise disabled as well as
inmates who have limited reading skills. The agency maintains
written documentation of inmate participation in these education
sessions.

TR-4: Specialized training: Investigations

In addition to the general training provided to all employees
(TR-1), the agency ensures that agency investigators conducting
sexual abuse investigations have received comprehensive and upto-date training in conducting such investigations in confinement
settings. Specialized training must include techniques for interviewing sexual abuse victims, proper use of Miranda- and Garritytype warnings, sexual abuse evidence collection in confinement
settings, and the criteria and evidence required to substantiate a case for administrative action or prosecution referral. The
agency maintains written documentation that investigators have
completed the required specialized training in conducting sexual
abuse investigations.

TR-5: Specialized training: Medical and mental health care

The agency ensures that all full- and part-time medical and mental
health care practitioners working in its facilities have been trained
in how to detect and assess signs of sexual abuse and that all medical practitioners are trained in how to preserve physical evidence
of sexual abuse. All medical and mental health care practitioners
must be trained in how to respond effectively and professionally to
victims of sexual abuse and how and to whom to report allegations
or suspicions of sexual abuse. The agency maintains documentation that medical and mental health practitioners have received
this specialized training.

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

Screening for Risk of Sexual Victimization and Abusiveness (SC)
SC-1: Screening for risk of victimization and abusiveness

All inmates are screened during intake, during the initial classification process, and at all subsequent classification reviews to
assess their risk of being sexually abused by other inmates or sexually abusive toward other inmates. Employees must conduct this
screening using a written screening instrument tailored to the gender of the population being screened. Although additional factors
may be considered, particularly to account for emerging research
and the agency’s own data analysis, screening instruments must
contain the criteria described below. All screening instruments
must be made available to the public upon request.
• At a minimum, employees use the following criteria to screen
male inmates for risk of victimization: mental or physical disability, young age, slight build, first incarceration in prison
or jail, nonviolent history, prior convictions for sex offenses
against an adult or child, sexual orientation of gay or bisexual,
gender nonconformance (e.g., transgender or intersex identity),
prior sexual victimization, and the inmate’s own perception of
vulnerability.
• At a minimum, employees use the following criteria to screen
male inmates for risk of being sexually abusive: prior acts of
sexual abuse and prior convictions for violent offenses.
• At a minimum, employees use the following criteria to screen
female inmates for risk of sexual victimization: prior sexual victimization and the inmate’s own perception of vulnerability.
• At a minimum, employees use the following criteria to screen
female inmates for risk of being sexually abusive: prior acts of
sexual abuse.

SC-2: Use of screening information

Employees use information from the risk screening (SC-1) to
inform housing, bed, work, education, and program assignments
with the goal of keeping separate those inmates at high risk of
being sexually victimized from those at high risk of being sexually
abusive. The facility makes individualized determinations about
how to ensure the safety of each inmate. Lesbian, gay, bisexual,
transgender, or other gender-nonconforming inmates are not
placed in particular facilities, units, or wings solely on the basis of
their sexual orientation, genital status, or gender identity. Inmates
at high risk for sexual victimization may be placed in segregated
housing only as a last resort and then only until an alternative
means of separation from likely abusers can be arranged. To the
extent possible, risk of sexual victimization should not limit access
to programs, education, and work opportunities.

III. DETECTION AND RESPONSE
Reporting (RE)
RE-1: Inmate reporting

The facility provides multiple internal ways for inmates to report
easily, privately, and securely sexual abuse, retaliation by other
inmates or staff for reporting sexual abuse, and staff neglect or
violation of responsibilities that may have contributed to an incident of sexual abuse. The facility also provides at least one way for
inmates to report the abuse to an outside public entity or office not
affiliated with the agency that has agreed to receive reports and
forward them to the facility head (RP-2), except when an inmate
requests confidentiality. Staff accepts reports made verbally, in
writing, anonymously, and from third parties and immediately
puts into writing any verbal reports.

A P P E N D I X B: N P R EC S TA N DA R D S — A D U LT P R I S O N S A N D JA I L S

RE-2: Exhaustion of administrative remedies

Under agency policy, an inmate has exhausted his or her administrative remedies with regard to a claim of sexual abuse either
(1) when the agency makes a final decision on the merits of the
report of abuse (regardless of whether the report was made by the
inmate, made by a third party, or forwarded from an outside official
or office) or (2) when 90 days have passed since the report was
made, whichever occurs sooner. A report of sexual abuse triggers
the 90-day exhaustion period regardless of the length of time that
has passed between the abuse and the report. An inmate seeking
immediate protection from imminent sexual abuse will be deemed
to have exhausted his or her administrative remedies 48 hours after
notifying any agency staff member of his or her need for protection.

RE-3: Inmate access to outside confidential support services

In addition to providing on-site mental health care services, the
facility provides inmates with access to outside victim advocates
for emotional support services related to sexual abuse. The facility provides such access by giving inmates the current mailing
addresses and telephone numbers, including toll-free hotline numbers, of local, State, and/or national victim advocacy or rape crisis
organizations and enabling reasonable communication between
inmates and these organizations. The facility ensures that communications with such advocates are private, confidential, and
privileged, to the extent allowable by Federal, State, and local law.
The facility informs inmates, prior to giving them access, of the
extent to which such communications will be private, confidential,
and/or privileged.

RE-4: Third-party reporting

The facility receives and investigates all third-party reports of
sexual abuse (IN-1). At the conclusion of the investigation, the
facility notifies in writing the third-party individual who reported
the abuse and the inmate named in the third-party report of the
outcome of the investigation. The facility distributes publicly information on how to report sexual abuse on behalf of an inmate.

Official Response Following an Inmate Report (OR)
OR-1: Staff and facility head reporting duties

All staff members are required to report immediately and according to agency policy any knowledge, suspicion, or information
they receive regarding an incident of sexual abuse that occurred
in an institutional setting; retaliation against inmates or staff who
reported abuse; and any staff neglect or violation of responsibilities that may have contributed to an incident of sexual abuse or
retaliation. Apart from reporting to designated supervisors or
officials, staff must not reveal any information related to a sexual
abuse report to anyone other than those who need to know, as
specified in agency policy, to make treatment, investigation, and
other security and management decisions. Unless otherwise precluded by Federal, State, or local law, medical and mental health
practitioners are required to report sexual abuse and must inform
inmates of their duty to report at the initiation of services. If the
victim is under the age of 18 or considered a vulnerable adult
under a State or local vulnerable persons statute, the facility head
must report the allegation to the designated State or local services
agency under applicable mandatory reporting laws.

OR-2: Reporting to other confinement facilities

When the facility receives an allegation that an inmate was sexually abused while confined at another facility, the head of the
facility where the report was made notifies in writing the head
of the facility where the alleged abuse occurred. The head of the
facility where the alleged abuse occurred ensures the allegation is
investigated.

217

OR-3: Staff first responder duties

Upon learning that an inmate was sexually abused within a time
period that still allows for the collection of physical evidence, the
first security staff member to respond to the report is required to
(1) separate the alleged victim and abuser; (2) seal and preserve
any crime scene(s); and (3) instruct the victim not to take any
actions that could destroy physical evidence, including washing,
brushing his or her teeth, changing his or her clothes, urinating,
defecating, smoking, drinking, or eating. If the first staff responder
is a non-security staff member, he or she is required to instruct the
victim not to take any actions that could destroy physical evidence
and then notify security staff.

OR-4: Coordinated response

All actions taken in response to an incident of sexual abuse are
coordinated among staff first responders, medical and mental
health practitioners, investigators, and facility leadership. The facility’s coordinated response ensures that victims receive all necessary immediate and ongoing medical, mental health, and support
services and that investigators are able to obtain usable evidence
to substantiate allegations and hold perpetrators accountable.

OR-5: Agency protection against retaliation

The agency protects all inmates and staff who report sexual abuse
or cooperate with sexual abuse investigations from retaliation by
other inmates or staff. The agency employs multiple protection
measures, including housing changes or transfers for inmate victims or abusers, removal of alleged staff or inmate abusers from
contact with victims, and emotional support services for inmates
or staff who fear retaliation for reporting sexual abuse or cooperating with investigations. The agency monitors the conduct and/or
treatment of inmates or staff who have reported sexual abuse or
cooperated with investigations, including any inmate disciplinary
reports, housing, or program changes, for at least 90 days following their report or cooperation to see if there are changes that may
suggest possible retaliation by inmates or staff. The agency discusses any changes with the appropriate inmate or staff member
as part of its efforts to determine if retaliation is taking place and,
when confirmed, immediately takes steps to protect the inmate or
staff member.

Investigations (IN)
IN-1: Duty to investigate

The facility investigates all allegations of sexual abuse, including
third-party and anonymous reports, and notifies victims and/or
other complainants in writing of investigation outcomes and any
disciplinary or criminal sanctions, regardless of the source of the
allegation. All investigations are carried through to completion,
regardless of whether the alleged abuser or victim remains at the
facility.

IN-2: Criminal and administrative agency investigations

Agency investigations into allegations of sexual abuse are prompt,
thorough, objective, and conducted by investigators who have
received special training in sexual abuse investigations (TR-4).
When outside agencies investigate sexual abuse, the facility has
a duty to keep abreast of the investigation and cooperate with
outside investigators (RP-3). Investigations include the following
elements:
• Investigations are initiated and completed within the timeframes
established by the highest- ranking facility official, and the highest-ranking official approves the final investigative report.
• Investigators gather direct and circumstantial evidence, including physical and DNA evidence when available; interview
alleged victims, suspected perpetrators, and witnesses; and

218

•

•
•
•
•
•
•

review prior complaints and reports of sexual abuse involving
the suspected perpetrator.
When the quality of evidence appears to support criminal prosecution, prosecutors are contacted to determine whether compelled interviews may be an obstacle for subsequent criminal
prosecution.
Investigative findings are based on an analysis of the evidence
gathered and a determination of its probative value.
The credibility of a victim, suspect, or witness is assessed on an
individual basis and is not determined by the person’s status as
inmate or staff.
Investigations include an effort to determine whether staff negligence or collusion enabled the abuse to occur.
Administrative investigations are documented in written reports
that include a description of the physical and testimonial evidence and the reasoning behind credibility assessments.
Criminal investigations are documented in a written report that
contains a thorough description of physical, testimonial, and
documentary evidence and provides a proposed list of exhibits.
Substantiated allegations of conduct that appears to be criminal
are referred for prosecution.

IN-3: Evidence standard for administrative investigations

Allegations of sexual abuse are substantiated if supported by a preponderance of the evidence.

Discipline (DI)
DI-1: Disciplinary sanctions for staff

Staff is subject to disciplinary sanctions up to and including termination when staff has violated agency sexual abuse policies. The
presumptive disciplinary sanction for staff members who have
engaged in sexually abusive contact or penetration is termination.
This presumption does not limit agency discretion to impose termination for other sexual abuse policy violations. All terminations
for violations of agency sexual abuse policies are to be reported to
law enforcement agencies and any relevant licensing bodies.

DI-2: Disciplinary sanctions for inmates

Inmates are subject to disciplinary sanctions pursuant to a formal disciplinary process following an administrative ruling that
the inmate engaged in inmate-on-inmate sexual abuse or following a criminal finding of guilt for inmate-on-inmate sexual abuse.
Sanctions are commensurate with the nature and circumstances
of the abuse committed, the inmate’s disciplinary history, and the
sanctions meted out for comparable offenses by other inmates with
similar histories. The disciplinary process must consider whether
an inmate’s mental disabilities or mental illness contributed to his
or her behavior when determining what type of sanction, if any,
should be imposed. Possible sanctions also include interventions
designed to address and correct underlying reasons or motivation
for the abuse, such as requiring the offending inmate to participate
in therapy, counseling, or other programs.

Medical and Mental Health Care (MM)
MM-1: Medical and mental health screenings—history of
sexual abuse

Qualified medical or mental health practitioners ask inmates
about prior sexual victimization and abusiveness during medical
and mental health reception and intake screenings. If an inmate
discloses prior sexual victimization or abusiveness, whether it
occurred in an institutional setting or in the community, during a
medical or mental health reception or intake screening, the practitioner provides the appropriate referral for treatment, based on his
or her professional judgment. Any information related to sexual

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

victimization or abusiveness that occurred in an institutional setting must be strictly limited to medical and mental health practitioners and other staff, as required by agency policy and Federal,
State, or local law, to inform treatment plans and security and
management decisions, including housing, bed, work, education,
and program assignments. Medical and mental health practitioners must obtain informed consent from inmates before reporting
information about prior sexual victimization that did not occur in
an institutional setting, unless the inmate is under the age of 18.

MM-2: Access to emergency medical and mental health
services

Victims of sexual abuse have timely, unimpeded access to emergency medical treatment and crisis intervention services, the
nature and scope of which are determined by medical and mental health practitioners according to their professional judgment.
Treatment services must be provided free of charge to the victim
and regardless of whether the victim names the abuser. If no qualified medical or mental health practitioners are on duty at the time
a report of recent abuse is made, security staff first responders take
preliminary steps to protect the victim (OR-3) and immediately
notify the appropriate medical and mental health practitioners.

MM-3: Ongoing medical and mental health care for sexual
abuse victims and abusers

The facility provides ongoing medical and/or mental health evaluation and treatment to all known victims of sexual abuse. The
evaluation and treatment of sexual abuse victims must include
appropriate follow-up services, treatment plans, and, when necessary, referrals for continued care following their release from
custody. The level of medical and mental health care provided to
inmate victims must match the community level of care generally
accepted by the medical and mental health professional communities. The facility conducts a mental health evaluation of all known
abusers and provides treatment, as deemed necessary by qualified
mental health practitioners.

IV. MONITORING
Data Collection and Review (DC)
DC-1: Sexual abuse incident reviews

The facility treats all instances of sexual abuse as critical incidents
to be examined by a team of upper management officials, with
input from line supervisors, investigators, and medical/mental
health practitioners. The review team evaluates each incident of
sexual abuse to identify any policy, training, or other issues related
to the incident that indicate a need to change policy or practice to
better prevent, detect, and/or respond to incidents of sexual abuse.
The review team also considers whether incidents were motivated
by racial or other group dynamics at the facility. When incidents
are determined to be motivated by racial or other group dynamics,
upper management officials immediately notify the agency head
and begin taking steps to rectify those underlying problems. The
sexual abuse incident review takes place at the conclusion of every
sexual abuse investigation, unless the allegation was determined
to be unfounded. The review team prepares a report of its findings and recommendations for improvement and submits it to the
facility head.

DC-2: Data collection

The agency collects accurate, uniform data for every reported incident of sexual abuse using a standardized instrument and set of
definitions. The agency aggregates the incident-based sexual abuse
data at least annually. The incident-based data collected includes,
at a minimum, the data necessary to answer all questions from the

A P P E N D I X B: N P R EC S TA N DA R D S — A D U LT P R I S O N S A N D JA I L S

most recent version of the BJS Survey on Sexual Violence. Data are
obtained from multiple sources, including reports, investigation
files, and sexual abuse incident reviews. The agency also obtains
incident-based and aggregated data from every facility with which
it contracts for the confinement of its inmates.

DC-3: Data review for corrective action

The agency reviews, analyzes, and uses all sexual abuse data,
including incident-based and aggregated data, to assess and
improve the effectiveness of its sexual abuse prevention, detection,
and response policies, practices, and training. Using these data,
the agency identifies problem areas, including any racial dynamics underpinning patterns of sexual abuse, takes corrective action
on an ongoing basis, and, at least annually, prepares a report of
its findings and corrective actions for each facility as well as the
agency as a whole. The annual report also includes a comparison
of the current year’s data and corrective actions with those from
prior years and provides an assessment of the agency’s progress in
addressing sexual abuse. The agency’s report is approved by the
agency head, submitted to the appropriate legislative body, and
made readily available to the public through its Web site or, if it
does not have one, through other means. The agency may redact
specific material from the reports when publication would present
a clear and specific threat to the safety and security of a facility,
but it must indicate the nature of the material redacted.

DC-4: Data storage, publication, and destruction

The agency ensures that the collected sexual abuse data are properly stored, securely retained, and protected. The agency makes
all aggregated sexual abuse data, from facilities under its direct
control and those with which it contracts, readily available to the
public at least annually through its Web site or, if it does not have
one, through other means. Before making aggregated sexual abuse
data publicly available, the agency removes all personal identifiers
from the data. The agency maintains sexual abuse data for at least
10 years after the date of its initial collection unless Federal, State,
or local law allows for the disposal of official information in less
than 10 years.

Audits (AU)
AU-1: Audits of standards

The public agency ensures that all of its facilities, including contract facilities, are audited to measure compliance with the PREA
standards. Audits must be conducted at least every three years
by independent and qualified auditors. The public or contracted
agency allows the auditor to enter and tour facilities, review documents, and interview staff and inmates, as deemed appropriate by
the auditor, to conduct comprehensive audits. The public agency
ensures that the report of the auditor’s findings and the public or
contracted agency’s plan for corrective action (DC-3) are published
on the appropriate agency’s Web site if it has one or are otherwise
made readily available to the public.

SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS FOR FACILITIES WITH
IMMIGRATION DETAINEES
ID-1: Supplement to RP-2: Agreements with outside public
entities and community service providers

Any facility that houses immigration detainees maintains or
attempts to enter into memoranda of understanding (MOUs)
or other agreements with one or more local or, if not available,
national organizations that provide legal advocacy and confidential emotional support services for immigrant victims of crime
(RE-3, MM-3). The agency maintains copies of agreements or documentation showing attempts to enter into agreements.

219

ID-2: Supplement to TR-1, TR-4, and TR-5: Employee training
and specialized training of investigators and medical and
mental health care

ID-8: Supplement to RE-3: Inmate access to outside
confidential support services

Any facility that holds immigration detainees provides special
additional training to employees, including medical and mental
health practitioners and investigators. This additional training
includes the following topics: cultural sensitivity toward diverse
understandings of acceptable and unacceptable sexual behavior,
appropriate terms and concepts to use when discussing sex and
sexual abuse with a culturally diverse population, sensitivity and
awareness regarding past trauma that may have been experienced
by immigration detainees, and knowledge of all existing resources
for immigration detainees both inside and outside the facility that
provide treatment and counseling for trauma and legal advocacy
for victims.

All immigration detainees have access to outside victim advocates
who have experience working with immigration detainees or immigrant victims of crime for emotional support services related to sexual abuse. The facility provides such access by giving immigration
detainees the current mailing addresses and telephone numbers,
including toll-free hotline numbers, of local, State, and/or national
organizations that provide these services and enabling reasonable
communication between immigration detainees and these organizations. The facility ensures that communications with such advocates is private, confidential, and privileged to the extent allowable
by Federal, State, and local law. The facility informs immigration
detainees, prior to giving them access, of the extent to which such
communications will be private, confidential, and/or privileged.

ID-3: Supplement to TR-3: Inmate education

ID-9: Protection of detainee victims and witnesses

Sexual abuse education (TR-3) for immigration detainees is provided at a time and in a manner that is separate from information
provided about their immigration cases, in detainees’ own languages and in terms that are culturally appropriate, and is conducted by a qualified individual with experience communicating
about these issues with a diverse population.

ID-4: Detainee handbook

ICE never removes from the country or transfers to another facility
immigration detainees who report sexual abuse before the investigation of that abuse is completed, except at the detainee victim’s
request. ICE considers releasing detainees who are victims of or
witnesses to abuse and monitoring them in the community to protect them from retaliation or further abuse during the course of
the investigation.

Every detainee is provided with an ICE Detainee Handbook upon
admission to the facility, and a replacement is provided whenever
a detainee’s handbook is lost or damaged. The Detainee Handbook
contains notice of the agency’s zero-tolerance policy toward sexual abuse and contains all the agency’s policies related to sexual
abuse, including information about how to report an incident of
sexual abuse and the detainees’ rights and responsibilities related
to sexual abuse. The Detainee Handbook will inform immigration
detainees how to contact organizations in the community that
provide sexual abuse counseling and legal advocacy for detainee
victims of sexual abuse. The Detainee Handbook will also inform
detainees how to contact the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) for the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS), and diplomatic or consular personnel.

ID-10: Supplement to MM-3: Ongoing medical and mental
health care for sexual abuse victims and abusers

ID-5: Supplement to SC-1: Screening for risk of victimization
and abusiveness

The following standards must be followed in ICE family facilities.

The facility makes every reasonable effort to obtain institutional
and criminal records of immigration detainees in its custody prior
to screening for risk of victimization and abusiveness. Screening of
immigration detainees is conducted by employees who are culturally competent.

ID-6: Supplement to SC-2: Use of screening information

Any facility that houses both inmates and immigration detainees
houses all immigration detainees separately from other inmates
in the facility and provides heightened protection for immigration
detainees who are identified as particularly vulnerable to sexual
abuse by other detainees through the screening process (SC-1).
To the extent possible, immigration detainees have full access to
programs, education, and work opportunities.

ID-7: Supplement to RE-1: Inmate reporting

The agency provides immigration detainees with access to telephones with free, preprogrammed numbers to ICE’s Office for Civil
Rights and Civil Liberties and the DHS OIG. In addition, the agency
must provide immigration detainees with a list of phone numbers
for diplomatic or consular personnel from their countries of citizenship and access to telephones to contact such personnel.

220

All immigration detainees are counseled about the immigration
consequences of a positive HIV test at the time they are offered
HIV testing.

ID-11: Supplement to DC-2: Data collection

The facility collects additional data whenever an immigration
detainee is the victim or perpetrator of an incident of sexual abuse
in custody. The additional incident-based data collected indicate whether the victim and/or perpetrator was an immigration
detainee, his or her status at the initiation of the investigation, and
his or her status at the conclusion of the investigation.

Supplemental Standards for Family Facilities

IDFF-1: Screening of immigration detainees in family facilities
(This standard replaces rather than supplements SC-1 and SC-2)

Family facilities develop screening criteria to identify those families and family members who may be at risk of being sexually
victimized that will not lead to the separation of families. Housing, program, educational, and work assignments are made in a
manner that protects families and in all cases prioritizes keeping
families together.

IDFF-2: Reporting of sexual abuse in family facilities

The facility provides parents with the ability to report sexual abuse
in a manner that is confidential from their children. The facility
also provides children with the ability to report abuse by a parent
confidentially to staff.

IDFF-3: Investigations in family facilities

Parents are questioned confidentially by investigators about any
incident of sexual abuse, away from their children. A parent or
parents are present when a child is questioned by investigators
about any incident of sexual abuse, unless (1) the child has alleged
abuse by the parent or (2) staff suspects abuse by the parent. The
decision to exclude a parent from an interview based on staff suspicion of abuse by that parent is always made by a qualified mental
health practitioner.

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

IDFF-4: Access to medical and mental health care in family
facilities

All family members are offered mental health counseling (as
required in MM-2 and MM-3) when one family member is a victim of sexual abuse in the facility. Following an incident of sexual
abuse, parents and adult family members are examined confidentially by medical and mental health practitioners and away
from children. Following an incident of sexual abuse, a parent or
parents are allowed to be present during all medical and mental

health examinations of a minor child, unless (1) that child has
alleged sexual abuse by the parent or (2) staff suspects abuse by
the parent. The decision to exclude a parent from an examination
based on staff suspicion of abuse by that parent is always made by
a qualified mental health practitioner. In the event that a child is
sexually abused, a qualified mental health practitioner interviews
the child to determine whether either parent was present or aware
of the abuse and whether the parent or parents were threatened in
connection with the abuse.

NPREC Standards for the Prevention, Detection, Response, and Monitoring
of Sexual Abuse in Lockups
I. PREVENTION AND RESPONSE PLANNING
Prevention Planning (PP)
PP-1: Zero tolerance of sexual abuse

The agency has a written policy mandating zero tolerance toward
all forms of sexual abuse and enforces that policy by ensuring
all of its lockups comply with the PREA standards. The agency
employs or designates a PREA coordinator to develop, implement,
and oversee agency efforts to comply with the PREA standards.

PP-2: Contracting with other entities for the confinement of
detainees

If law enforcement agencies contract for the confinement of their
detainees, they do so only with private agencies or other entities,
including other government agencies, committed to eliminating
sexual abuse in their lockups, as evidenced by their adoption of
and compliance with the PREA standards. Any new contracts or
contract renewals include the entity’s obligation to adopt and comply with the PREA standards and specify that the law enforcement
agency will monitor the entity’s compliance with these standards
as part of its monitoring of the entity’s performance.

PP-3: Detainee supervision

Law enforcement staff provides the detainee supervision necessary to protect detainees from sexual abuse. The upper management officials responsible for reviewing critical incidents must
examine areas in the lockup where sexual abuse has occurred
to assess whether physical barriers may have enabled the abuse,
the adequacy of staffing levels in those areas during different
shifts, and the need for monitoring technology to supplement law
enforcement staff supervision (DC-1). When problems or needs are
identified, the agency takes corrective action (DC-3).

PP-4: Heightened protection for vulnerable detainees

Any intake screening or assessment includes consideration of a
detainee’s potential vulnerability to sexual abuse. When vulnerabilities are identified, law enforcement staff provides heightened
protection to vulnerable detainees, which may require continuous
direct sight and sound supervision or single-cell housing. Absent
intake screenings or assessments, any time a law enforcement staff
member observes any physical or behavioral characteristics of a
detainee that suggest he or she may be vulnerable to sexual abuse,

A P P E N D I X B: N P R EC S TA N DA R D S — LO C KU P S

the staff member provides sufficient protection to that detainee to
prevent sexual abuse.

PP-5: Limits to cross-gender viewing and searches

Except in the case of emergency, the agency prohibits crossgender strip and visual body cavity searches. Except in the case of
emergency or other extraordinary or unforeseen circumstances,
the agency restricts law enforcement staff from viewing detainees
of the opposite gender who are nude or performing bodily functions and similarly restricts cross-gender pat-down searches. Any
examination to determine the genital status of a detainee must be
conducted in a private setting by a medical practitioner and only
when the genital status is unknown to the agency.

PP-6: Accommodating detainees with special needs

The agency ensures that detainees who are LEP, deaf, or disabled
are able to report sexual abuse to staff directly, through interpretive technology, or through non-detainee interpreters. Accommodations are made to convey all written information about sexual abuse
policies, including how to report sexual abuse, verbally to detainees
who have limited reading skills or who are visually impaired.

PP-7: Hiring and promotion decisions

The agency does not hire or promote anyone who has engaged
in sexual abuse in an institutional setting or who has engaged in
sexual activity in the community facilitated by force, the threat of
force, or coercion. Consistent with Federal, State, and local law,
the agency makes its best effort to contact all prior institutional
employers for information on substantiated allegations of sexual
abuse; must run criminal background checks for all applicants
and employees being considered for promotion; and must examine and carefully weigh any history of criminal activity at work
or in the community, including convictions for domestic violence,
stalking, and sex offenses. The agency also asks all applicants and
employees directly about previous misconduct during interviews
and reviews.

PP-8: Assessment and use of monitoring technology

The agency uses video monitoring systems and other cost-effective
and appropriate technology to supplement its sexual abuse prevention, detection, and response efforts. The agency assesses, at least
annually, the feasibility of and need for new or additional monitoring technology and develops a plan for securing such technology.

221

Response Planning (RP)
RP-1: Evidence protocol and forensic medical exams

When investigating allegations of sexual abuse in a lockup, the
agency follows a uniform evidence protocol that maximizes the
potential for obtaining usable physical evidence for administrative proceedings and criminal prosecutions. The protocol must
be adapted from or otherwise based on the 2004 U.S. Department
of Justice’s Office on Violence Against Women publication “A
National Protocol for Sexual Assault Medical Forensic Examinations, Adults/Adolescents,” subsequent updated editions, or similarly comprehensive and authoritative protocols developed after
2004. As part of the agency’s evidence collection protocol, all victims of detainee-on-detainee sexually abusive penetration or staffon-detainee sexually abusive penetration are provided with access
and transportation to a community medical provider served by
qualified forensic medical examiners. Forensic medical exams are
provided free of charge to the victim. The agency makes available
a victim advocate to accompany the victim through the forensic
medical exam process.

RP-2: Agreements with outside law enforcement agencies

If an agency has elected to permit another law enforcement agency
to conduct criminal or administrative investigations of allegations
of sexual abuse in its lockups, the agency maintains or attempts to
enter into a written memorandum of understanding (MOU) or other
agreement specific to investigations of sexual abuse in lockups with
the outside law enforcement agency responsible for conducting
investigations. If the agency confines detainees under the age of 18
or other detainees who fall under State and local vulnerable persons
statutes, the agency maintains or attempts to enter into an MOU
with the designated State or local services agency with the jurisdiction and authority to conduct investigations related to the sexual
abuse of vulnerable persons within confinement facilities. When
the agency already has an existing agreement or long-standing
policy covering responsibilities for all criminal investigations,
including sexual abuse investigations, it does not need to enter into
a new agreement. The agency maintains a copy of the agreement
or documentation showing attempts to enter into an agreement.

RP-3: Agreements with the prosecuting authority

The agency maintains or attempts to enter into a written MOU or
other agreement with the authority responsible for prosecuting violations of criminal law. The agency maintains a copy of the agreement
or documentation showing attempts to enter into an agreement.

II. PREVENTION
Training and Education (TR)
TR-1: Employee and volunteer training

The agency trains all lockup employees and any volunteers who
have contact with detainees to be able to fulfill their responsibilities
under agency sexual abuse prevention, detection, and response policies and procedures; the PREA standards; and under relevant Federal, State, and local law. The agency trains all lockup employees
and volunteers who have contact with detainees to communicate
effectively and professionally with all detainees. Current lockup
employees and volunteers are educated as soon as possible following the agency’s adoption of the PREA standards, and the agency
provides periodic refresher information to all lockup employees and
volunteers to ensure that they know the agency’s most current sexual abuse policies and procedures. The agency maintains written
documentation showing lockup employee and volunteer signatures
verifying that they understand the training they have received.

222

TR-2: Detainee, attorney, contractor, and inmate worker
notification of the agency’s zero-tolerance policy

Employees notify all detainees of the agency’s zero-tolerance
policy regarding sexual abuse during intake. The agency ensures
that attorneys, contractors, and inmate workers are informed of
the agency’s zero-tolerance policy regarding sexual abuse upon
entering the lockup.

TR-3: Specialized training: Investigations

In addition to the general training provided to all employees and
volunteers (TR-1), the agency ensures that law enforcement staff
who investigate sexual abuse in lockups have received comprehensive and up-to-date training in conducting such investigations in confinement settings. Specialized training must include
techniques for interviewing sexual abuse victims, proper use of
Miranda- and Garrity-type warnings, sexual abuse evidence collection in confinement settings, and the criteria and evidence
required to substantiate a case for administrative action or prosecution referral. The agency maintains written documentation that
investigators have completed the required specialized training in
conducting sexual abuse investigations.

III. DETECTION AND RESPONSE
Reporting (RE)
RE-1: Detainee reporting

The agency provides multiple ways for detainees to report easily,
privately, and securely sexual abuse, retaliation by other detainees or staff for reporting sexual abuse, and staff neglect or violation of responsibilities that may have contributed to an incident
of sexual abuse. Staff accepts reports made verbally, in writing,
anonymously, and from third parties and immediately puts into
writing any verbal reports.

RE-2: Exhaustion of administrative remedies

Under agency policy, a detainee has exhausted his or her administrative remedies with regard to a claim of sexual abuse either
(1) when the agency makes a final decision on the merits of the
report of abuse (regardless of whether the report was made by the
detainee, made by a third party, or forwarded from an outside official or office) or (2) when 90 days has passed since the report was
made, whichever occurs sooner. A report of sexual abuse triggers
the 90-day exhaustion period regardless of the length of time that
has passed between the abuse and the report. A detainee seeking
immediate protection from imminent sexual abuse will be deemed
to have exhausted his or her administrative remedies 48 hours after
notifying any agency staff member of his or her need for protection.

RE-3: Third-party reporting

The agency receives and investigates all third-party reports of sexual abuse (IN-1). At the conclusion of the investigation, the agency
notifies in writing the third-party individual who reported the
abuse and the detainee named in the third-party report of the outcome of the investigation. The agency publicly distributes or posts
information on how to report sexual abuse on behalf of a detainee.

Official Response Following a Detainee Report (OR)
OR-1: Staff and agency head reporting duties

All staff members are required to report immediately and according to agency policy any knowledge, suspicion, or information
they receive regarding an incident of sexual abuse that occurred
in an institutional setting; retaliation against detainees or staff
who reported abuse; and any staff neglect or violation of responsibilities that may have contributed to an incident of sexual abuse

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

or retaliation. Apart from reporting to designated supervisors or
officials, staff must not reveal any information related to a sexual
abuse report to anyone other than those who need to know, as
specified in agency policy, to make treatment and investigation
decisions. If the victim is under the age of 18 or considered a vulnerable adult under a State or local vulnerable persons statute, the
agency head must report the allegation to the designated State or
local services agency under applicable mandatory reporting laws.

OR-2: Reporting to other confinement facilities

When the agency receives an allegation that a detainee was sexually abused while confined at another facility or lockup, the head
of the agency where the report was made notifies in writing the
head of the facility or lockup where the alleged abuse occurred.
The head of the facility or lockup where the alleged abuse occurred
ensures the allegation is investigated.

OR-3: Staff first responder duties

Upon learning that a detainee was sexually abused within a time
period that still allows for the collection of physical evidence,
the first law enforcement staff member to respond to the report
is required to (1) separate the alleged victim and abuser; (2) seal
and preserve any crime scene(s); and (3) instruct the victim not
to take any actions that could destroy physical evidence, including
washing, brushing his or her teeth, changing his or her clothes,
urinating, defecating, smoking, drinking, or eating. If the first
staff responder is a non-law enforcement staff member, he or she
is required to instruct the victim not to take any actions that could
destroy physical evidence and then notify law enforcement staff.

OR-4: Coordinated response

All actions taken in response to an incident of sexual abuse are coordinated among staff first responders, medical and mental health
practitioners, investigators, and agency leadership. The agency’s
coordinated response ensures that victims receive all necessary
immediate and ongoing medical, mental health, and support services and that investigators are able to obtain usable evidence to
substantiate allegations and hold perpetrators accountable.

OR-5: Agency protection against retaliation

The agency protects all detainees and staff who report sexual
abuse or cooperate with sexual abuse investigations from retaliation by other detainees or staff. The agency employs multiple
protection measures, including housing changes or transfers for
detainee victims or abusers, removal of alleged staff or detainee
abusers from contact with victims, and emotional support services
for staff members who fear retaliation for reporting sexual abuse
or cooperating with investigations. The agency monitors the conduct and/or treatment of staff who have reported sexual abuse or
cooperated with investigations. When retaliation is determined to
be taking place, the agency takes immediate steps to protect the
detainee or staff member.

Investigations (IN)
IN-1: Duty to investigate

The agency investigates all allegations of sexual abuse, including third-party and anonymous reports, and notifies victims and
other complainants in writing of investigation outcomes and any
disciplinary or criminal sanctions, regardless of the source of the
allegation. All investigations are carried through to completion,
regardless of whether the alleged abuser or victim remains at the
lockup.

IN-2: Criminal and administrative agency investigations

Agency investigations into allegations of sexual abuse are prompt,
thorough, objective, and conducted by investigators who have

A P P E N D I X B: N P R EC S TA N DA R D S — LO C KU P S

received special training in sexual abuse investigations (TR-3).
When outside agencies investigate sexual abuse, the agency has a
duty to keep abreast of the investigation and cooperate with outside
investigators (RP-2). Investigations include the following elements:
• Investigations are initiated and completed within the timeframes
established by the highest- ranking agency official, and the
highest-ranking official approves the final investigative report.
• Investigators gather direct and circumstantial evidence, including physical and DNA evidence when available; interview
alleged victims, suspected perpetrators, and witnesses; and
review prior complaints and reports of sexual abuse or misconduct involving the suspected perpetrator.
• When the quality of evidence appears to support criminal prosecution, prosecutors are contacted to determine whether compelled interviews may be an obstacle for subsequent criminal
prosecution.
• Investigative findings are based on an analysis of the evidence
gathered and a determination of its probative value.
• The credibility of a victim, suspect, or witness is assessed on an
individual basis and is not determined by the person’s status as
detainee or staff.
• Investigations include an effort to determine whether staff negligence or collusion enabled the abuse to occur.
• Administrative investigations are documented in written reports
that include a description of the physical and testimonial evidence and the reasoning behind credibility assessments.
• Criminal investigations are documented in a written report that
contains a thorough description of physical, testimonial, and
documentary evidence and provides a proposed list of exhibits.
• Substantiated allegations of conduct that appears to be criminal
are referred for prosecution.

IN-3: Evidence standard for administrative investigations

Allegations of sexual abuse are substantiated if supported by a preponderance of the evidence.

Discipline (DI)
DI-1: Disciplinary sanctions for staff

Staff is subject to disciplinary sanctions up to and including termination when staff has violated agency sexual abuse policies. The presumptive disciplinary sanction for staff members who have engaged
in sexually abusive contact or penetration is termination. This presumption does not limit agency discretion to impose termination for
other sexual abuse policy violations. All terminations for violations
of agency sexual abuse policies are to be reported to appropriate law
enforcement agencies and any relevant licensing bodies.

DI-2: Referrals for prosecution for detainee-on-detainee sexual
abuse

When there is probable cause to believe that a detainee sexually
abused another detainee, the agency refers the matter to the appropriate prosecuting authority.

Medical and Mental Health Care (MM)
MM-1: Access to emergency medical and mental health
services

Victims of sexual abuse have timely, unimpeded access to emergency medical services following an incident of sexual abuse,
regardless of whether they name an abuser. Treatment services
must be provided free of charge to the victim. The agency is
responsible for ensuring their safe and timely transportation to
community medical providers and for referring victims to appropriate community mental health services.

223

IV. MONITORING
Data Collection and Review (DC)
DC-1: Sexual abuse incident reviews

The agency treats all instances of sexual abuse as critical incidents
to be examined by a group of upper management officials, with
input from line supervisors and investigators. The review team
evaluates each incident of sexual abuse to identify any policy, training, or other issues related to the incident that indicate a need to
change policy or practice to better prevent, detect, and/or respond
to incidents of sexual abuse. The review team also considers
whether incidents were motivated by racial or other group dynamics at the lockup. When incidents are determined to be motivated
by racial or other group dynamics, upper management officials
immediately notify the agency head and begin taking steps to rectify those underlying problems. The sexual abuse incident review
takes place at the conclusion of every sexual abuse investigation,
unless the allegation was determined to be unfounded. The review
team prepares a report of its findings and recommendations for
improvement and submits it to the agency head.

DC-2: Data collection

The agency collects accurate, uniform data for every reported incident of sexual abuse using a standardized instrument and set of
definitions. The agency aggregates the incident-based sexual abuse
data at least annually. The incident-based data collected includes,
at a minimum, the data necessary to answer all questions from the
most recent version of the BJS Survey on Sexual Violence. Data are
obtained from multiple sources, including reports, investigation
files, and sexual abuse incident reviews. The agency also obtains
incident-based and aggregated data from every agency with which
it contracts for the confinement of its detainees.

DC-3: Data review for corrective action

The agency reviews, analyzes, and uses all sexual abuse data,
including incident-based and aggregated data, to assess and
improve the effectiveness of its sexual abuse prevention, detection,
and response policies, practices, and training. Using these data,
the agency identifies problem areas, including any racial or other
group dynamics underpinning patterns of sexual abuse, takes

corrective action on an ongoing basis, and, at least annually, prepares a report of its findings and corrective actions for each lockup
as well as the agency as a whole. The annual report also includes a
comparison of the current year’s data and corrective actions with
those from prior years and provides an assessment of the agency’s progress in addressing sexual abuse. The agency’s report is
approved by the agency head, submitted to the appropriate legislative body, and made readily available to the public through its Web
site or, if it does not have one, through other means. The agency
may redact specific material from the reports when publication
would present a clear and specific threat to the safety and security of an agency, but it must indicate the nature of the material
redacted.

DC-4: Data storage, publication, and destruction

The agency ensures that the collected sexual abuse data are properly stored, securely retained, and protected. The agency makes
all aggregated sexual abuse data, from lockups under its direct
control and those entities with which it contracts, readily available to the public at least annually through its Web site or, if it
does not have one, through other means. Before making aggregated sexual abuse data publicly available, the agency removes all
personal identifiers from the data. The agency maintains sexual
abuse data for at least 10 years after the date of its initial collection
unless Federal, State, or local law allows for the disposal of official
information in less than 10 years.

Audits (AU)
AU-1: Audits of standards

The public agency ensures that all of its lockups, including contract facilities, are audited to measure compliance with the PREA
standards. Audits must be conducted at least every three years
by independent and qualified auditors. The public or contracted
agency allows the auditor to enter and tour lockups, review documents, and interview staff and detainees, as deemed appropriate by the auditor, to conduct comprehensive audits. The public
agency ensures that the report of the auditor’s findings and the
public or contracted agency’s plan for corrective action (DC-3) are
published on the appropriate agency’s Web site if it has one or are
otherwise made readily available to the public.

NPREC Standards for the Prevention, Detection, Response, and Monitoring
of Sexual Abuse in Juvenile Facilities
I. PREVENTION AND RESPONSE PLANNING
Prevention Planning (PP)
PP-1: Zero tolerance of sexual abuse

The agency has a written policy mandating zero tolerance toward
all forms of sexual abuse and enforces that policy by ensuring
all of its facilities comply with the PREA standards. The agency
employs or designates a PREA coordinator to develop, implement,
and oversee agency efforts to comply with the PREA standards.

224

PP-2: Contracting with facilities for the confinement of
residents

If public juvenile justice agencies contract for the confinement of
their residents, they do so only with private agencies or other entities, including other government agencies, committed to eliminating sexual abuse in their facilities, as evidenced by their adoption
of and compliance with the PREA standards. Any new contracts
or contract renewals include the entity’s obligation to adopt and
comply with the PREA standards and specify that the agency will
monitor the entity’s compliance with these standards as part of its
general monitoring of the entity’s performance.

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

PP-3: Resident supervision

Direct care staff provides the resident supervision necessary to protect residents from sexual abuse. The facility administrators and
supervisors responsible for reviewing critical incidents must examine areas in the facility where sexual abuse has occurred to assess
whether there are any physical barriers that may have enabled the
abuse, the adequacy of staffing levels during different shifts, and
the need for monitoring technology to supplement direct care staff
supervision (DC-1). When problems or needs are identified, facility
administrators and supervisors take corrective action (DC-3).

PP-4: Limits to cross-gender viewing and searches

Except in the case of emergency, the facility prohibits crossgender strip and visual body cavity searches. Except in the case
of emergency or other extraordinary or unforeseen circumstances,
the facility restricts nonmedical staff from viewing residents of the
opposite gender who are nude or performing bodily functions and
similarly restricts cross-gender pat-down searches. Medical practitioners conduct examinations of transgender individuals to determine their genital status only in private settings and only when an
individual’s genital status is unknown.

PP-5: Accommodating residents with special needs

The agency ensures that residents who are limited English proficient (LEP), deaf, or disabled are able to report sexual abuse to
staff directly, through interpretive technology, or through nonresident interpreters. Accommodations are made to convey all
written information about sexual abuse policies, including how to
report sexual abuse, verbally to residents who have limited reading skills or who are visually impaired.

PP-6: Hiring and promotion decisions

The agency does not hire or promote anyone who has engaged
in sexual abuse in an institutional setting or who has engaged in
sexual activity in the community facilitated by force, the threat of
force, or coercion. Consistent with Federal, State, and local law,
the agency makes its best effort to contact all prior institutional
employers for information on substantiated allegations of sexual
abuse; must run criminal background checks for all applicants
and employees being considered for promotion; and must examine
and carefully weigh any history of criminal activity at work or in
the community, including convictions for domestic violence, stalking, child abuse and sex offenses. The agency also asks all applicants and employees directly about previous misconduct during
interviews and reviews.

PP-7: Assessment and use of monitoring technology

The agency uses video monitoring systems and other cost-effective
and appropriate technology to supplement its sexual abuse prevention, detection, and response efforts. The agency assesses, at least
annually, the feasibility of and need for new or additional monitoring technology and develops a plan for securing such technology.

Response Planning (RP)
RP-1: Evidence protocol and forensic medical exams

The agency follows a uniform evidence protocol that maximizes
the potential for obtaining usable physical evidence for administrative proceedings and criminal prosecutions. The protocol must
be adapted from or otherwise based on the 2004 U.S. Department of Justice’s Office on Violence Against Women publication
“A National Protocol for Sexual Assault Medical Forensic Examinations, Adults/Adolescents,” subsequent updated editions, or
similarly comprehensive and authoritative protocols developed
after 2004. As part of the agency’s evidence collection protocol,
all victims of resident-on-resident sexually abusive penetration or
staff-on-resident sexually abusive penetration are provided access

A P P E N D I X B: N P R EC S TA N DA R D S —J U V E N I L E FAC I L I T I ES

to forensic medical exams performed by qualified forensic medical examiners who are trained in the unique psychological and
emotional conditions of younger victims of sexual abuse. Forensic
medical exams are provided free of charge to the victim. The facility makes available a victim advocate to accompany the victim
through the forensic medical exam process.

RP-2: Agreements with outside public entities and
community service providers

The agency maintains or attempts to enter into memoranda of
understanding (MOUs) or other agreements with an outside public
entity or office that is able to receive and immediately forward resident reports of sexual abuse to facility heads (RE-1). The agency
also maintains or attempts to enter into MOUs or other agreements
with community service providers that are able to: (1) provide residents with emotional support services related to sexual abuse and
(2) help victims of sexual abuse during their transition from incarceration to the community (RE-3, MM-3). The agency maintains
copies of agreements or documentation showing attempts to enter
into agreements.

RP-3: Agreements with outside law enforcement agencies

If an agency does not have the legal authority to conduct criminal
investigations or has elected to permit an outside agency to conduct
criminal or administrative investigations of staff or residents, the
agency maintains or attempts to enter into a written MOU or other
agreement specific to investigations of sexual abuse with the law
enforcement agency responsible for conducting investigations. The
agency also maintains or attempts to enter into an MOU with the
designated State or local services agency with the jurisdiction and
authority to conduct investigations related to the sexual abuse of
children within confinement facilities. When the agency already
has an existing agreement or long-standing policy covering responsibilities for all criminal investigations, including sexual abuse
investigations and child abuse investigations conducted by a designated State or local services agency, it does not need to enter into
new agreements. The agency maintains copies of its agreements or
documentation showing attempts to enter into agreements.

RP-4: Agreements with the prosecuting authority

The agency maintains or attempts to enter into a written MOU or
other agreement with the authority responsible for prosecuting violations of criminal law. The agency maintains a copy of the agreement
or documentation showing attempts to enter into an agreement.

II. PREVENTION
Training and Education (TR)
TR-1: Employee training

The agency trains all employees to be able to fulfill their responsibilities under agency sexual abuse prevention, detection, and
response policies and procedures; the PREA standards; and
under relevant Federal, State, and local law. The agency trains all
employees to communicate effectively and professionally with all
residents. Additionally, the agency trains all employees on a resident’s right to be free from sexual abuse, the right of residents and
employees to be free from retaliation for reporting sexual abuse,
the dynamics of sexual abuse in confinement, and the common
reactions of sexual abuse victims. Current employees are educated
as soon as possible following the agency’s adoption of the PREA
standards, and the agency provides periodic refresher information
to all employees to ensure that they know the agency’s most current sexual abuse policies and procedures. The agency maintains
written documentation showing employee signatures verifying
that employees understand the training they have received.

225

TR-2: Volunteer and contractor training

The agency ensures that all volunteers and contractors who have
contact with residents have been trained on their responsibilities under the agency’s sexual abuse prevention, detection, and
response policies and procedures; the PREA standards; and relevant Federal, State, and local law. The level and type of training
provided to volunteers and contractors is based on the services
they provide and level of contact they have with residents, but all
volunteers and contractors who have contact with residents must
be notified of the agency’s zero-tolerance policy regarding sexual
abuse. Volunteers must also be trained in how to report sexual
abuse. The agency maintains written documentation showing volunteer and contractor signatures verifying that they understand
the training they have received.

TR-3: Resident education

During the intake process, staff informs residents of the agency’s
zero-tolerance policy regarding sexual abuse and how to report
incidents or suspicions of sexual abuse in an age-appropriate
fashion. Within a reasonably brief period of time following the
intake process, the agency provides comprehensive, age-appropriate education to residents regarding their right to be free from
sexual abuse and to be free from retaliation for reporting abuse,
the dynamics of sexual abuse in confinement, the common reactions of sexual abuse victims, and agency sexual abuse response
policies and procedures. Current residents are educated as soon as
possible following the agency’s adoption of the PREA standards,
and the agency provides periodic refresher information to all residents to ensure that they know the agency’s most current sexual
abuse policies and procedures. The agency provides resident education in formats accessible to all residents, including those who
are LEP, deaf, visually impaired, or otherwise disabled as well as
inmates who have limited reading skills. The agency maintains
written documentation of resident participation in these education
sessions.

TR-4: Specialized training: Investigations

In addition to the general training provided to all employees (TR-1),
the agency ensures that agency investigators conducting sexual
abuse investigations have received comprehensive and up-todate training in conducting such investigations in confinement
settings. Specialized training must include techniques for interviewing young sexual abuse victims, proper use of Miranda- and
Garrity-type warnings, sexual abuse evidence collection in confinement settings, and the criteria and evidence required to substantiate a case for administrative action or prosecution referral.
The agency maintains written documentation that investigators
have completed the required specialized training in conducting
sexual abuse investigations.

TR-5: Specialized training: Medical and mental health care

The agency ensures that all full- and part-time medical and mental
health care practitioners working in its facilities have been trained
in how to detect and assess signs of sexual abuse and that all medical practitioners are trained in how to preserve physical evidence
of sexual abuse. All medical and mental health care practitioners
must be trained in how to respond effectively and professionally
to young victims of sexual abuse and how and to whom to report
allegations or suspicions of sexual abuse. The agency maintains
documentation that medical and mental health practitioners have
received this specialized training.

Assessment and Placement of Residents (AP)
AP-1: Obtaining information about residents

During intake and periodically throughout a resident’s confinement, employees obtain and use information about each resident’s
personal history and behavior to keep all residents safe and free
from sexual abuse. At a minimum, employees attempt to ascertain
information about prior sexual victimization or abusiveness; sexual orientation and gender identity; current charges and offense
history; age; level of emotional and cognitive development; physical size/stature; mental illness or mental disabilities; intellectual/
developmental disabilities; physical disabilities; and any other
specific information about individual residents that may indicate
heightened needs for supervision, additional safety precautions,
or separation from certain other residents. This information may
be ascertained through conversations with residents at intake
and medical and mental health screenings; during classification
assessments; and by reviewing court records, case files, facility
behavioral records, and other relevant documentation from the
residents’ files. Medical and mental health practitioners are the
only staff permitted to talk with residents to gather information
about their sexual orientation or gender identity, prior sexual victimization, history of engaging in sexual abuse, mental health
status, and mental or physical disabilities. If the facility does not
have medical or mental health practitioners available, residents are
given an opportunity to discuss any safety concerns or sensitive
issues privately with another employee.

AP-2: Placement of residents in housing, bed, program,
education, and work assignments

Employees use all information obtained about the resident at intake
and subsequently to make placement decisions for each resident
on an individualized basis with the goal of keeping all residents
safe and free from sexual abuse. When determining housing, bed,
program, education and work assignments for residents, employees must take into account a resident’s age; the nature of his or her
offense; any mental or physical disability or mental illness; any
history of sexual victimization or engaging in sexual abuse; his or
her level of emotional and cognitive development; his or her identification as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender; and any other
information obtained about the resident (AP-1). Residents may be
isolated from others only as a last resort when less restrictive measures are inadequate to keep them and other residents safe, and
then only until an alternative means of keeping all residents safe
can be arranged.

III. DETECTION AND RESPONSE
Reporting (RE)
RE-1: Resident reporting

The facility provides multiple internal ways for residents to report
easily, privately, and securely sexual abuse, retaliation by other
residents or staff for reporting sexual abuse, and staff neglect or
violation of responsibilities that may have contributed to an incident of sexual abuse. The facility also provides at least one way for
residents to report the abuse to an outside public entity or office
not affiliated with the agency that has agreed to receive reports
and forward them to the facility head (RP-3). Staff accepts reports
made verbally, in writing, anonymously, and from third parties
and immediately puts into writing any verbal reports.

RE-2: Exhaustion of administrative remedies

Under agency policy, a resident has exhausted his or her administrative remedies with regard to a claim of sexual abuse either (1) when

226

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

the agency makes a final decision on the merits of the report of
abuse (regardless of whether the report was made by the resident, made by a third party, or forwarded from an outside official
or office) or (2) when 90 days have passed since the report was
made, whichever occurs sooner. A report of sexual abuse triggers
the 90-day exhaustion period regardless of the length of time that
has passed between the abuse and the report. A resident seeking
immediate protection from imminent sexual abuse will be deemed
to have exhausted his or her administrative remedies 48 hours after
notifying any agency staff member of his or her need for protection.

child welfare system, the facility head reports to the victim’s caseworker instead of the victim’s parents or legal guardians.

RE-3: Resident access to outside support services and legal
representation

Upon learning that a resident was sexually abused within a time
period that still allows for the collection of physical evidence, the
first direct care staff member to respond to the report is required
to (1) separate the alleged victim and abuser; (2) seal and preserve
any crime scene(s); and (3) instruct the victim not to take any
actions that could destroy physical evidence, including washing,
brushing his or her teeth, changing his or her clothes, urinating,
defecating, smoking, drinking, or eating. If the first staff responder
is a non–direct care staff member, he or she is required to instruct
the victim not to take any actions that could destroy physical evidence and then notify direct care staff.

In addition to providing on-site mental health care services, the
facility provides residents with access to outside victim advocates
for emotional support services related to sexual abuse. The facility provides such access by giving residents the current mailing
addresses and telephone numbers, including toll-free hotline numbers, of local, State, and/or national victim advocacy or rape crisis
organizations and enabling reasonable communication between
residents and these organizations. The facility ensures that communications with such advocates are private, to the extent allowable by Federal, State, and local law. The facility informs residents,
prior to giving them access, of the extent to which such communications will be private, confidential, and/or privileged. The facility
also provides residents with unimpeded access to their attorney or
other legal representation and their families.

RE-4: Third-party reporting

The facility receives and investigates all third-party reports of
sexual abuse and refers all third-party reports of abuse to the designated State or local services agency with the authority to conduct
investigations into allegations of sexual abuse involving child victims (IN-1 and RP-4). At the conclusion of the investigation, the
facility notifies in writing the third-party individual who reported
the abuse and the resident named in the third-party report of the
outcome of the investigation. The facility distributes information
on how to report sexual abuse on behalf of a resident to residents’
parents or legal guardians, attorneys, and the public.

Official Response Following a Resident Report (OR)
OR-1: Staff and facility head reporting duties

All staff members are required to report immediately and according to agency policy and relevant State or local mandatory child
abuse reporting laws any knowledge, suspicion, or information
they receive regarding an incident of sexual abuse that occurred in
an institutional setting; retaliation against residents or staff who
reported abuse; and any staff neglect or violation of responsibilities that may have contributed to an incident of sexual abuse or
retaliation. Apart from reporting to designated supervisors or officials and designated State or local services agencies, staff must
not reveal any information related to a sexual abuse report to anyone other than those who need to know, as specified in agency
policy, to make treatment, investigation, and other security and
management decisions. Medical and mental health practitioners
are required to report sexual abuse to designated supervisors and
officials as well as the designated State or local services agency
and must inform residents of their duty to report at the initiation of
services. Upon receiving any allegation of sexual abuse, the facility
head must immediately report the allegation to the agency head,
the juvenile court that handled the victim’s case or the victim’s
judge of record, and the victim’s parents or legal guardians, unless
the facility has official documentation showing the parents or legal
guardians should not be notified. If the victim is involved in the

A P P E N D I X B: N P R EC S TA N DA R D S —J U V E N I L E FAC I L I T I ES

OR-2: Reporting to other confinement facilities

When the facility receives an allegation that a resident was sexually
abused while confined at another facility, the head of the facility
where the report was made notifies in writing the head of the facility where the alleged abuse occurred. The head of the facility where
the alleged abuse occurred ensures the allegation is investigated.

OR-3: Staff first responder duties

OR-4: Coordinated response

All actions taken in response to an incident of sexual abuse are
coordinated among staff first responders, medical and mental
health practitioners, investigators, victim advocates, and facility
leadership. The facility’s coordinated response ensures that victims receive all necessary immediate and ongoing medical, mental health, and support services and that investigators are able to
obtain usable evidence to substantiate allegations and hold perpetrators accountable.

OR-5: Agency protection against retaliation

The agency protects all residents and staff who report sexual abuse
or cooperate with sexual abuse investigations from retaliation by
other residents or staff. The agency employs multiple protection
measures, including housing changes or transfers for resident victims or abusers, removal of alleged staff or resident abusers from
contact with victims, and emotional support services for residents
or staff who fear retaliation for reporting sexual abuse or cooperating with investigations. The agency monitors the conduct and/or
treatment of residents or staff who have reported sexual abuse or
cooperated with investigations, including any resident disciplinary
reports, housing, or program changes, for at least 90 days following their report or cooperation to see if there are changes that may
suggest possible retaliation by residents or staff. The agency discusses any changes with the appropriate resident or staff member
as part of its efforts to determine if retaliation is taking place and,
when confirmed, immediately takes steps to protect the resident
or staff member.

Investigations (IN)
IN-1: Duty to investigate

The facility investigates all allegations of sexual abuse, including third-party and anonymous reports, and notifies victims and
or other complainants in writing of investigation outcomes and
any disciplinary or criminal sanctions, regardless of the source of
the allegation. If additional parties were notified of the allegation
(OR-1), the facility notifies those parties in writing of investigation outcomes. All investigations are carried through to completion, regardless of whether the alleged abuser or victim remains at
the facility and regardless of whether the source of the allegation
recants his or her allegation.

227

IN-2: Criminal and administrative agency investigations

Agency investigations into allegations of sexual abuse are prompt,
thorough, objective, and conducted by investigators who have
received special training in sexual abuse investigations involving
young victims (TR-4). When outside agencies investigate sexual
abuse, the facility has a duty to keep abreast of the investigation
and cooperate with outside investigators (RP-4). Investigations
include the following elements:
• Investigations are initiated and completed within the time frames
established by the highest- ranking facility official, and the highest-ranking official approves the final investigative report.
• Investigators gather direct and circumstantial evidence, including physical and DNA evidence when available; interview
alleged victims, suspected perpetrators, and witnesses; and
review prior complaints and reports of sexual abuse involving
the suspected perpetrator; and potentially corroborating physical or other evidence.
• When the quality of evidence appears to support criminal prosecution, prosecutors are contacted to determine whether compelled interviews may be an obstacle for subsequent criminal
prosecution.
• Investigative findings are based on an analysis of the evidence
gathered and a determination of its probative value.
• The credibility of a victim, suspect, or witness is assessed on an
individual basis and is not determined by the person’s status as
resident or staff.
• Investigations include an effort to determine whether staff negligence or collusion enabled the abuse to occur.
• Administrative investigations are documented in written reports
that include a description of the physical and testimonial evidence and the reasoning behind credibility assessments.
• Criminal investigations are documented in a written report that
contains a thorough description of physical, testimonial, and
documentary evidence and provides a proposed list of exhibits.
• Substantiated allegations of conduct that appears to be criminal
are referred for prosecution.

IN-3: Evidence Standard for Administrative Investigations

Allegations of sexual abuse are substantiated if supported by a preponderance of the evidence.

Discipline (DI)
DI-1: Disciplinary sanctions for staff

Staff is subject to disciplinary sanctions up to and including termination when staff has violated agency sexual abuse policies. The
presumptive disciplinary sanction for staff members who have
engaged in sexually abusive contact or penetration is termination.
This presumption does not limit agency discretion to impose termination for other sexual abuse policy violations. All terminations
for violations of agency sexual abuse policies are to be reported to
law enforcement agencies and any relevant licensing bodies.

DI-2: Interventions for residents who engage in sexual abuse

Residents receive appropriate interventions if they engage in resident-on-resident sexual abuse. Decisions regarding which types of
interventions to use in particular cases, including treatment, counseling, educational programs, or disciplinary sanctions, are made
with the goal of promoting improved behavior by the resident and
ensuring the safety of other residents and staff. When imposing
disciplinary sanctions in lieu of or in addition to other interventions, the facility informs residents of their rights and responsibilities during the disciplinary process, including how to appeal
sanctions, and only imposes sanctions commensurate with the
type of violation committed and the resident’s disciplinary history.

228

Intervention decisions must take into account the social, sexual,
emotional, and cognitive development of the resident and the resident’s mental health status.

Medical and Mental Health Care (MM)
MM-1: Medical and mental health intake screenings

During medical and mental health reception and intake screenings, qualified medical or mental health practitioners talk with
residents to ascertain information regarding the resident’s sexual
orientation, gender identity, prior sexual victimization or history of
engaging in sexual abuse (whether it occurred in an institutional
setting or in the community), mental health status, and mental
or physical disabilities. Such conversations are conducted in the
manner that the medical or mental health practitioner deems
appropriate for each resident in light of the resident’s age and
developmental status according to the practitioner’s professional
judgment and use inclusive language that avoids implicit assumptions about a young person’s sexual orientation. The information
obtained during these screenings is strictly limited to medical and
mental health practitioners, with information provided to appropriate staff on a need to know basis to the extent needed to inform
all housing, bed, program, education, and work assignments for
the resident (AP-2). If a resident discloses prior sexual victimization or abusiveness during a medical or mental health reception or
intake screening, the practitioner reports the abuse according to
agency policy and relevant State or local mandatory child abuse
reporting laws (OR-1) and provides the appropriate treatment or
referral for treatment, based on his or her professional judgment.

MM-2: Access to emergency medical and mental health
services

Victims of sexual abuse have timely, unimpeded access to emergency medical treatment and crisis intervention services, the nature
and scope of which are determined by medical and mental health
practitioners according to their professional judgment. Treatment
services must be provided free of charge to the victim and regardless of whether the victim names the abuser. If no qualified medical
or mental health practitioners are on duty at the time a report of
recent abuse is made, direct care staff first responders take preliminary steps to protect the victim (OR-3) and immediately notify the
appropriate medical and mental health practitioners.

MM-3: Ongoing medical and mental health care for sexual
abuse victims and abusers

The facility provides ongoing medical and/or mental health evaluation and treatment to all known victims of sexual abuse. The
evaluation and treatment of sexual abuse victims must include
appropriate follow-up services, treatment plans, and, when necessary, referrals for continued care following their release from
custody. The level of medical and mental health care provided to
resident victims must match the community level of care generally
accepted by the medical and mental health professional communities. The facility conducts a mental health evaluation of all known
abusers and provides treatment, as deemed necessary by qualified
mental health practitioners.

IV. MONITORING
Data Collection and Review (DC)
DC-1: Sexual abuse incident reviews

The facility treats all instances of sexual abuse as critical incidents
to be examined by a team of upper management officials, with
input from line supervisors, investigators, and medical/mental

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

health practitioners. The review team evaluates each incident of
sexual abuse to identify any policy, training, or other issues related
to the incident that indicate a need to change policy or practice to
better prevent, detect, and/or respond to incidents of sexual abuse.
The review team also considers whether incidents were motivated
by racial or other group dynamics at the facility. When incidents
are determined to be motivated by racial or other group dynamics,
upper management officials immediately notify the agency head
and begin taking steps to rectify those underlying problems. The
sexual abuse incident review takes place at the conclusion of every
sexual abuse investigation, unless the allegation was determined
to be unfounded. The review team prepares a report of its findings and recommendations for improvement and submits it to the
facility head.

DC-2: Data collection

The agency collects accurate, uniform data for every reported
incident of sexual abuse using a standardized instrument and set
of definitions. The agency aggregates the incident-based sexual
abuse data at least annually. The incident-based data collected
includes, at a minimum, the data necessary to answer all questions
from the most recent version of the BJS Survey on Sexual Violence.
See Appendix C for a list of recommended data elements. Data are
obtained from multiple sources, including reports, investigation
files, and sexual abuse incident reviews. The agency also obtains
incident-based and aggregated data from every facility with which
it contracts for the confinement of its residents.

DC-3: Data review for corrective action

The agency reviews, analyzes, and uses all sexual abuse data,
including incident-based and aggregated data, to assess and
improve the effectiveness of its sexual abuse prevention, detection,
and response policies, practices, and training. Using these data,
the agency identifies problem areas, including any racial dynamics
or other group dynamics underpinning patterns of sexual abuse,
takes corrective action on an ongoing basis, and, at least annually,
prepares a report of its findings and corrective actions for each
facility as well as the agency as a whole. The annual report also

includes a comparison of the current year’s data and corrective
actions with those from prior years and provides an assessment
of the agency’s progress in addressing sexual abuse. The agency’s
report is approved by the agency head, submitted to the appropriate legislative body, and made readily available to the public
through its Web site or, if it does not have one, through other
means. The agency may redact specific material from the reports
when publication would present a clear and specific threat to the
safety and security of a facility, but it must indicate the nature of
the material redacted.

DC-4: Data storage, publication, and destruction

The agency ensures that the collected sexual abuse data are properly stored, securely retained, and protected. The agency makes
all aggregated sexual abuse data, from facilities under its direct
control and those with which it contracts, readily available to the
public at least annually through its Web site or, if it does not have
one, through other means. Before making aggregated sexual abuse
data publicly available, the agency removes all personal identifiers
from the data. The agency maintains sexual abuse data for at least
10 years after the date of its initial collection unless Federal, State,
or local law allows for the disposal of official information in less
than 10 years.

Audits (AU)
AU-1: Audits of standards

The public agency ensures that all of its facilities, including contract facilities, are audited to measure compliance with the PREA
standards. Audits must be conducted at least every three years
by independent and qualified auditors. The public or contracted
agency allows the auditor to enter and tour facilities, review documents, and interview staff and residents, as deemed appropriate by
the auditor, to conduct comprehensive audits. The public agency
ensures that the report of the auditor’s findings and the public or
contracted agency’s plan for corrective action (DC-3) are published
on the appropriate agency’s Web site if it has one or are otherwise
made readily available to the public.

NPREC Standards for the Prevention, Detection, Response, and Monitoring
of Sexual Abuse in Community Corrections
I. PREVENTION AND RESPONSE PLANNING
Prevention Planning (PP)
Community Corrections Facilities

Pretrial, Probation, and Parole

PP-1: Zero tolerance of sexual abuse

The agency has a written policy mandating zero tolerance toward
all forms of sexual abuse and enforces that policy by ensuring all
of its facilities and community supervision functions comply with
the PREA standards. The agency employs or designates a PREA
coordinator to oversee agency efforts to comply with the PREA
standards.

A P P E N D I X B: N P R EC S TA N DA R D S — C O M M U N I T Y C O R R EC T I O N S

Community Corrections Facilities

Pretrial, Probation, and Parole

PP-2: Contracting to house or supervise defendants/offenders
under community corrections authority

If public community corrections agencies contract for housing or
supervision of their defendants/offenders, they do so only with
private agencies or other entities, including nonprofit or other
government agencies, committed to eliminating sexual abuse,
as evidenced by their adoption of and compliance with the PREA
standards. Any new contracts or contract renewals include the
entity’s obligation to adopt and comply with the PREA standards
and specify that the public agency will monitor the entity’s compliance with these standards as part of its monitoring of the entity’s performance. Only in emergency circumstances, in which all

229

reasonable attempts to find a private agency or other entity in compliance with the PREA standards have failed, should a contract be
entered into with an entity that fails to comply with these standards. The public agency must document these efforts.

Community Corrections Facilities

PP-3: Defendant/offender supervision

Facility staff provides the defendant/offender supervision necessary to protect defendants/offenders from sexual abuse. The facility administrators and supervisors responsible for reviewing critical
incidents must examine areas in the facility where sexual abuse
has occurred or may be likely to occur to assess whether physical
barriers may allow the abuse to go undetected, the adequacy of
staffing levels in those areas during different shifts, and the need
for monitoring technology to supplement facility staff supervision.
When problems or needs are identified, facility administrators and
supervisors take corrective action (DC-3).

Community Corrections Facilities

PP-4: Limits to cross-gender viewing and searches

Except in the case of emergency, the facility prohibits cross-gender
strip and visual body cavity searches. Except in the case of emergency or other extraordinary or unforeseen circumstances, the facility restricts nonmedical staff from viewing defendants/offenders of
the opposite gender who are nude or performing bodily functions
and similarly restricts cross-gender pat-down searches. Medical
practitioners conduct examinations of transgender individuals to
determine their genital status only in private settings and only when
an individual’s genital status is unknown.

Community Corrections Facilities

Pretrial, Probation, and Parole

PP-5: Accommodating defendants/offenders with special needs

The agency or facility ensures that defendants/offenders who are
limited English proficient (LEP), deaf, or disabled are able to report
sexual abuse to staff directly, through interpretive technology, or
through nondefendant/offender interpreters. Accommodations are
made to convey all written information about sexual abuse policies,
including how to report sexual abuse, verbally to defendants/offenders who have limited reading skills or who are visually impaired.

Community Corrections Facilities

Pretrial, Probation, and Parole

PP-6: Hiring and promotion decisions

The agency or facility does not hire or promote anyone who has
engaged in sexual abuse in an institutional setting or who has
engaged in sexual activity in the community facilitated by force,
the threat of force, or coercion. Consistent with Federal, State, and
local law, the agency or facility makes its best effort to contact all
prior institutional employers for information on substantiated allegations of sexual abuse and must run criminal background checks
for all applicants and employees being considered for promotion
and examine and carefully weigh any history of criminal activity
at work or in the community, including convictions or adjudications for domestic violence, stalking, and sex offenses. The agency
or facility also asks all applicants and employees directly about
previous misconduct during interviews and reviews.

Response Planning (RP)
Community Corrections Facilities

RP-1: Evidence protocol and forensic medical exams

The agency or facility follows a uniform evidence protocol that
maximizes the potential for obtaining usable physical evidence for

230

administrative proceedings and criminal prosecutions. The protocol must be adapted from or otherwise based on the 2004 U.S.
Department of Justice’s Office on Violence Against Women publication “A National Protocol for Sexual Assault Medical Forensic
Examinations, Adults/Adolescents,” subsequent updated editions,
or similarly comprehensive and authoritative protocols developed
after 2004. As part of the agency’s or facility’s evidence collection protocol, the agency or facility refers all victims of defendant/
offender-on-defendant/offender sexually abusive penetration or
staff-on-defendant/offender sexually abusive penetration to forensic medical exams performed by qualified forensic medical examiners. Forensic medical exams are provided free of charge to the
victim. The agency or facility makes available or provides referrals
to a victim advocate to accompany the victim through the forensic
medical exam process.

Community Corrections Facilities

RP-2: Agreements with outside public entities and community
service providers

The agency or facility maintains or attempts to enter into written
memoranda of understanding (MOUs) or other agreements with
an outside public entity or office that is able to receive and immediately forward defendant/offender reports of sexual abuse to agency
or facility heads (RE-1). The agency also maintains or attempts
to enter into MOUs or other agreements with community service
providers that are able to: (1) provide defendants/offenders with
confidential emotional support services related to sexual abuse
and (2) help victims of sexual abuse during their transition from a
community corrections facility into the community. The agency or
facility maintains copies of written agreements or documentation
showing attempts to enter into agreements.

Community Corrections Facilities

RP-3: Agreements with outside law enforcement agencies

If an agency or facility does not have the legal authority to conduct criminal investigations or has elected to permit an outside
agency to conduct criminal or administrative investigations of
staff or defendants/offenders, the agency or facility maintains
or attempts to enter into a written MOU or other agreement specific to investigations of sexual abuse with the law enforcement
agency responsible for conducting investigations. If the agency
or facility confines defendants/offenders under the age of 18 or
applicable age of majority within that jurisdiction, or other defendants/offenders who fall under State and local vulnerable persons
statutes, the agency or facility maintains or attempts to enter into
an MOU with the designated State or local services agency with
the jurisdiction and authority to conduct investigations related to
the sexual abuse of vulnerable persons within community corrections facilities. When the agency or facility already has an existing
agreement or long-standing policy covering responsibilities for all
criminal investigations, including sexual abuse investigations, it
does not need to enter into a new agreement. The agency or facility maintains a copy of the written agreement or documentation
showing attempts to enter into an agreement.

Community Corrections Facilities

RP-4: Agreements with the prosecuting authority

The agency or facility maintains or attempts to enter into a written
MOU or other agreement with the authority responsible for prosecuting violations of criminal law. The agency or facility maintains a copy of the written agreement or documentation showing
attempts to enter into an agreement.

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

II. PREVENTION
Training and Education (TR)
Community Corrections Facilities

Pretrial, Probation, and Parole

TR-1: Employee training

The agency or facility trains all employees to be able to fulfill their
responsibilities under agency or facility sexual abuse prevention,
detection, and response policies and procedures; the PREA standards; and under relevant Federal, State, and local law. The agency
or facility trains all employees to communicate effectively and professionally with all defendants/offenders. Additionally, the agency
or facility trains all employees on a defendant/offender’s right to
be free from sexual abuse, the right of defendants/offenders and
employees to be free from retaliation for reporting sexual abuse,
the dynamics of sexual abuse, and the common reactions of sexual
abuse victims. Current employees are educated as soon as possible
following the agency’s or facility’s adoption of the PREA standards,
and the agency or facility provides periodic refresher information
to all employees to ensure that they know the agency’s or facility’s
most current sexual abuse policies and procedures. The agency
or facility maintains written documentation showing employee
signatures verifying that employees understand the training they
have received.

Community Corrections Facilities

Pretrial, Probation, and Parole

TR-2: Volunteer and contractor training

The agency or facility ensures that all volunteers and contractors
who have contact through the agency or facility with defendants/
offenders have been trained on their responsibilities under the
agency’s sexual abuse prevention, detection, and response policies
and procedures; the PREA standards; and relevant Federal, State,
and local law. The level and type of training provided to volunteers
and contractors is based on the services they provide and level
of contact they have with defendants/offenders, but all volunteers
and contractors who have contact with defendants/offenders must
be notified of the agency’s or facility’s zero-tolerance policy regarding sexual abuse. Volunteers must also be trained in how to report
sexual abuse. The agency or facility maintains written documentation showing volunteer and contractor signatures verifying that
they understand the training they have received.

Community Corrections Facilities

Pretrial, Probation, and Parole

TR-3: Defendant/offender education

During the intake process into a facility or upon initial stages of
supervision, staff informs defendants/offenders of the agency’s or
facility’s zero-tolerance policy regarding sexual abuse and how to
report incidents or suspicions of sexual abuse. Within a reasonably brief period of time, the agency or facility provides comprehensive education to defendants/offenders regarding their right
to be free from sexual abuse and to be free from retaliation for
reporting abuse, the dynamics of sexual abuse, the common reactions of sexual abuse victims, and agency or facility sexual abuse
response policies and procedures. Current defendants/offenders
are educated as soon as possible following the agency’s or facility’s adoption of the PREA standards, and the agency or facility
provides periodic refresher information to all defendants/offenders
to ensure that they know the agency’s or facility’s most current
sexual abuse policies and procedures. Periodic refresher training
may or may not be necessary in community corrections facilities
given the shorter time period defendants/offenders may reside in
these facilities. The agency or facility provides defendant/offender

A P P E N D I X B: N P R EC S TA N DA R D S — C O M M U N I T Y C O R R EC T I O N S

education in formats accessible to all defendants/offenders, including those who are LEP, deaf, visually impaired, or otherwise disabled as well as defendants/offenders who have limited reading
skills. All information provided to defendants/offenders is communicated in a manner that is appropriate for the defendant/offender’s age and level of cognitive and emotional development. The
agency or facility maintains written documentation of defendant/
offender participation in these education sessions.

Community Corrections Facilities

Pretrial, Probation, and Parole

TR-4: Specialized training: Investigations

In addition to the general training provided to all employees (TR-1),
the agency or facility ensures that investigators employed by the
agency or facility and conducting sexual abuse investigations have
received comprehensive and up-to-date training in conducting
such investigations in community corrections settings. Specialized training must include population-appropriate techniques for
interviewing sexual abuse victims, proper use of Miranda- and
Garrity-type warnings, sexual abuse evidence collection in community corrections settings, and the criteria and evidence required
to substantiate a case for administrative action or prosecution
referral. The agency or facility maintains written documentation
that investigators have completed the required specialized training in conducting sexual abuse investigations.

Community Corrections Facilities

Pretrial, Probation, and Parole

TR-5: Specialized training: Medical and mental health care

The agency or facility ensures that all medical and mental health
care practitioners employed or contracted with by the community corrections or pretrial, probation, or parole agency have been
trained in how to detect and assess signs of sexual abuse and how
to preserve physical evidence of sexual abuse. All medical and
mental health care practitioners must be trained in how to respond
effectively and professionally to victims of sexual abuse and how
and to whom to report allegations or suspicions of sexual abuse.
The agency or facility maintains documentation that medical and
mental health practitioners have received this specialized training.

Screening for Risk of Sexual Victimization and Abusiveness (SC)
Community Corrections Facilities

SC-1: Screening for risk of victimization and abusiveness

All defendants/offenders are screened during intake to assess
their risk of being sexually abused by other defendants/offenders
or sexually abusive toward other defendants/offenders. Employees
must review information received with the defendant/offender as
well as discussions with the defendant/offender. Employees must
conduct this screening using a written screening instrument tailored to the gender of the population being screened. Although
additional factors may be considered, particularly to account for
emerging research and the agency’s or facility’s own data analysis,
screening instruments must contain the criteria described below.
For defendants/offenders under the age of 18 or applicable age of
majority within that jurisdiction, screening must be conducted
by medical or mental health practitioners. If the facility does not
have medical or mental health practitioners available, these young
defendants/offenders are given an opportunity to participate in
screenings in private. All screening instruments must be made
available to the public upon request.
• At a minimum, employees use the following criteria to screen
male defendants/offenders for risk of victimization: mental or
physical disability, young age, slight build, nonviolent history,

231

prior convictions for sex offenses against an adult or child, sexual orientation of gay or bisexual, gender nonconformance (e.g.,
transgender or intersex identity), prior sexual victimization, and
the defendant/offender’s own perception of vulnerability.
• At a minimum, employees use the following criteria to screen
male defendants/offenders for risk of being sexually abusive:
prior acts of sexual abuse and prior convictions for violent
offenses.
• At a minimum, employees use the following criteria to screen
female defendants/offenders for risk of sexual victimization:
prior sexual victimization and the defendant/offender’s own
perception of vulnerability.
• At a minimum, employees use the following criteria to screen
female defendants/offenders for risk of being sexually abusive:
prior acts of sexual abuse.

Community Corrections Facilities

SC-2: Use of screening information

Employees use information from the risk screening (SC-1) to
inform housing, bed, work, education, and program assignments.
In many community corrections facilities, it is difficult, if not
impossible, to keep defendants/offenders totally separate or segregated from each other. However, the facility can determine, based
on the screening information, whether a particular defendant/
offender should receive greater supervision, should have more frequent contact with staff, or is more appropriately housed in some
alternative type of placement. The facility makes individualized
determinations about how to ensure the safety of each defendant/
offender. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or other gendernonconforming defendants/offenders are not placed in particular
housing assignments solely on the basis of their sexual orientation,
genital status, or gender identity.

III. DETECTION AND RESPONSE
Reporting (RE)
Community Corrections Facilities

Community Corrections Facilities

RE-3: Defendant/offender access to outside confidential
support services

The facility provides defendants/offenders with access to outside
victim advocates for emotional support services related to sexual
abuse. The facility provides such access by giving defendants/
offenders the current mailing addresses and telephone numbers, including toll-free hotline numbers, of local, State, and/or
national victim advocacy or rape crisis organizations and enabling
reasonable communication between defendants/offenders and
these organizations. The facility ensures that communications
with such advocates are private, confidential, and privileged, to
the extent allowable by Federal, State, and local law. The facility
informs defendants/offenders, prior to giving them access, of the
extent to which such communications will be private, confidential,
and/or privileged.

Community Corrections Facilities

Pretrial, Probation, and Parole

RE-4: Third-party reporting

The agency or facility receives and investigates all third-party
reports of sexual abuse (IN-1). At the conclusion of the investigation, the agency or facility notifies in writing the third-party individual who reported the abuse and the defendant/offender named
in the third-party report of the outcome of the investigation. The
agency or facility distributes publicly information on how to report
sexual abuse on behalf of a defendant/offender.

Official Response Following a Defendant/Offender Report (OR)
Pretrial, Probation, and Parole

RE-1: Defendant/offender reporting

The agency or facility provides multiple internal ways for defendants/offenders to report easily, privately, and securely sexual
abuse, retaliation by other defendants/offenders or staff for reporting sexual abuse, and staff neglect or violation of responsibilities
that may have contributed to an incident of sexual abuse. The
agency or facility also provides at least one way for defendants/
offenders to report the abuse to an outside pubic entity or office not
affiliated with the agency that has agreed to receive reports and
forward them to the agency or facility head (RP-2), except when a
defendant/offender requests confidentiality. Staff accepts reports
made verbally, in writing, anonymously, and from third parties
and immediately puts into writing any verbal reports.

Community Corrections Facilities

RE-2: Exhaustion of administrative remedies

Under agency or facility policy, a defendant/offender has exhausted
his or her administrative remedies with regard to a claim of sexual
abuse either (1) when the agency or facility makes a final decision on the merits of the report of abuse (regardless of whether the
report was made by the defendant/offender, made by a third party,

232

or forwarded from an outside official or office) or (2) when 90 days
have passed since the report was made, whichever occurs sooner.
A report of sexual abuse triggers the 90-day exhaustion period
regardless of the length of time that has passed between the abuse
and the report. A defendant/offender seeking immediate protection
from imminent sexual abuse will be deemed to have exhausted his
or her administrative remedies 48 hours after notifying any agency
or facility staff member of his or her need for protection.

Community Corrections Facilities

Pretrial, Probation, and Parole

OR-1: Staff and agency or facility head reporting duties

All staff members are required to report immediately and according to agency or facility policy any knowledge, suspicion, or information they receive regarding an incident of sexual abuse that
occurred in a facility setting or while under supervision; retaliation against defendants/offenders or staff who reported abuse;
and any staff neglect or violation of responsibilities that may have
contributed to an incident of sexual abuse or retaliation. Apart
from reporting to designated supervisors or officials, staff must not
reveal any information related to a sexual abuse report to anyone
other than those who need to know, as specified in agency or facility policy, to make treatment, investigation, and other security and
management decisions. Unless otherwise precluded by Federal,
State, or local law, staff medical and mental health practitioners
are required to report sexual abuse and must inform defendants/
offenders of their duty to report at the initiation of services. If the
victim is under the age of 18 or applicable age of majority within
that jurisdiction, or considered a vulnerable adult under a State or
local vulnerable persons statute, staff must report the allegation
to the designated State or local services agency under applicable
mandatory reporting laws.

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

Community Corrections Facilities

Pretrial, Probation, and Parole

OR-2: Reporting to other agencies or facilities

When the agency or facility receives an allegation that a defendant/offender was sexually abused while in a community corrections facility or while under supervision, the head of the agency or
facility where the report was made notifies in writing the head of
the agency or facility where the alleged abuse occurred. The head
of the agency or facility where the alleged abuse occurred ensures
the allegation is investigated.

Community Corrections Facilities

OR-3: Staff first responder duties

Upon learning that a defendant/offender has alleged sexual abuse
within a time period that still allows for the collection of physical
evidence, the first facility staff member to respond to the report
is required to (1) separate the alleged victim and abuser; (2) seal
and preserve any crime scene(s); and (3) instruct the victim not
to take any actions that could destroy physical evidence, including
washing, brushing his or her teeth, changing his or her clothes,
urinating, defecating, smoking, drinking, or eating.

Community Corrections Facilities

Pretrial, Probation, and Parole

OR-4: Coordinated response

All actions taken in response to an allegation of sexual abuse are
coordinated among staff first responders, medical and mental
health practitioners, investigators, and agency or facility leadership. The agency’s or facility’s coordinated response ensures that
victims receive all necessary immediate and ongoing medical,
mental health, and support services and that investigators are able
to obtain usable evidence to substantiate allegations and hold perpetrators accountable.

Community Corrections Facilities

Pretrial, Probation, and Parole

OR-5: Agency or facility protection against retaliation

The agency or facility protects all defendants/offenders and staff
who report sexual abuse or cooperate with sexual abuse investigations from retaliation by other defendants/offenders or staff. The
agency or facility employs multiple protection measures, including housing changes or transfers for defendant/offender victims
or abusers, removal of alleged staff or defendant/offender abusers from contact with victims, and emotional support services
for defendants/offenders or staff who fear retaliation for reporting sexual abuse or cooperating with investigations. The agency
or facility monitors the conduct and/or treatment of defendants/
offenders or staff who have reported sexual abuse or cooperated
with investigations, including any defendant/offender disciplinary reports, housing changes, or program changes, for at least 90
days following their report or cooperation to assess changes that
may suggest possible retaliation by defendants/offenders or staff.
The agency or facility discusses any changes with the appropriate
defendant/offender or staff member as part of its efforts to determine if retaliation is taking place and, when confirmed, immediately takes steps to protect the defendant/offender or staff member.

Investigations (IN)
Community Corrections Facilities

Pretrial, Probation, and Parole

IN-1: Duty to investigate

The agency or facility investigates all allegations of sexual abuse,
including third-party and anonymous reports, and notifies victims
and/or other complainants in writing of investigation outcomes

A P P E N D I X B: N P R EC S TA N DA R D S — C O M M U N I T Y C O R R EC T I O N S

and any disciplinary or criminal sanctions, regardless of the
source of the allegation. All investigations are carried through
to completion, regardless of whether the alleged abuser or victim
remains at the facility or under supervision.

Community Corrections Facilities

Pretrial, Probation, and Parole

IN-2: Criminal and administrative agency or facility
investigations

Agency or facility investigations into allegations of sexual abuse
are prompt, thorough, objective, and conducted by investigators
who have received special training in sexual abuse investigations (TR-4). When outside agencies investigate sexual abuse, the
agency or facility has a duty to keep abreast of the investigation
and cooperate with outside investigators (RP-3). Investigations
include the following elements:
• Investigations are initiated and completed within the timeframes established by the highest- ranking official, and the
highest-ranking official approves the final investigative report.
• Investigators gather direct and circumstantial evidence, including physical and DNA evidence when available; interview
alleged victims, suspected perpetrators, and witnesses; and
review prior complaints and reports of sexual abuse involving
the suspected perpetrator.
• When the quality of evidence appears to support criminal prosecution, prosecutors are contacted to determine whether compelled interviews may be an obstacle for subsequent criminal
prosecution.
• Investigative findings are based on an analysis of the evidence
gathered and a determination of its probative value.
• The credibility of a victim, suspect, or witness is assessed on an
individual basis and is not determined by the person’s status as
defendant/offender or staff.
• Investigations include an effort to determine whether staff negligence or collusion enabled the abuse to occur.
• Administrative investigations are documented in written reports
that include a description of the physical and testimonial evidence and the reasoning behind credibility assessments.
• Criminal investigations are documented in a written report that
contains a thorough description of physical, testimonial, and
documentary evidence and provides a proposed list of exhibits.
• Substantiated allegations of conduct that appear to be criminal
are referred for prosecution.

Community Corrections Facilities

Pretrial, Probation, and Parole

IN-3: Evidence standard for administrative investigations

Allegations of sexual abuse are substantiated if supported by a preponderance of the evidence or a lesser standard if allowed under
agency or facility policy or State law.

Discipline (DI)
Community Corrections Facilities

Pretrial, Probation, and Parole

DI-1: Disciplinary sanctions for staff

Staff is subject to disciplinary sanctions up to and including termination when staff has violated agency or facility sexual abuse
policies. The presumptive disciplinary sanction for staff members
who have engaged in sexually abusive contact or penetration is
termination. This presumption does not limit agency or facility
discretion to impose termination for other sexual abuse policy violations. All terminations for violations of agency or facility sexual
abuse policies are to be reported to law enforcement agencies and
any relevant licensing bodies.

233

Community Corrections Facilities

Pretrial, Probation, and Parole

DI-2: Disciplinary sanctions for defendants/offenders

Defendants/offenders are subject to disciplinary sanctions pursuant to a formal disciplinary process following an administrative ruling that the defendant/offender engaged in defendant/
offender-on-defendant/offender sexual abuse or following a criminal finding of guilt for defendant/offender-on-defendant/offender
sexual abuse. Sanctions are commensurate with the nature and
circumstances of the abuse committed, the defendant/offender’s
disciplinary history, and the sanctions meted out for comparable
offenses by other defendants/offenders with similar histories. The
disciplinary process must consider whether a defendant/offender’s mental disabilities or mental illness contributed to his or her
behavior when determining what type of sanction, if any, should
be imposed. Possible sanctions can include discipline within the
community corrections facility, new criminal charges, or referral
to authorities who may change conditions of a defendant/offender’s release status in the community. Sanctions may also include
interventions designed to address and correct underlying reasons or motivation for the abuse, such as requiring the offending
defendant/offender to participate in therapy, counseling, or other
programs. Sanctions and/or interventions for young defendants/
offenders must also take into account the social, sexual, emotional,
and cognitive development of the defendant/offender.

Medical and Mental Health Care (MM)
Community Corrections Facilities

MM-1: Access to emergency medical and mental health
services

Victims of sexual abuse have timely, unimpeded access to emergency medical treatment and crisis intervention services, the
nature and scope of which are determined by medical and mental health practitioners according to their professional judgment.
Treatment services must be provided free of charge to the victim
and regardless of whether the victim names the abuser. If the community corrections facility does not have medical or mental health
practitioners or they are not on duty at the time a report of recent
abuse is made, staff first responders take preliminary steps to protect the victim (OR-3) and immediately notify appropriate staff or
community medical and mental health practitioners.

Community Corrections Facilities

MM-2: Ongoing medical and mental health care for sexual
abuse victims and abusers

The facility provides ongoing medical and/or mental health evaluation and treatment to all known victims of sexual abuse. The
evaluation and treatment of sexual abuse victims must include
appropriate follow-up services, treatment plans, and, when necessary, referrals for continued care following their release from a community corrections facility. The level of medical and mental health
care provided to defendant/offender victims must match the community level of care generally accepted by the medical and mental
health professional communities. The facility conducts a mental
health evaluation of all known abusers and provides treatment, as
deemed necessary by qualified mental health practitioners.

234

IV. MONITORING
Data Collection and Review (DC)
Community Corrections Facilities

Pretrial, Probation, and Parole

DC-1: Sexual abuse incident reviews

The agency or facility treats all instances of sexual abuse as critical
incidents to be examined by a team of upper management officials,
with input from line supervisors, investigators, and medical/mental health practitioners. The review team evaluates each incident of
sexual abuse to identify any policy, training, or other issues related
to the incident that indicate a need to change policy or practice to
better prevent, detect, and/or respond to incidents of sexual abuse.
The review team also considers whether incidents were motivated
by racial or other group dynamics. When incidents are determined
to be motivated by racial or other group dynamics, upper management officials immediately notify the agency or facility head
and begin taking steps to rectify those underlying problems. The
sexual abuse incident review takes place at the conclusion of every
sexual abuse investigation, unless the allegation was determined
to be unfounded. The review team prepares a report of its findings and recommendations for improvement and submits it to the
agency or facility head.

Community Corrections Facilities

Pretrial, Probation, and Parole

DC-2: Data collection

The agency or facility collects accurate, uniform data for every
reported incident of sexual abuse using a standardized instrument and set of definitions. The agency aggregates the incidentbased sexual abuse data at least annually. The incident-based data
collected includes, at a minimum, the data necessary to answer
all questions from the most recent version of the BJS Survey on
Sexual Violence. Data are obtained from multiple sources, including reports, investigation files, and sexual abuse incident reviews.
The agency also obtains incident-based and aggregated data from
every community corrections facility with which it contracts.

Community Corrections Facilities

Pretrial, Probation, and Parole

DC-3: Data review for corrective action

The agency reviews, analyzes, and uses all sexual abuse data,
including incident-based and aggregated data, to assess and
improve the effectiveness of its sexual abuse prevention, detection,
and response policies, practices, and training. Using these data,
the agency identifies problem areas, including any racial dynamics underpinning patterns of sexual abuse, takes corrective action
on an ongoing basis, and, at least annually, prepares a report of
its findings and corrective actions for each facility as well as the
agency as a whole. The annual report also includes a comparison
of the current year’s data and corrective actions with those from
prior years and provides an assessment of the agency’s progress in
addressing sexual abuse. The agency’s report is approved by the
agency head, submitted to the appropriate governing body, and
made readily available to the public through its Web site or, if it
does not have one, through other means. The agency may redact
specific material from the reports when publication would present
a clear and specific threat to the safety and security of a facility,
but it must indicate the nature of the material redacted.

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

Community Corrections Facilities

Pretrial, Probation, and Parole

DC-4: Data storage, publication, and destruction

The agency ensures that the collected sexual abuse data are properly stored, securely retained, and protected. The agency makes
all aggregated sexual abuse data, including from facilities under
its direct control and those with which it contracts, readily available to the public at least annually through its Web site or, if it
does not have one, through other means. Before making aggregated sexual abuse data publicly available, the agency removes all
personal identifiers from the data. The agency maintains sexual
abuse data for at least 10 years after the date of its initial collection
unless Federal, State, or local law allows for the disposal of official
information in less than 10 years.

A P P E N D I X B: N P R EC S TA N DA R D S — C O M M U N I T Y C O R R EC T I O N S

Audits (AU)
Community Corrections Facilities

Pretrial, Probation, and Parole

AU-1: Audits of standards

The public agency ensures that all community corrections facilities, including contract facilities and pretrial, probation, and parole
agencies are audited to measure compliance with the PREA standards. Audits must be conducted at least every three years by independent and qualified auditors. The public or contracted agency
allows the auditor to enter and tour facilities, review documents,
and interview staff and defendants/offenders, as deemed appropriate by the auditor, to conduct comprehensive audits. The public
agency ensures that the report of the auditor’s findings and the
public or contracted agency’s plan for corrective action (DC-3) are
published on the appropriate agency’s Web site if it has one or are
otherwise made readily available to the public.

235

Appendix C
Recommendations

Recommendations to the Attorney General
I.	 The Commission recommends that the Attorney General,
in his capacity as agency head, establish a Prison Rape
Elimination Act (PREA) Advisory Committee pursuant to
the 1972 Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA).
The purpose of the Advisory Committee is to assist the
Attorney General with the promulgation of the PREA standards and thereafter assess their implementation and propose amendments as needed to increase their efficacy.
To provide such assistance, the Advisory Committee will:
• G
 ather the views and concerns of PREA stakeholders,
including State and Federal departments of corrections,
professional organizations, prisoner advocates, former
and current prisoners, and other organizations and individuals with expertise and experience regarding prison
rape and policies and practices to eliminate it.
• R
 eview statistical studies, academic and other analyses,
prisoner litigation addressing prison rape, and prison
rape criminal prosecutions.
• C
 onsult with the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the
Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Corrections, and the National Institute of Justice.
• R
 eview and analyze the results of the audits undertaken
to comply with the PREA standards.
The Advisory Committee should be created as soon as the
National Prison Rape Elimination Commission provides
the Attorney General with its proposed standards and
report and its legislative mandate expires.
II.	 The Commission recommends that the Attorney General
create a full-time Special Assistant for PREA within the
Office of the Deputy Attorney General. The Special Assistant will have primary responsibility within the U.S.
Department of Justice to ensure the effective implementation of PREA standards and the elimination of prison rape.

A P P E N D I X C: R EC O M M E N DAT I O N S

The Special Assistant will:
• M
 onitor and help coordinate the PREA-related work of
other offices and divisions within the Department and
coordinate with other executive branch agencies as
appropriate.
• E
 nsure the preparation of an annual review of progress
implementing PREA, including steps taken by correctional agencies and statistical trends in prison rape.
• W
 ork with the Executive Office for United States Attorneys to help coordinate PREA-related activities and the
sharing of information among districts with Federal
prison facilities or immigration detention centers within
their jurisdictional boundaries.
• S
 erve as liaison with the PREA Advisory Committee and
function as the Designated Federal Official for FACA.

Recommendations to the U.S. Department of Justice
I.	 The Commission recommends that the Department of
Justice sponsor the development of a corollary to the 2004
“National Protocol for Sexual Assault Medical Forensic
Examinations, Adults/Adolescents.” Given the prevalence
of sexual abuse in correctional facilities and the need to
improve evidence collection, the national protocol should
be customized to the conditions of confinement.
II.	 The Commission recommends that the Department of
Justice remove the barrier to Victims of Crime Act funding for treatment and rehabilitative services to incarcerated victims of sexual abuse.
III.	 The Commission recommends that the Department of
Justice continue to ensure that knowledge of issues and
practices surrounding the elimination of sexual abuse in
confinement be disseminated and increased through the
following initiatives:
A. T
 he National Institute of Corrections should design and
develop a national training program to prequalify auditors who will monitor facility compliance with the PREA
standards. Qualification for service is required before
auditors can be certified by the Department of Justice.

237

B. T
 he National Institute of Corrections should continue to
conduct training and educational programs and to offer
technical assistance to Federal, State, tribal, and local
authorities responsible for the prevention, investigation,
and punishment of prison rape. Provision of services
must be equitably distributed among county jails, lockups, and juvenile and community corrections facilities
in addition to Federal and State prisons.
C. T
 he National Institute of Corrections should provide
technical assistance to facilities interested in planning
technological advancements in support of their capacity for supervision.
D. T
 he Bureau of Justice Statistics should continue to conduct an annual comprehensive statistical review and
analysis of the incidence and effects of prison rape.
E. T
 he Bureau of Justice Assistance should continue to
provide grants to diverse correctional settings for the
development of innovative practices and programs
addressing sexual abuse.
F. T
 he National Institute of Justice should continue to fund
research on sexual abuse in correctional facilities.

Recommendations to Congress
I.	The Commission recommends that Congress amend
the administrative exhaustion provision and physical
injury requirement in the Prison Litigation Reform Act
to remove unreasonable barriers to courts for victims of
sexual abuse.
II.	The Commission recommends that Congress amend the
Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) Reauthorization of
2005 to include incarcerated victims of sexual abuse as a
class served under VAWA notwithstanding the nature of
their criminal convictions.
III.	The Commission recommends that Congress ensure that
funds are made available for the following initiatives to

238

further the understanding of issues and practices surrounding the elimination of sexual abuse in confinement:
A. F
 unds should be made available to the National Institute
of Corrections to design and develop a national training
program for auditors who monitor facility compliance
with the PREA standards. The institute will ensure that
PREA auditors are prequalified for service before certification by the Department of Justice.
B. F
 unds should be made available to the National Institute of Corrections to allow it to continue to conduct
training and educational programs and to offer technical assistance to Federal, State, tribal, and local authorities responsible for the prevention, investigation, and
punishment of prison rape. Provision of services must
be equitably distributed among county jails; lockups;
and juvenile, community corrections, and tribal facilities in addition to Federal and State prisons.
C. F
 unds should be made available to the National Institute
of Corrections to provide technical assistance to facilities interested in planning for technological advancements in support of their capacity for supervision.
D. F
 unds should be made available to the Bureau of Justice
Statistics to continue conducting an annual comprehensive statistical review and analysis of the incidence
and effects of prison rape.
E. F
 unds should be made available to the Bureau of Justice
Assistance to provide grants to diverse correctional settings for the development of innovative practices and
programs.
F. F
 unds should be made available to the National Institute
of Justice to sponsor research on sexual abuse in correctional facilities.
G. F
 unds should be made available to appropriate entities to research the extent to which inmate consensual
or nonconsensual sexual activity increases the rate of
transmitting HIV/AIDS (and other sexually transmitted
infections) to communities and how to prevent it.

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

Appendix D
NPREC Standards Development
Expert Committee Members

During the standards development process, the Commission
convened expert committees comprised of diverse stakeholders with broad correctional expertise to provide information
and guidance. The Commission thanks the members of the
expert committees for their participation and contribution.
Organizational affiliations are provided for identification purposes only; committee members were not necessarily acting
as representatives of their organizations. This list reflects each
committee member’s organizational affiliation at the time of
participation and may not represent the person’s current position. The Commission’s standards do not reflect the official
views of any of the organizations referenced here.

Barbara Broderick, Director, Maricopa County Adult
Probation Department, Arizona
Roger Canaff, Deputy Chief, Sex Offender Management Unit,
Office of the Attorney General, New York
Susan Paige Chasson, President, International Association
of Forensic Nurses
Gwendolyn Chunn, Immediate Past President, American
Correctional Association
Suanne Cunningham, National Director, Corrections/
Criminal Justice Program, Heery International
Karen Dalton, Director, Correctional Services Division,
Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department

Carrie Abner, Research Associate, American Probation and
Parole Association

Kim Day, SAFE Technical Assistance Coordinator,
International Association of Forensic Nurses

Aaron Aldrich, Chief Inspector, Rhode Island Department
of Corrections

Gina DeBottis, Executive Director, Special Prosecution Unit,
Texas Youth Commission

James Austin, President, JFA Institute

Kathleen Dennehy, Superintendent, Security Operations,
Bristol County Sheriff’s Office, Massachusetts

Roy F. Austin, Jr., Partner, McDermott Will & Emery
Chris Baker, Lieutenant, Corrections Supervisor/Jail
Administrator, Van Buren County Sheriff’s Office, Michigan
David Balagia, Major, Travis County Sheriff’s Office, Texas
Joe Baumann, Corrections Officer, California Rehabilitation
Center Chapter President, California Correctional Peace
Officers Association
Jeffrey Beard, Secretary, Pennsylvania Department
of Corrections
Theodis Beck, Secretary, North Carolina Department
of Correction
Art Beeler, Warden, Federal Correctional Complex,
Federal Bureau of Prisons, U.S. Department of Justice
Andrea Black, Coordinator, Detention Watch Network
Charma Blount, Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner, Texas
Department of Criminal Justice

Gary Dennis, Senior Associate, The Moss Group, Inc.
Ruth Divelbiss, Captain, Ford County Sheriff’s Office, Kansas
Mark Donatelli, Partner, Rothstein, Donatelli, Hughes,
Dahlstrom, Schoenburg, and Bienvenu LLP
Sarah Draper, Director of Investigations, Office of
Investigation and Compliance, Internal Investigation Unit,
Georgia Department of Corrections
Dr. Richard Dudley, Private Practice of Clinical and
Forensic Psychiatry
Robert Dumond, President and Licensed Clinical Mental
Health Counselor, Consultants for Improved Human
Services, PLLC
Earl Dunlap, Chief Executive Officer, National Partnership
for Juvenile Services

Tim Brennan, Principal, Northpointe Institute for Public
Management, Inc.

Maureen Dunn, Director, Unaccompanied Children’s
Services, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Administration
for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services

Lorie Brisbin, Program Coordinator, Prisons Division,
Idaho Department of Correction

Teena Farmon, Retired Warden, Central California
Women’s Facility

A P P E N D I X D: N P R EC S TA N DA R D S D E V E LO P M E N T E X P E R T C O M M I T T E E M E M B E RS

239

Lisa Freeman, Staff Attorney, Prisoners’ Rights Project,
Legal Aid Society, New York City

Dori Lewis, Senior Supervising Attorney, Prisoners’ Rights
Project, Legal Aid Society, New York City

Vanessa Garza, Associate Director for Trafficking Policy,
Office of Refugee Resettlement, Administration for Children
and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Cheryl Little, Executive Director, Florida Immigrant
Advocacy Center, Inc.

Michael Gennaco, Chief Attorney, Office of Independent
Review, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department
Karen Giannakoulias, Forensic Interviewer/Victim Advocate,
U.S. Attorney’s Office, Washington, D.C.
Steve Gibson, Administrator, Youth Services Division,
Montana Department of Corrections
Simon Gonsoulin, Former Director, Louisiana Office
of Youth Development
Kathleen Graves, Director, Community Corrections Services,
Kansas Department of Corrections
Robert L. Green, Warden, Montgomery County Correctional
Facility, Montgomery County Department of Correction and
Rehabilitation, Maryland
Dr. Robert Greifinger, Correctional Health Care and Quality
Management Consultant
David Guntharp, Director, Arkansas Department of
Community Correction
Karyn Hadfield, Training Specialist, Day One: The Sexual
Assault and Trauma Resource Center
Dee Halley, PREA Program Manager, National Institute
of Corrections, Federal Bureau of Prisons, U.S. Department
of Justice
Greg Hamilton, Sheriff, Travis County, Texas
Patrick M. Hanlon, Partner, Goodwin Proctor LLP
Patricia Hardyman, Senior Associate, Association of State
Correctional Administrators
Rachel Harmon, Associate Professor of Law, University
of Virginia School of Law
Michael Hennessey, Sheriff, City and County of
San Francisco, California
Andrew Jordan, Consultant, Migima, LLC; Retired Chief
of Police, Bend Police Department, Oregon
Thomas Kane, Assistant Director, Information, Policy and
Public Affairs Division, Federal Bureau of Prisons, U.S.
Department of Justice

Jennifer Long, Director, National Center for the Prosecution
of Violence Against Women
Christy Lopez, Partner, Independent Assessment and
Monitoring, LLP
Margaret Love, Attorney; Consulting Director, American Bar
Association Commission on Effective Criminal Sanctions
Bobbi Luna, Captain, Multnomah County Sheriff’s Office,
Oregon
Martha Lyman, Director of Research, Hampden County
Correctional Center, Massachusetts
Bob Maccarone, Director, New York State Division of
Probation and Correctional Alternatives
Cindy Malm, Consultant, Retired Jail Administrator,
Rocky Mountain Corrections
Michael Marette, Assistant Director of Corrections, American
Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees
Jenifer Markowitz, Forensic Nurse Consultant, DOVE
Program, Summa Health System
Steve Martin, Attorney/Corrections Consultant
Susan McCampbell, President, Center for Innovative Public
Policies, Inc., McCampbell & Associates, Inc.
Ron McCuan, Captain, U.S. Public Health Service; Public
Health Analyst, National Institute of Corrections, Federal
Bureau of Prisons, U.S. Department of Justice
Linda McFarlane, Mental Health Program Director,
Just Detention International
Jeff McInnis, PREA Coordinator, District of Columbia
Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services
John Milian, Detention and Deportation Officer,
Criminal Alien Program, Office of Detention and Removal,
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Department
of Homeland Security
Phyllis Modley, Correctional Program Specialist, Community
Corrections Division, National Institute of Corrections,
Federal Bureau of Prisons, U.S. Department of Justice
Jean Moltz, Correctional Health Care Consultant

Cliff Keenan, Assistant Director, District of Columbia
Pretrial Services Agency

James Montross, Director of Mental Health Monitoring,
Texas Department of Criminal Justice

Jacqueline Kotkin, Field Services Executive, Probation and
Parole, Vermont Department of Corrections

Marcia Morgan, Consultant, Migima, LLC

Deborah LaBelle, Attorney

John Moriarty, Inspector General, Texas Department
of Criminal Justice

Madie LaMarre, Consultant

Anadora Moss, President, The Moss Group, Inc.

Neal Langan, Senior Research Analyst, Office of Research
and Evaluation, Federal Bureau of Prisons, U.S. Department
of Justice

Gail D. Mumford, Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative,
Annie E. Casey Foundation

240

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

Melissa Nolan, Executive Assistant, Policy and Public
Affairs Division, Federal Bureau of Prisons, U.S. Department
of Justice
Christopher Nugent, Senior Counsel, Community Services
Team, Holland & Knight LLP
Barbara Owen, Professor of Criminology, California State
University, Fresno
David Parrish, Colonel, Commander, Department of Detention
Services, Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office, Florida
T.J. Parsell, Human Rights Activist, Author of Fish: A Memoir
of a Boy in a Man’s Prison
Dr. Farah M. Parvez, Director, Office of Correctional Public
Health, New York City Department of Health and Mental
Hygiene; National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD,
and TB Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Susan Poole, Criminal Justice Consultant; Retired Warden,
California Institution for Women
Roberto Hugh Potter, Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention
Eugenie Powers, Director, Probation and Parole, Louisiana
Department of Public Safety and Corrections
Judy Preston, Deputy Chief, Civil Rights Division,
U.S. Department of Justice
J. Michael Quinlan, Senior Vice President, Corrections
Corporation of America
Jeffrey Renzi, Associate Director, Planning and Research,
Rhode Island Department of Corrections
Denise Robinson, President and CEO, Alvis House;
Past-President, International Community Corrections
Association
Melissa Rothstein, East Coast Program Director,
Just Detention International
David Roush, Director, National Partnership for Juvenile
Services, Center for Research and Professional Development,
National Juvenile Detention Association
Elissa Rumsey, Compliance Monitoring Coordinator,
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention,
Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice
Timothy Ryan, Director, Miami-Dade County Corrections
and Rehabilitation Department
Teresa Scalzo, Senior Policy Advisor, Sexual Assault
Prevention and Response Office, U.S. Department of Defense
Vincent Schiraldi, Director, District of Columbia Department
of Youth Rehabilitation Services

Margo Schlanger, Professor of Law, Washington University
in St. Louis School of Law
Karen Schneider, Legal Consultant
Dana Shoenberg, Senior Staff Attorney, Center for Children’s
Law and Policy
Linda Smith, Research Consultant
Donald Specter, Director, Prison Law Office
Mai-Linh Spencer, Deputy State Public Defender, Office
of the State Public Defender, California
Richard Stalder, Former Secretary, Louisiana Department
of Public Safety and Corrections
Lovisa Stannow, Executive Director, Just Detention
International
Lara Stemple, Former Director, Just Detention International;
Director, Graduate Studies, University of California,
Los Angeles, School of Law
Tom Stickrath, Director, Ohio Department of Youth Services
Victor Stone, Special Counsel, Office of Enforcement
Operations, Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice
Robert Sudlow, Chief Probation Officer, Ulster County
Probation Department, New York
Anjali Swienton, Director of Outreach, National Clearinghouse
for Science, Technology, and the Law, Stetson University
College of Law; President and CEO, SciLaw Forensics Ltd.
Robin Toone, Attorney, Foley Hoag LLP
Cynthia Totten, Program Director, Just Detention
International
Ashbel T. Wall, II, Director, Rhode Island Department
of Corrections
Kelly Ward, Former Warden, David Wade Correctional
Center, Louisiana Department of Public Safety and
Corrections
Richard White, Deputy Commissioner of Operations,
City of New York Department of Correction
Anne Wideman, Clinical Psychologist
Reginald Wilkinson, Executive Director, Ohio Business
Alliance for Higher Education and the Economy; Former
Director, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction
Margaret Winter, Associate Director, National Prison Project,
American Civil Liberties Union
Jason Ziedenberg, Consultant; Former Director, Justice
Policy Institute

A P P E N D I X D: N P R EC S TA N DA R D S D E V E LO P M E N T E X P E R T C O M M I T T E E M E M B E RS

241

Appendix E
Standards Implementation
Needs Assessment

During the public comment period, the Commission conducted
a Standards Implementation Needs Assessment (SINA). The
Commission created the SINA process to provide feedback on the
draft standards through a series of “case studies” at particular
facilities. More than 40 facilities from around the country
applied to participate in the SINA process. The Commission
selected 11 sites that reflected ranges in capacity, populations,
and geographic settings and that included jails and prisons;
facilities for men, women, and juveniles; and community
corrections facilities. Each site visit took place over one and
a half days and included a facility tour and five structured
interviews: one with the Warden or Superintendent, and the
others with small groups of staff to discuss general issues,
training, medical/mental health, and investigations. These
group interviews involved a variety of staff with experience
relevant to the particular topic. When possible, we also spoke
with inmates detained in the facilities.

Juvenile Facilities

Pilot Site

Northern Correctional Facility
West Virginia Division of Corrections
Moundsville, WV
July 7–8, 2008

Montgomery County Correctional Facility
Montgomery County Department of Correction
and Rehabilitation
Boyds, MD
April 22–23, 2008

Jails

Suffolk County House of Correction
Suffolk County Sheriff’s Department
Boston, MA
May 22–23, 2008
Washington County Jail
Washington County Sheriff’s Office
Hillsboro, OR
June 5–6, 2008

Cuyahoga Hills Juvenile Correctional Facility
Ohio Department of Youth Services
Highland Hills, OH
July 9–10, 2008
Lynn W. Ross Juvenile Center
Tarrant County Juvenile Probation Department
Tarrant County Juvenile Services
Fort Worth, TX
June 24–25, 2008

Prisons for Men

James Allred Unit
Texas Department of Criminal Justice
Iowa Park, TX
June 22–23, 2008

Prisons for Women

New Mexico Women’s Correctional Facility
New Mexico Corrections Department
Grants, NM
June 26–27, 2008
Valley State Prison for Women
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
Chowchilla, CA
June 3–4, 2008

Community Corrections Facilities
Southwestern Ohio Serenity (SOS) Hall
Hamilton, OH
August 1, 2008
Talbert House
Cincinnati, OH
July 30–31, 2008

A P P E N D I X E: S TA N DA R D S I M P L E M E N TAT I O N N E E D S A S S ES S M E N T

243

Appendix F
NPREC Hearing Witnesses

This list reflects organizational affiliation at the time of participation and may not represent the person’s current position.

Public Meeting, March 31, 2005

At Risk: Sexual Abuse and Vulnerable Groups
Behind Bars, August 19, 2005
U.S. District Court, Northern District of California,
San Francisco, California

University of Notre Dame Law School, Notre Dame, Indiana

Cecilia Chung, Survivor

Steven Babbitt, Survivor

Christopher Daley, Director, Transgender Law Center

Robert Beckman, Prosecuting Attorney, LaPorte County,
Indiana

Michael Hennessey, Sheriff, San Francisco County, California

David Donahue, Commissioner, Indiana Department
of Correction
Jeff Schwartz, President, LETRA, Inc.
Nancy Zanning, Administrator, Michigan Department
of Corrections

The Cost of Victimization: Why Our Nation Must
Confront Prison Rape, June 14, 2005

Hope Hernandez, Survivor
Roderick Q. Hickman, Secretary, California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation
Dr. Terry Kupers, Professor, Graduate School of Psychology,
The Wright Institute
Deborah LaBelle, Attorney
Bart Lanni, Deputy Sheriff, San Francisco County, California
Representative Barbara Lee, U.S. Representative, California

Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC

Robin Levi, Human Rights Director, Justice Now

Linda Bruntmyer, Mother of victim

Scott Long, Director, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender
Rights Program, Human Rights Watch

Tom Cahill, Survivor
Garrett Cunningham, Survivor

Jody Marksamer, Director, Youth Project, National Center for
Lesbian Rights

Keith DeBlasio, Survivor

Chance Martin, Survivor

Robert Dumond, President and Licensed Clinical Mental
Health Counselor, Consultants for Improved Human
Services, PLLC

Barbara Owen, Professor of Criminology, California State
University, Fresno, California

Glenn Fine, Inspector General, U.S. Department of Justice
Michael Horowitz, Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute
Roberto Hugh Potter, National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral
Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention; Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention

T.J. Parsell, Survivor
Sen. Gloria Romero, Senator, California; Chair, Senate Select
Committee on the California Correctional System
Dean Spade, Founder, Sylvia Rivera Law Project
Kendell Spruce, Survivor

Stanley Richards, Deputy Executive Director, Fortune Society
Marilyn Shirley, Survivor
Lara Stemple, Director, Stop Prisoner Rape
Melissa Turner, Clinical Social Worker, Veterans Affairs
Medical Center

APPENDIX F: NPREC HEARING WITNESSES

245

Elimination of Prison Rape: The Corrections
Perspective, March 23, 2006
Federal Detention Center, Miami, Florida

Jeffrey A. Beard, Secretary, Pennsylvania Department
of Corrections

Leonard Dixon, President, National Juvenile Detention
Association
Earl Dunlap, Chief Executive Officer, National Partnership
for Juvenile Services, Center for Research and Professional
Development

Kathleen Dennehy, Commissioner, Massachusetts
Department of Correction

Robert Flores, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department
of Justice

Douglas Dretke, Director, Correctional Institutions Division,
Texas Department of Criminal Justice

Diane Gadow, Deputy Director, Arizona Department of
Juvenile Corrections

Margo Frasier, Professor, Sam Houston State University;
Former Sheriff, Travis County, Texas

Steven Gibson, Director, Montana Department of Corrections,
Youth Services Division

Robert Garvey, Sheriff, Hampshire County, Massachusetts;
Chairman, American Correctional Association Commission
on Accreditation for Corrections

Pamanicka Hardin, Youth Organizer, Prison Moratorium
Project

Glenn Goord, Chairman, Standards Committee, American
Correctional Association
Martin F. Horn, Commissioner, City of New York Department
of Correction
Harley Lappin, Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons
Cynthia Malm, Consultant, Retired Jail Administrator,
Rocky Mountain Corrections
Buddy Maupin, Director, Corrections Division, AFSCME
Council 31
Joseph Oxley, President-Elect, American Jail Association
Timothy Ryan, Director, Miami-Dade County Department
of Corrections and Rehabilitation
Richard Stalder, Secretary, Louisiana Department of Public
Safety and Corrections; President, Association of State
Correctional Administrators
Morris L. Thigpen, Director, National Institute of Corrections
Reginald Wilkinson, Director, Ohio Department of
Rehabilitation and Correction; Chairperson, Advisory Board,
National Institute of Corrections

Elimination of Prison Rape: Focus on Juveniles,
June 1, 2006

JohnJosephMoakleyU.S.Courthouse,Boston,Massachusetts
Grace Chung Becker, Deputy Assistant Attorney General,
U.S. Department of Justice
Howard Beyer, President, Council of Juvenile Corrections
Administrators
Dr. Robert Bidwell, Physician, Hawaii Office of Youth Services
Honorable Jay Blitzman, Judge, Lowell Juvenile Court,
Lowell, Massachusetts
Carl Brizzi, Prosecuting Attorney, Marion County, Indiana
Gwendolyn Chunn, President, American Correctional
Association

246

Barry Krisberg, President, National Council on Crime
and Delinquency
Albert Murray, Commissioner, Georgia Department of
Juvenile Justice
Cyryna Pasion, Survivor
David Roush, Director, National Partnership for Juvenile
Services, Center for Research and Professional Development
Carl Sanniti, Deputy Secretary, Maryland Department of
Juvenile Services
Mark Solar, Executive Director, Center for Children’s Law
and Policy

Reporting, Investigating, and Prosecuting
Prison Rape: What Is Needed to Make the
Process Work?, August 3, 2006

Theodore Levin U.S. Courthouse, Eastern District
of Michigan, Detroit, Michigan
Aaron Aldrich, Chief Inspector of Internal Affairs,
Rhode Island Department of Corrections
Lynn Bissonette, Superintendent, Massachusetts
Correctional Institution at Framingham
Necole Brown, Survivor
Patricia Caruso, Director, Michigan Department
of Corrections
Gina DeBottis, Executive Director, Texas Special
Prosecution Unit
John Dignam, Chief, Office of Internal Affairs, Federal Bureau
of Prisons
Leanne Holland, Program Coordinator, Sparrow Forensic
Nurse Examiner Program
Barbara Litten, District Attorney, Forest County, Pennsylvania
Gregory Miller, U.S. Attorney, Northern District of Florida
John Moriarty, Inspector General, Texas Department
of Corrections

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

Dana Ragsdale, Survivor
John Rees, Commissioner, Kentucky Department
of Corrections
Al Saucier, Lieutenant, Massachusetts Department
of Corrections
Cynthia Schnedar, Counsel to the Inspector General,
U.S. Department of Justice

Asa Hutchinson, Former Undersecretary, Border and
Transportation Security for the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security
Cheryl Little, Executive Director, Florida Immigrant
Advocacy Center, Inc.
Bryan Lonegan, Staff Attorney, Immigration Law Unit,
Legal Aid Society

William Sprenkle, Deputy Secretary of Administration,
Pennsylvania Department of Corrections

Brian Lowry, President, Council of Prison Locals, American
Federation of Government Employees, American Federation
of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations

Anjali Swienton, Director of Outreach, National Clearinghouse
for Science Technology and the Law, Stetson University
College of Law; President and CEO, SciLaw Forensics Ltd.

Sergio Medina, Field Coordinator, Southern California Office
of Refugee Resettlement Unaccompanied Minors Program

Ashbel T. Wall, II, Director, Rhode Island Department
of Corrections
Timothy Wittman, Trooper, Alternate Criminal Investigation
Assessment Officer Troop C, Pennsylvania State Police
Kym L. Worthy, Prosecuting Attorney, Wayne County,
Michigan

The Elimination of Prison Rape: Immigration
Facilities and Personnel/Staffing/Labor Relations,
December 13–14, 2006

Wayne Meyers, Staff Representative, American Federation
of State County and Municipal Employees
Tixoc Muniz, President, Arizona Correctional Peace Officer’s
Association
Christopher Nugent, Senior Counsel, Community Services
Team, Holland and Knight LLP
Isaac Ortiz, President, American Federation of Government
Employees, Local 1010
Tom Plummer, Skadden Fellow, Staff Attorney, Legal Services
for Children, San Francisco

U.S. Courthouse, Los Angeles, California

Donald Rodriguez, Area Commander, Los Angeles County
Sheriff’s Department

Brian Aldes, Business Agent, Corrections and Law
Enforcement Units, Teamsters Local 320, Minnesota

Mayra Soto, Survivor

Joe Baumann, Director, California Rehabilitation Center Unit;
California Correctional Peace Officers Association

Rebekah Tosado, Director, Review and Compliance; Office for
Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, U.S. Department of Homeland
Security

Michael Beranbaum, Director of Representation, Department
of Corrections Bargaining Unit, Teamsters Local 117,
Washington

Anne Wideman, Clinical Psychologist

Shiu-Ming Cheer, Program Coordinator, Civil Rights Unit
of the South Asian Network; Former Managing Attorney,
Los Angeles Detention Project, Catholic Legal Immigration
Network, Inc.

Lockups, Native American Detention Facilities,
and Conditions in Texas Penal and Youth
Institutions, March 26–27, 2007

Christina DeConcini, Director of Policy, National Immigration
Forum; Former Director of Public Education and Advocacy,
Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc.
Sharon Dolovich, Professor, University of California Los
Angeles School of Law
Joseph A. Gunn, Former Commander, Los Angeles
Police Department; Former Executive Director, California
Corrections Independent Review Panel
Katherine Hall-Martinez, Co-Executive Director, Stop
Prisoner Rape
John Harrison, Special Agent, California Department
of Corrections and Rehabilitation
Iliana Holgiun, Executive Director, Diocesan Migrant
and Refugee Services, Inc.

APPENDIX F: NPREC HEARING WITNESSES

University of Texas School of Law, Austin, Texas
Charon Asetoyer, Native American Women’s Health
Education Resource Center
James Austin, President, The JFA Institute
Ralph Bales, Safe Prison Program Manager, Texas
Department of Criminal Justice

K.W. Berry, Major, Harris County Sheriff’s Office, Texas
James Brown, Associate Director, Commission on the
Accreditation of Law Enforcement Agencies
Sampson Cowboy, Division Director, Navajo Division of
Public Safety
Mark Decoteau, Deputy Chief of Training, Indian Police
Academy, Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
Jamie Fields, Deputy Chief Risk Management, Detroit
Police Department

247

Genger Galloway, Mother of survivor
George Gotschalk, Chief of Standards and Training,
Department of Criminal Justice Services, Secretariat of Public
Safety, Virginia; First Vice-President of the International
Association of Directors of Law Enforcement Standards
and Training
Kevin Gover, Professor, Arizona State University
Lisa Graybill, Legal Director, American Civil Liberties Union
of Texas
Isela Gutierrez, Coordinator, Texas Coalition Advocating
Justice for Juveniles
Katherine Hall-Martinez, Co-Executive Director, Stop
Prisoner Rape
Erica Hejnar, Survivor
Claudia Hill, Chief Detention Standards and Compliance
Division, Office of the Federal Detention Trustee,
U.S. Department of Justice

Special Topics in Preventing and Responding to
Prison Rape: Medical and Mental Health Care,
Community Corrections Settings, and Oversight,
December 5–6, 2007
U.S. Federal District Courthouse, Eastern District
of Louisiana, New Orleans, Louisiana

Carrie Abner, Research Associate, American Probation
and Parole Association
Thomas Beauclair, Deputy Director, National Institute
of Corrections
Jack Beck, Director, Prison Visiting Project, Correctional
Association of New York
Theodis Beck, Secretary, North Carolina Department of
Correction; President, Association of State Correctional
Administrators
Art Beeler, Warden, Federal Correctional Complex,
North Carolina

Jay Kimbrough, Special Master, Investigating the Texas
Youth Commission

Antonio Booker, Director, Adult Residential Services,
Johnson County Department of Corrections

Elizabeth Layman, Consultant, The Center for Innovative
Public Policies

Barbara Broderick, Director, Adult Probation, Maricopa
County Adult Probation, Arizona

Heather Lowry, Senior Inspector, U.S. Marshal Service,
U.S. Department of Justice

James Carter, Council Member, New Orleans City Council;
Chair, Criminal Justice Committee

Lisa Luna, Training Specialist, Texas Association Against
Sexual Assault

Matthew Cate, Inspector General, Office of the Inspector
General, California Rehabilitation Oversight Board

Jerry Madden, Chairman, Texas House Committee
on Corrections

James F. DeGroot, Director of Mental Health, Georgia
Department of Corrections

Jon Perez, Indian Health Services, U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services

Michele Deitch, Professor (Adjunct), University of Texas
at Austin, Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs

Nathanial Quarterman, Director, Correctional Institutions
Division, Texas Department of Criminal Justice

Douglas Dretke, Executive Director, Correctional
Management Institute of Texas, Sam Houston University

Andrea Ritchie, INCITE! Women of Color Against Violence

Marty Dufrene, Major; Corrections Department Head,
Lafourche Parish Sheriff’s Office, Louisiana

Guillermo Rivera, Associate Director of Corrections, Bureau
of Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of Interior
Ronald Ruecker, Interim Police Chief, Sherwood Police
Department, International Association of Chiefs of Police
David Stacks, Deputy Director, Correctional Institutions
Division, Texas Department of Criminal Justice
Margaret Winter, Associate Director, National Prison Project,
American Civil Liberties Union

Charles C. Foti, Jr., Louisiana Attorney General
Robert L. Green, Warden, Montgomery County Correctional
Facility, Montgomery County Department of Correction
and Rehabilitation
Dr. Robert B. Greifinger, Correctional Health Care and
Quality Management Consultant
Marlin Gusman, Orleans Parish Criminal Sheriff, Louisiana
Will Harrell, Ombudsman, Office of the Independent
Ombudsman, Texas Youth Commission
Norris Henderson, Soros Justice Fellow and Co-Director,
Safe Streets/Strong Communities
Carrie Hill, Corrections Law and Criminal Justice Consultant
Jacqueline Kotkin, Field Services Executive, Probation
and Parole, Vermont Department of Corrections

248

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

Dr. Lannette Linthicum, Medical Director, Texas Department
of Criminal Justice

Denise Robinson, President, Alvis House; Past President,
International Community Corrections Association

Sandra Matheson, Director of the State Office of Victim/
Witness Assistance, New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office

Dr. Lynn F. Sander, Representative, National Commission
on Correctional Healthcare; Former Medical Director,
Denver Sheriff’s Department Medical Program; Immediate
Past-President, Society of Correctional Physicians

Anadora Moss, President, The Moss Group, Inc.
Jennifer Pierce-Weeks, President-Elect, International
Association of Forensic Nurses
Eugenie Powers, Director, Probation and Parole,
Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Correction
Dr. Michael Puisis, Consultant, Former Medical Director
at the New Mexico Department of Corrections and the
Cook County Jail
Ben Raimer, Vice President and CEO, Community Health
Services, University of Texas

APPENDIX F: NPREC HEARING WITNESSES

Margo Schlanger, Professor of Law and Director, Civil
Rights Litigation Clearinghouse, Washington University
in St. Louis School of Law
Wendy Still, Associate Director, Female Offender Programs
and Services, California Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation
Gina Womack, Co-Director, Families and Friends
of Louisiana’s Incarcerated Children

249

Appendix G
PREA Initiatives

All 50 State correctional departments and a national sample
of jails, community corrections agencies, and juvenile justice
facilities were invited to provide information about policies,
practices, and programs implemented before and since the
passage of the Prison Rape Elimination Act in 2003. Many

agencies responded positively to multiple categories. Examples were selected to ensure geographic and facility diversity.
The Commission has not evaluated these PREA initiatives.
Interested readers may contact the agencies and facilities to
learn more.

ZERO-TOLERANCE POLICY
AK DOC, 907-269-7405

Zero-tolerance policy

CT DOC, 860-692-7497

Commissioner visits all units and reviews sexual abuse data in
management meeting

KS DOC, 785-296-4501

PREA coordinators at every facility ensure zero-tolerance strategies;
Secretary delivers zero-tolerance message on video

OH Department of Rehabilitation
and Correction, 614-728-1152

10 Point Plan is intended to reduce sexual abuse in OH Department of
Rehabilitation and Correction facilities

AZ Maricopa County, 602-506-7244

PREA policies and protocols developed for adult probation
department

CO Pitkin County Jail, Aspen,
970-429-2057

Zero-tolerance policy

WA King County Department of Adult and
Juvenile Detention, Seattle, 206-296-1268

Department zero-tolerance memo from leadership to staff and
inmates delivered two times annually

IL Safer Foundation, 312-431-8940

Zero-tolerance policy

CA Youth Authority, 916-262-1088
FL Department of Juvenile Justice, 850-921-6292
ME DOC, Juvenile Services, 207-287-4365
MA Department of Youth Services, 617-727-7575
WV Division of Juvenile Services, 304-558-9800

Zero-tolerance policy for juvenile justice facilities

PREVENTION PLANNING
AZ DOC, 602-771-5583

Require DOC employees to be on site daily at private facilities to
ensure PREA compliance

CA Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation, 916-322-0019

Partnered with University of California, Irvine, to improve safety of
transgender individuals

LA DOC, 225-342-1178

PREA coordinator in each prison facility and one for community
corrections

MD Department of Public Safety &
Correctional Services, 410-339-5824

Department-level interdisciplinary PREA committee

A P P E N D I X G: P R E A I N I T I AT I V ES

251

NC DOC, 919-716-3720
TX Department of Criminal Justice,
936-437-8918

Contracts to house inmates in private facilities include language
regarding PREA

OH Department of Rehabilitation and
Correction, 614-728-1152

Psychological inventory test must be taken by all potential corrections
officers to assess behaviors and reactions to more than 66 scenarios.
Probationary periods for employees extended to ensure employment
suitability.

TN DOC, 615-741-1000

Developing a special needs program for male aggressors

UT DOC, 801-545-5899

Contract with county jails housing State inmates contains PREA
requirements

WY DOC, 307-777-7208

Monitor contract facilities compliance with WY DOC PREA policies
and protocols

OR Multnomah County, 503-988-3266

PREA notice on pre-employment background check waiver

NY Ulster County Community Corrections
Program, 845-340-3330

Purchase agreement with nonprofit for eight beds for females,
nonprofit staff trained in PREA and duty to report

SUPERVISION
AR DOC, 870-267-6300
NC DOC, 919-716-3720

Senior staff conduct assessments to identify blind spots at each facility

CO DOC, 719-226-4696

Cameras and considering pilot program with radio frequency
identification (RFID)

KY DOC, 502-564-7290

Piloting RFID technology

MS DOC, 601-359-5607

500 cameras in 1,000-bed maximum security prison; only investigative
staff monitor cameras

NY Department of Correctional Services,
518-457-4951

Expanded two camera projects in female facilities

UT DOC, 801-545-5899

Consider gender-specific strategies in all PREA work

WA DOC, 360-725-8650

Acquired 130 bona fide occupational qualification positions for three
women’s prisons to ensure privacy and limits to cross-gender viewing
and searches

AZ Pinal County Sheriff’s Office, 520-866-5180

Male and female staff on duty together to minimize cross-gender
viewing and searches

CA San Francisco Sheriff’s Department,
415-554-7225

Prohibit cross-gender supervision in housing units

NV Washoe County, 775-328-6355

Time Keeper System electronically monitors a “check” of PREA mail
box

SD Pennington County Sheriff’s Office,
605-355-3648

Recording cameras and belt microphones in vans monitor youth when
transported; prohibit double cells for juveniles

VA Arlington County Sheriff’s Office,
703-228-4460

All female staff during the second shift for female inmate supervision

VA Southside Regional Jail, Emporia,
434-634-2254

Staff required to contact inmates two times per hour

MO DOC CC, 573-522-1207

Purchasing cameras for two community release centers (St. Louis and
Kansas City)

FL Department of Juvenile Justice,
850-921-6292

Policy prohibiting volunteers to be alone with youth

WI DOC, Division of Juvenile Corrections,
608-240-5060

Additional cameras installed in youth facilities

252

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

EMPLOYEE TRAINING
AZ DOC, 602-771-5583

Curriculum revised periodically; use “pop-quiz” cards to refresh staff

HI Department of Public Safety, 808-567-1287

Conducted National Institute of Corrections (NIC) training on staff
sexual misconduct

ID DOC, 208-658-2102

Investigator training includes victimization and posttraumatic stress
disorder (PTSD)

IL DOC, 217-558-2200

Developed training for upper-level administrators, shift commanders,
and supervisors

IA DOC, 515-725-5714

Training on basic victimization dynamics

KS DOC, 785-296-4501

Corrections-specific investigator training (videotaping interviews and
consultant assessment)

MN DOC, 651-361-7224

Coordinated training of investigators, medical and mental health care
practitioners

NE DOC, 402-479-5713

Revise statutory-based training curriculum annually

NH DOC, 603- 271-5600

Academy trains on the connection between sexual abuse and trauma

NM DOC, 505-827-8600

Developed facility-level investigator curriculum, Investigating Sexual
Assault in Correctional Settings, certified by the New Mexico Law
Enforcement Academy

NY Department of Correctional Services,
518-457-4951

Assistant Commissioner conducts training sessions at supervisor
schools

TN DOC, 615-741-1000

Trained victim support team at every facility

UT DOC, 801-545-5899

Sexual assault response team (SART) members required to be certified

VT DOC, 802-241-3956

Skill-based training to prepare staff for verbal responses to sexualized
behavior

AL Jails, 334-872-6228

DOC PREA coordinators provide training to jails

KY Louisville Metropolitan DOC, 502-379-3552 Pre-service training with NIC materials
PA Allegheny County Jail, 412-350-2000

Attended NIC investigator training and developed action plan

SD Jails, 605-367-5020

DOC PREA coordinator trained sheriffs’ associations and staff at 19
State jails

WA King County Department of Adult and
Juvenile Detention, Seattle, 206-296-1269

NIC investigator training and technical assistance

CO DOC CC, 719-226-4696
MA DOC CC, 978-405-6610
RI DOC CC, 401-462-0373

Training for community corrections and parole officers

MD Department of Public Safety &
Correctional Services, Division of Parole and
Probation, 410-585-3557

Developed surveys for community corrections agencies/staff to
help alleviate underreporting and address other post-release issues
stemming from prison rape

AL Department of Youth Services,
334-215-3802

NIC trained all staff in 2006; pre-service and annual training required

AK Department of Health and Social Services,
Division of Juvenile Justice, 907-761-7230

PREA youth training at NIC

CA Youth Authority, 916-262-1088

Assisted by Just Detention International to train officers and
noncustodial staff

CO Division of Youth Corrections,
719-546-5108

Multilevel training for all employees

A P P E N D I X G: P R E A I N I T I AT I V ES

253

DE Department of Services for Children,
Youth, and Their Families, Division of Youth
Rehabilitative Services, 302-633-2554

Senior staff trained; train-the-trainer program in development

FL Department of Juvenile Justice,
850-921-6292

Training for staff available in many formats (online, in-service, during
shift changes, etc.)

HI Family Court of the First Judicial Circuit,
808-539-4613

Training for detention staff, internal investigators, and probation
officers; train-the-trainers program available

ME DOC, Juvenile Services, 207-287-4365

Training for all staff

MA Department of Youth Services,
617-727-7575

Training for 2,000 staff in 2007; pre-service and annual training

MI Department of Human Services, Bureau of
Juvenile Justice, 517-335-6230

DVD for juvenile staff; training for public and private youth facilities in
2007; also 2-day statewide conference

NY Division of Juvenile Justice and
Opportunities for Youth, 518-473-7793

Training for all facilities in 2007; facilities updated through NIC DVD
Keeping Our Kids Safe

ND Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Services,
701-667-1400

Annual training for staff and community care managers

OR Youth Authority, 503-378-8261

Web site with training and policy information (www.oregon.gov.oya/
pso). Staff trained on PREA and mandatory child abuse reporting law.
Pre-service training includes boundary training, ethics, PREA, housing
assignments, reporting, prevention, and access to mental and medical
services for sexual assault victims.

SD Department of Juvenile Justice,
605-394-6645

Pre-service and annual training for staff

TX Juvenile Probation Commission,
512-424-6687

2008 national conference on investigating sexual abuse in custodial
settings

TX Youth Commission, 512-424-6294

Developed curriculum with Just Detention International; staff trained
within first 2 weeks of employment with annual 3-hour update

WV Division of Juvenile Services, 304-558-9800 Annual staff training
TRAINING FOR OTHERS
NJ DOC, 609-292-4617

Mental and medical health contractors required to complete PREA
training; victim advocates receive training on sexual abuse

CO Division of Youth Corrections,
719-546-5108
SD Department of Juvenile Justice,
605-394-6645

PREA training required for volunteers

MA Department of Youth Services,
617-727-7575
WI DOC, Division of Juvenile Corrections,
608-240-5060

PREA training required for contractors

PREA training required for contractors and volunteers
ME DOC, Juvenile Services, 207-287-4365
ND Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Services,
701-667-1400
OR Youth Authority, 503-378-8261
TX Youth Commission, 512-424-6294
WV Division of Juvenile Services, 304-558-9800

254

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

INMATE/RESIDENT EDUCATION
Federal Bureau of Prisons, Carswell, TX,
202-307-3198

English and Spanish posters that describe how to report sexual abuse
and the criminal sanctions for such acts placed in housing units.
Posters include pictures of the institution’s psychologists.

CO DOC, 719-226-4696

Director of prisons featured in inmate sexual safety training video

IL DOC, 217-558-2200

Medical staff conduct PREA orientation with inmates

ME DOC, 207-893-7011

Female inmates provided programs to address sexual safety

PA DOC, 717-975-4930

Specialized training for criminally insane and sexually dangerous
inmates

TX Department of Criminal Justice,
936-437-8918

Inmate peer training program (Safe Prisons Program) available in
English and Spanish

VA DOC, 804-674-3000

Inmates receive PREA training using NIC curriculum at reception; a
PREA post-test administered to ensure inmate comprehension

WI DOC, 608-240-5000

Inmate gender-specific training program

FL Miami-Dade County, 786-263-6500

Inmate PREA education materials available in three languages

MD Montgomery County, 240-773-9747

English and Spanish PREA video and posters

WA King County Department of Adult and
Juvenile Detention, Seattle, 206-296-1268

Inmate PREA orientation video

MA DOC CC, 978-405-6610

PREA training for community corrections offenders

AL Department of Youth Services,
334-215-3802

PREA PowerPoint presentation at orientation; PREA pamphlets
available in dorms

CA Youth Authority, 916-262-1088

English and Spanish PREA pamphlets and posters

CO Division of Youth Services, 719-546-5108
SD Department of Juvenile Justice,
605-394-6645

PREA pamphlets

FL Department of Juvenile Justice,
850-921-6292

PREA pamphlets and video

KY Department of Juvenile Justice,
502-573-2738
MA Department of Youth Services,
617-727-7575

PREA posters

LA Office of Juvenile Justice, 225-287-7900

Developing curriculum for youth orientation

ME DOC, Juvenile Services, 207-287-4365

PREA handbook, video, and puppet show

MT DOC, Juvenile Division, 406-444-1547

Resident orientation includes PREA presentation

NM Juvenile Justice Services, 505-827-7629

Developmentally appropriate handbook includes PREA information

ND Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Services,
701-667-1400

PREA pamphlet on how to report with youth sign-off; resident
handbooks in cottages

OH Department of Youth Services,
740-477-2500, ext. 7128

PREA orientation includes gender-specific sessions and individual
meetings

OR Youth Authority, 503-378-8261

PREA pamphlet (6–8 grade level) and posters

WV Division of Juvenile Services, 304-558-9800 PREA pamphlet and individualized session with counselor
WI DOC, Division of Juvenile Corrections,
608-240-5060

A P P E N D I X G: P R E A I N I T I AT I V ES

English and Spanish PREA posters

255

CLASSIFICATION
AR DOC, 870-267-6300

Revised classification system to identify sexually vulnerable and
predatory inmates

CO DOC, 719-226-4696

Sexual abuse risk assessment tool

IN DOC, 317-232-1926

Developed gender-specific sexual abuse vulnerability assessment tool

IA DOC, 515-725-5714

Sexual violence propensity tool informs housing assignment (without
limiting programming options)

MA DOC, 978-405-6610

Pilot program requires superintendent’s signature for housing plan

MI DOC, 517-780-6545

Sexual abuse screening tool (validated by external researcher)

MN DOC, 651-361-7224

Sexual abuse screening tool informs housing assignments

MS DOC, 601-359-5607

Sexual abuse screening tool in development

NE DOC, 402-479-5713

Mental health screening conducted at intake

RI DOC, 401-462-0373

Assignment of sexual abuse victims and perpetrators to specialized unit
in community corrections through high-risk discharge planning strategy

SD DOC, 605-367-5020

Gender-specific sexual abuse screening tool (validated for males;
developing tool for females)

WY DOC, 307-777-7208

Screening tool to evaluate sexual aggression levels (validated)

OR Multnomah County, 503-988-3266

Inquire about history of sexual abuse at intake

CO Division of Youth Corrections,
719-546-5108
ND Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Services,
701-667-1400
TX Youth Commission, 512-424-6294

Screening tool for past sexual victimization and aggressive behaviors

REPORTING
AL DOC, 334-872-6228

Inmate hotline to report sexual abuse

AZ DOC, 602-771-5583

Anonymous third-party reports of sexual abuse accepted and
investigated

CA Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation, 916-322-0019

Memorandum of understanding (MOU) with local rape crisis centers
to receive reports of sexual abuse

GA DOC, 478-783-6015

Staff must report sexual abuse to highest-ranking officer; protection
against retaliation for reporting sexual abuse in policy

IN DOC, 317-232-1926

Limited email access available for reporting sexual abuse (kiosks)

ME DOC, 207-893-7011

Bystander law (Failure to Report Sexual Assault of Person in Custody)
holds DOC staff criminally liable for failure to report sexual abuse

MI DOC, 517-780-6458

Ombudsman receives reports of sexual abuse

MS DOC, 601-359-5607

Third step in grievance procedure permits unsatisfied inmate to access
courts

MO DOC, 573-522-1207

Inmates’ family members receive pamphlet on how to report sexual
abuse; reports forwarded for investigation

MT DOC, 406-444-3930

Inmate hotline answered by community sexual abuse group

NV DOC, 775-887-3142

Community tip line to sheriff’s office

NY Department of Correctional Services,
518-457-4951

All employees receive duty-to-report training, including mental and
medical health

256

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

OR DOC, 503-945-0931

Governor’s Office receives reports

PA DOC, 717-975-4930

Inmate hotline to report sexual abuse (institution-specific PIN to
ensure anonymity)

SC DOC, 803-896-8540

Anonymous inmate hotline to Inspector General’s Office

FL Miami-Dade County, 786-263-6500

How to report materials (three languages) for families of inmates

ID Bonneville County Jail, Idaho Falls,
208-529-1315

Hotline to police detectives

MD Montgomery County, 240-773-9747

Fliers on how to report sexual abuse given to visitors

NYC DOC, 212-361-8977

Inmate hotline to outside confidential support services

OH Corrections Center of Northwest Ohio,
419-428-3800

Sexual abuse reports forwarded to prisons

OR Multnomah County, 503-988-3266

Sexual abuse reports forwarded to facility at which incident occurred

VA Riverside Regional Jail, Hopewell,
804-524-6600

Inmate hotline to report sexual abuse

LA DOC CC, 225-342-1190
MO DOC CC, 573-522-1207
NC DOC CC, 919-716-3720

Duty to report sexual abuse in policy

OK DOC CC, 405-425-2505

Policy requires parole agents to report sexual abuse

VT DOC CC, 802-241-3956

Inmate hotline to report sexual abuse

ME DOC, Juvenile Services, 207-287-4365

Toll-free hotline for anyone to report sexual abuse

TX Juvenile Probation Commission,
512-424-6687

Hotline to report sexual abuse (24-hour direct reporting)

TX Youth Commission, 512-424-6294

Ombudsman receives reports of sexual abuse

INVESTIGATIONS
AR DOC, 870-267-6300
OR DOC, 503-945-0931

SART at every facility

AZ DOC, 602-771-5583

All staff trained in first responder duties; inmate housing assignment
reviewed immediately after an allegation of sexual abuse

CT DOC, 860-692-7497

MOU with University of Connecticut Medical Center regarding “A
National Protocol for Sexual Assault Medical Forensic Examinations,
Adults/Adolescents” (2004)

ID DOC, 208-658-2102
IN DOC, 317-232-1926

MOU with law enforcement to investigate sexual abuse

MA DOC, 978-405-6610

MOU with two county prosecutors

MI DOC, 517-780-6545

Staff pocket guide describes first responder duties

MN DOC, 651-361-7224

Health services sexual response evidence protocol checklist

MS DOC, 601-359-5607

MOU with private medical health provider for forensic medical exams

MT DOC, 406-444-3930

MOU with attorney general

NH DOC, 603- 271-5600

Contract with New Hampshire Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual
Violence

NV DOC, 775-887-3142

Supervisors trained on first responder duties

NM DOC, 505-827-8600

All allegations of sexual abuse investigated

NC DOC, 919-716-3720

PREA investigator at every facility

A P P E N D I X G: P R E A I N I T I AT I V ES

257

OH Department of Rehabilitation and
Correction, 614-728-1152

Sexual abuse investigator duties in policy; multidisciplinary response
(Sexual Assault Committee Policy)

PA DOC, 717-975-4930

Contract with Pennsylvania Coalition Against Rape

RI DOC, 401-462-0373

Electronic monitoring used during investigative process

SD DOC, 605-367-5020

Purchased polygraph with PREA grant money

UT DOC, 801-545-5899

SART representative observes investigative interview and may
accompany victim to court

WI DOC, 608-240-5000

20 trained PREA investigators

OR Deschutes County Sheriff’s Office,
541-388-6667

MOU with St. Charles Hospital for forensic medical exams

NYC DOC, 212-361-8977

MOU with outside victim services organization; chaplain does periodic
follow-up with victims of sexual abuse

OH Corrections Center of Northwest Ohio,
419-428-3800
WA King County Department of Adult and
Juvenile Detention, Seattle, 206-296-1269

MOU with law enforcement to investigate sexual abuse

VA Northern Neck Regional Jail, Warsaw,
804-333-6365

All allegations of sexual abuse investigated

RI DOC CC, 401-462-0373

Community corrections staff report allegations directly to the DOC’s
specialized investigative unit

HI Family Court of the First Judicial Circuit,
808-539-4613

Coordinated response to resident sexual abuse in development

OR Youth Authority, 503-373-7238

Staff trained on forensic medical exam procedures for evidence
protocol

TREATMENT
CA Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation, 916-322-0019

Post-abuse counseling provided by outside rape crisis counselors (pilot
program)

FL DOC, 850-410-4016

Unimpeded access to emergency medical and mental health care for
victims of sexual abuse

GA DOC, Mental Health/Mental Retardation
Program, 404-651-6483

Available sexual abuse treatment includes gender-specific response to
PTSD

NV DOC, 775-887-3142

Mental health services without fee for victims of sexual abuse

OK DOC, 405-425-2505

Inmate required to meet with psychologist after reporting sexual
abuse; psychologist determines treatment plan

CO Arapahoe County Sheriff’s Office,
720-874-3404

Inmate services for victims of sexual abuse

PA Indiana County Jail, 724-471-7500

Local domestic violence shelter provides counseling to inmates

VA Northern Neck Regional Jail, Warsaw,
804-333-6365

Outside agency provides counseling to inmates

OH Alvis House for Former Offenders,
614-252-8402

Clinical staff conduct mental health assessments; residents “matched”
with particular counselors

OR Youth Authority, 503-378-8261

Established sexual abuse medical exam procedures and train all staff
on process

258

N AT I O N A L P R IS O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M IS S I O N R E P O R T

DISCIPLINE
OH Department of Rehabilitation and
Correction, 614-728-1152

Policy contains staff and inmate sanctions developed by a committee

SC DOC, 803-896-8540

Standardized process for staff and inmate sanctions in policy

WA DOC, 360-725-8650

Employees trained in how to make disciplinary decisions regarding
inmate sexual misconduct

MA Hampden County Sheriff’s Department,
413-547-8000, ext. 2284

Unsubstantiated allegations do not result in discipline

MONITORING
AL DOC, 334-872-6228

Management reviews quarterly reports of sexual abuse to identify
trends

AZ DOC, 602-771-5583

Sexual abuse incident review by division director and other executives

CT DOC, 860-692-7497

Sexual abuse data used to identify blind spots and promote a safe
environment

DE DOC, 302-739-5601

Designing database to trace inmates from intake to parole; PREA
management assessment at women’s prison

KY DOC, 502-564-7290

Purchased computers for jail facilities to improve data collection; hired
jail inspector under PREA grant to enhance PREA implementation

NJ DOC, 609-292-4617

Sexual abuse advisory committee reviews all incidents

ND Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation, 701-328-6100

Sexual abuse data collected and reviewed monthly; review by sexual
abuse advisory committee

TN DOC, 615-741-1000

Sexual abuse data reviewed monthly

TX Department of Criminal Justice,
936-437-8918

Audits include PREA checks

VT DOC, 802-241-3956

PREA management assessment at all facilities

VA DOC, 804-674-3000

Director’s Task Force on Safety established after an incident of sexual
misconduct; consultants reviewed the incident, interviewed inmates
and staff, and made recommendations

WV DOC, 304-558-2036

Monthly reporting of sexual abuse data to central office

WI DOC, 608-240-5000

PREA review panel examines sexual abuse data

NV Washoe County, 775-328-6355

Incident database includes method of reporting sexual abuse

PA Allegheny County Jail, 412-350-2000

PREA management assessment

GA DOC CC, 478-783-6015

Community corrections monthly data report (to DOC) contains sexual
abuse data

CA Youth Authority, 916-262-1088

Audit based on PREA policies and in anticipation of NPREC standards

KY Department of Juvenile Justice,
502-573-2738

Audit process evaluates the availability of PREA information within
facilities

MA Department of Youth Services,
617-727-7575

Sexual abuse incident review for corrective action

OH Department of Youth Services,
740-477-2500, ext. 7128

Central office staff review sexual abuse incidents in real time;
computerized reporting system; conduct PREA vulnerability
assessments at each facility (includes survey of youth and staff through
the victim services staff)

TX Youth Commission, 512-424-6294

Sexual abuse data available online

A P P E N D I X G: P R E A I N I T I AT I V ES

259

www.nprec.us


NATIONAL PRISON RAPE ELIMINATION COMMISSION

ll~

REPORT