U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Special Report
June 2008, NCJ 221946

Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003

Sexual Victimization in Local Jails
Reported by Inmates, 2007
By Allen J. Beck, Ph.D.
and Paige M. Harrison,
BJS Statisticians
The Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-79)
requires the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) to carry out
a comprehensive statistical review and analysis of the incidence and effects of prison rape for each calendar year.
This report fulfills the requirement under Sec. 4(c)(2)(B)(ii)
of the Act to provide a list of local jails according to the
prevalence of sexual victimization.
In December 2007, BJS published Sexual Victimization in
State and Federal Prison Reported by Inmates, 2007 (NCJ
219414), which details the findings from 23,398 inmates
held in 146 sampled prisons in the National Inmate Survey
(NIS). This report presents the findings for the 282 local
jails in the NIS sample. The survey on sexual victimization,
conducted by RTI International (Research Triangle Park,
NC), was administered to 40,419 jail inmates between April
and December 2007. (See Methodology for sample
description.)
The NIS is part of the National Prison Rape Statistical Program, which collects administrative records of reported
sexual violence as well as collecting allegations of sexual
violence directly from victims through surveys of current
and former inmates. Administrative records have been collected annually since 2004. Data collections from former
inmates under active supervision and youth held in state
and locally operated juvenile facilities are underway.
The 2007 NIS survey consisted of an audio computerassisted self interview (ACASI) in which inmates, using a
touch-screen, interacted with a computer-assisted questionnaire and followed audio instructions delivered via

headphones. A small number of jail inmates (223) completed a short paper form. These were primarily inmates
housed in administrative or disciplinary segregation or considered too violent to be interviewed.
The NIS is a self-administered survey designed to encourage reporting by providing anonymity to respondents. Computer-assisted technologies provide uniform conditions
under which inmates complete the survey. In each facility,
respondents are randomly selected. Before the interview,
inmates are informed verbally and in writing that participation is voluntary and that all information will be held in confidence. Overall, two-thirds (67%) of eligible sampled jail
inmates participated in the survey.
To provide reliable facility-level estimates of sexual violence, the NIS limited reporting of sexual victimization to
incidents that occurred at the sampled jail facilities during
the 6 months prior to the date of the interview. Inmates who
had served less than 6 months were asked about their
experiences since admission to the facility.
The NIS collects only allegations of sexual victimization.
Because participation in the survey is anonymous and
reports are confidential, the NIS does not permit any followup investigation or substantiation through review of official
records. Some allegations in the NIS may be untrue. At the
same time, some inmates may remain silent about sexual
victimization experienced in the facility, despite efforts of
survey staff to assure inmates that their survey responses
would be kept confidential. Although the effects may be offsetting, the relative extent of underreporting and false
reporting in the NIS is unknown.
Detailed information is available in appendix tables in the online version of this report on the BJS Website at
<http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/svljri07.pdf>.

3.2% of jail inmates reported experiencing one or more
incidents of sexual victimization
Among the 40,419 jail inmates participating in the 2007 survey, 1,330 reported experiencing one or more incidents of
sexual victimization. Because the NIS is a sample survey,
weights were applied for sampled facilities and inmates
within facilities to produce national-level and facility-level
estimates. The estimated number of local jail inmates
experiencing sexual violence totaled 24,700 (or 3.2% of all
jail inmates, nationwide).
About 1.6% of inmates (12,100, nationwide) reported an
incident involving another inmate, and 2.0% (15,200)
reported an incident involving staff. Some inmates (0.4%)
said they had been sexually victimized by both other
inmates and staff (table 1).
The NIS screened for specific sexual
activities, then asked respondents if
they were forced or pressured to
engage in these activities by another
inmate or staff. (See appendices 7
through 9 for specific survey questions.) Reports of inmate-on-inmate
sexual violence were classified as
either nonconsensual sexual acts or
abusive sexual contacts. Approximately 0.7% of jail inmates (5,200)
said they had nonconsensual sex
with another inmate, including giving
or receiving sexual gratification, and
oral, anal, or vaginal penetration. An
additional 0.9% of jail inmates
(6,900) said they had experienced
one or more abusive sexual contacts
only, that is, unwanted touching of
specific body parts in a sexual way
by another inmate.
An estimated 1.3% of all inmates
(10,400) reported that they had sex
or sexual contact unwillingly with
staff as a result of physical force,
pressure, or offers of special favors
or privileges. An estimated 1.1% of
all inmates (8,400) reported they
willingly had sex or sexual contact
with staff. Regardless of whether an
inmate reported being willing or
unwilling, any sexual contact
between jail inmates and staff is illegal; however, the difference may be
informative when addressing issues
of staff training, prevention, and
follow-up.

Table 1. Local jail inmates reporting sexual
victimization, National Inmate Survey, 2007
National estimate
Number
Percent

Type
Total

24,700

3.2%

Inmate-on-inmate
Nonconsensual sexual acts
Abusive sexual contacts only

12,100
5,200
6,900

1.6%
0.7
0.9

Staff sexual misconduct
Unwilling activity
Excluding touching
Touching only
Willing activity
Excluding touching
Touching only

15,200
10,400
8,300
2,100
8,400
7,100
1,200

2.0%
1.3
1.1
0.3
1.1
0.9
0.2

Note: Detail may not sum to total because inmates may
report more than one type of victimization. They may also
report victimization by other inmates and by staff.

Table 2. Local jails with high rates of inmate sexual victimization, National Inmate
Survey, 2007
Percent of inmates reporting sexual victimizationa
Number of
Number of Response Weighted Standard
percentc errord
similar facilitiese
respondentsb rate

Facility name
U.S. total

40,419
(NM)f

Torrance Co. Det. Fac.
Clark Co. Jail (WA)
Bernalillo Co. Metro. Det. Ctr.
(NM)
Brevard Co. Det. Ctr. (FL)
Southeastern Ohio Reg. Jail (OH)
Wayne Co. Jail (IN)
Franklin Co. Jail (NY)
New York City Rose M. Singer
Ctr. (NY)g
Atlanta City Jail (GA)
Fulton Co. Jail (GA)
Caldwell Parish Jails (LA)
Philadelphia City Industrial Corr.
Ctr. (PA)
Will Co. Adult Det. Fac. (IL)
Androscoggin Co. Jail (ME)
La Fourche Parish Jail (LA)
Dixie Co Jail (FL)
Los Angeles Co. - Twin Towers
Corr. Fac. (CA)
Riverside Co. Robert Presley Det.
Ctr. (CA)

67%

3.2%

0.1%

67
163

40
71

13.4
9.1

4.1
2.2

53
80

117
228
85
131
81

42
83
57
75
86

8.9
8.5
8.1
7.5
7.3

2.9
1.9
2.1
1.9
1.4

151
86
116
133
110

178
145
187
210

68
41
67
93

7.2
7.1
7.1
6.9

1.7
3.0
1.8
1.6

129
239
137
149

180
172
55
151
56

71
73
67
76
67

6.9
6.8
6.7
6.6
6.5

1.8
2.0
2.2
1.2
2.5

150
168
192
122
231

95

43

6.4

2.6

239

141

66

6.4

2.2

210

Note: Includes all facilities with a prevalence rate of at least twice the national average (3.2%).
Excludes Chowan Co. Det. Fac. (NC), 8.6%, and Pulaski Co. Tri-Co. Justice & Det. Ctr. (IL), 6.7%, with
rates that were not statistically different from zero at the 95% confidence level.
aPercent of inmates reporting one or more incidents of sexual victimization involving another inmate or
facility staff in the past 6 months or since admission to the facility, if less than 6 months.
b

Number of respondents selected for the NIS on sexual victimization.

c

Weights were applied so that inmates who responded accurately reflected the entire population of
each facility on selected characteristics, including age, gender, race, and time served since admission.
d

Standard errors may be used to construct confidence intervals around the weighted survey estimates.
For example, the 95% confidence interval around the total percent is 3.2% plus or minus 1.96 times
0.1% (or 3.0% to 3.4%).

eEstimates

for each facility are determined to be statistically similar if the 95% confidence interval
around the difference contains zero. (See Methodology for details.)

f

Private facility.

gFemale

only facility.

2 Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007

18 jails had prevalence rates of at least twice the
national average of 3.2%
Of the 282 jail facilities in the 2007 NIS, 18 had an overall
victimization rate of at least twice the national average of
3.2% (table 2). The overall victimization rate is a measure
of prevalence that includes all experiences, regardless of
the level of coercion and type of sexual activity.
Statistically, the NIS is unable to identify the facility with the
highest prevalence rate. Because the estimates are based
on a sample of inmates rather than a complete enumeration, the estimates are subject to sampling error. The precision of each facility estimate can be calculated based on
the estimated standard error. For example, the victimization
rate of 13.4% recorded for the Torrance County Detention
Facility (New Mexico) has a precision of plus or minus
8.0% with a 95% confidence level. This precision, based on
the standard error of 4.1% multiplied by 1.96, indicates a
95% confidence that the true prevalence rate in the Torrance County Detention Facility is between 5.4% and
21.4%.
Within each facility, the estimated standard error varies
by the size of the estimate, the number of completed interviews, and the size of the facility. Although the sampling
procedures are designed to produce the same level of
precision within all facilities (a standard error of 1.75%), the
actual standard errors varied depending on the response
rate and characteristics of the responding inmates. (See
Methodology for further discussion of standard errors.)
As a consequence of sampling error, the
NIS cannot provide an exact ranking for all
facilities as required under the Prison
Rape Elimination Act. However, detailed
tabulations of the survey results are presented by facility and state in appendix
tables 1 through 6.1 Facility prevalence
rates vary by level and type of victimization, and observed differences between
facilities will not always be statistically significant. Consequently, these measures
cannot be used to reliably rank facilities
from 1 (the highest) to 282 (the lowest).
Unlike the results of the 2007 NIS in state
and federal prisons, the NIS in local jails
does not provide a statistical basis for
identifying a small group of facilities with
the highest rates of sexual victimization.
Based on the large confidence interval
around the Torrance County Detention
Facility (13.4% plus or minus 8.0%), 38
1Facility

level information and estimates are provided for all sampled jails in appendix tables 1 and
2. Appendix tables 3 through 6 exclude those jails
with no reported incidents of sexual victimization
and rates not statistically different from zero.

other facilities would be included in the interval, but these
facilities also have estimated rates and confidence intervals.
By constructing 95% confidence intervals around the differences between facility estimates, we can determine the
number of facilities with statistically similar rates of victimization. For example, the confidence interval around the
observed difference between the Torrance County Detention Facility and the Polk County Jail (Iowa) is 8.6% plus or
minus 9.5%. Since the interval includes zero, these facilities are considered to be statistically similar. Overall, 53 jail
facilities are statistically similar to the Torrance County
Detention Facility.
Facilities with rates lower than the 4.8% in the Polk County
Jail are statistically different from Torrance County. Terrebonne Parish Jail (Louisiana) had the next highest rate,
4.7%. Since the 95% confidence interval around the
observed difference with Torrance County (8.7% plus or
minus 8.4%) does not include zero, the Terrebonne Parish
Jail is considered statistically different. (See Methodology
for calculation of confidence intervals comparing facilities.)
Nearly a third of all facilities had rates
indistinguishable from zero
Eighteen jail facilities had no reported incidents of sexual
victimization (table 3). Cameron County Jail (Texas) was
the largest jail (1,368 inmates) with no reported incidents,
followed by Northwest Ohio Regional Correctional Center

Table 3. Local jails with no reported incidents of inmate sexual victimization,
National Inmate Survey, 2007

Facility name

Number of
inmates in Number of
respondents
custodya

Cameron Co. Jail (TX)
1,368
Northwest Ohio Reg. Corr. Ctr. (OH)
662
Orange Co. Work Rel. Ctr. (FL)
300
Hampden Co. Western Mass. Corr. Alcohol Ctr. (MA)
184
Jackson Co. Municipal Corr. Inst. (MO)
219
Coles Co. Jail (IL)
97
Culpeper Co. Jail (VA)
113
Atchison Co. Jail (KS)
77
Story Co. Jail (IA)
81
Knox Co. Work Rel. Center (TN)
64
Dinwiddie Co. Jail (VA)
59
Cecil Co. Com. Adult Rehab. Ctr. (MD)
49
Tippah Co. Jail (MS)
38
Bullock Co. Jail (AL)
33
Prowers Co. Jail (CO)
31
Koochiching Co. Law Enfor. Ctr. (MN)
20
Searcy Co. Jail (AR)
11
Wayne Co. Jail (MO)
16

100
154
104
117
55
70
58
39
38
35
39
32
26
9
19
9
8
6

Response
rateb
40%
70
59
84
43
83
69
57
63
72
76
75
83
41
91
100
73
86

Note: An additional 69 facilities had rates of sexual victimization that were not statistically different from zero at the 95% confidence level.
a

Number of inmates held in the facility on the day of the facility roster plus any new inmates
admitted prior to the first day of data collection. (See Methodology for details.)

b

Response rate equals the total number of respondents divided by the number of inmates
sampled minus the number of ineligible inmates times 100 percent. (See Methodology for
sampling description.)

Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007

3

(Ohio), with 662 inmates, and Orange County
Work Release Center (Florida), with 300 inmates.
An additional 69 facilities had rates that were not
statistically different from zero at the 95% confidence level. Thirty-seven of these facilities had
rates below 1.5% (not shown), and 21 were large
facilities with more than 1,000 inmates in custody.
The Bexar County Adult Detention Center (Texas),
with 4,179 inmates in custody, was the largest
facility surveyed that had a rate of sexual victimization indistinguishable from zero (1.6% plus or
minus 1.8%).
Identification of the facilities with the highest
rates of sexual victimization depends on nonstatistical judgments
Of the 18 facilities that had the highest overall
prevalence rates of sexual victimization, 3 facilities
were consistently high on measures restricted to
the most serious forms of sexual victimization
(table 4). The Torrance County Detention Facility
(New Mexico) had the highest rate — 10.1% when
sexual victimization excluded willing activity with
staff and 8.9% when victimization excluded abusive sexual contacts (allegations of touching only).
The Southeastern Ohio Regional Jail and the Bernalillo County Metropolitan Detention Center (New
Mexico) were also among the top five facilities on
each of these more serious measures of sexual
victimization.

Table 4. Local jails with the highest rates of inmate sexual
victimization, by type, National Inmate Survey, 2007
Percent of inmates reporting
sexual victimizationa
Percent
Standard error

Measure/facility
Facilities with the highest percent reporting
any form of sexual victimization
Torrance Co. Det. Fac. (NM)b
Clark Co. Jail (WA)
Bernalillo Co. Metro. Det. Ctr. (NM)
Brevard Co. Det. Ctr. (FL)
Southeastern Ohio Reg. Jail (OH)

13.4%
9.1
8.9
8.5
8.1

4.1%
2.2
2.9
1.9
2.1

Facilities with the highest percent reporting a nonconsensual sexual act or abusive sexual contactc
Torrance Co. Det. Fac. (NM)b
Clark Co. Jail (WA)
Southeastern Ohio Reg. Jail (OH)
Bernalillo Co. Metro. Det. Ctr. (NM)
Wayne Co. Jail (IN)

10.1%
8.5
8.1
7.8
7.5

3.8%
2.1
2.1
2.7
1.9

8.9%
7.8
6.7
5.8
5.5

3.3%
1.8
2.5
1.8
1.8

Facilities with the highest percent reporting
a nonconsensual sexual actd
Torrance Co. Det. Fac. (NM)b
Brevard Co. Det. Ctr. (FL)
Bernalillo Co. Metro. Det. Ctr. (NM)
Southeastern Ohio Reg. Jail (OH)
Lexington-Fayette Urban Co. D.C.C. (KY)

Note: All measures are based on facilities with estimates statistically different from
zero at the 95% confidence level.
aInmates

reporting one or more incidents of sexual victimization involving another
inmate or facility staff in the past 6 months or since admission to the facility, if less
than 6 months.

bPrivate

facility.

c

Excludes allegations of willing sexual contacts with staff.

dIncludes

allegations of unwanted contacts with another inmate and any contacts

with staff that involved oral, anal, and vaginal penetration, handjobs and other sexOf the 282 sampled facilities, 19 jails had statistiual acts.
cally significant rates of injury related to sexual victimization (table 5). Overall, 0.6% of all jail inmates
Table 5. Local jails with the highest rates of injury, National
reported an injury related to sexual victimization. The RivInmate Survey, 2007
erside County Robert Presley Detention Center (California)
Facility name
Percent injured Standard error
had the highest observed rate with 4.6% of inmates reportTotal
0.6%
< 0.0%
ing an injury, followed by Garfield County Jail (Colorado)
Riverside Co. Robert Presley Det.
with 4.0%, and San Diego County George F. Bailey DetenCtr. (CA)
4.6
2.0
tion Facility (California) with 3.6%.

The Brevard County Detention Center (Florida), with an
injury rate of 3.1%, and the Southeastern Ohio Regional
Jail (Ohio), with an injury rate of 2.5%, were also among
the 5 facilities recording the highest overall rates of sexual
victimization and the highest rates of nonconsensual sexual activity.
Most victims of sexual violence in jails did not report an
injury. Nationwide, approximately 20% of the estimated
24,700 victims said they had been injured as a result of the
sexual victimization. The majority of injured victims
reported minor injuries, such as bruises, cuts, or scratches
(16%). Most injured victims (85%) also reported at least
one more serious injury. Among all victims, 8% reported

Garfield Co. Jail (CO)
San Diego Co. George F. Bailey
Det. Fac.(CA)
Androscoggin Co. Jail (ME)
Kentucky River Reg. Jail (KY)
Erie Co. Holding Ctr. (NY)
Brevard Co. Det. Ctr. (FL)
Will Co. Adult Det. Fac. (IL)
Southeastern Ohio Reg. Jail (OH)
St. Tammany Parish Jail (LA)
Santa Barbara Co. Jail (CA)
Franklin Co. Jail (NY)
Harris Co. Jail - Baker Street (TX)
Richmond City Jail (VA)
St. Bernard Parish Prison (LA)
Western Reg. Jail (WV)
Jackson Co. Jail (AL)
La Fourche Parish Jail (LA)
Hamilton Co. Talbert House Drug
and Alcohol Trt. Ctr. (OH)

4.0

1.7

3.6
3.5
3.2
3.2
3.1
2.7
2.5
2.4
2.3
2.2
2.1
2.1
1.9
1.8
1.3
1.3

1.4
1.7
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.1
0.7
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.9
0.5
0.5

1.0

0.5

Note: All other facilities had injury rates not statistically different from
zero.

4 Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007

being knocked unconscious, 6% reported anal
or rectal tearing, 6% internal injuries, 3% broken bones, and 2% knife or stab wounds.
Type of injury
All inmates All victims
Any injury
0.6%
19.5%
Knife or stab wounds
0.1
2.1
Broken bones
0.1
3.3
Anal/rectal tearing
0.2
6.3
Teeth chipped/knocked out
0.3
8.9
Internal injuries
0.2
6.3
Knocked unconscious
0.2
7.8
Bruises, cuts, scratches
0.5
15.8
Number of inmates
772,800 24,700

Rates of sexual victimization were unrelated
to basic facility characteristics
Data collected in the 2005 Census of Jail
Inmates and the 2006 Census of Jail Facilities
were analyzed in conjunction with the NIS data
to determine whether any facility characteristics
were associated with higher rates of sexual victimization (table 6). An initial examination of
selected facility characteristics revealed few
measurable differences at the 95% level of statistical confidence.
• Inmates in long-term facilities (those with
the authority to house inmates convicted of
felonies with sentences of more than a year)
had an overall sexual victimization rate
(3.4%) that was similar to the rates reported
by inmates in short-term facilities (3.5%) and
in detention-only facilities (3.0%).

Table 6. Prevalence of inmate sexual victimization, by selected
characteristics of jail facilities, National Inmate Survey, 2007

Facility characteristic

Percent of inmates reporting sexual victimizationa
NonconsenNumber of
InmateStaffsual sexual
inmatesb
Total on-inmate on-inmate acts onlyc

Type of facilityd
Detention only
Detention/short-term
Long-term

36,358
159,634
77,407

3.0%
3.5
3.4

1.3%
1.9
1.7

2.2%
1.9
2.0

2.2%
2.2
2.1

Gender housed
Males only
Females only
Both males and females

62,093
2,487
208,762

3.3%
5.0
3.4

1.5%
3.9
1.9

2.1%
1.9
1.9

2.2%
2.0
2.2

Size of facilitye
Less than 100
100-249
250-499
500-999
1,000-1,999
2,000 or more

1,351
6,495
14,348
50,943
99,197
101,065

2.1%
3.6
2.8
3.3
3.1
3.9

1.4%
1.7
1.5
1.7
1.6
2.1

0.9%
2.4
1.6
2.1
1.8
2.1

1.1%
2.4
1.7
2.2
2.0
2.4

Percent of capacity occupiedf
Less than 90%
90-100
101-110
111% or greater

70,517
87,678
53,660
61,544

3.7%
3.2
3.3
3.4

2.0%
1.6
1.8
1.7

2.0%
1.9
1.8
2.1

2.2%
2.1
2.2
2.2

Time since last renovationg
5 years or less
6-10
11-20
21 years or more

85,585
53,004
89,831
44,979

3.2%
3.5
3.6
3.3

1.6%
1.7
1.9
1.9

2.0%
2.1
1.9
1.9

2.2%
2.3
2.2
2.0

Note: Characteristics of jail facilities were drawn from the 2005 Census of Jail Inmates
and the 2006 Census of Jail Facilities, conducted by BJS. Missing data from the BJS censuses were obtained from the 2005 - 2007 National Jail and Adult Detention Directory,
published by the American Correctional Association.
a

• Victimization rates in female-only facilities
were the highest (5.0%), largely due to incidents of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization (3.9%). Women in coed facilities had
similar rates (5.0%). Therefore, the rate
appears to reflect higher overall rates
reported by women, regardless of the type of
facility (not shown in a table).
• Sexual victimization was reported at slightly
lower levels (2.1%) in small facilities (those
holding fewer than 100 inmates). Because of
the small number of inmates in these facilities, comparisons with other facilities were
not statistically significant.

Percent of inmates reporting one or more incidents of sexual victimization involving
another inmate or facility staff in the past 6 months or since admission to the facility, if
less than 6 months.

bNumber

of inmates held in each type of facility on the day of the roster plus any new
inmates admitted prior to the first day of data collection.

c
Includes allegations of unwanted oral, anal, and vaginal penetration, handjobs, and
other sexual acts with other inmates and staff.
d

Detention facilities have authority to hold persons facing charges beyond 72 hours;
short-term facilities hold persons convicted of offenses with sentences usually of a year
or less; long-term facilities hold persons convicted of felonies with sentences of more
than 1 year.

eFacility

size is based on the rated capacity (i.e., the maximum number of beds or
inmates assigned by a rating official).

fBased on the number of persons held on March 31, 2006, divided by the rated capacity
times 100%.
g

Based on the year of most recent major renovation or the year of original construction, if
never renovated.

• Though crowding is often assumed to be linked to
prison violence, the highest rates of sexual victimization
(3.7%) were reported in facilities that were the least
crowded (operating at less than 90% of capacity). As with
other comparisons, these differences were not statistically significant.

• Inmates in facilities that had opened or been renovated
in the last 5 years reported lower rates of sexual victimization (3.2%) than inmates in other facilities. Again, differences in these rates were not statistically significant.

Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007

5

Rates of sexual victimization were
more strongly related to inmate
characteristics than to facility
characteristics

Table 7. Prevalence of inmate sexual victimization, by selected characteristics
of jail inmates, National Inmate Survey, 2007

Rates of sexual assault among inmates
varied across demographic categories:

Inmate characteristic

• Female inmates were more likely than
male inmates to report a sexual victimization (table 7). An estimated 5.1% of
female inmates, compared to 2.9% of
male inmates, said they had experienced one or more incidents of sexual
victimization.
• Persons of two or more races reported
higher rates of sexual assault in jails
(4.2%), compared to white (2.9%), black
(3.2%), and Hispanic inmates (3.2%).
• About 4.6% of inmates ages 18 to 24
reported being sexually assaulted, compared to 2.4% of inmates age 25 and
older.
• Inmates with a college education
reported higher rates of sexual assault
(4.6%) than inmates with less than a
high school degree (2.8%).
The largest differences in sexual victimization rates were found among inmates
based on their sexual preference and past
sexual experiences:
• Inmates with a sexual orientation other
than heterosexual reported significantly
higher rates of sexual victimization. An
estimated 2.7% of heterosexual inmates
alleged an incident, compared to 18.5%
of homosexual inmates, and 9.8% of
bisexual inmates or inmates indicating
“other” as an orientation.
• Inmates with 21 or more sexual partners prior to admission reported the
highest rates of victimization (4.1%);
inmates with 1 or no prior sexual
partners reported the lowest rates
(2.4%).

Gender
Male
Female
Race/Hispanic origin
Whitec
Blackc
Hispanic
Otherc,d
Two or more racesc
Age
18-19
20-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55 or older
Education
Less than high school
High school graduate
Some collegee
College degree or more
Sexual orientation
Heterosexual
Bi-sexual
Homosexual
Other
Number of prior sexual partners
0-1
2-4
5-10
11-20
21 or more
Prior sexual assault
Yes
No
Sexually assaulted at another
facility
Yes
No

Percent of inmates reporting sexual victimizationa
NonconsenNumber of
Inmate-on- Staff-on- sual sexual
inmatesb
Total
inmate
inmate
acts only
678,500
94,300

2.9%
5.1

1.3%
3.7

2.0%
2.0

2.0%
2.4

273,900
282,400
141,400
18,200
51,500

2.9%
3.2
3.2
4.1
4.2

1.8%
1.3
1.5
1.6
2.1

1.5%
2.1
2.0
2.9
2.6

1.7%
2.1
2.2
2.4
2.8

52,600
156,500
245,600
186,100
107,100
24,900

4.7%
4.5
3.1
2.7
1.8
2.2

1.8%
2.3
1.6
1.3
0.9
1.6

3.4%
2.8
1.9
1.7
1.1
0.7

3.6%
2.9
2.0
1.7
1.2
1.6

287,800
282,500
175,100
22,500

2.8%
3.1
3.7
4.6

1.5%
1.3
2.0
2.4

1.6%
2.2
2.0
2.9

1.8%
2.2
2.1
2.9

702,800
28,700
9,900
10,300

2.7%
9.8
18.5
9.8

1.1%
6.4
13.7
5.8

1.7%
5.3
7.1
6.5

1.7%
6.6
13.2
7.6

127,100
121,600
145,000
118,200
230,600

2.4%
2.7
3.0
3.2
4.1

1.2%
1.4
1.7
1.6
1.8

1.3%
1.7
1.7
1.8
2.8

1.6%
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.9

102,600
666,100

11.8%
1.9

8.0%
0.6

5.5%
1.4

6.9%
1.3

11,800
756,900

33.0%
2.7

25.9%
1.2

13.9%
1.8

21.1%
1.8

a

Inmates reporting one or more incidents of sexual victimization involving another inmate or facility staff in the past 6 months or since admission to the facility, if less than 6 months.

b

Estimated number of jail inmates at midyear 2007, excluding inmates under age 18 and inmates
held in jails with an average daily population of five inmates or fewer.

c

Excludes persons of Hispanic or Latino origin.

d

Includes American Indians, Alaska Natives, Asians, Native Hawaiians, and other Pacific Islanders.

fIncludes

persons with associate degrees.

• Inmates who had experienced a prior sexual assault
were about 6 times more likely to report a sexual victimization in jail (11.8%), compared to those with no sexual
assault history (1.9%).
• Among inmates who reported having been sexually
assaulted at another prison or jail in the past, a third
reported having been sexually victimized at the current
facility.
6 Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007

Inmate-on-inmate victimization occurred most often in
the victim’s cell; staff-on-inmate victimization occurred
in a closet, office, or other locked room
Circumstances varied between inmate-on-inmate and staffon-inmate incidents. An estimated 48% of inmate-oninmate incidents occurred between 6 p.m. and midnight,
while 47% of staff-on-inmate incidents occurred from midnight to 6 a.m. (table 8). Over half of inmate-on-inmate victimizations took place in the victim’s cell or room (56%),
while a closet, office, or other locked room was the most
common location for staff-on-inmate victimizations (47%).
Inmate-on-inmate sexual assault victims most often
reported being threatened with harm or a weapon (44%) or
“persuaded or talked into it” (41%). Staff-on-inmate sexual
assault victims were most often “given a bribe or blackmailed” (52%). Two-thirds (67%) of inmate-on-inmate incidents involved one perpetrator, compared to 80% of staffon-inmate incidents.
About half of the victims of inmate-on-inmate sexual
assault said the most serious incidents (nonconsensual
sexual acts) had occurred only once. One in 7 victims said
they had been a victim of a nonconsensual sexual act
11 times or more. Among victims of staff-on-inmate sexual
misconduct, 34% said they had unwilling sexual contact
once; 15% reported 11 times or more.
One in 4 victims of an inmate-on-inmate assault told someone else within or outside the facility about the incident;
about 1 in 7 victims of staff-on-inmate incidents said they
reported the incident to someone.
Percent of staff-on-inmate sexual victimizations, by gender of inmate and staff
Unwilling
Willing
All incidents activity
activity
Male inmates
Female staff
Male staff
Both male and female
Female inmates
Female staff
Male staff
Both male and female

61.5%
14.4
13.1

47.7%
20.4
17.9

78.7%
5.0
8.8

1.7%
7.7
1.5

1.8%
10.2
1.9

1.8%
5.0
0.8

Nearly 62% of all reported incidents of staff sexual misconduct involved female staff with male inmates; 8% involved
male staff with female inmates. Female staff were involved
in 48% of incidents reported by male inmates who said they
were unwilling and in 79% of incidents with male inmates
who said they were willing. In an effort to better understand
the allegations of staff sexual misconduct, the 2008 NIS will
include questions to determine how often sexual contact
reported as unwilling occurred in the course of pat downs
or strip searches.

Table 8. Circumstances surrounding incidents of inmate
sexual victimization in local jails, National Inmate Survey,
2007

Circumstance
Number of victims

Inmate-on-inmate
Staff-on-inmate
NonconAll inci- sensual
All inci- Unwilling
dents
sexual acts dents
activity
12,100

5,200

15,200

10,400

a

Time of day
6 a.m. to noon
Noon to 6 p.m.
6 p.m. to midnight
Midnight to 6 p.m.
Where occurreda
Victim's cell/room
Another inmate's cell/
room
Shower/bathroom
Yard/recreation area
Closet, office or other
locked room
Workshop/kitchen
Classroom/library
Elsewhere in facility
Off facility grounds
Type of coerciona
Persuaded/talked into it
Given bribe/blackmailed
Given drugs/alcohol
Offered protection from
other inmates
Threatened with harm or
a weapon
Physically held down or
restrained
Physically harmed/injured
Number of perpetrators
One
More than one
Number of times
1
2
3 to 10
11 or more
Reported at least one
incidentb
Yes
No

24.1%
30.4
48.4
35.5

32.4%
35.7
50.8
46.6

28.3%
24.3
28.0
47.0

32.2%
28.2
32.4
44.1

56.3%

63.7%

30.3%

30.0%

37.2
19.4
14.2

50.0
29.4
14.7

14.5
22.7
9.2

17.3
24.6
10.3

10.0
8.0
5.6
5.9
6.8

16.7
11.4
9.0
3.7
10.8

47.0
26.6
20.5
5.4
14.4

47.4
29.7
24.9
5.6
15.3

40.6%
34.1
16.7

56.3%
52.4
29.1

35.2%
52.3
24.7

42.0%
60.8
32.6

26.3

41.0

22.1

29.8

43.7

54.3

24.6

32.1

34.1
25.6

41.8
32.5

15.0
11.4

18.7
14.3

66.8%
33.2

57.8%
42.2

79.6%
20.4

73.4%
26.6

:
:
:
:

23.9%
76.1

50.8%
13.8
21.3
14.1

33.0%
67.0

:
:
:
:

14.4%
85.6

34.3%
24.4
26.3
15.0

20.2%
79.8

: Not calculated.
Detail may sum to more than 100% because multiple responses were
allowed for each item.

a
b

Indicated at least one incident was reported to facility staff (line staff,
medical or mental health staff, teacher, counselor, volunteer, or chaplain), another inmate, or a family member or friend.

Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007

7

Methodology
The National Inmate Survey (NIS) was conducted in 282
local jails between April and December 2007, by RTI International under a cooperative agreement with the Bureau of
Justice Statistics (BJS). The NIS comprised two questionnaires—a survey of sexual victimization and a survey of
past drug and alcohol use and abuse. Inmates were randomly assigned one of the questionnaires so that, at the
time of the interview, the content of the survey remained
unknown to facility staff and the survey interviewers.
The interviews, which averaged 26 minutes in length, used
computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI) and audio
computer-assisted self interviewing (ACASI) collection
methods. For approximately the first five minutes, survey
interviewers conducted a personal interview using CAPI to
obtain background data, date of admission, conviction status, and current offense. For the remainder of the interview,
respondents interacted with a computer-administered
questionnaire using a touch-screen and synchronized
audio instructions delivered through headphones. Respondents completed the ACASI portion of the interview in private, with the interviewer either leaving the room or moving
away from the computer.
A shorter paper questionnaire was available for inmates
who were unable to come to the private interviewing room.
The paper form was completed by 223 inmates (0.6% of all
sexual violence interviews), primarily those housed in
administrative or disciplinary segregation or considered too
violent to be interviewed.
Before the interview, inmates were informed verbally and in
writing that participation was voluntary and that all information provided would be held in confidence. Interviews were
conducted in English (94%) or Spanish (6%).
Selection of local jail facilities
A sample of 303 local jails was drawn to produce a 10%
sample of the 3,002 local jail facilities identified in the 2005
Census of Jail Inmates. The 2005 census was a complete
enumeration of all jail jurisdictions, including all publicly
operated and privately operated facilities under contract to
local jail authorities. The 2007 NIS was restricted to jails
that had more than five inmates on June 30, 2005. Based
on estimates from the 2007 Annual Survey of Jails, these
jails held an estimated 772,800 inmates age 18 or older on
June 29, 2007.
Local jail facilities were systematically sampled to ensure
that at least one jail was selected in each state, except in
Alaska (with 14 facilities operated by local municipalities)
and in Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Rhode Island, and
Vermont, in which there were no jails. In these states, facilities with jail functions were state-operated and were
included in the 2007 NIS prison collection.
All jail facilities were selected in a three-step process. First,
jails on the sampling frame were sorted by region and
8 Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007

state. Jails in six states were determined to lack a sufficient
total number of inmates statewide to meet the one facilityper-state requirement. These facilities were grouped to
form separate strata. One facility from each stratum was
selected with probability proportionate to size. Overall, six
jails in these small states were selected.
Second, 294 jails in the remaining 44 large states and the
District of Columbia were selected. Thirty-two were
selected with certainty, in that their large population yielded
a probability of selection equal to 1.0. After ordering the
remaining facilities by region and state, 262 facilities were
selected based on their size relative to the total number of
inmates in all noncertainty facilities.
Third, two of the selected jails were determined to be multifacility jail jurisdictions (New York City and Cook County,
IL). Initial size measures for these jurisdictions included all
facilities. As a result, jail facilities in these jurisdictions were
enumerated and then sampled—three in New York City
and two in Cook County—with probabilities proportionate to
the number of inmates in the facility relative to the total
reported for the jurisdiction.
Of the 303 selected jails, 21 facilities were excluded from
the survey (table 9). Five facilities refused to participate in
the survey. Eight facilities were determined to be ineligible,
because more than 90% of inmates in each were prearraigned or held for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or the U.S. Marshals Service or because the
Table 9. Sampled jail facilities excluded from the survey,
National Inmate Survey, 2007
5 facilities refused to participate in the survey:
Decatur Co. Prison (GA)
Jefferson Parish Corr. Fac. (LA)
Mississippi Co. Jail (MO)
Mobile Co. Jail (AL)
Rutherford Co. Adult Det. Ctr. (TN)
8 facilities were determined to be ineligible:
Baltimore City Central Booking & Intake Ctr. (MD)a
Broward Co. Work Rel. Ctr. (FL)b
Leavenworth Det. Ctr. (KS)b
Los Angeles Co. Mira Loma Fac. (CA)b
Onondaga Co. Jail (NY)a
Sedgwick Co. Work Rel. Ctr. (KS)c
Val Verde Co. Jail & Corr. Fac. (TX)b
Ventura Co. East Valley Branch Jail (CA)a
8 facilities will be in the 2008 sample with certainty:d
Columbia Co. Det. Ctr. (FL)
Dauphin Co. Prison (PA)
Henderson Co. Jail (TX)
Jackson Co. Jail (MS)
Merced Co. Jail (CA)
Philadelphia City Det. Ctr. & Health Serv. Unit (PA)
Rutherford Co. Jail (NC)
Salt Lake Co. Jail (UT)
a

More than 90% of inmates were pre-arraigned.

bMore

than 90% of inmates held for ICE or U.S. Marshals.

cCommunity-based
d

facility.

Unable to participate due to lack of space, staffing, or jail
renovation/expansion; will be surveyed in 2008, when
logistical issues are resolved.

facility was a community-based facility. (The 2008 NIS will
include all inmates held for ICE and U.S. Marshals Service.) Eight facilities were unable to participate due to lack
of space or staffing or because the jail was being renovated. All expect to be included in the 2008 NIS. All other
selected jails participated fully in the survey.
Selection of inmates
The number of inmates sampled in each facility varied
based on 5 criteria:
• an expected prevalence rate of sexual victimization of
4%
• a desired level of precision based on a standard error of
1.75%
• a projected 70% response rate among selected inmates
• a 10% chance among participating inmates of not
receiving the sexual victimization questionnaire

Weighting and non-response adjustments
Responses from sampled interviewed inmates were
weighted to provide national-level and facility-level estimates. Each interviewed inmate was assigned an initial
weight corresponding to the inverse of the probability of
selection within each sampled facility. A series of adjustment factors were applied to the initial weight to minimize
potential bias due to non-response and to provide national
estimates.
Bias occurs when the estimated prevalence is different
from the actual prevalence for a given facility. In each facility, bias could result if the random sample of inmates did
not accurately represent the facility population. Bias could
also result if the non-respondents were different from the
respondents. Post-stratification and non-response adjustments were made to the data to compensate for these two
possibilities. These adjustments included:
• calibration of the weights of the responding inmates
within each facility so that the estimates accurately
reflected the facility’s entire population in terms of known
demographic characteristics. (These characteristics
included distributions by inmate age, gender, race, date
of admission, and sentence length.) This adjustment
ensures that the estimates accurately reflect the entire
population of the facility and not just the inmates who
were randomly sampled.

• a pre-arraignment adjustment factor equal to 1 in facilities where the status was known for all inmates, and less
than 1 in facilities where only the overall proportion of
prearraigned was known.
An initial roster of inmates was obtained in the week prior to
the start of interviewing at each facility. Inmates under age
18 and inmates who had not been arraigned were deleted
from the roster. Each eligible inmate was assigned a random number and sorted in ascending order. Inmates were
selected from the list up to the expected number of inmates
determined by the sampling criteria.
Due to the dynamic nature of jail populations, a second roster of inmates was obtained on the first day of data collection. Eligible inmates on the second roster who were not on
the initial roster were identified. These inmates had either
been arraigned since the initial roster was created or were
newly admitted to the facility and arraigned. A random sample of these new inmates was selected using the same
probability of selection derived from the first roster.
A total of 74,713 inmates were selected. (See appendix
table 1 for the number of inmates sampled in each facility.)
After selection, an additional 7,314 ineligible inmates were
excluded — 6,549 were transferred to another facility
before interviewing began, 676 were mentally or physically
unable to be interviewed, and 89 were under age 18.
Overall, 45,414 inmates participated in the survey, yielding
a response rate of 67%. Approximately 90% of the participating inmates (40,419) received the sexual assault survey.
Of all selected inmates, 18% refused to participate in the
survey; 4% were not available to be interviewed (e.g., in
court, in medical segregation, determined by the facility to
be too violent to be interviewed, or restricted from participation by another legal jurisdiction); and 11% were not interviewed due to survey logistics (e.g., language barriers and
transfers to another facility after interviewing began).

• calibration of the weights so that the weight from a nonresponding inmate is assigned to a responding inmate
with similar demographic characteristics. This adjustment
ensures that the estimates accurately reflect the full sample, rather than only the inmates who responded.
For each inmate, these adjustments were based on a generalized exponential model, developed by Folsom and
Singh, and applied to the sexual assault survey respondents.2
A final ratio adjustment to each inmate weight was made to
provide national-level estimates for the total number of
inmates held in jails with an average daily population of
more than six inmates at midyear 2007. These ratios represented the estimated number of inmates by gender in the
survey estimates and accuracy of the 2007 Annual Survey
of Jails divided by the number of inmates by gender in the
2007 NIS after calibration for sampling and non-response.
Survey estimates and accuracy
Survey estimates are subject to sampling error arising from
the fact that the estimates are based on a sample rather
than a complete enumeration. Within each facility, the estimated sampling error varies by the size of the estimate, the
number of completed interviews, and the size of the facility.
2

R.E. Folsom, Jr., and A.C. Singh, (2002), “The Generalized Exponential
Model for Sampling Weight Calibration for Extreme Values, Nonresponse,
and Poststratification,” Proceedings of the American Statistical Association, Section on Survey Research Methods, 598-603.

Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007

9

Estimates of the standard errors for selected measures of
sexual victimization are presented in tables 10 and 11 and
in appendix tables 2 through 5.
These standard errors may be used to construct confidence intervals around survey estimates (that is, numbers,
percents, and rates), as well as around differences in these
estimates.
For example, the 95% confidence interval around the percent of inmates reporting sexual victimization in the Torrance County Detention Facility (New Mexico) is approximately 13.4% plus or minus 1.96 times 4.1% (or 5.4% to
21.4%). Based on similarly constructed samples, 95% of
the intervals would be expected to contain the true (but
unknown) percentage.
The standard errors may also be used to construct confidence intervals around differences between facility estimates. For example, the 95% confidence interval comparing the percent of inmates reporting sexual victimization in
the Riverside County Robert Presley Detention Center
(California), 6.4%, with the Torrance County Detention
Facility (New Mexico), 13.4%, may be calculated. The confidence interval around the difference of 7.0% is approximately 1.96 times 4.7% (the square root of the pooled variance estimate, 21.7%). The pooled variance estimate is
calculated by taking the square root of the sum of each
standard error squared, i.e., the square root of (2.22) plus
(4.12). Since the interval (-2.2% to 16.2%) contains zero,
the difference between the Riverside County facility and the
Torrance County facility is not statistically significant.
Exposure period
For purposes of calculating comparative rates of sexual victimization, respondents were asked to provide the most
recent date of admission to the current facility. If the date of
admission was at least 6 months prior to the date of the
interview, inmates were asked questions related to their
experiences during the past 6 months. If the admission
date was less than 6 months prior to the interview, inmates
were asked about their experiences since they had arrived
at the facility.
Overall, the average exposure period for sexual victimization among sampled jail inmates was 2.6 months. Among
sampled inmates, approximately 20% had been in jail for 2
weeks or less; 15% between 2 weeks and a month; 17%
between 1 and 2 months; 30% between 2 and 6 months;
and 18% more than 6 months.

Table 10. Standard errors for the prevalence of inmate
sexual victimization for characteristics of jail inmates,
National Inmate Survey, 2007

Inmate characteristic

Percent of inmates reporting sexual
victimizationa
NonconsenInmate-on- Staff-on- sual sexual
Total inmate
inmate
acts

Gender
Male
Female

0.11%
0.36

0.08%
0.42

0.09%
0.23

0.09%
0.22

Race/Hispanic origin
Whiteb
Blackb
Hispanic
Otherb,c
Two or more racesb

0.24%
0.19
0.33
0.74
0.57

0.16%
0.10
0.16
0.55
0.32

0.16%
0.15
0.31
0.57
0.48

0.16%
0.13
0.31
0.60
0.49

Age
18-19
20-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55 or older

0.67%
0.52
0.27
0.22
0.19
0.52

0.34%
0.24
0.16
0.15
0.15
0.43

0.57%
0.37
0.19
0.18
0.18
0.29

0.59%
0.36
0.20
0.14
0.19
0.46

0.16%
0.24
0.26

0.14%
0.12
0.17

0.11%
0.25
0.27

0.12%
0.24
0.29

0.73

0.57

0.53

0.53

Sexual orientation
Heterosexual
Bi-sexual
Homosexual
Other

0.11%
0.96
1.85
1.49

0.07%
0.74
1.90
1.05

0.08%
0.72
2.09
1.30

0.08%
0.79
2.03
1.37

Number of prior sexual partners
0-1
2-4
5-10
11-20
21 or more

0.22%
0.27
0.30
0.45
0.26

0.17%
0.18
0.20
0.28
0.19

0.18%
0.26
0.20
0.23
0.19

0.19%
0.20
0.20
0.23
0.19

Prior sexual assault
Yes
No

0.55%
0.09

0.49%
0.06

0.38%
0.09

0.49%
0.08

Sexually assaulted at
another facility
Yes
No

2.64%
0.10

2.88%
0.10

1.71%
0.09

2.08%
0.09

Education
Less than high school
High school graduate
Some colleged
College degree or
more

a

Percent of inmates reporting one or more incidents of sexual victimization involving another inmate or facility staff in the past 6 months or
since admission to the facility, if less than 6 months.

b

Measuring sexual victimization
The survey of sexual victimization relied on the reporting of
the direct experience of each inmate, rather than on the
reporting on the experience of other inmates. Questions
asked related to inmate-on-inmate sexual activity were
asked separately from questions related to staff sexual misconduct. (For specific survey questions see appendices 7
and 8.)
10 Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007

Excludes persons of Hispanic or Latino origin.

c

Includes American Indians, Alaska Natives, Asians, Native
Hawaiians, and other Pacific Islanders.

dIncludes

persons with associate degrees.

The ACASI survey began with a series of questions that
screened for specific sexual activities, without restriction,
including both wanted and unwanted sex or sexual contacts with other inmates. As a means to fully measure all
sexual activities, questions related to the touching of body
parts in a sexual way were followed by questions related to
explicit giving or receiving of sexual gratification and questions related to acts involving oral, anal, or vaginal sex. The
nature of coercion (including use of physical force, pressure, or other forms of coercion) was measured for each
type of reported sexual activity.
ACASI survey items related to staff sexual misconduct
were asked in a different order. Inmates were first asked
about being pressured or being made to feel they had to
have sex or sexual contact with the staff and then asked
about being physically forced. In addition, inmates were
asked if any facility staff had offered favors or special privileges in exchange for sex. Finally, inmates were asked if
they willingly had sex or sexual contact with staff. All
reports of sex or sexual contact between an inmate and
facility staff, regardless of the level of coercion, were classified as staff sexual misconduct.
The ACASI survey included additional questions related to
both inmate-on-inmate and staff-on-inmate sexual victimization. These questions, known as latent class measures,
were included to assess the reliability of the survey questionnaire. After being asked detailed questions, all inmates
were asked a series of general questions to determine if
they had experienced any type of unwanted sex or sexual
contact with another inmate or had any sex or sexual contact with staff. (See appendix 9.)
The entire ACASI questionnaire (listed as National Inmate
Survey) and the shorter paper and pencil survey form
(PAPI) are available on the BJS web site at <http://
www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/correct.htm#Programs>.
Definition of terms
Sexual victimization — all types of sexual activity, e.g., oral,
anal, or vaginal penetration; handjobs; touching of the
inmate’s buttocks, thighs, penis, breasts, or vagina in a
sexual way; abusive sexual contacts; and both willing and
unwilling sexual activity with staff.
Nonconsensual sexual acts — unwanted contacts with
another inmate or any contacts with staff that involved oral,
anal, vaginal penetration, handjobs, and other sexual acts.
Abusive sexual contacts only — unwanted contacts with
another inmate or any contacts with staff that involved
touching of the inmate’s buttocks, thigh, penis, breasts, or
vagina in a sexual way.

Unwilling activity — incidents of unwanted sexual contacts
with another inmate or staff.
Willing activity — incidents of willing sexual contacts with
staff. These contacts are characterized by the reporting
inmates as willing; however, all sexual contacts between
inmates and staff are legally nonconsensual.
Table 11. Standard errors for circumstances surrounding
incidents of sexual victimization in local jails, by type of
incident, National Inmate Survey, 2007

Circumstance
Number of victims
Time of day
6 a.m. to noon
Noon to 6 p.m.
6 p.m. to midnight
Midnight to 6 p.m.
Where occurred
Victim's cell/room
Another inmate's cell/
room
Shower/bathroom
Yard/recreation area
Closet, office, or other
locked room
Workshop/kitchen
Classroom/library
Elsewhere in facility
Off facility grounds
Type of coercion
Persuaded/talked into it
Given a bribe/blackmailed
Given drugs/alcohol
Offered protection from
other inmates
Threatened with harm
or a weapon
Physically held down or
restrained
Physically harmed/
injured
Number of perpetrators
More than one
Number of times
1
2
3 to 10
11 or more

Inmate-on-inmate
NonconsenAll inci- sual sexual
dents
acts
12,100

5,200

Staff-on-inmate
All incidents

Unwilling
activity

15,200

10,400

2.09%
2.31
2.75
3.00

2.99%
3.45
3.29
3.21

2.78%
1.64
1.76
2.50

3.32%
2.30
2.05
4.20

2.69%

2.95%

1.77%

3.07%

2.42
1.88
1.67

3.35
3.01
2.38

1.71
2.35
1.47

2.52
2.82
1.65

1.32
1.21
1.01
1.13
1.11

2.44
2.14
1.93
1.18
2.04

2.58
1.79
1.63
1.05
1.71

2.61
2.41
2.35
1.10
1.99

2.58%

3.28%

2.23%

2.34%

2.48
1.71

3.33
3.17

2.70
1.70

2.61
2.32

2.17

3.04

1.67

2.38

2.93

3.51

2.57

3.37

3.07

3.59

1.87

2.49

3.30

3.16

1.57

2.15

3.09%

3.12%

2.25%

2.88%

:
:
:
:

Reported at least one incident*
Yes
2.05%

3.37%
2.32
2.79
2.95
3.17%

:
:
:
:
1.89%

2.99%
2.85
2.36
2.10
2.60%

: Not calculated.
*Indicated at least one incident was reported to facility staff (line staff,
medical or mental health staff, teacher, counselor, volunteer, or chaplain), another inmate, or a family member or friend.

Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007 11

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

*NCJ~221946*

PRESORTED STANDARD
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
DOJ/BJS
Permit No. G-91

Washington, DC 20531

Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300

The Bureau of Justice Statistics is the statistical
agency of the U.S. Department of Justice. Jeffrey
Sedgwick is the Director.
Allen J. Beck and Paige M. Harrison wrote this report.
The statistical unit of RTI, under Marcus Berzofsky,
produced the appendix tables. Allen J. Beck, Paige M.
Harrison, Paul Guerino, and RTI staff provided
statistical review and verification. Tina Dorsey
produced the report, Catherine Bird edited it, and
Jayne Robinson prepared the report for publication,
under the supervision of Doris J. James.

Paige M. Harrison, under the supervision of Allen J.
Beck, was project manager for the National Inmate
Survey. RTI, International staff, under a cooperative
agreement and in collaboration with BJS, designed the
survey, developed the questionnaires, and monitored
data collection and data processing, including Rachel
Caspar, Principal Investigator/Instrumentation Task
Leader; Christopher Krebs, Co-principal Investigator;
Ellen Stutts, Co-principal Investigator and Data
Collection Task Leader; Susan Brumbaugh, Logistics
Task Leader; Jamia Bachrach, Human Subjects Task
Leader; David Forvendel, Research Computing Task
Leader; Ralph Folsom, Senior Statistician; and Marcus
Berzofsky, Statistics Task Leader.
June 2008 NCJ 221946
Office of Justice Programs

This report in portable document format and in
ASCII and its related statistical data and tables are
available at the BJS World Wide Web Internet site:
<http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/
svljri07.htm>.

12 Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007

Innovation • Partnerships • Safer Neighborhoods
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov

Appendix table 1. Characteristics of local jails selected in the National Inmate Survey, 2007

Facility name
Total
Alabama
Anniston City Jail
Bullock Co. Jail
Etowah Co. Det. Ctr.
Jackson Co. Jail
Limestone Co. Jail
Shelby Co. Jail
Arizona
Coconino Co. Jail
Maricopa Co. Jail - 4th Avenue
Maricopa Co. Jail - Durango
Maricopa Co. Jail - Estrellad
Maricopa Co. Jail - Lower Buckeye
Pinal Co. Jail
Arkansas
Searcy Co. Jail
California
Alameda Co. Santa Rita Jail
Fresno Co. Det. Fac. - Main Jail
Imperial Co. Jail
Kern Co. Lerdo Pre-Trial Fac.
Los Angeles Co. Mens Central Jail
Los Angeles Co. North Corr. Fac.
Los Angeles Co. Pitchess Honor Rancho Jail - North
Los Angeles Co. Twin Towers Corr. Fac.
Orange Co. Central Jail Complex
Orange Co. James A. Musick Fac.
Riverside Co. Larry D. Smith Corr. Ctr.
Riverside Co. Robert Presley Det. Ctr.
Sacramento Co. Rio Cosumnes Corr. Ctr.
Sacramento Co. Main Jail
San Bernardino Co. W. Valley Det. Ctr.
San Bernardino Co Glen Helen Rehab. Ctr.
San Bernardino Co. Central Det. Ctr.
San Diego Co. George F. Bailey Det. Fac.
San Diego Co. Las Colinas Women's Det. Fac.d
San Francisco Co. Jail - No. 1
San Joaquin Co. Jail
Santa Barbara Co. Jail
Santa Clara Co. Elmwood Corr. Complex
Santa Clara Co. Main Jail - North
Stanislaus Co. Public Safety Ctr.
Tulare Co. Men's Corr. Fac.
Ventura Co. Jail - Todd Road
Colorado
Adams Co. Det. Fac.
Arapahoe Co. Jail
El Paso Co. Det. Fac.
Garfield Co. Jail
Prowers Co. Jail
Weld Co. Jail
District of Columbia
D.C. Dept. of Corr. Jail

Number of respondents
Sexual
victimization Response
Total
survey
ratec

Number
of inmates
in custodya

Number
of inmates
sampled

Number
of ineligible
inmatesb

306,598

74,713

7,314

45,414

40,419

67
33
590
187
220
509

67
30
265
164
179
252

24
3
2
15
22
30

30
11
205
113
105
149

26
9
185
102
96
134

69.8
40.7
77.9
75.8
66.9
67.1

596
2,009
2,366
1,160
2,446
1,100

278
323
345
315
343
330

32
15
42
41
29
2

150
227
259
199
231
205

134
201
232
179
203
182

61.0
73.7
85.5
72.6
73.6
62.5

11

11

0

8

8

72.7

4,183
1,005
569
1,322
5,847
4,307
1,681
4,118
2,701
1,186
595
734
2,384
2,340
2,997
1,185
942
1,724
735
479
1,752
1,068
4,943
845
746
1,673
847

358
315
276
322
429
363
321
389
347
326
256
278
341
349
348
297
312
322
267
287
335
317
340
267
271
308
283

45
29
52
30
63
31
16
135
67
19
17
30
26
49
42
18
12
24
21
43
46
26
92
16
14
21
10

184
149
156
206
158
200
204
108
216
264
188
164
205
221
156
225
241
214
177
136
203
218
170
161
179
220
202

161
130
134
183
132
174
183
95
196
240
168
141
186
200
135
208
216
195
162
119
182
183
148
143
165
206
183

58.8
52.1
69.6
70.5
43.2
60.2
66.9
42.5
77.1
86.0
78.7
66.1
65.1
73.7
51.0
80.6
80.3
71.8
72.0
55.7
70.2
74.9
68.5
64.1
69.6
76.7
74.0

1,469
1,296
1,704
109
31
523

304
315
379
109
31
266

38
20
62
9
9
30

190
191
233
72
20
180

177
162
200
66
19
159

71.4
64.7
73.5
72.0
90.9
76.3

3,226

340

20

206

179

64.4

67.4%

Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007 13

Appendix table 1. Characteristics of local jails selected in the National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.)

Facility name
Florida
Alachua Co. Jail
Brevard Co. Det. Ctr.
Broward Co. Conte Corr. Fac.
Broward Co. Main Jail
Broward Co. North Jail - Pompano Beach
Broward Co. Stockade
Collier Co. Jail
Dixie Co. Jail
Hillsborough Co. Falkenburg Road Jail
Hillsborough Co. Orient Road Jail
Jackson Co. Corr. Fac.
Jacksonville City Montgomery Corr. Ctr.
Lake Co. Jail
Lee Co. Jail
Marion Co. Jail
Miami-Dade Co. Metro West Det. Ctr.
Miami-Dade Co. Training & Treatment Ctr.
Miami-Dade Co. Turner Guilford Knight Corr. Ctr.
Orange Co. 33rd Street Corr. Ctr.
Orange Co. Work Release Ctr.
Pinellas Co. Central Division Fac.
Pinellas Co. South Fac. (Max. Sec.)
Sarasota North Co. Jail
Seminole Co. John E. Polk Corr. Fac.
South Co. Jail
St. Johns Co. Jail
Georgia
Atlanta City Jail
Bartow Co. Jail
Carroll Co. Jail
Cobb Co. Sheriff's Office Jail & Prison Unit
Coweta Co. Jail
Crisp Co. Jail
Dekalb Co. Jail
Dooly Co. Jail
Dougherty Co. Jail
Floyd Co. Jail
Fulton Co. Jail
Gwinnett Co. Comprehensive Corr. Complex
Gwinnett Co. Jail
Muscogee Co. Jail
Paulding Co. Det. Ctr.
Pelham Municipal Jail
Richmond Co. Corr. Inst.
Idaho
Bingham Co. Jail
Illinois
Coles Co. Jail
Cook Co. Jail - Division 2
Cook Co. Jail - Division 11
Ogle Co. Jail
Pulaski Co. Tri-County Justice & Det. Ctr.e
Will Co. Adult Det. Fac.
Indiana
Daviess Co. Jail
Hamilton Co. Jail
Harrison Co. Jail
Hendricks Co. Jail
Lake Co. Jail
Marion Co. Jail Intake Fac.
Wayne Co. Jail

Number
Number
of inmates of inmates
a sampled
in custody

Number
of ineligible
inmatesb

Number of respondents
Sexual
victimization Response
Total
survey
ratec

1,167
2,000
1,388
1,788
1,092
689
1,300
106
2,524
2,109
237
786
1,278
670
2,102
2,905
1,355
1,204
4,295
300
824
1,506
1,120
1,235
1,444
579

307
327
316
373
312
292
307
105
338
380
186
284
318
275
325
336
352
295
343
203
307
292
294
319
294
266

16
30
24
88
26
50
19
8
27
78
9
8
40
40
12
16
25
26
31
9
48
33
8
31
3
18

218
247
188
134
175
148
172
65
223
187
126
213
180
95
247
203
173
152
206
115
174
151
178
200
177
197

191
228
172
119
161
130
157
56
202
167
111
186
163
87
228
183
151
134
192
104
152
133
156
169
157
173

74.9
83.2
64.4
47.0
61.2
61.2
59.7
67.0
71.7
61.9
71.2
77.2
64.7
40.4
78.9
63.4
52.9
56.5
66.0
59.3
67.2
58.3
62.2
69.4
60.8
79.4

731
556
520
2,973
365
169
3,365
66
863
730
2,464
521
2,826
1,439
347
143
243

432
245
253
341
230
154
354
65
285
280
367
246
342
319
228
140
183

53
15
24
28
31
37
22
4
23
26
59
7
33
45
24
3
4

157
160
186
244
140
90
236
44
178
188
206
178
230
213
94
73
120

145
137
162
221
121
79
215
34
164
173
187
163
203
180
83
67
107

41.4
69.6
81.2
78.0
70.4
76.9
71.1
72.1
67.9
74.0
66.9
74.5
74.4
77.7
46.1
53.3
67.0

134

134

29

51

45

48.6

97
2,080
1,593
39
200
991

94
356
329
39
200
364

0
44
40
4
0
100

78
203
210
22
17
192

70
182
180
20
15
172

83.0
65.1
72.7
62.9
8.5
72.7

186
375
147
300
959
258
370

167
234
147
211
291
234
224

11
7
3
24
19
76
18

100
144
76
102
183
90
154

90
130
71
88
165
80
131

64.1
63.4
52.8
54.5
67.3
57.0
74.8

14 Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007

Appendix table 1. Characteristics of local jails selected in the National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.)

Facility name
Iowa
Polk Co. Jail
Story Co. Jail
Kansas
Atchison Co. Jail
Kentucky
Boyd Co. Jail
Daviess Co. Det. Ctr.
Grant Co. Jail
Hardin Co. Det. Ctr.
Kentucky River Reg. Jail
Lexington-Fayette Co. Det. Ctr.
Louisville-Jefferson Co. Dept. of Corr.
Warren Co. Reg. Jail
Louisiana
Ascension Parish Jail
Avoyelles Parish Bunkie Det. Ctr.
Caldwell Parish Jails (2 facilities)
Catahoula Corr. Ctr.e
East Baton Rouge Prison
Franklin Parish Jail
La Fourche Parish Jail
Lafayette Parish Corr. Center
Sabine Parish Det. Ctr.
St. Bernard Parish Prison
St. Tammany Parish Jail
Terrebonne Parish Jail
Maine
Androscoggin Co. Jail
Maryland
Anne Arundel Co. Dept. of Det. Fac.
Baltimore City Det. Ctr.
Cecil Co. Comm. Adult Rehab. Ctr.
Montgomery Co. Corr. Fac.
Washington Co. Det. Ctr.
Massachusetts
Barnstable Co. Corr. Fac.
Berkshire Co. Jail & House of Corr.
Hampden Co. Western Massachusetts Corr. Alcohol Ctr.
Middlesex Co. House of Corr. - Billerica
Plymouth Co. Corr. Fac.
Worcester Co. Jail & House of Corr.
Michigan
Bay Co. Jail
Kalamazoo Co. Jail
Kent Co. Corr. Fac.
Montmorency Co. Jail
Oakland Co. Jail
Ottawa Co. Jail
Wayne Co. Andrew C. Baird Det. Fac.
Wayne Co. William Dickerson Det. Fac.
Minnesota
Hennepin Co. Adult Det. Ctr.
Koochiching Co. Law Enforcement Ctr.
Mississippi
Madison Co. Jail
Tippah Co. Jail
Missouri
Clay Co. Det. Ctr.
Jackson Co. Municipal Corr. Inst.
St. Louis Co. Jail
Wayne Co. Jail

Number
of inmates
in custodya

Number
Number
of inmates of ineligible
sampled
inmatesb

Number of respondents
Sexual
victimization Response
Total
survey
ratec

1,150
81

302
81

189
14

83
42

74
38

73.5
62.7

77

77

0

44

39

57.1

280
681
360
616
266
1,323
1,960
537

206
282
216
263
197
319
333
255

23
27
8
9
23
21
34
21

118
202
134
203
111
188
179
143

107
178
119
179
92
161
155
120

64.5
79.2
64.4
79.9
63.8
63.1
59.9
61.1

297
316
566
796
1,638
713
264
998
115
181
977
697

202
204
252
385
313
266
245
286
115
167
298
274

14
3
7
28
18
8
19
15
5
29
30
19

152
173
227
311
240
230
173
232
82
115
206
236

137
150
210
272
202
205
151
206
76
104
174
215

80.9
86.1
92.7
87.1
81.4
89.1
76.5
85.6
74.5
83.3
76.9
92.5

116

116

21

64

55

67.4

1,197
2,966
49
740
425

308
358
49
278
238

23
28
5
17
19

187
207
33
202
154

172
182
32
181
142

65.6
62.7
75.0
77.4
70.3

444
363
184
1,245
1,611
1,465

230
216
160
289
307
303

12
3
5
43
10
10

169
185
131
161
198
198

149
159
117
151
174
179

77.5
86.9
84.5
65.4
66.7
67.6

251
394
1,401
37
1,800
444
2,088
1,219

189
222
303
37
352
244
600
376

6
30
20
9
40
27
68
87

117
139
228
25
231
176
165
177

108
126
199
22
204
162
149
153

63.9
72.4
80.6
89.3
74.0
81.1
31.0
61.2

964
20

327
20

64
6

150
14

133
9

57.0
100.0

533
38

287
38

15
3

227
29

212
26

83.5
82.9

305
219
1,270
16

205
196
315
8

15
48
24
1

133
63
218
6

122
55
192
6

70.0
42.6
74.9
85.7

Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007 15

Appendix table 1. Characteristics of local jails selected in the National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.)

Facility name
Montana
Cascade Co. Reg. Jail
Nebraska
Douglas Dept. of Corr.
Nevada
Clark Co. Det. Ctr.
Las Vegas City Det. Ctr.
Washoe Co. Det. Ctr.
New Hampshire
Hillsborough Co. House of Corr.
New Jersey
Atlantic Co. Gerard L. Gormley Justice Fac.
Camden Co. Corr. Fac.
Essex Co. Corr. Fac.
Hudson Co. Corr. Fac.
Mercer Co. Corr. Ctr.
Morris Co. Corr. Fac.
Union Co. Jail
New Mexico
Bernalillo Co. Metropolitan Det. Ctr.
San Juan Co. Det. Ctr.
Santa Fe Co. Adult Corr. Fac.
Torrance Co. Det. Fac.e
New York
Albany Co. Corr. Fac.
Erie Co. Corr. Fac.
Erie Co. Holding Ctr.
Franklin Co. Jail
New York City Anna M. Kross Ctr.
New York City Otis Bantum Corr. Ctr.
New York City Rose M. Singer Ctr.d
Oswego Co. Corr. Fac.
Westchester Co. Penitentiary
North Carolina
Cabarrus Co. Jail
Chowan Co. Det. Fac.
Cleveland Co.
Mecklenburg Co. Jail
Mecklenburg Co. Jail - North
New Hanover Co. Det. Ctr.
Wake Co. Jail
North Dakota
Cass Co. Jail
Ohio
Cuyahoga Co. Corr. Ctr.
Franklin Co. Corrections Ctr. I
Hamilton Co. Justice Ctr.
Hamilton Co. Talbert House Drug & Alcohol Treatment
Marion-Hardin Co. Multi-County Corr. Ctr.
Northwest Ohio Reg. Corr. Ctr.
River City Corr. Fac.
Southeastern Ohio Reg. Jail
Oklahoma
Mayes Co. Jail
Oklahoma Co. Det. Ctr.
Rogers Co. Jail
Oregon
Coos Co. Jail
Marion Co. Corr. Fac.
Washington Co. Jail

Number
Number
Number
of inmates of inmates of ineligible
a
inmatesb
in custody sampled

Number of respondents
Sexual
victimization Response
Total
survey
ratec

391

233

5

136

120

59.6

1,277

305

31

165

146

60.2

3,259
1,172
1,284

368
383
382

38
61
52

204
175
264

180
156
233

61.8
54.3
80.0

575

260

16

158

146

64.8

1,403
1,798
2,306
1,825
920
348
1,000

317
324
345
320
450
230
294

13
24
23
14
36
32
26

145
240
201
226
209
137
182

125
213
178
198
186
121
163

47.7
80.0
62.4
73.9
50.5
69.2
67.9

3,064
740
597
241

341
296
264
185

25
32
19
8

132
205
171
71

117
191
147
67

41.8
77.7
69.8
40.1

853
1,072
716
114
2,565
1,279
1,109
139
667

297
326
324
110
334
319
308
133
271

19
26
41
7
20
44
20
5
16

150
214
133
89
172
175
195
92
202

140
196
118
81
150
157
178
85
183

54.0
71.3
47.0
86.4
54.8
63.6
67.7
71.9
79.2

265
37
267
2,386
737
567
1,416

195
32
226
365
276
277
311

45
4
30
42
14
34
30

68
16
122
217
161
136
201

61
15
108
192
139
117
179

45.3
57.1
62.2
67.2
61.5
56.0
71.5

222

203

27

126

110

71.6

2,173
2,714
1,240
147
184
662
185
204

366
383
316
147
183
289
158
204

32
62
31
8
39
44
0
37

211
187
214
121
64
172
138
95

186
174
186
103
61
154
124
85

63.2
58.3
75.1
87.1
44.4
70.2
87.3
56.9

118
2,021
182

118
322
179

0
33
18

46
218
126

40
194
108

39.0
75.4
78.3

100
602
638

100
275
288

13
35
40

65
187
175

58
169
157

74.7
77.9
70.6

16 Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007

Appendix table 1. Characteristics of local jails selected in the National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.)

Facility name
Pennsylvania
Allegheny Co. Jail
Berks Co. Prison
Blair Co. Prison
Erie Co. Prison
Lancaster Co. Prison
Lycoming Co. Pre-Release Ctr.
Montgomery Co. Corr. Fac.
Philadelphia City Alternative & Special Det. Fac.
Philadelphia City Curran/Fromhold Corr. Fac.
Philadelphia City House of Corr.
Philadelphia City Industrial Corr. Ctr.
York Co. Prison
South Carolina
Beaufort Co. Det. Ctr.
Berkeley Co. Hill-Finklea Det. Ctr.
Charleston Co. Det. Ctr.
Florence Co. Det. Ctr.
Lancaster Co. Det. Ctr.
Sumter-Lee Reg. Det. Ctr.
South Dakota
Pennington Co. Jail
Tennessee
Davidson Co. Criminal Justice Ctr.
Greene Co. Det. Ctr.
Knox Co. Work Release Ctr.
Madison Co. Penal Farm
Shelby Co. Corr. Ctr.
Shelby Co. Justice Ctr.
Sullivan Co. Jail
Tipton Co. Jail
Warren Co. Jail
Texas
Bexar Co. Adult Det. Ctr.
Bowie Co. Corr. Ctr.
Brazoria Co. Jail & Det. Ctr.
Cameron Co. Jail
Dallas Co. Decker Det. Ctr.
Dallas Co. George Allen Jail
Dallas Co. North Tower Jail
Dallas Co. West Tower Jail
Denton Co. Det. Ctr.
El Paso Co. Jail Annex
Galveston Co. Jail
Gregg Co. Jail
Harris Co. Jail
Harris Co. Jail - Baker Street
Haskell Co. Rolling Plains Reg. Jail & Det. Ctr.e
Jefferson Co. Det. Ctr.
Kleberg Co. Jail
Limestone Co. Det. Ctr.e
Montgomery Co. Jail
Newton Co. Corr. Ctr.e
Potter Co. Det. Ctr.
Tarrant Co. Corr. Ctr.
Travis Co. Corr. Fac.
Utah
Weber Co. Corr. Fac.

Number
Number
of inmates of inmates
a sampled
in custody

Number
of ineligible
inmatesb

Number of respondents
Sexual
victimization Response
Total
survey
ratec

2,817
1,325
298
564
1,248
59
1,738
510
3,125
1,700
1,209
2,199

345
313
204
258
298
59
320
248
345
319
293
334

13
34
19
14
10
2
19
13
25
14
10
12

257
211
151
193
204
42
195
157
219
227
202
211

230
176
133
164
180
38
170
141
189
198
180
188

77.4
75.6
81.6
79.1
70.8
73.7
64.8
66.8
68.4
74.4
71.4
65.5

336
377
1,769
458
198
361

212
229
329
247
194
219

17
15
40
21
30
16

146
129
170
180
81
140

133
115
148
163
70
129

74.9
60.3
58.8
79.6
49.4
69.0

386

252

29

133

121

59.6

758
324
64
71
3,142
2,995
727
172
216

272
213
64
71
330
343
275
172
180

28
19
7
4
17
30
13
12
14

104
110
41
59
229
253
198
119
113

90
103
35
54
199
224
184
111
102

42.6
56.7
71.9
88.1
73.2
80.8
75.6
74.4
68.1

4,179
757
932
1,368
455
789
3,185
1,386
1,018
1,426
1,206
952
4,634
4,537
550
1,354
127
1,169
1,097
878
625
2,081
2,432

418
274
319
308
275
287
344
322
296
305
320
314
351
351
270
347
127
408
306
276
276
336
351

67
24
40
16
46
24
27
18
16
18
32
43
25
35
15
27
17
45
22
2
28
33
39

156
155
198
118
152
163
222
173
213
203
194
176
257
248
171
235
55
140
231
260
164
196
245

145
138
181
100
134
146
202
156
192
181
170
161
229
216
152
204
50
127
201
225
144
176
217

44.4
62.0
71.0
40.4
66.4
62.0
70.0
56.9
76.1
70.7
67.4
64.9
78.8
78.5
67.1
73.4
50.0
38.6
81.3
94.9
66.1
64.7
78.5

890

298

16

208

196

73.8

Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007 17

Appendix table 1. Characteristics of local jails selected in the National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.)

Facility name
Virginia
Central Virginia Reg. Jail
Culpeper Co. Jail
Dinwiddie Co. Jail
Duffield Reg. Jail Fac.
Newport News City Jail
Norfolk City Jail
Prince William-Manassas Reg. Adult Corr. Ctr.
Richmond City Jail
Roanoke City Jail
Roanoke Co. Jail
Rockbridge Co. Reg. Jail
Virginia Beach Corr. Ctr.
Washington
Chelan Co. Reg. Jail
Clark Co. Jail
King Co. Corr. Fac.
King Co. Reg. Justice Ctr.
Snohomish Co. Jail
Whatcom Co. Jail
West Virginia
Western Reg. Jail
Wisconsin
Dane Co. Jail
La Crosse Co. Jail
Marathon Co. Adult Det. Fac.
Milwaukee Co. House of Corr.
Milwaukee Co. Jail
Waukesha Co. Jail
Waupaca Co. Jail
Wyoming
Sheridan Co. Det. Ctr.
aNumber

Number
of ineligible
inmatesb

Number of respondents
Sexual
victimization Response
Total
survey
ratec

Number
of inmates
in custodya

Number
of inmates
sampled

410
113
59
404
700
1,797
793
1,529
666
330
63
1,653

230
113
59
231
277
320
285
309
276
221
63
323

7
25
5
18
18
18
20
22
10
29
4
14

144
61
41
161
153
223
161
214
150
105
46
228

132
58
39
141
131
198
145
184
131
89
40
205

64.6
69.3
75.9
75.6
59.1
73.8
60.8
74.6
56.4
54.7
78.0
73.8

368
905
1,511
1,249
1,291
387

242
304
386
332
327
283

28
41
57
38
42
21

149
186
186
193
210
175

127
163
168
181
194
156

69.6
70.7
56.5
65.6
73.7
66.8

502

253

9

175

154

71.7

1,035
211
377
2,002
1,217
464
203

303
182
230
326
357
259
161

37
24
29
18
98
24
17

182
96
155
195
144
157
106

152
89
132
171
127
141
97

68.4
60.8
77.1
63.3
55.6
66.8
73.6

99

99

0

79

70

79.8

of inmates in the facility on the day of the facility roster plus any new inmates admitted prior to the first day of data collection.

b

Inmates were considered ineligible if they were (1) under age 18, (2) mentally or physically incapacitated, (3) transferred or released after
sample selection, but before data collection period, or (4) identified as pre-arraigned. See Methodology for sample selection criteria.

c

Response rate is equal to the total number of respondents divided by the number of inmates sampled minus the number of ineligible
inmates times 100%.

dFemale
e

facility.

Private facility.

18 Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007

Appendix table 2. Percent of local jail inmates reporting sexual victimization and estimated standard error,
by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007
Percent of inmates reporting sexual victimizationa
Facility name
Total
Alabama
Anniston City Jaile
Bullock Co. Jaile
Etowah Co. Det. Ctr.
Jackson Co. Jail
Limestone Co. Jaile
Shelby Co. Jail
Arizona
Coconino Co. Jail
Maricopa Co. Jail - 4th Avenue
Maricopa Co. Jail - Durango
Maricopa Co. Jail - Estrellaf
Maricopa Co. Jail - Lower Buckeye
Pinal Co. Jaile
Arkansas
Searcy Co. Jaile
California
Alameda Co. Santa Rita Jail
Fresno Co. Det. Fac. - Main Jail
Imperial Co. Jail
Kern Co. Lerdo Pre-Trial Fac.
Los Angeles Co. Mens Central Jail
Los Angeles Co. North Corr. Fac.
Los Angeles Co. Pitchess Honor Rancho Jail Northe
Los Angeles Co. Twin Towers Corr. Fac.
Orange Co. Central Jail Complex
Orange Co. James A. Musick Fac.
Riverside Co. Larry D. Smith Corr. Ctr.
Riverside Co. Robert Presley Det. Ctr.
Sacramento Co. Rio Cosumnes Corr. Ctr.
Sacramento Co. Main Jail
San Bernardino Co. W. Valley Det. Ctr.
San Bernardino Co Glen Helen Rehab. Ctr.
San Bernardino Co. Central Det. Ctr.
San Diego Co. George F. Bailey Det. Fac.
San Diego Co. Las Colinas Women's Det.
Fac.f
San Francisco Co. Jail - No. 1
San Joaquin Co. Jaile
Santa Barbara Co. Jail
Santa Clara Co. Elmwood Corr. Complex
Santa Clara Co. Main Jail - North
Stanislaus Co. Public Safety Ctr.e
Tulare Co. Men's Corr. Fac.e
Ventura Co. Jail - Todd Road
Colorado
Adams Co. Det. Fac.
Arapahoe Co. Jail
El Paso Co. Det. Fac.
Garfield Co. Jail
Prowers Co. Jaile
Weld Co. Jail e
District of Columbia
D.C. Dept. of Corr. Jail

Percent of inmates reporting nonconsensual
sexual acts or abusive sexual contactsb

Weightedc

Standard errord

Weightedc

3.3%

3.2%

0.1%

2.6%

0.1%

3.8
0.0
1.6
2.9
2.1
2.2

3.6
0.0
1.5
2.3
2.1
1.9

2.3
0.0
0.7
0.8
1.2
0.9

3.6
0.0
1.5
2.3
2.1
1.9

2.3
0.0
0.7
0.8
1.2
0.9

3.0
3.5
2.2
2.8
3.0
1.6

2.1
2.9
2.1
2.7
2.6
1.8

1.0
1.0
0.9
1.1
1.0
1.0

1.3
2.9
2.1
2.7
2.3
1.8

0.8
1.0
0.9
1.1
1.0
1.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

3.1
3.1
3.0
3.3
3.8
4.0

3.4
3.1
3.3
2.9
3.3
3.2

1.6
1.5
1.4
1.1
1.5
1.2

3.4
3.1
3.3
2.9
3.3
1.9

1.6
1.5
1.4
1.1
1.5
0.9

1.6
7.4
5.1
2.5
2.4
5.7
3.2
2.0
8.1
2.9
2.3
5.1

1.6
6.4
4.3
2.2
2.7
6.4
3.2
2.5
6.0
3.1
2.1
4.9

0.9
2.6
1.4
0.9
1.1
2.2
1.3
1.2
2.2
1.2
0.8
1.6

1.2
6.4
4.3
2.2
1.8
6.4
2.1
2.0
4.6
2.6
1.6
4.4

0.8
2.6
1.4
0.9
0.9
2.2
0.9
1.1
2.0
1.1
0.7
1.5

5.6
5.0
1.1
4.4
2.7
4.2
1.8
1.5
3.3

5.9
4.9
0.9
4.0
2.2
4.0
2.0
1.0
2.8

1.8
1.7
0.6
1.3
1.1
1.5
1.1
0.6
1.0

5.9
4.9
0.9
4.0
2.2
4.0
2.0
0.5
1.8

1.8
1.7
0.6
1.3
1.1
1.5
1.1
0.4
0.8

5.6
4.9
3.0
4.5
0.0
0.6

4.2
3.0
2.6
5.5
0.0
0.8

1.6
1.1
1.0
1.9
0.0
0.7

4.2
3.0
2.1
5.5
0.0
0.8

1.6
1.1
0.9
1.9
0.0
0.7

3.9

4.2

1.7

4.2

1.7

Reported

Standard errord

Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007 19

Appendix table 2. Percent of local jail inmates reporting sexual victimization and estimated standard error,
by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.)
Percent of inmates reporting nonconsensual
Percent of inmates reporting sexual victimizationa sexual acts or abusive sexual contactsb
Facility name
Florida
Alachua Co. Jail
Brevard Co. Det. Ctr.
Broward Co. Conte Corr. Fac.
Broward Co. Main Jail
Broward Co. North Jail - Pompano Beach
Broward Co. Stockadee
Collier Co. Jail
Dixie Co. Jail
Hillsborough Co. Falkenburg Road Jail
Hillsborough Co. Orient Road Jaile
Jackson Co. Corr. Fac.
Jacksonville City Montgomery Corr. Ctr.
Lake Co. Jaile
Lee Co. Jaile
Marion Co. Jail
Miami-Dade Co. Metro West Det. Ctr.
Miami-Dade Co. Training & Treatment Ctr.e
Miami-Dade Co. Turner Guilford Knight Corr.
Ctr.
Orange Co. 33rd Street Corr. Ctr.
Orange Co. Work Release Ctr.
Pinellas Co. Central Division Fac.
Pinellas Co. South Fac. (Max. Sec.)
Sarasota North Co. Jail
Seminole Co. John E. Polk Corr. Fac.
South Co. Jail
St. Johns Co. Jail
Georgia
Atlanta City Jail
Bartow Co. Jail
Carroll Co. Jail
Cobb Co. Sheriff's Office Jail & Prison Unit
Coweta Co. Jail
Crisp Co. Jaile
Dekalb Co. Jail
Dooly Co. Jaile
Dougherty Co. Jail
Floyd Co. Jaile
Fulton Co. Jail
Gwinnett Co. Comprehensive Corr. Complexe
Gwinnett Co. Jail
Muscogee Co. Jail
Paulding Co. Det. Ctr.
Pelham Municipal Jaile
Richmond Co. Corr. Inst.
Idaho
Bingham Co. Jail
Illinois
Coles Co. Jail
Cook Co. Jail - Division 2
Cook Co. Jail - Division 11
Ogle Co. Jail
Pulaski Co. Tri-County Justice & Det. Ctr.e,g
Will Co. Adult Det. Fac.
Indiana
Daviess Co. Jail
Hamilton Co. Jail
Harrison Co. Jaile
Hendricks Co. Jail
Lake Co. Jail
Marion Co. Jail Intake Fac.
Wayne Co. Jail

Reported

Weightedc

Standard errord

Weightedc

Standard errord

4.2
7.9
2.9
5.0
4.3
0.8
5.7
5.4
3.0
1.8
1.8
2.7
1.8
3.4
4.8
2.2
1.3

3.8
8.5
3.0
5.7
4.2
0.7
5.4
6.5
2.4
1.2
1.6
2.8
1.8
3.3
5.2
2.5
1.2

1.2
1.9
1.3
2.5
1.5
0.6
1.8
2.5
1.0
0.7
0.8
1.1
0.9
1.7
1.5
1.3
0.8

3.8
7.1
2.2
5.0
4.2
0.7
4.7
6.5
2.4
1.2
0.9
2.8
1.8
2.2
4.2
2.5
1.2

1.2
1.8
1.1
2.4
1.5
0.6
1.7
2.5
1.0
0.7
0.6
1.1
0.9
1.4
1.3
1.3
0.8

5.2
3.6
0.0
2.6
3.0
6.4
4.7
4.5
1.7

5.1
3.1
0.0
2.4
3.2
6.3
5.0
4.9
2.0

1.9
1.2
0.0
1.1
1.6
1.8
1.7
1.7
1.0

4.5
2.6
0.0
1.8
3.2
5.6
5.0
2.8
2.0

1.8
1.1
0.0
0.9
1.6
1.7
1.7
1.3
1.0

4.8
3.6
1.9
5.0
2.5
1.3
2.8
2.9
3.0
1.2
7.5
0.6
3.9
3.3
6.0
1.5
2.8

7.1
3.3
2.2
5.4
2.9
1.2
3.5
3.6
2.4
1.1
7.1
0.6
3.7
2.7
5.4
1.7
2.3

3.0
1.3
1.0
1.6
1.3
0.8
1.5
2.4
1.0
0.7
1.8
0.5
1.2
1.0
2.1
1.2
1.0

7.1
2.0
2.2
5.4
2.9
0.0
2.9
3.6
0.7
1.1
5.7
0.6
3.2
2.3
5.4
0.0
1.6

3.0
1.0
1.0
1.6
1.3
0.0
1.4
2.4
0.5
0.7
1.7
0.5
1.2
1.0
2.1
0.0
0.8

6.7

5.2

2.3

5.2

2.3

0.0
3.3
3.9
5.0
6.7
5.2

0.0
2.6
3.9
4.8
6.7
6.8

0.0
1.0
1.4
3.1
6.4
2.0

0.0
1.3
3.5
4.8
0.0
4.8

0.0
0.8
1.3
3.1
0.0
1.6

3.3
3.1
1.4
3.4
4.8
3.8
7.6

2.6
3.6
2.0
3.1
4.9
4.1
7.5

1.0
1.4
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.8
1.9

1.8
3.6
2.0
3.1
3.5
2.9
7.5

0.9
1.4
1.4
1.5
1.3
1.5
1.9

20 Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007

Appendix table 2. Percent of local jail inmates reporting sexual victimization and estimated standard error,
by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.)
Percent of inmates reporting sexual victimizationa
Facility name
Iowa
Polk Co. Jaile
Story Co. Jaile
Kansas
Atchison Co. Jaile
Kentucky
Boyd Co. Jail
Daviess Co. Det. Ctr.
Grant Co. Jail
Hardin Co. Det. Ctr.
Kentucky River Reg. Jail
Lexington-Fayette Co. Det. Ctr.
Louisville-Jefferson Co. Dept. of Corr.
Warren Co. Reg. Jail
Louisiana
Ascension Parish Jail
Avoyelles Parish Bunkie Det. Ctr.e
Caldwell Parish Jails - (2 facilities)
Catahoula Corr. Ctr.e
East Baton Rouge Prison
Franklin Parish Jail
La Fourche Parish Jail
Lafayette Parish Corr. Center
Sabine Parish Det. Ctr.e
St. Bernard Parish Prison
St. Tammany Parish Jail
Terrebonne Parish Jail
Maine
Androscoggin Co. Jail
Maryland
Anne Arundel Co. Dept. of Det. Fac.
Baltimore City Det. Ctr.
Cecil Co. Comm. Adult Rehab. Ctr.e
Montgomery Co. Corr. Fac.
Washington Co. Det. Ctr.
Massachusetts
Barnstable Co. Corr. Fac.
Berkshire Co. Jail & House of Corr.
Hampden Co. Western Massachusetts Corr.
Alcohol Ctr.e
Middlesex Co. House of Corr. - Billericae
Plymouth Co. Corr. Fac.
Worcester Co. Jail & House of Corr.
Michigan
Bay Co. Jaile
Kalamazoo Co. Jail
Kent Co. Corr. Fac.
Montmorency Co. Jail
Oakland Co. Jaile
Ottawa Co. Jaile
Wayne Co. Andrew C. Baird Det. Fac.e
Wayne Co. William Dickerson Det. Fac.e
Minnesota
Hennepin Co. Adult Det. Ctr.
Koochiching Co. Law Enforcement Ctr.e
Mississippi
Madison Co. Jail
Tippah Co. Jail
Missouri
Clay Co. Det. Ctr.e
Jackson Co. Municipal Corr. Inst.e
St. Louis Co. Jaile
Wayne Co. Jaile

Reported

Weightedc

Standard errord

Percent of inmates reporting nonconsensual
sexual acts or abusive sexual contactsb
Weightedc

Standard errord

4.1
0.0

4.8
0.0

2.6
0.0

3.4
0.0

2.2
0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

5.6
1.7
3.4
2.8
5.4
6.2
3.9
3.3

5.4
2.4
3.2
2.5
4.0
6.1
4.3
3.8

1.6
1.2
1.3
0.9
1.5
1.9
1.9
1.7

4.6
1.7
1.4
2.1
3.2
3.3
2.3
1.4

1.5
1.1
0.8
0.9
1.3
1.4
1.1
0.9

1.5
1.3
6.2
1.8
4.0
3.9
7.9
5.8
1.3
1.9
4.6
5.1

1.4
1.5
6.9
2.1
3.7
3.9
6.6
5.6
1.3
1.9
4.5
4.7

0.7
0.8
1.6
0.7
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.4
0.7
0.8
1.4
1.2

1.4
0.9
5.3
1.7
3.2
3.4
5.0
4.1
1.3
1.9
4.1
4.4

0.7
0.7
1.4
0.7
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.2
0.7
0.8
1.4
1.1

7.3

6.7

2.2

5.1

2.0

3.5
3.3
0.0
3.9
2.8

2.8
3.5
0.0
3.8
3.0

1.1
1.4
0.0
1.2
1.3

2.2
2.4
0.0
1.3
2.3

0.9
1.2
0.0
0.8
1.1

2.7
4.4

2.4
4.6

0.9
1.3

2.4
3.0

0.9
1.0

0.0
0.7
2.3
3.9

0.0
1.0
2.3
4.2

0.0
0.9
1.1
1.5

0.0
0.0
0.9
3.2

0.0
0.0
0.6
1.2

0.9
3.2
4.5
4.5
1.5
1.2
0.7
0.7

0.9
4.1
4.3
3.6
1.7
1.1
0.2
1.0

0.7
1.6
1.3
1.7
1.0
0.6
0.2
0.9

0.9
1.5
4.3
3.6
1.7
1.1
0.2
1.0

0.7
1.1
1.3
1.7
1.0
0.6
0.2
0.9

3.0
0.0

2.6
0.0

1.2
0.0

1.3
0.0

0.9
0.0

3.3
0.0

4.6
0.0

1.4
0.0

4.6
0.0

1.4
0.0

1.6
0.0
1.6
0.0

1.5
0.0
1.6
0.0

0.8
0.0
0.8
0.0

1.5
0.0
1.6
0.0

0.8
0.0
0.8
0.0

Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007 21

Appendix table 2. Percent of local jail inmates reporting sexual victimization and estimated standard error,
by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.)
Percent of inmates reporting sexual victimizationa
Facility name
Montana
Cascade Co. Reg. Jail
Nebraska
Douglas Dept. of Corr.
Nevada
Clark Co. Det. Ctr.
Las Vegas City Det. Ctr.e
Washoe Co. Det. Ctr.
New Hampshire
Hillsborough Co. House of Corr.
New Jersey
Atlantic Co. Gerard L. Gormley Justice Fac.
Camden Co. Corr. Fac.
Essex Co. Corr. Fac.
Hudson Co. Corr. Fac.
Mercer Co. Corr. Ctr.
Morris Co. Corr. Fac.
Union Co. Jail
New Mexico
Bernalillo Co. Metropolitan Det. Ctr.
San Juan Co. Det. Ctr.e
Santa Fe Co. Adult Corr. Fac.
Torrance Co. Det. Fac.g
New York
Albany Co. Corr. Fac.
Erie Co. Corr. Fac.
Erie Co. Holding Ctr.
Franklin Co. Jail
New York City Anna M. Kross Ctr.
New York City Otis Bantum Corr. Ctr.
New York City Rose M. Singer Ctr.f
Oswego Co. Corr. Fac.
Westchester Co. Penitentiary
North Carolina
Cabarrus Co. Jaile
Chowan Co. Det. Fac.e
Cleveland Co.
Mecklenburg Co. Jail
Mecklenburg Co. Jail - North
New Hanover Co. Det. Ctr.e
Wake Co. Jail
North Dakota
Cass Co. Jail
Ohio
Cuyahoga Co. Corr. Ctr.e
Franklin Co. Corrections Ctr. I
Hamilton Co. Justice Ctr.
Hamilton Co. Talbert House Drug & Alcohol
Treatment
Marion-Hardin Co. Multi-County Corr. Ctr.e
Northwest Ohio Reg. Corr. Ctr.e
River City Corr. Fac.
Southeastern Ohio Reg. Jail
Oklahoma
Mayes Co. Jaile
Oklahoma Co. Det. Ctr.
Rogers Co. Jail
Oregon
Coos Co. Jaile
Marion Co. Corr. Fac.
Washington Co. Jaile

Reported

Weightedc

4.2

3.8

3.4

Weightedc

Standard errord

1.5

3.8

1.5

3.1

1.3

2.7

1.3

2.2
1.3
3.0

2.2
0.6
3.1

1.1
0.4
1.1

1.7
0.6
1.9

0.9
0.4
0.8

3.4

2.9

1.1

2.1

1.0

4.8
1.9
2.8
2.5
3.8
2.5
2.5

4.2
2.0
1.8
2.6
3.0
1.7
3.7

1.7
1.0
0.8
1.1
1.0
0.8
1.8

3.2
1.3
0.7
2.0
1.5
1.3
2.2

1.4
0.7
0.4
1.0
0.7
0.7
1.1

7.7
0.5
4.1
10.4

8.9
0.6
3.7
13.4

2.9
0.5
1.3
4.1

7.8
0.0
2.9
10.1

2.7
0.0
1.1
3.8

3.6
3.6
7.6
7.4
4.7
3.8
7.9
2.4
2.7

3.1
3.1
5.8
7.3
4.4
2.8
7.2
1.8
2.7

1.3
1.1
1.7
1.4
1.6
1.1
1.7
0.7
1.0

2.2
2.8
5.2
5.1
4.4
1.2
6.9
1.8
0.5

1.0
1.1
1.6
1.2
1.6
0.8
1.7
0.7
0.4

4.9
6.7
5.6
3.6
5.8
0.9
3.9

2.8
8.6
6.0
3.8
6.1
0.7
3.9

1.4
5.8
1.9
1.4
1.9
0.6
1.3

2.0
0.0
4.3
3.0
4.7
0.7
3.3

1.3
0.0
1.4
1.2
1.7
0.6
1.2

1.8

1.6

0.7

0.8

0.5

1.1
3.4
2.7

1.1
4.2
3.2

0.7
1.8
1.3

1.1
3.7
2.5

0.7
1.7
1.1

5.8
1.6
0.0
2.4
8.2

5.9
0.8
0.0
2.5
8.1

1.2
0.6
0.0
0.8
2.1

4.9
0.8
0.0
2.5
8.1

1.1
0.6
0.0
0.8
2.1

5.0
4.6
3.7

5.5
4.5
4.4

3.1
1.4
1.3

5.5
4.5
4.4

3.1
1.4
1.3

1.7
3.0
0.6

1.4
3.0
0.5

0.8
1.1
0.4

1.4
2.7
0.5

0.8
1.1
0.4

22 Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007

Standard errord

Percent of inmates reporting nonconsensual
sexual acts or abusive sexual contactsb

Appendix table 2. Percent of local jail inmates reporting sexual victimization and estimated standard error,
by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.)
Percent of inmates reporting nonconsensual
Percent of inmates reporting sexual victimizationa sexual acts or abusive sexual contactsb
Facility name
Pennsylvania
Allegheny Co. Jail
Berks Co. Prisone
Blair Co. Prisone
Erie Co. Prisone
Lancaster Co. Prison
Lycoming Co. Pre-Release Ctr.e
Montgomery Co. Corr. Fac.
Philadelphia City Alternative & Special Det. Fac.
Philadelphia City Curran/Fromhold Corr. Fac.
Philadelphia City House of Corr.e
Philadelphia City Industrial Corr. Ctr.
York Co. Prison
South Carolina
Beaufort Co. Det. Ctr.
Berkeley Co. Hill-Finklea Det. Ctr.
Charleston Co. Det. Ctr.e
Florence Co. Det. Ctr.
Lancaster Co. Det. Ctr.e
Sumter-Lee Reg. Det. Ctr.
South Dakota
Pennington Co. Jail
Tennessee
Davidson Co. Criminal Justice Ctr.e
Greene Co. Det. Ctr.e
Knox Co. Work Release Ctr.e
Madison Co. Penal Farm
Shelby Co. Corr. Ctr.
Shelby Co. Justice Ctr.
Sullivan Co. Jail
Tipton Co. Jail
Warren Co. Jail
Texas
Bexar Co. Adult Det. Ctr.e
Bowie Co. Corr. Ctr.
Brazoria Co. Jail & Det. Ctr.e
Cameron Co. Jail
Dallas Co. Decker Det. Ctr.
Dallas Co. George Allen Jail
Dallas Co. North Tower Jail
Dallas Co. West Tower Jail
Denton Co. Det. Ctr.e
El Paso Co. Jail Annex
Galveston Co. Jail
Gregg Co. Jail
Harris Co. Jail
Harris Co. Jail - Baker Street
Haskell Co. Rolling Plains Reg. Jail & Det. Ctr.e,g
Jefferson Co. Det. Ctr.
Kleberg Co. Jaile
Limestone Co. Det. Ctr.e,g
Montgomery Co. Jail
Newton Co. Corr. Ctr.e
Potter Co. Det. Ctr.e
Tarrant Co. Corr. Ctr.
Travis Co. Corr. Fac.
Utah
Weber Co. Corr. Fac.

Reported

Weightedc

Standard errord

Weightedc

Standard errord

2.2
1.7
0.8
1.2
4.4
2.6
2.9
3.5
3.7
1.5
7.8
2.1

2.2
1.7
0.7
1.3
4.2
2.2
2.8
4.1
3.9
1.5
6.9
2.0

0.9
0.9
0.5
0.8
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.6
1.4
0.8
1.8
1.0

1.4
1.1
0.7
0.4
2.1
0.0
2.8
3.5
2.3
1.1
5.9
2.0

0.8
0.7
0.5
0.3
1.0
0.0
1.2
1.5
1.1
0.7
1.6
1.0

2.3
2.6
1.4
3.7
2.9
3.1

1.9
2.1
1.9
3.8
2.4
3.2

0.8
1.0
1.3
1.2
1.4
1.3

1.3
1.5
1.2
2.4
2.4
3.2

0.7
0.9
1.1
0.9
1.4
1.3

3.3

3.2

1.3

3.2

1.3

3.3
1.9
0.0
1.9
5.0
2.2
2.7
1.8
4.9

4.2
2.0
0.0
2.6
5.3
2.1
2.5
1.6
4.3

2.5
1.1
0.0
1.1
1.8
0.9
1.0
0.6
1.4

1.8
2.0
0.0
2.6
5.3
1.8
1.8
0.0
4.3

1.2
1.1
0.0
1.1
1.8
0.9
0.8
0.0
1.4

2.1
4.3
1.1
0.0
2.2
3.4
5.0
5.1
2.1
4.4
4.1
3.7
2.6
5.1
2.0
4.4
2.0
0.8
3.0
1.3
2.1
3.4
5.5

1.6
2.8
0.8
0.0
1.8
3.1
5.0
5.2
1.7
3.9
4.0
3.8
3.8
5.0
1.3
3.8
2.5
0.7
3.1
1.1
3.0
3.7
6.0

0.9
1.1
0.5
0.0
0.9
1.4
1.5
1.9
1.0
1.3
1.4
1.4
1.6
1.5
0.8
1.2
1.8
0.6
1.1
0.6
1.7
1.5
1.7

1.6
2.3
0.4
0.0
1.8
3.1
4.7
5.2
0.7
3.6
4.0
3.2
2.8
4.7
0.8
3.4
2.5
0.7
2.6
0.8
1.3
3.7
6.0

0.9
1.0
0.4
0.0
0.9
1.4
1.5
1.9
0.4
1.3
1.4
1.3
1.4
1.5
0.7
1.1
1.8
0.6
1.1
0.5
0.8
1.5
1.7

4.1

4.5

1.5

4.5

1.5

Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007 23

Appendix table 2. Percent of local jail inmates reporting sexual victimization and estimated standard error,
by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.)
Percent of inmates reporting sexual victimizationa
Facility name
Virginia
Central Virginia Reg. Jaile
Culpeper Co. Jaile
Dinwiddie Co. Jaile
Duffield Reg. Jail Fac.
Newport News City Jaile
Norfolk City Jaile
Prince William-Manassas Reg. Adult Corr. Ctr.
Richmond City Jail
Roanoke City Jaile
Roanoke Co. Jaile
Rockbridge Co. Reg. Jaile
Virginia Beach Corr. Ctr.e
Washington
Chelan Co. Reg. Jaile
Clark Co. Jail
King Co. Corr. Fac.
King Co. Reg. Justice Ctr.e
Snohomish Co. Jail
Whatcom Co. Jail
West Virginia
Western Reg. Jail
Wisconsin
Dane Co. Jail
La Crosse Co. Jaile
Marathon Co. Adult Det. Fac.
Milwaukee Co. House of Corr.e
Milwaukee Co. Jail
Waukesha Co. Jail
Waupaca Co. Jail
Wyoming
Sheridan Co. Det. Ctr.e

Reported

Weightedc

Standard errord

Percent of inmates reporting nonconsensual
sexual acts or abusive sexual contactsb
Weightedc

Standard errord

0.8
0.0
0.0
3.5
2.3
1.5
2.8
4.9
5.3
2.2
2.5
2.0

0.7
0.0
0.0
3.5
3.7
1.5
2.4
4.5
5.4
2.1
2.0
2.4

0.6
0.0
0.0
1.3
2.1
0.8
1.1
1.4
1.9
1.3
1.1
1.4

0.0
0.0
0.0
3.0
3.7
1.2
2.4
4.5
4.6
0.7
2.0
2.4

0.0
0.0
0.0
1.2
2.1
0.8
1.1
1.4
1.8
0.6
1.1
1.4

1.6
8.0
5.4
0.6
1.5
6.4

1.5
9.1
4.2
0.7
1.4
5.6

0.8
2.2
1.4
0.6
0.8
1.5

1.5
8.5
4.2
0.0
1.4
5.1

0.8
2.1
1.4
0.0
0.8
1.5

3.2

3.9

1.5

2.9

1.3

4.6
2.2
3.8
2.3
2.4
3.5
2.1

3.6
0.6
3.7
2.6
1.8
3.1
2.0

1.3
0.3
1.3
1.4
1.0
1.1
0.9

3.1
0.6
2.7
2.6
1.8
1.8
2.0

1.2
0.3
1.1
1.4
1.0
0.9
0.9

1.4

1.1

0.6

1.1

0.6

aInmates

reporting one or more incidents of sexual victimization involving another inmate or facility staff since admission to the facility or since admission if less than 6 months.

b

Excludes staff-on-inmate acts and contacts reported by inmate as willing.

cWeights

were applied so that inmates who responded accurately reflected the entire population of each facility on selected characteristics, including
age, gender, race, time served, and sentence length. (See Methodology for weighting and nonresponse adjustments.)
d

Standard errors may be used to construct confidence intervals around the weighted survey estimates. For example, the 95% confidence interval
around the total percent is 4.5% plus or minus 1.96 times 0.3% (or 3.9% to 5.1%).

eThe
f

95% confidence level around the weighted estimate includes zero.

Female facility.

gPrivate

facility.

24 Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007

Appendix table 3. Percent of local jail inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual contacts,
by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007
Facility name
Total
Alabama
Etowah Co. Det. Ctr.
Jackson Co. Jail
Shelby Co. Jail
Arizona
Coconino Co. Jail
Maricopa Co. Jail - 4th Avenue
Maricopa Co. Jail - Durango
Maricopa Co. Jail - Estrellad
Maricopa Co. Jail - Lower Buckeye
California
Alameda Co. Santa Rita Jail
Fresno Co. Det. Fac. - Main Jail
Imperial Co. Jail
Kern Co. Lerdo Pre-Trial Fac.
Los Angeles Co. Mens Central Jail
Los Angeles Co. North Corr. Fac.
Los Angeles Co. Twin Towers Corr. Fac.
Orange Co. Central Jail Complex
Orange Co. James A. Musick Fac.
Riverside Co. Larry D. Smith Corr. Ctr.
Riverside Co. Robert Presley Det. Ctr.
Sacramento Co Rio Cosumnes Corr. Ctr.
Sacramento Co. Main Jail
San Bernardino Co. W. Valley Det. Ctr.
San Bernardino Co. Glen Helen Rehab. Ctr.
San Bernardino Co. Central Det. Ctr.
San Diego Co. George F. Bailey Det. Fac.
San Diego Co. Las Colinas Women's Det. Fac.d
San Francisco Co. Jail - No. 1
Santa Barbara Co. Jail
Santa Clara Co. Elmwood Corr. Complex
Santa Clara Co. Main Jail - North
Ventura Co. Jail - Todd Road
Colorado
Adams Co. Det. Fac.
Arapahoe Co. Jail
El Paso Co. Det. Fac.
Garfield Co. Jail
District of Columbia
D.C. Dept. of Corr. Jail
Florida
Alachua Co. Jail
Brevard Co. Det. Ctr.
Broward Co. Conte Corr. Fac.
Broward Co. Main Jail
Broward Co. North Jail - Pompano Beach
Collier Co. Jail
Dixie Co. Jail
Hillsborough Co. Falkenburg Road Jail
Jackson Co. Corr. Fac.
Jacksonville City Montgomery Corr. Ctr.
Marion Co. Jail
Miami-Dade Co. Metro West Det. Ctr.
Miami-Dade Co. Turner Guilford Knight Corr. Ctr.
Orange Co. 33rd Street Corr. Ctr.
Pinellas Co. Central Division Fac.
Pinellas Co. South Fac. (Max. Sec.)
Sarasota North Co. Jail
Seminole Co. John E. Polk Corr. Fac.
South Co. Jail
St. Johns Co. Jail

Nonconsensual sexual actsa
Percent victimized
Standard errorc

Abusive sexual contacts onlyb
Percent victimized
Standard errorc

2.1%

0.1%

1.1%

0.1%

0.4
1.3
1.3

0.3
0.5
0.8

1.1
1.0
0.6

0.7
0.6
0.5

1.7
1.7
1.3
1.8
2.6

0.9
0.8
0.7
1.0
1.0

0.4
1.1
0.8
0.9
0.0

0.4
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.0

1.9
2.2
2.7
2.4
1.3
2.9
2.7
1.0
1.4
1.6
4.2
2.5
1.1
3.8
1.5
1.6
2.4
3.3
1.5
3.5
0.6
3.4
2.2

1.4
1.2
1.4
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.7
0.7
0.7
0.9
1.9
1.3
0.7
1.9
0.8
0.7
0.9
1.3
0.9
1.2
0.6
1.4
0.9

1.5
1.0
0.6
0.5
2.0
0.3
3.6
3.3
0.7
1.1
2.2
0.7
1.4
2.2
1.6
0.5
2.5
2.7
3.4
0.4
1.5
0.7
0.6

0.9
0.9
0.5
0.5
1.1
0.3
2.0
1.2
0.5
0.6
1.1
0.5
1.0
1.2
0.9
0.5
1.3
1.2
1.4
0.4
0.9
0.6
0.5

2.5
0.1
2.1
3.0

1.0
0.1
0.9
1.2

1.8
2.9
0.4
2.5

1.3
1.1
0.4
1.4

3.1

1.5

1.1

0.7

1.9
7.8
1.1
2.5
3.8
5.1
1.2
1.7
0.7
1.6
3.0
2.5
3.8
1.9
2.4
3.2
2.5
4.2
2.9
1.5

0.9
1.8
0.8
1.9
1.5
1.8
0.8
0.8
0.5
0.8
1.1
1.3
1.7
1.0
1.1
1.6
1.2
1.5
1.4
0.9

1.9
0.8
1.9
3.3
0.5
0.3
5.3
0.7
0.9
1.2
2.2
0.0
1.2
1.1
0.0
0.0
3.7
0.8
2.0
0.5

0.9
0.5
1.1
1.7
0.4
0.3
2.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
1.0
0.0
0.8
0.7
0.0
0.0
1.4
0.7
1.1
0.4

Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007 25

Appendix table 3. Percent of local jail inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual contacts,
by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.)
Facility name
Georgia
Atlanta City Jail
Bartow Co. Jail
Carroll Co. Jail
Cobb Co. Sheriff's Office Jail & Prison Unit
Coweta Co. Jail
Dekalb Co. Jail
Dougherty Co. Jail
Fulton Co. Jail
Gwinnett Co. Jail
Muscogee Co. Jail
Paulding Co. Det. Ctr.
Richmond Co. Corr. Inst.
Idaho
Bingham Co. Jail
Illinois
Cook Co. Jail - Division 2
Cook Co. Jail - Division 11
Will Co. Adult Det. Fac.
Indiana
Daviess Co. Jail
Hamilton Co. Jail
Hendricks Co. Jail
Lake Co. Jail
Marion Co. Jail Intake Fac.
Wayne Co. Jail
Kentucky
Boyd Co. Jail
Daviess Co. Det. Ctr.
Grant Co. Jail
Hardin Co. Det. Ctr.
Kentucky River Reg. Jail
Lexington-Fayette Co. Det. Ctr.
Louisville-Jefferson Co. Dept. of Corr.
Warren Co. Reg. Jail
Louisiana
Ascension Parish Jail
Caldwell Parish Jails - (2 facilities)
Catahoula Corr. Ctr.e
East Baton Rouge Prison
Franklin Parish Jail
La Fourche Parish Jail
Lafayette Parish Corr. Center
St. Bernard Parish Prison
St. Tammany Parish Jail
Terrebonne Parish Jail
Maine
Androscoggin Co. Jail
Maryland
Anne Arundel Co. Dept. of Det. Fac.
Baltimore City Det. Ctr.
Montgomery Co. Corr. Fac.
Washington Co. Det. Ctr.
Massachusetts
Barnstable Co. Corr. Fac.
Berkshire Co. Jail & House of Corr.
Plymouth Co. Corr. Fac.
Worcester Co. Jail & House of Corr.
Michigan
Kalamazoo Co. Jail
Kent Co. Corr. Fac.
Montmorency Co. Jail

Nonconsensual sexual actsa
Percent victimized
Standard errorc

Abusive sexual contacts onlyb
Percent victimized
Standard errorc

5.6
1.2
2.2
2.1
1.9
1.0
2.0
4.8
1.0
1.5
3.5
0.7

2.9
0.7
1.0
0.9
1.0
0.7
0.9
1.6
0.6
0.8
1.8
0.5

1.4
2.1
0.0
3.3
1.0
2.5
0.4
2.3
2.7
1.3
1.8
1.6

0.8
1.0
0.0
1.3
0.8
1.3
0.3
1.0
1.1
0.7
1.1
0.8

2.0

1.5

3.2

1.7

2.6
3.4
4.7

1.0
1.3
1.8

0.0
0.5
2.1

0.0
0.4
1.1

1.5
2.7
2.1
4.6
4.1
1.5

0.7
1.3
1.2
1.6
1.8
0.8

1.1
0.9
1.0
0.4
0.0
6.0

0.7
0.7
0.8
0.3
0.0
1.7

1.6
1.3
1.7
1.4
4.0
5.5
2.8
2.4

0.9
0.8
1.0
0.7
1.5
1.8
1.6
1.5

3.8
1.1
1.5
1.1
0.0
0.6
1.5
1.4

1.4
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.0
0.6
1.0
0.9

0.7
5.0
2.1
1.4
2.4
4.0
3.8
1.0
2.7
1.7

0.5
1.4
0.7
0.7
0.9
0.9
1.2
0.5
1.1
0.7

0.7
1.9
0.0
2.3
1.5
2.6
1.7
0.9
1.8
3.1

0.5
0.7
0.0
1.0
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.5
1.0
1.0

5.1

2.0

1.6

1.0

1.1
2.9
3.1
2.4

0.7
1.3
1.1
1.2

1.7
0.6
0.7
0.6

0.8
0.6
0.6
0.5

1.2
3.0
1.8
1.5

0.7
1.2
1.0
0.8

1.2
1.6
0.5
2.8

0.7
0.7
0.5
1.3

3.1
3.1
3.6

1.4
1.2
1.7

1.0
1.2
0.0

0.7
0.6
0.0

26 Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007

Appendix table 3. Percent of local jail inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual contacts,
by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.)
Facility name
Minnesota
Hennepin Co. Adult Det. Ctr.
Mississippi
Madison Co. Jail
Montana
Cascade Co. Reg. Jail
Nebraska
Douglas Dept. of Corr.
Nevada
Clark Co. Det. Ctr.
Washoe Co. Det. Ctr.
New Hampshire
Hillsborough Co. House of Corr.
New Jersey
Atlantic Co. Gerard L. Gormley Justice Fac.
Camden Co. Corr. Fac.
Essex Co. Corr. Fac.
Hudson Co. Corr. Fac.
Mercer Co. Corr. Ctr.
Morris Co. Corr. Fac.
Union Co. Jail
New Mexico
Bernalillo Co. Metropolitan Det. Ctr.
Santa Fe Co. Adult Corr. Fac.
Torrance Co. Det. Fac.e
New York
Albany Co. Corr. Fac.
Erie Co. Corr. Fac.
Erie Co. Holding Ctr.
Franklin Co. Jail
New York City Anna M. Kross Ctr.
New York City Otis Bantum Corr. Ctr.
New York City Rose M. Singer Ctr.d
Oswego Co. Corr. Fac.
Westchester Co. Penitentiary
North Carolina
Cleveland Co.
Mecklenburg Co. Jail
Mecklenburg Co. Jail - North
Wake Co. Jail
North Dakota
Cass Co. Jail
Ohio
Franklin Co. Corrections Ctr. I
Hamilton Co. Justice Ctr.
Hamilton Co. Talbert House Drug & Alcohol
Treatment
River City Corr. Fac.
Southeastern Ohio Reg. Jail
Oklahoma
Oklahoma Co. Det. Ctr.
Rogers Co. Jail
Oregon
Marion Co. Corr. Fac.
Pennsylvania
Allegheny Co. Jail
Lancaster Co. Prison
Montgomery Co. Corr. Fac.
Philadelphia City Alternative & Special Det. Fac.
Philadelphia City Curran/Fromhold Corr. Fac.
Philadelphia City Industrial Corr. Ctr.
York Co. Prison

Nonconsensual sexual actsa
Percent victimized
Standard errorc

Abusive sexual contacts onlyb
Percent victimized
Standard errorc

2.6

1.2

0.0

0.0

2.5

1.0

2.1

1.0

1.3

0.7

2.5

1.3

2.3

1.1

0.8

0.8

1.2
1.6

0.8
0.7

1.0
1.5

0.7
0.8

1.2

0.7

1.7

0.9

4.2
1.4
1.3
2.2
2.5
1.1
3.7

1.7
0.8
0.8
1.0
0.9
0.7
1.8

0.0
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.6
0.0

0.0
0.5
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.0

6.7
3.7
8.9

2.5
1.3
3.3

2.2
0.0
4.5

1.6
0.0
2.7

1.2
1.9
3.8
5.3
3.7
2.8
1.5
0.9
2.1

0.9
0.8
1.4
1.2
1.5
1.1
0.7
0.5
0.9

1.9
1.2
2.0
2.0
0.7
0.0
5.7
0.9
0.6

1.0
0.8
1.0
0.7
0.7
0.0
1.6
0.5
0.5

5.4
1.5
3.5
1.8

1.9
1.0
1.4
1.0

0.6
2.3
2.5
2.1

0.4
1.0
1.3
1.0

0.8

0.5

0.8

0.5

2.9
2.4

1.3
1.1

1.3
0.9

1.3
0.8

1.9
2.5
5.8

0.7
0.8
1.8

4.0
0.0
2.3

1.0
0.0
1.2

2.2
2.5

1.0
1.0

2.4
2.0

1.0
0.8

2.1

1.0

0.9

0.6

1.7
2.1
1.9
1.8
2.1
5.3
1.3

0.8
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.6
0.9

0.5
2.1
0.9
2.3
1.8
1.6
0.6

0.5
1.0
0.6
1.1
1.0
0.8
0.4

Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007 27

Appendix table 3. Percent of local jail inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual contacts,
by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.)
Facility name
South Carolina
Beaufort Co. Det. Ctr.
Berkeley Co. Hill-Finklea Det. Ctr.
Florence Co. Det. Ctr.
Sumter-Lee Reg. Det. Ctr.
South Dakota
Pennington Co. Jail
Tennessee
Madison Co. Penal Farm
Shelby Co. Corr. Ctr.
Shelby Co. Justice Ctr.
Sullivan Co. Jail
Tipton Co. Jail
Warren Co. Jail
Texas
Bowie Co. Corr. Ctr.
Dallas Co. Decker Det. Ctr.
Dallas Co. George Allen Jail
Dallas Co. North Tower Jail
Dallas Co. West Tower Jail
El Paso Co. Jail Annex
Galveston Co. Jail
Gregg Co. Jail
Harris Co. Jail
Harris Co. Jail - Baker Street
Jefferson Co. Det. Ctr.
Montgomery Co. Jail
Newton Co. Corr. Ctr.e
Tarrant Co. Corr. Ctr.
Travis Co. Corr. Fac.
Utah
Weber Co. Corr. Fac.
Virginia
Duffield Reg. Jail Fac.
Prince William-Manassas Reg. Adult Corr. Ctr.
Richmond City Jail
Roanoke City Jail
Washington
Clark Co. Jail
King Co. Corr. Fac.
Whatcom Co. Jail
West Virginia
Western Reg. Jail
Wisconsin
Dane Co. Jail
Marathon Co. Adult Det. Fac.
Waukesha Co. Jail
Waupaca Co. Jail

Nonconsensual sexual actsa
Percent victimized
Standard errorc

Abusive sexual contacts onlyb
Percent victimized
Standard errorc

1.9
1.4
2.5
1.8

0.8
0.8
1.0
1.0

0.0
0.8
1.2
1.4

0.0
0.6
0.7
0.8

2.1

1.0

1.1

0.9

0.0
3.8
1.3
1.1
1.6
2.8

0.0
1.6
0.8
0.7
0.6
1.2

2.6
1.5
0.7
1.4
0.0
1.5

1.1
0.8
0.5
0.7
0.0
0.7

1.1
1.4
1.8
3.2
2.6
2.1
1.8
3.1
2.3
5.0
2.6
2.0
0.8
3.4
3.0

0.6
0.8
1.1
1.3
1.4
1.0
1.0
1.2
1.1
1.5
1.0
0.9
0.5
1.4
1.2

1.7
0.3
1.3
1.8
2.6
1.8
2.3
0.7
1.5
0.0
1.2
1.1
0.4
0.3
3.0

0.9
0.3
1.0
0.9
1.2
0.9
1.1
0.6
1.1
0.0
0.6
0.7
0.3
0.3
1.2

2.1

1.1

2.4

1.0

0.9
2.4
3.1
1.4

0.5
1.1
1.2
0.9

2.6
0.0
1.4
4.0

1.2
0.0
0.8
1.7

3.4
3.6
4.4

1.3
1.2
1.4

5.7
0.6
1.2

1.8
0.6
0.5

2.8

1.2

1.1

0.9

2.7
3.7
2.6
0.0

1.1
1.3
1.1
0.0

1.0
0.0
0.6
2.0

0.6
0.0
0.5
0.9

Note: Excludes facilities with rates of sexual victimization not statistically different from zero at the 95% confidence level. Detail may not
sum due to rounding.
a

Includes all inmates who reported unwanted contacts with another inmate or any contacts with staff that involved oral, anal, or vaginal
penetration, handjobs, and other sexual acts.

bIncludes

all inmates who reported unwanted contacts with another inmate or any contacts with staff that involved touching of the
inmate's buttocks, thighs, penis, breasts, or vagina in a sexual way.

cStandard

errors may be used to construct confidence intervals around weighted survey estimates. (See Methodology.)

d

Female facility.

e

Privately operated facility.

28 Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007

Appendix table 4. Percent of local jail inmates reporting sexual victimization, by type of incident and facility,
National Inmate Survey, 2007
Inmate-on-inmatea
Facility name
Total
Alabama
Etowah Co. Det. Ctr.
Jackson Co. Jail
Shelby Co. Jail
Arizona
Coconino Co. Jail
Maricopa Co. Jail - 4th Avenue
Maricopa Co. Jail - Durango
Maricopa Co. Jail - Estrellac
Maricopa Co. Jail - Lower Buckeye
California
Alameda Co. Santa Rita Jail
Fresno Co. Det. Fac. - Main Jail
Imperial Co. Jail
Kern Co. Lerdo Pre-Trial Fac.
Los Angeles Co. Mens Central Jail
Los Angeles Co. North Corr. Fac.
Los Angeles Co. Twin Towers Corr. Fac.
Orange Co. Central Jail Complex
Orange Co. James A. Musick Fac.
Riverside Co. Larry D. Smith Corr. Ctr.
Riverside Co. Robert Presley Det. Ctr.
Sacramento Co. Rio Cosumnes Corr. Ctr.
Sacramento Co. Main Jail
San Bernardino Co. W. Valley Det. Ctr.
San Bernardino Co. Glen Helen Rehab. Ctr.
San Bernardino Co. Central Det. Ctr.
San Diego Co. George F. Bailey Det. Fac.
San Diego Co. Las Colinas Women's Det. Fac.c
San Francisco Co. Jail - No. 1
Santa Barbara Co. Jail
Santa Clara Co. Elmwood Corr. Complex
Santa Clara Co. Main Jail - North
Ventura Co. Jail - Todd Road
Colorado
Adams Co. Det. Fac.
Arapahoe Co. Jail
El Paso Co. Det. Fac.
Garfield Co. Jail
District of Columbia
D.C. Dept. of Corr. Jail
Florida
Alachua Co. Jail
Brevard Co. Det. Ctr.
Broward Co. Conte Corr. Fac.
Broward Co. Main Jail
Broward Co. North Jail - Pompano Beach
Collier Co. Jail
Dixie Co. Jail
Hillsborough Co. Falkenburg Road Jail
Jackson Co. Corr. Fac.
Jacksonville City Montgomery Corr. Ctr.
Marion Co. Jail
Miami-Dade Co. Metro West Det. Ctr.
Miami-Dade Co. Turner Guilford Knight Corr. Ctr.
Orange Co. 33rd Street Corr. Ctr.
Pinellas Co. Central Division Fac.
Pinellas Co. South Fac. (Max. Sec.)
Sarasota North Co. Jail
Seminole Co. John E. Polk Corr. Fac.
South Co. Jail
St. Johns Co. Jail

Percent victimized

Standard errorb

Staff-on-inmatea
Percent victimized

Standard errorb

1.6%

0.1%

2.0%

0.1%

1.5
1.8
1.9

0.7
0.7
0.9

0.0
1.3
0.6

0.0
0.5
0.5

0.0
1.7
1.6
2.7
0.4

0.0
0.8
0.8
1.1
0.4

2.1
1.1
0.9
0.4
2.6

1.0
0.6
0.6
0.4
1.0

2.1
1.6
1.3
1.4
1.0
1.4
5.0
3.3
1.8
1.2
3.7
1.2
0.0
3.6
1.3
0.4
3.0
3.8
3.4
3.1
2.2
2.9
1.1

1.1
1.1
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.8
2.4
1.2
0.8
0.7
1.3
0.7
0.0
1.8
0.9
0.3
1.3
1.4
1.4
1.2
1.1
1.3
0.7

1.3
1.5
2.0
2.0
2.5
2.9
1.3
1.0
1.4
2.2
3.7
2.0
2.5
2.6
1.7
1.8
3.7
3.2
1.5
2.1
0.6
1.2
1.6

1.2
1.0
1.2
0.9
1.3
1.1
1.0
0.7
0.7
1.0
1.9
1.2
1.2
1.2
0.8
0.8
1.4
1.5
0.9
1.0
0.6
0.8
0.8

3.7
3.0
1.7
4.0

1.6
1.1
0.8
1.7

1.0
0.2
1.3
3.0

0.6
0.2
0.7
1.2

3.1

1.5

3.2

1.5

2.9
6.7
1.9
1.7
3.8
1.5
5.3
1.6
0.9
1.4
2.7
0.0
2.4
1.4
0.0
2.2
5.0
3.7
0.6
1.2

1.1
1.7
1.0
1.4
1.5
0.7
2.4
0.8
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.0
1.5
0.7
0.0
1.3
1.6
1.5
0.6
0.7

0.9
4.4
1.1
4.1
0.8
4.2
1.2
0.8
0.7
1.4
3.2
2.5
4.6
1.9
2.4
2.7
1.2
1.9
4.3
1.5

0.6
1.5
0.8
2.1
0.5
1.7
0.8
0.6
0.5
0.7
1.1
1.3
1.8
1.0
1.1
1.5
0.8
1.0
1.6
0.9

Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007 29

Appendix table 4. Percent of local jail inmates reporting sexual victimization, by type of incident and facility,
National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.)
Inmate-on-inmatea
Facility name
Georgia
Atlanta City Jail
Bartow Co. Jail
Carroll Co. Jail
Cobb Co. Sheriff's Office Jail & Prison Unit
Coweta Co. Jail
Dekalb Co. Jail
Dougherty Co. Jail
Fulton Co. Jail
Gwinnett Co. Jail
Muscogee Co. Jail
Paulding Co. Det. Ctr.
Richmond Co. Corr. Inst.
Idaho
Bingham Co. Jail
Illinois
Cook Co. Jail - Division 2
Cook Co. Jail - Division 11
Will Co. Adult Det. Fac.
Indiana
Daviess Co. Jail
Hamilton Co. Jail
Hendricks Co. Jail
Lake Co. Jail
Marion Co. Jail Intake Fac.
Wayne Co. Jail
Kentucky
Boyd Co. Jail
Daviess Co. Det. Ctr.
Grant Co. Jail
Hardin Co. Det. Ctr.
Kentucky River Reg. Jail
Lexington-Fayette Co. Det. Ctr.
Louisville-Jefferson Co. Dept. of Corr.
Warren Co. Reg. Jail
Louisiana
Ascension Parish Jail
Caldwell Parish Jails - (2 facilities)
Catahoula Corr. Ctr.d
East Baton Rouge Prison
Franklin Parish Jail
La Fourche Parish Jail
Lafayette Parish Corr. Center
St. Bernard Parish Prison
St. Tammany Parish Jail
Terrebonne Parish Jail
Maine
Androscoggin Co. Jail
Maryland
Anne Arundel Co. Dept. of Det. Fac.
Baltimore City Det. Ctr.
Montgomery Co. Corr. Fac.
Washington Co. Det. Ctr.
Massachusetts
Barnstable Co. Corr. Fac.
Berkshire Co. Jail & House of Corr.
Plymouth Co. Corr. Fac.
Worcester Co. Jail & House of Corr.
Michigan
Kalamazoo Co. Jail
Kent Co. Corr. Fac.
Montmorency Co. Jail

Percent victimized

Staff-on-inmatea
b

Standard error

Percent victimized

Standard errorb

6.2
1.4
1.5
3.5
1.8
2.5
0.3
3.0
2.7
2.3
3.5
1.6

2.9
0.8
0.8
1.3
1.0
1.3
0.2
1.2
1.1
1.0
1.8
0.8

3.2
2.0
0.7
2.4
1.9
1.0
2.1
4.0
1.9
0.4
5.4
0.7

2.1
1.0
0.6
1.1
1.0
0.7
1.0
1.4
0.9
0.4
2.1
0.5

0.0

0.0

5.2

2.3

0.7
1.5
1.8

0.4
0.8
0.9

1.9
2.4
5.6

0.9
1.1
1.9

1.1
1.7
3.1
2.3
0.0
5.5

0.7
0.9
1.5
1.1
0.0
1.7

1.5
1.9
1.1
3.1
4.1
1.9

0.7
1.1
0.9
1.3
1.8
0.9

4.6
1.1
1.4
1.1
1.2
2.1
1.8
0.0

1.5
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.7
1.2
1.0
0.0

1.6
1.3
1.8
1.4
4.0
4.5
2.5
3.8

0.9
0.8
1.0
0.7
1.5
1.6
1.6
1.7

0.7
2.3
1.3
2.8
1.9
3.7
2.7
1.9
4.1
3.7

0.5
0.9
0.6
1.1
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.8
1.4
1.0

0.7
4.5
0.8
1.4
2.0
4.0
2.8
1.9
2.3
2.0

0.5
1.3
0.5
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.8
1.0
0.8

5.1

2.0

2.7

1.3

1.2
0.0
0.6
0.5

0.7
0.0
0.5
0.4

1.6
3.5
3.2
3.0

0.8
1.4
1.1
1.3

1.8
2.4
0.0
2.1

0.8
0.9
0.0
1.0

1.2
2.9
2.3
2.6

0.7
1.1
1.1
1.3

1.5
1.5
3.6

1.1
0.8
1.7

2.6
3.5
0.0

1.2
1.2
0.0

30 Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007

Appendix table 4. Percent of local jail inmates reporting sexual victimization, by type of incident and facility,
National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.)
Inmate-on-inmatea
Facility name
Minnesota
Hennepin Co. Adult Det. Ctr.
Mississippi
Madison Co. Jail
Montana
Cascade Co. Reg. Jail
Nebraska
Douglas Dept. of Corr.
Nevada
Clark Co. Det. Ctr.
Washoe Co. Det. Ctr.
New Hampshire
Hillsborough Co. House of Corr.
New Jersey
Atlantic Co. Gerard L. Gormley Justice Fac.
Camden Co. Corr. Fac.
Essex Co. Corr. Fac.
Hudson Co. Corr. Fac.
Mercer Co. Corr. Ctr.
Morris Co. Corr. Fac.
Union Co. Jail
New Mexico
Bernalillo Co. Metropolitan Det. Ctr.
Santa Fe Co. Adult Corr. Fac.
Torrance Co. Det. Fac.d
New York
Albany Co. Corr. Fac.
Erie Co. Corr. Fac.
Erie Co. Holding Ctr.
Franklin Co. Jail
New York City Anna M. Kross Ctr.
New York City Otis Bantum Corr. Ctr.
New York City Rose M. Singer Ctr.c
Oswego Co. Corr. Fac.
Westchester Co. Penitentiary
North Carolina
Cleveland Co.
Mecklenburg Co. Jail
Mecklenburg Co. Jail - North
Wake Co. Jail
North Dakota
Cass Co. Jail
Ohio
Franklin Co. Corrections Ctr. I
Hamilton Co. Justice Ctr.
Hamilton Co. Talbert House Drug & Alcohol Treatment
River City Corr. Fac.
Southeastern Ohio Reg. Jail
Oklahoma
Oklahoma Co. Det. Ctr.
Rogers Co. Jail
Oregon
Marion Co. Corr. Fac.
Pennsylvania
Allegheny Co. Jail
Lancaster Co. Prison
Montgomery Co. Corr. Fac.
Philadelphia City Alternative & Special Det. Fac.
Philadelphia City Curran/Fromhold Corr. Fac.
Philadelphia City Industrial Corr. Ctr.
York Co. Prison

Percent victimized

Standard

Staff-on-inmatea
errorb

Percent victimized

Standard errorb

0.5

0.4

2.6

1.2

1.8

0.7

3.2

1.3

3.1

1.3

0.7

0.6

2.1

1.1

2.3

1.1

0.4
1.0

0.4
0.5

2.2
2.4

1.1
1.0

1.3

0.8

1.6

0.8

2.5
0.8
0.4
0.9
1.1
1.3
0.7

1.2
0.6
0.3
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.6

2.2
1.4
1.3
2.2
2.2
1.1
3.0

1.3
0.8
0.8
1.0
0.9
0.7
1.7

3.8
1.2
6.4

2.2
0.7
3.1

6.7
3.7
7.0

2.5
1.3
3.0

0.0
2.8
1.9
2.2
2.1
0.0
5.5
1.8
0.0

0.0
1.1
1.0
0.7
1.2
0.0
1.5
0.7
0.0

3.1
1.7
4.5
6.4
3.0
2.8
2.9
0.9
2.7

1.3
0.8
1.5
1.3
1.3
1.1
1.1
0.5
1.0

1.6
1.5
2.2
0.4

0.8
0.8
1.2
0.4

5.4
2.2
4.8
3.5

1.9
1.2
1.8
1.3

0.0

0.0

1.6

0.7

3.7
0.9

1.7
0.8

1.0
2.4

0.7
1.1

4.9
1.7
2.5

1.1
0.7
1.2

1.9
1.6
6.9

0.7
0.6
1.9

2.9
1.7

1.1
0.7

1.6
2.7

0.9
1.1

1.5

0.9

1.5

0.7

1.0
1.6
2.8
3.5
1.8
4.0
2.0

0.7
0.9
1.2
1.5
1.0
1.3
1.0

1.2
2.6
0.0
0.6
2.1
3.4
0.0

0.6
1.1
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.3
0.0

Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007 31

Appendix table 4. Percent of local jail inmates reporting sexual victimization, by type of incident and facility,
National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.)
Inmate-on-inmatea
Facility name
South Carolina
Beaufort Co. Det. Ctr.
Berkeley Co. Hill-Finklea Det. Ctr.
Florence Co. Det. Ctr.
Sumter-Lee Reg. Det. Ctr.
South Dakota
Pennington Co. Jail
Tennessee
Madison Co. Penal Farm
Shelby Co. Corr. Ctr.
Shelby Co. Justice Ctr.
Sullivan Co. Jail
Tipton Co. Jail
Warren Co. Jail
Texas
Bowie Co. Corr. Ctr.
Dallas Co. Decker Det. Ctr.
Dallas Co. George Allen Jail
Dallas Co. North Tower Jail
Dallas Co. West Tower Jail
El Paso Co. Jail Annex
Galveston Co. Jail
Gregg Co. Jail
Harris Co. Jail
Harris Co. Jail - Baker Street
Jefferson Co. Det. Ctr.
Montgomery Co. Jail
Newton Co. Corr. Ctr.d
Tarrant Co. Corr. Ctr.
Travis Co. Corr. Fac.
Utah
Weber Co. Corr. Fac.
Virginia
Duffield Reg. Jail Fac.
Prince William-Manassas Reg. Adult Corr. Ctr.
Richmond City Jail
Roanoke City Jail
Washington
Clark Co. Jail
King Co. Corr. Fac.
Whatcom Co. Jail
West Virginia
Western Reg. Jail
Wisconsin
Dane Co. Jail
Marathon Co. Adult Det. Fac.
Waukesha Co. Jail
Waupaca Co. Jail

Percent victimized

Standard error

Staff-on-inmatea
b

Percent victimized

Standard errorb

0.7
0.0
0.6
3.2

0.5
0.0
0.5
1.3

1.3
2.1
3.1
1.1

0.6
1.0
1.1
0.9

2.1

1.2

2.2

1.1

2.6
2.1
0.0
1.4
0.0
3.6

1.1
0.9
0.0
0.7
0.0
1.3

0.0
3.2
2.1
1.1
1.6
0.7

0.0
1.6
0.9
0.7
0.6
0.5

2.3
0.8
2.7
3.0
3.0
1.3
2.9
1.7
2.2
2.5
1.0
2.2
0.4
1.1
4.6

1.0
0.5
1.4
1.2
1.4
0.7
1.2
0.9
1.3
1.0
0.6
1.0
0.3
0.8
1.5

1.1
0.9
0.5
2.1
2.2
2.7
1.1
2.0
1.6
3.0
2.8
1.2
0.8
2.6
2.5

0.6
0.7
0.3
1.0
1.2
1.1
0.7
1.1
0.9
1.2
1.0
0.6
0.5
1.2
1.1

3.1

1.3

2.5

1.2

3.0
1.2
2.9
4.0

1.2
0.7
1.1
1.7

0.5
2.4
3.2
2.0

0.4
1.1
1.2
1.1

5.1
2.7
0.8

1.7
1.2
0.4

4.0
2.4
4.8

1.4
0.9
1.4

1.4

0.8

3.2

1.4

0.4
1.0
1.1
0.9

0.4
0.6
0.6
0.5

3.2
2.9
2.0
1.1

1.2
1.2
1.0
0.7

Note: Excludes facilities with rates of sexual victimization not statistically different from zero at the 95% confidence level. Detail may sum
to more than total because victims may have reported both inmate-on-inmate and staff-on-inmate sexual victimization.
aIncludes

all types of sexual victimization, including oral, anal, or vaginal penetration, touching of the inmate's buttocks, thighs, penis,
breasts, or vagina in a sexual way and other sexual acts.

b
c

Standard errors may be used to construct confidence intervals around weighted survey estimates. (See Methodology.)

Female facility.

d

Private facility.

32 Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007

Appendix table 5. Percent of local jail inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts, by type of incident and facility,
National Inmate Survey, 2007
Inmate-on-inmate
Facility name
Total
Alabama
Etowah Co. Det. Ctr.
Jackson Co. Jail
Shelby Co. Jail
Arizona
Coconino Co. Jail
Maricopa Co. Jail - 4th Avenue
Maricopa Co. Jail - Durango
Maricopa Co. Jail - Estrellad
Maricopa Co. Jail - Lower Buckeye
California
Alameda Co. Santa Rita Jail
Fresno Co. Det. Fac. - Main Jail
Imperial Co. Jail
Kern Co. Lerdo Pre-Trial Fac.
Los Angeles Co. Mens Central Jail
Los Angeles Co. North Corr. Fac.
Los Angeles Co. Twin Towers Corr. Fac.
Orange Co. Central Jail Complex
Orange Co. James A. Musick Fac.
Riverside Co. Larry D. Smith Corr. Ctr.
Riverside Co. Robert Presley Det. Ctr.
Sacramento Co. Rio Cosumnes Corr. Ctr.
Sacramento Co. Main Jail
San Bernardino Co. W. Valley Det. Ctr.
San Bernardino Co. Glen Helen Rehab. Ctr.
San Bernardino Co. Central Det. Ctr.
San Diego Co. George F. Bailey Det. Fac.
San Diego Co. Las Colinas Women's Det. Fac.d
San Francisco Co. Jail - No. 1
Santa Barbara Co. Jail
Santa Clara Co. Elmwood Corr. Complex
Santa Clara Co. Main Jail - North
Ventura Co. Jail - Todd Road
Colorado
Adams Co. Det. Fac.
Arapahoe Co. Jail
El Paso Co. Det. Fac.
Garfield Co. Jail
District of Columbia
D.C. Dept. of Corr. Jail
Florida
Alachua Co. Jail
Brevard Co. Det. Ctr.
Broward Co. Conte Corr. Fac.
Broward Co. Main Jail
Broward Co. North Jail - Pompano Beach
Collier Co. Jail
Dixie Co. Jail
Hillsborough Co. Falkenburg Road Jail
Jackson Co. Corr. Fac.
Jacksonville City Montgomery Corr. Ctr.
Marion Co. Jail
Miami-Dade Co. Metro West Det. Ctr.
Miami-Dade Co. Turner Guilford Knight Corr. Ctr.
Orange Co. 33rd Street Corr. Ctr.
Pinellas Co. Central Division Fac.
Pinellas Co. South Fac. (Max. Sec.)
Sarasota North Co. Jail
Seminole Co. John E. Polk Corr. Fac.
South Co. Jail
St. Johns Co. Jail

Percent victimizeda

Staff-on-inmate

Standard errorb

Percent victimizedc

Standard errorb

0.7%

0.1%

1.6%

0.1%

0.4
0.8
1.3

0.3
0.4
0.8

0.0
1.3
0.0

0.0
0.5
0.0

0.0
0.9
0.5
1.8
0.0

0.0
0.6
0.4
1.0
0.0

1.7
0.8
0.9
0.4
2.6

0.9
0.5
0.6
0.4
1.0

0.6
0.6
0.8
0.9
0.3
0.6
1.4
0.0
1.1
0.7
2.2
0.8
0.0
2.2
0.0
0.4
1.5
1.2
0.7
2.6
0.0
2.2
0.6

0.6
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.3
0.5
1.4
0.0
0.7
0.6
1.0
0.6
0.0
1.6
0.0
0.3
0.7
0.7
0.6
1.1
0.0
1.2
0.5

1.3
1.5
2.0
2.0
1.3
2.9
1.3
1.0
1.4
1.6
2.6
1.6
1.1
1.6
1.5
1.3
1.7
2.1
0.8
2.1
0.6
1.2
1.6

1.2
1.0
1.2
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.0
0.7
0.7
0.9
1.7
1.1
0.7
0.9
0.8
0.6
0.8
1.2
0.7
1.0
0.6
0.8
0.8

1.9
0.1
1.3
1.5

0.9
0.1
0.7
0.9

1.0
0.0
1.3
3.0

0.6
0.0
0.7
1.2

2.0

1.3

2.3

1.4

1.0
4.5
0.8
0.0
3.0
1.1
0.0
0.9
0.0
0.8
1.2
0.0
0.5
0.3
0.0
2.2
1.3
2.4
0.0
0.7

0.6
1.3
0.7
0.0
1.4
0.7
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.6
0.7
0.0
0.5
0.3
0.0
1.3
0.8
1.2
0.0
0.6

0.9
4.4
0.3
2.5
0.8
4.2
1.2
0.8
0.7
0.8
2.2
2.5
3.8
1.9
2.4
2.7
1.2
1.9
2.9
1.5

0.6
1.5
0.3
1.9
0.5
1.7
0.8
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.9
1.3
1.7
1.0
1.1
1.5
0.8
1.0
1.4
0.9

Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007 33

Appendix table 5. Percent of local jail inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts, by type of incident and facility,
National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.)
Inmate-on-inmate
Facility name
Georgia
Atlanta City Jail
Bartow Co. Jail
Carroll Co. Jail
Cobb Co. Sheriff's Office Jail & Prison Unit
Coweta Co. Jail
Dekalb Co. Jail
Dougherty Co. Jail
Fulton Co. Jail
Gwinnett Co. Jail
Muscogee Co. Jail
Paulding Co. Det. Ctr.
Richmond Co. Corr. Inst.
Idaho
Bingham Co. Jail
Illinois
Cook Co. Jail - Division 2
Cook Co. Jail - Division 11
Will Co. Adult Det. Fac.
Indiana
Daviess Co. Jail
Hamilton Co. Jail
Hendricks Co. Jail
Lake Co. Jail
Marion Co. Jail Intake Fac.
Wayne Co. Jail
Kentucky
Boyd Co. Jail
Daviess Co. Det. Ctr.
Grant Co. Jail
Hardin Co. Det. Ctr.
Kentucky River Reg. Jail
Lexington-Fayette Co. Det. Ctr.
Louisville-Jefferson Co. Dept. of Corr.
Warren Co. Reg. Jail
Louisiana
Ascension Parish Jail
Caldwell Parish Jails - (2 facilities)
Catahoula Corr. Ctr.e
East Baton Rouge Prison
Franklin Parish Jail
La Fourche Parish Jail
Lafayette Parish Corr. Center
St. Bernard Parish Prison
St. Tammany Parish Jail
Terrebonne Parish Jail
Maine
Androscoggin Co. Jail
Maryland
Anne Arundel Co. Dept. of Det. Fac.
Baltimore City Det. Ctr.
Montgomery Co. Corr. Fac.
Washington Co. Det. Ctr.
Massachusetts
Barnstable Co. Corr. Fac.
Berkshire Co. Jail & House of Corr.
Plymouth Co. Corr. Fac.
Worcester Co. Jail & House of Corr.
Michigan
Kalamazoo Co. Jail
Kent Co. Corr. Fac.
Montmorency Co. Jail

Staff-on-inmate

Percent victimizeda

Standard errorb

Percent victimizedc

Standard errorb

4.8
0.0
1.5
1.3
0.0
0.0
0.3
1.3
1.0
1.0
2.8
0.0

2.9
0.0
0.8
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.9
0.6
0.7
1.7
0.0

3.2
1.2
0.7
1.2
1.9
1.0
1.7
3.5
0.5
0.4
3.5
0.7

2.1
0.7
0.6
0.7
1.0
0.7
0.9
1.3
0.5
0.4
1.8
0.5

0.0

0.0

2.0

1.5

0.7
1.1
0.9

0.4
0.7
0.6

1.9
2.4
3.8

0.9
1.1
1.7

0.0
0.8
2.1
1.4
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.6
1.2
0.9
0.0
0.0

1.5
1.9
1.1
3.1
4.1
1.5

0.7
1.1
0.9
1.3
1.8
0.8

0.0
0.0
0.7
0.0
0.7
1.5
0.4
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.6
1.0
0.3
0.0

1.6
1.3
1.0
1.4
4.0
4.5
2.5
2.4

0.9
0.8
0.8
0.7
1.5
1.6
1.6
1.5

0.0
0.7
1.3
1.0
0.4
0.4
1.5
1.0
1.7
1.4

0.0
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.8
0.5
0.9
0.6

0.7
4.3
0.8
0.9
2.0
4.0
2.4
0.0
1.5
0.8

0.5
1.3
0.5
0.6
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.0
0.8
0.4

3.5

1.7

2.7

1.3

0.0
0.0
0.6
0.5

0.0
0.0
0.5
0.4

1.1
2.9
2.5
2.4

0.7
1.3
0.9
1.2

0.6
1.3
0.0
1.5

0.5
0.7
0.0
0.8

1.2
2.4
1.8
0.5

0.7
1.1
1.0
0.4

1.5
1.1
3.6

1.1
0.8
1.7

1.7
2.7
0.0

0.9
1.1
0.0

34 Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007

Appendix table 5. Percent of local jail inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts, by type of incident and facility,
National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.)
Inmate-on-inmate
Facility name
Minnesota
Hennepin Co. Adult Det. Ctr.
Mississippi
Madison Co. Jail
Montana
Cascade Co. Reg. Jail
Nebraska
Douglas Dept. of Corr.
Nevada
Clark Co. Det. Ctr.
Washoe Co. Det. Ctr.
New Hampshire
Hillsborough Co. House of Corr.
New Jersey
Atlantic Co. Gerard L. Gormley Justice Fac.
Camden Co. Corr. Fac.
Essex Co. Corr. Fac.
Hudson Co. Corr. Fac.
Mercer Co. Corr. Ctr.
Morris Co. Corr. Fac.
Union Co. Jail
New Mexico
Bernalillo Co. Metropolitan Det. Ctr.
Santa Fe Co. Adult Corr. Fac.
Torrance Co. Det. Fac.e
New York
Albany Co. Corr. Fac.
Erie Co. Corr. Fac.
Erie Co. Holding Ctr.
Franklin Co. Jail
New York City Anna M. Kross Ctr.
New York City Otis Bantum Corr. Ctr.
New York City Rose M. Singer Ctr.d
Oswego Co. Corr. Fac.
Westchester Co. Penitentiary
North Carolina
Cleveland Co.
Mecklenburg Co. Jail
Mecklenburg Co. Jail - North
Wake Co. Jail
North Dakota
Cass Co. Jail
Ohio
Franklin Co. Corrections Ctr. I
Hamilton Co. Justice Ctr.
Hamilton Co. Talbert House Drug & Alcohol Treatment
River City Corr. Fac.
Southeastern Ohio Reg. Jail
Oklahoma
Oklahoma Co. Det. Ctr.
Rogers Co. Jail
Oregon
Marion Co. Corr. Fac.
Pennsylvania
Allegheny Co. Jail
Lancaster Co. Prison
Montgomery Co. Corr. Fac.
Philadelphia City Alternative & Special Det. Fac.
Philadelphia City Curran/Fromhold Corr. Fac.
Philadelphia City Industrial Corr. Ctr.
York Co. Prison

Staff-on-inmate

Percent victimizeda

Standard errorb

Percent victimizedc

Standard errorb

0.5

0.4

2.6

1.2

0.8

0.5

1.6

0.9

0.5

0.4

0.7

0.6

0.6

0.6

1.7

1.0

0.0
0.7

0.0
0.4

1.2
0.9

0.8
0.6

0.0

0.0

1.2

0.7

2.0
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.3
0.7
0.7

1.1
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.3
0.6
0.6

2.2
1.4
1.0
2.2
2.2
1.1
3.0

1.3
0.8
0.7
1.0
0.9
0.7
1.7

2.4
0.6
4.7

1.7
0.5
2.7

5.8
3.7
4.2

2.4
1.3
2.1

0.0
1.2
0.6
1.2
1.4
0.0
1.3
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.6
0.5
0.6
1.0
0.0
0.7
0.0
0.0

1.2
1.7
3.2
5.3
3.0
2.8
1.5
0.9
2.1

0.9
0.8
1.3
1.2
1.3
1.1
0.7
0.5
0.9

1.6
0.0
2.2
0.0

0.8
0.0
1.2
0.0

4.8
1.5
1.3
1.8

1.8
1.0
0.8
1.0

0.0

0.0

0.8

0.5

2.4
0.0

1.2
0.0

1.0
2.4

0.7
1.1

1.0
0.9
1.2

0.5
0.5
0.9

1.9
1.6
5.8

0.7
0.6
1.8

1.0
1.0

0.7
0.6

1.2
1.4

0.8
0.8

0.8

0.7

1.2

0.7

0.5
0.0
1.9
1.2
0.0
2.4
1.3

0.5
0.0
1.1
1.0
0.0
1.0
0.9

1.2
2.1
0.0
0.6
2.1
3.4
0.0

0.6
1.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.3
0.0

Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007 35

Appendix table 5. Percent of local jail inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts, by type of incident and facility,
National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.)
Inmate-on-inmate
Facility name
South Carolina
Beaufort Co. Det. Ctr.
Berkeley Co. Hill-Finklea Det. Ctr.
Florence Co. Det. Ctr.
Sumter-Lee Reg. Det. Ctr.
South Dakota
Pennington Co. Jail
Tennessee
Madison Co. Penal Farm
Shelby Co. Corr. Ctr.
Shelby Co. Justice Ctr.
Sullivan Co. Jail
Tipton Co. Jail
Warren Co. Jail
Texas
Bowie Co. Corr. Ctr.
Dallas Co. Decker Det. Ctr.
Dallas Co. George Allen Jail
Dallas Co. North Tower Jail
Dallas Co. West Tower Jail
El Paso Co. Jail Annex
Galveston Co. Jail
Gregg Co. Jail
Harris Co. Jail
Harris Co. Jail - Baker Street
Jefferson Co. Det. Ctr.
Montgomery Co. Jail
Newton Co. Corr. Ctre
Tarrant Co. Corr. Ctr.
Travis Co. Corr. Fac.
Utah
Weber Co. Corr. Fac.
Virginia
Duffield Reg. Jail Fac.
Prince William-Manassas Reg. Adult Corr. Ctr.
Richmond City Jail
Roanoke City Jail
Washington
Clark Co. Jail
King Co. Corr. Fac.
Whatcom Co. Jail
West Virginia
Western Reg. Jail
Wisconsin
Dane Co. Jail
Marathon Co. Adult Det. Fac.
Waukesha Co. Jail
Waupaca Co. Jail

Staff-on-inmate

Percent victimizeda

Standard errorb

Percent victimizedc

Standard errorb

0.7
0.0
0.0
1.8

0.5
0.0
0.0
1.0

1.3
1.4
2.5
1.1

0.6
0.8
1.0
0.9

1.0

0.8

1.1

0.6

0.0
1.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.1

0.0
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.1

0.0
2.7
1.3
1.1
1.6
0.7

0.0
1.5
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5

0.5
0.5
1.6
1.1
1.6
0.9
1.2
1.0
0.7
2.5
0.6
1.1
0.0
0.8
1.5

0.5
0.4
1.0
0.8
1.1
0.6
0.8
0.7
0.7
1.0
0.5
0.7
0.0
0.7
0.8

1.1
0.9
0.2
2.1
1.0
1.2
0.6
2.0
1.6
2.5
2.0
1.2
0.8
2.6
1.9

0.6
0.7
0.2
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.6
1.1
0.9
1.1
0.8
0.6
0.5
1.2
1.0

1.0

0.9

2.1

1.1

0.4
1.2
1.4
0.0

0.3
0.7
0.7
0.0

0.5
1.8
2.7
1.4

0.4
0.9
1.1
0.9

0.0
2.1
0.0

0.0
1.0
0.0

3.4
1.8
4.4

1.3
0.8
1.4

0.7

0.6

2.1

1.0

0.4
0.7
0.5
0.0

0.4
0.6
0.4
0.0

2.2
2.9
2.0
0.0

1.0
1.2
1.0
0.0

Note: Excludes facilities with rates of sexual victimization not statistically different from zero at the 95% confidence level.
a
Includes reports of oral, anal, or vaginal penetration, handjobs, and other sexual acts by another inmate.
bStandard
cIncludes

errors may be used to construct confidence intervals around weighted survey estimates. (See Methodology.)

all reports of staff sexual misconduct including oral, anal, or vaginal penetration, handjobs, and other sexual acts.

d

Female facility.

e

Private facility.

36 Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007

Appendix table 6. Percent of local jail inmates reporting sexual victimization, by type of incident, level of coercion, and
facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007
Inmate-on-inmate
Facility name
Total
Alabama
Etowah Co. Det. Ctr.
Jackson Co. Jail
Shelby Co. Jail
Arizona
Coconino Co. Jail
Maricopa Co. Jail - 4th Avenue
Maricopa Co. Jail - Durango
Maricopa Co. Jail - Estrellac
Maricopa Co. Jail - Lower Buckeye
California
Alameda Co. Santa Rita Jail
Fresno Co. Det. Fac. - Main Jail
Imperial Co. Jail
Kern Co. Lerdo Pre-Trial Fac.
Los Angeles Co. Mens Central Jail
Los Angeles Co. North Corr. Fac.
Los Angeles Co. Twin Towers Corr. Fac.
Orange Co. Central Jail Complex
Orange Co. James A. Musick Fac.
Riverside Co. Larry D. Smith Corr. Ctr.
Riverside Co. Robert Presley Det. Ctr.
Sacramento Co. Rio Cosumnes Corr. Ctr.
Sacramento Co. Main Jail
San Bernardino Co. W. Valley Det. Ctr.
San Bernardino Co. Glen Helen Rehab. Ctr.
San Bernardino Co. Central Det. Ctr.
San Diego Co. George F. Bailey Det. Fac.
San Diego Co. Las Colinas Women's Det. Fac.c
San Francisco Co. Jail - No. 1
Santa Barbara Co. Jail
Santa Clara Co. Elmwood Corr. Complex
Santa Clara Co. Main Jail - North
Ventura Co. Jail - Todd Road
Colorado
Adams Co. Det. Fac.
Arapahoe Co. Jail
El Paso Co. Det. Fac.
Garfield Co. Jail
District of Columbia
D.C. Dept. of Corr. Jail
Florida
Alachua Co. Jail
Brevard Co. Det. Ctr.
Broward Co. Conte Corr. Fac.
Broward Co. Main Jail
Broward Co. North Jail - Pompano Beach
Collier Co. Jail
Dixie Co. Jail
Hillsborough Co. Falkenburg Road Jail
Jackson Co. Corr. Fac.
Jacksonville City Montgomery Corr. Ctr.
Marion Co. Jail
Miami-Dade Co. Metro West Det. Ctr.
Miami-Dade Co. Turner Guilford Knight Corr. Ctr.
Orange Co. 33rd Street Corr. Ctr.
Pinellas Co. Central Division Fac.
Pinellas Co. South Fac. (Max. Sec.)
Sarasota North Co. Jail
Seminole Co. John E. Polk Corr. Fac.
South Co. Jail
St. Johns Co. Jail

Staff-on-inmate
Without force
or pressureb

Pressureda

Physically forced

Pressureda

1.1%

1.1%

0.8%

1.2%

1.1%

1.5
1.8
1.9

0.6
1.8
1.9

0.0
1.3
0.6

0.0
1.3
0.6

0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
1.3
1.6
1.3
0.4

0.0
1.4
0.9
2.2
0.0

1.3
0.3
0.9
0.4
2.3

0.0
0.8
0.9
0.4
1.9

1.7
0.7
0.0
0.0
1.3

0.9
1.0
0.8
1.4
0.3
0.9
0.6
0.7
1.3
1.2
2.4
0.8
0.0
2.3
1.3
0.4
1.6
3.2
0.8
3.1
1.5
2.2
0.6

1.5
1.6
1.3
0.5
0.7
1.4
4.5
3.0
1.1
0.7
3.2
0.4
0.0
3.4
0.0
0.0
2.2
2.7
2.6
3.1
2.2
2.9
1.1

1.3
1.5
1.2
2.0
2.5
1.0
0.4
1.0
1.4
1.3
2.6
0.0
0.6
1.3
1.2
0.6
1.6
2.8
1.5
1.6
0.0
1.2
0.5

1.3
1.5
2.0
2.0
1.8
1.5
1.0
1.0
1.4
0.7
3.3
0.9
2.0
1.3
1.2
1.3
3.1
3.2
1.5
2.1
0.6
1.2
0.6

0.0
1.5
2.0
1.2
1.7
1.8
0.4
0.0
0.4
1.6
3.0
1.6
0.5
1.9
0.5
0.9
1.4
0.5
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.5
1.5

2.8
2.5
1.7
4.0

1.3
2.8
0.8
4.0

1.0
0.0
0.4
1.5

1.0
0.2
0.9
3.0

0.4
0.2
0.9
0.0

2.1

3.1

0.6

2.2

0.4

2.4
4.1
0.0
0.0
0.8
0.3
5.3
0.8
0.9
1.4
1.8
0.0
1.9
0.6
0.0
1.1
3.7
1.9
0.6
1.2

2.9
6.3
1.9
1.7
3.3
1.5
0.0
1.6
0.9
0.0
1.6
0.0
1.9
1.1
0.0
2.2
2.6
2.3
0.6
0.7

0.9
1.5
0.3
2.8
0.3
2.0
1.2
0.0
0.0
0.8
1.4
0.6
1.5
0.9
1.3
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.7

0.9
2.6
0.3
1.4
0.8
3.5
1.2
0.8
0.0
0.6
0.8
1.5
3.5
1.5
1.0
2.7
0.6
1.3
2.2
1.5

0.0
3.3
0.8
0.7
0.4
2.2
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.4
0.9
0.0
1.8
0.5
1.1
0.5
0.6
0.0
2.8
0.0

Physically forced

Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007 37

Appendix table 6. Percent of local jail inmates reporting sexual victimization, by type of incident, level of coercion, and
facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.)
Inmate-on-inmate
Facility name
Georgia
Atlanta City Jail
Bartow Co. Jail
Carroll Co. Jail
Cobb Co. Sheriff's Office Jail & Prison Unit
Coweta Co. Jail
Dekalb Co. Jail
Dougherty Co. Jail
Fulton Co. Jail
Gwinnett Co. Jail
Muscogee Co. Jail
Paulding Co. Det. Ctr.
Richmond Co. Corr. Inst.
Idaho
Bingham Co. Jail
Illinois
Cook Co. Jail - Division 2
Cook Co. Jail - Division 11
Will Co. Adult Det. Fac.
Indiana
Daviess Co. Jail
Hamilton Co. Jail
Hendricks Co. Jail
Lake Co. Jail
Marion Co. Jail Intake Fac.
Wayne Co. Jail
Kentucky
Boyd Co. Jail
Daviess Co. Det. Ctr.
Grant Co. Jail
Hardin Co. Det. Ctr.
Kentucky River Reg. Jail
Lexington-Fayette Co. Det. Ctr.
Louisville-Jefferson Co. Dept. of Corr.
Warren Co. Reg. Jail
Louisiana
Ascension Parish Jail
Caldwell Parish Jails - (2 facilities)
Catahoula Corr. Ctr.d
East Baton Rouge Prison
Franklin Parish Jail
La Fourche Parish Jail
Lafayette Parish Corr. Center
St. Bernard Parish Prison
St. Tammany Parish Jail
Terrebonne Parish Jail
Maine
Androscoggin Co. Jail
Maryland
Anne Arundel Co. Dept. of Det. Fac.
Baltimore City Det. Ctr.
Montgomery Co. Corr. Fac.
Washington Co. Det. Ctr.
Massachusetts
Barnstable Co. Corr. Fac.
Berkshire Co. Jail & House of Corr.
Plymouth Co. Corr. Fac.
Worcester Co. Jail & House of Corr.
Michigan
Kalamazoo Co. Jail
Kent Co. Corr. Fac.
Montmorency Co. Jail

Physically forced

Pressureda

Staff-on-inmate
Physically forced

Pressureda

Without force
or pressureb

5.4
1.4
1.5
1.7
1.8
1.6
0.0
1.7
1.8
0.8
3.5
1.6

5.6
0.6
1.5
3.5
0.8
1.4
0.3
2.6
1.9
1.5
2.3
0.0

0.9
0.6
0.7
1.2
1.1
0.0
0.4
2.7
0.5
0.0
3.4
0.0

2.4
0.6
0.7
1.6
1.9
0.4
0.0
2.4
1.4
0.0
4.1
0.0

2.4
2.0
0.0
0.9
1.1
1.0
2.1
1.9
0.5
0.4
2.0
0.7

0.0

0.0

1.6

5.2

1.6

0.7
1.1
0.9

0.0
1.5
0.9

0.0
2.0
1.1

0.7
1.2
3.5

1.3
1.6
2.0

1.1
0.9
2.1
1.8
0.0
4.9

1.1
1.7
2.1
1.4
0.0
3.6

0.7
1.1
1.1
1.7
2.9
1.5

0.7
0.9
1.1
1.7
2.9
1.9

0.8
1.1
1.1
2.5
3.0
1.3

2.5
1.1
1.4
1.1
1.2
1.5
1.5
0.0

4.6
0.0
1.4
0.6
0.7
2.1
1.8
0.0

0.0
0.6
0.0
0.5
3.2
1.2
0.5
0.6

0.8
0.6
0.0
0.9
2.6
1.2
0.0
1.4

1.6
1.3
1.8
0.4
0.9
4.1
2.0
2.4

0.7
1.7
0.9
2.8
1.5
2.1
2.4
1.9
4.1
3.3

0.0
0.9
1.3
1.4
1.5
2.2
2.3
1.0
3.0
2.4

0.7
1.4
0.4
0.5
0.9
0.6
1.4
1.9
1.4
1.7

0.7
2.3
0.4
0.9
1.0
2.0
0.9
1.9
1.2
1.7

0.0
3.6
0.4
0.5
0.5
2.0
1.4
1.9
0.4
0.8

5.1

2.4

1.1

1.1

2.7

1.2
0.0
0.0
0.5

0.4
0.0
0.6
0.0

0.5
1.6
0.0
1.2

1.0
2.4
0.7
2.3

0.6
3.5
2.5
0.7

1.8
1.3
0.0
1.0

1.2
2.4
0.0
1.7

1.2
1.3
0.4
1.1

1.2
0.6
0.5
1.1

0.6
2.9
1.3
1.0

0.0
1.0
3.6

1.5
1.5
3.6

0.0
2.9
0.0

0.0
2.4
0.0

2.6
2.1
0.0

38 Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007

Appendix table 6. Percent of local jail inmates reporting sexual victimization, by type of incident, level of coercion, and
facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.)
Inmate-on-inmate
Facility name
Minnesota
Hennepin Co. Adult Det. Ctr.
Mississippi
Madison Co. Jail
Montana
Cascade Co. Reg. Jail
Nebraska
Douglas Dept. of Corr.
Nevada
Clark Co. Det. Ctr.
Washoe Co. Det. Ctr.
New Hampshire
Hillsborough Co. House of Corr.
New Jersey
Atlantic Co. Gerard L. Gormley Justice Fac.
Camden Co. Corr. Fac.
Essex Co. Corr. Fac.
Hudson Co. Corr. Fac.
Mercer Co. Corr. Ctr.
Morris Co. Corr. Fac.
Union Co. Jail
New Mexico
Bernalillo Co. Metropolitan Det. Ctr.
Santa Fe Co. Adult Corr. Fac.
Torrance Co. Det. Fac.d
New York
Albany Co. Corr. Fac.
Erie Co. Corr. Fac.
Erie Co. Holding Ctr.
Franklin Co. Jail
New York City Anna M. Kross Ctr.
New York City Otis Bantum Corr. Ctr.
New York City Rose M. Singer Ctr.c
Oswego Co. Corr. Fac.
Westchester Co. Penitentiary
North Carolina
Cleveland Co.
Mecklenburg Co. Jail
Mecklenburg Co. Jail - North
Wake Co. Jail
North Dakota
Cass Co. Jail
Ohio
Franklin Co. Corrections Ctr. I
Hamilton Co. Justice Ctr.
Hamilton Co. Talbert House Drug & Alcohol
Treatment
River City Corr. Fac.
Southeastern Ohio Reg. Jail
Oklahoma
Oklahoma Co. Det. Ctr.
Rogers Co. Jail
Oregon
Marion Co. Corr. Fac.
Pennsylvania
Allegheny Co. Jail
Lancaster Co. Prison
Montgomery Co. Corr. Fac.
Philadelphia City Alternative & Special Det. Fac.
Philadelphia City Curran/Fromhold Corr. Fac.
Philadelphia City Industrial Corr. Ctr.
York Co. Prison

Physically forced

Pressureda

Staff-on-inmate
Physically forced

Pressureda

Without force
or pressureb

0.5

0.5

0.5

1.3

1.7

1.3

0.8

2.8

2.1

0.0

3.1

1.9

0.0

0.7

0.7

1.3

1.4

0.5

0.6

1.2

0.0
1.0

0.4
0.7

1.0
0.7

1.7
1.2

1.2
1.5

0.6

0.8

0.7

0.7

0.9

2.5
0.3
0.4
0.9
0.4
0.7
0.7

1.4
0.6
0.3
0.5
1.1
1.3
0.7

0.0
0.7
0.3
1.6
0.4
0.7
1.5

1.2
0.7
0.0
1.1
0.4
0.7
0.9

1.0
1.1
1.0
1.7
1.4
0.4
2.2

3.8
1.2
4.7

1.6
1.2
6.4

2.5
1.2
1.0

5.5
2.9
0.0

2.5
1.4
4.2

0.0
0.9
1.9
2.2
1.4
0.0
3.3
0.9
0.0

0.0
2.8
1.9
1.2
2.1
0.0
4.3
1.8
0.0

1.9
0.5
3.3
2.4
2.5
0.7
1.1
0.0
0.5

1.5
0.8
3.3
4.1
1.7
0.5
1.8
0.9
0.5

2.1
1.7
1.9
3.4
1.8
2.8
1.1
0.9
2.7

1.6
0.8
2.2
0.4

1.6
1.5
2.2
0.0

2.8
0.7
2.8
2.4

2.4
0.7
2.5
2.8

3.6
1.5
1.3
2.4

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.8

0.8

1.9
0.9

3.7
0.0

0.0
0.7

0.5
1.6

0.5
1.4

2.6
0.9
1.2

3.3
1.7
1.2

1.0
0.8
5.6

1.0
1.6
5.8

1.9
1.6
4.4

2.9
0.7

0.9
1.0

0.5
1.4

1.2
2.7

0.0
0.0

1.5

0.8

1.2

1.2

0.2

1.0
1.2
2.4
3.5
1.2
1.8
2.0

1.0
1.6
1.9
2.3
1.3
3.1
1.3

0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.9
0.0

0.4
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.5
2.3
0.0

1.2
2.1
0.0
0.6
2.1
2.0
0.0

Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007 39

Appendix table 6. Percent of local jail inmates reporting sexual victimization, by type of incident, level of coercion, and
facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.)
Inmate-on-inmate
Facility name
South Carolina
Beaufort Co. Det. Ctr.
Berkeley Co. Hill-Finklea Det. Ctr.
Florence Co. Det. Ctr.
Sumter-Lee Reg. Det. Ctr.
South Dakota
Pennington Co. Jail
Tennessee
Madison Co. Penal Farm
Shelby Co. Corr. Ctr.
Shelby Co. Justice Ctr.
Sullivan Co. Jail
Tipton Co. Jail
Warren Co. Jail
Texas
Bowie Co. Corr. Ctr.
Dallas Co. Decker Det. Ctr.
Dallas Co. George Allen Jail
Dallas Co. North Tower Jail
Dallas Co. West Tower Jail
El Paso Co. Jail Annex
Galveston Co. Jail
Gregg Co. Jail
Harris Co. Jail
Harris Co. Jail - Baker Street
Jefferson Co. Det. Ctr.
Montgomery Co. Jail
Newton Co. Corr. Ctr.d
Tarrant Co. Corr. Ctr.
Travis Co. Corr. Fac.
Utah
Weber Co. Corr. Fac.
Virginia
Duffield Reg. Jail Fac.
Prince William-Manassas Reg. Adult Corr. Ctr.
Richmond City Jail
Roanoke City Jail
Washington
Clark Co. Jail
King Co. Corr. Fac.
Whatcom Co. Jail
West Virginia
Western Reg. Jail
Wisconsin
Dane Co. Jail
Marathon Co. Adult Det. Fac.
Waukesha Co. Jail
Waupaca Co. Jail

Physically forced

Pressureda

Staff-on-inmate
Physically forced

Pressureda

Without force
or pressureb

0.0
0.0
0.0
2.6

0.7
0.0
0.6
2.4

0.6
0.0
1.2
0.0

0.6
1.5
1.8
0.0

1.3
1.4
2.5
1.1

2.1

1.0

1.1

1.1

1.1

2.6
1.7
0.0
1.0
0.0
3.6

0.0
2.1
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.8

0.0
1.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
2.7
1.8
0.4
0.0
0.7

0.0
2.1
0.3
1.1
1.6
0.0

1.7
0.5
2.7
2.5
1.6
1.3
1.7
0.5
2.2
1.7
1.0
1.5
0.4
1.1
3.4

1.7
0.3
1.7
3.0
1.4
0.9
1.6
1.2
0.7
2.5
1.0
1.1
0.0
1.1
4.5

0.0
0.9
0.2
0.0
1.0
1.1
1.1
0.8
0.6
0.8
1.6
0.4
0.0
0.8
1.8

0.5
0.0
0.5
1.7
2.2
2.3
0.5
0.6
0.6
2.6
2.1
0.8
0.4
1.9
1.9

0.5
0.9
0.5
0.4
1.6
0.4
0.0
2.0
1.6
0.7
0.4
0.8
0.4
1.1
0.0

2.5

2.5

1.1

1.8

0.4

1.9
0.6
1.6
2.9

3.0
1.2
2.9
2.7

0.0
1.8
2.6
1.3

0.0
1.8
2.2
1.3

0.5
1.7
0.9
1.4

4.4
1.8
0.4

0.7
2.7
0.4

1.2
1.6
4.0

3.4
1.9
3.5

1.9
0.5
3.2

1.4

0.0

0.7

2.2

1.0

0.4
1.0
1.1
0.9

0.4
0.7
0.5
0.0

2.2
1.1
0.7
0.0

2.2
2.0
0.7
1.1

1.3
0.9
1.3
0.0

Note: Excludes facilities with rates of sexual victimization not statistically different from zero at the 95% confidence level. Details may sum to
more than totals on table 4 because victims may report on more than one incident involving different levels of coercion.
a

Includes incidents in which the perpetrator, without using force, pressured the inmate or made the inmate feel that they had to participate.
(See Methodology for definitions.)

bIncludes

incidents in which the staff offered favors or privileges in exchange for sex or sexual contact and incidents in which the inmate
reported they willingly had sex or sexual contact with staff.

cFemale
d

facility.

Private facility.

40 Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007

Appendix 7. Survey items related to inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization, National Inmate Survey, 2007
Males

Females

E16. During the last 6 months, did another inmate use
physical force to touch your butt, thighs, or penis in a sexual way?

E18. During the last 6 months, did another inmate use
physical force to touch your butt, thighs, breasts, or vagina
in a sexual way?

E17. During the last 6 months, did another inmate, without
using physical force, pressure you or make you feel that
you had to let them touch your butt, thighs, or penis in a
sexual way?

E19. During the last 6 months, did another inmate, without
using physical force, pressure you or make you feel that
you had to let them touch your butt, thighs, breasts, or
vagina in a sexual way?

E22. During the last 6 months, did another inmate use
physical force to make you give or receive a handjob?

E24. During the last 6 months, did another inmate use
physical force to make you give or receive oral sex?

E23. During the last 6 months, did another inmate, without
using physical force, pressure you or make you feel that
you had to give or receive a handjob?

E25. During the last 6 months, did another inmate, without
using physical force, pressure you or make you feel that
you had to give or receive oral sex?

E26. During the last 6 months, did another inmate use
physical force to make you give or receive oral sex or a
blow job?

E28. During the last 6 months, did another inmate use
physical force to make you have vaginal sex?

E27. During the last 6 months, did another inmate, without
using physical force, pressure you or make you feel that
you had to give or receive oral sex or a blow job?
E32. During the last 6 months, did another inmate use
physical force to make you have anal sex?
E33. During the last 6 months, did another inmate, without
using physical force, pressure you or make you feel that
you had to have anal sex?
E34. During the last 6 months, did another inmate use
physical force to make you have any type of sex or sexual
contact other than sexual touching, handjobs, oral sex or
blow jobs, or anal sex?
E35. During the last 6 months, did another inmate, without
using physical force, pressure you or make you feel that
you had to have any type of sex or sexual contact other
than sexual touching, handjobs, oral sex or blowjobs, or
anal sex?

E29. During the last 6 months, did another inmate, without
using physical force, pressure you or make you feel that
you had to have vaginal sex?
E32. During the last 6 months, did another inmate use
physical force to make you have anal sex?
E33. During the last 6 months, did another inmate, without
using physical force, pressure you or make you feel that
you had to have anal sex?
E34. During the last 6 months, did another inmate use
physical force to make you have any type of sex or sexual
contact other than sexual touching, oral sex, vaginal sex,
or anal sex?
E35. During the last 6 months, did another inmate, without
using physical force, pressure you or make you feel that
you had to have any type of sex or sexual contact other
than sexual touching, oral sex, vaginal sex, or anal sex?

Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007 41

Appendix 8. Survey items related to staff sexual misconduct, National Inmate Survey, 2007
These next questions are about the behavior of staff at
this facility during the last 6 months. By staff we mean
the employees of this facility and anybody who works as
a volunteer in this facility.
G4
During the last 6 months, have any facility staff
pressured you or made you feel that you had to let them
have sex or sexual contact with you?
G5
During the last 6 months, have you been physically forced by any facility staff to have sex or sexual contact?
G7
During the last 6 months, have any facility staff
offered you favors or special privileges in exchange for
sex or sexual contact?
G2
During the last 6 months, have you willingly had
sex or sexual contact with any facility staff?

42 Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007

G11
[IF G2 OR G4 OR G5 = Yes] During the last 6
months, which of the following types of sex or sexual
contact did you have with a facility staff person?
G11a. You touched a facility staff person's body or had
your body touched in a sexual way
G11b. You gave or received a handjob
G11c. You gave or received oral sex or a blowjob
G11d. You had vaginal sex
G11e. You had anal sex

Appendix 9. Follow-up questions for inmates reporting no sexual activity, National Inmate Survey, 2007
Follow-up questions for inmates reporting no sexual
activity in the screener questions for sexual activity
with inmates:

Follow-up questions for inmates reporting no sexual
activity in the screener questions for sexual activity
with staff:

LCM1 During the last 6 months, did another inmate use
physical force, pressure you, or make you feel that you
had to have any type of sex or sexual contact?

LCM5 During the last 6 months, have you had any sex or
sexual contact with staff in this facility whether you wanted
to have it or not?

LCM2a How long has it been since another inmate in this
facility used physical force, pressured you, or made you
feel that you had to have any type of sex or sexual contact?

LCM6a How long has it been since you had any sex or
sexual contact with staff in this facility whether you wanted
to or not?

Within the past 7 days

2. ‰ More than 7 days ago but within the past 30 days

1. ‰ More than 7 days ago but within the past 30 days

3. ‰ More than 30 days ago but within the past 12
months

2. ‰ More than 30 days ago but within the past 12
months

1. ‰ Within the past 7 days

4. ‰ More than 12 months ago

3. ‰ More than 12 months ago

5. ‰ This has not happened to me at this facility

4. ‰ This has not happened to me at this facility

LCM7 In the last 6 months, did you have oral, vaginal, or
anal sex with any staff at this facility whether you wanted
to or not?

LCM3 [If Male] During the last 6 months, did another
inmate use physical force, pressure you, or make you feel
that you had to have oral or anal sex?
[If Female] During the last 6 months, did another inmate
use physical force, pressure you, or make you feel that
you had to have oral, vaginal, or anal sex?
LCM4a [If Male] How long has it been since another
inmate in this facility used physical force, pressured you,
or made you feel that you had to have oral or anal sex?

LCM8a How long has it been since you had oral, vaginal,
or anal sex with any staff at this facility whether you
wanted to or not?
LCM8b How long has it been since you had oral or anal
sex with any staff at this facility whether you wanted to or
not?

[If Female] How long has it been since another inmate in
this facility used physical force, pressured you, or made
you feel that you had to have oral, vaginal, or anal sex?
LCM4b [If Male] How long has it been since another
inmate in this facility used physical force, pressured you,
or made you feel that you had to have oral or anal sex?
[If Female] How long has it been since another inmate in
this facility used physical force, pressured you, or made
you feel that you had to have oral, vaginal, or anal sex?

Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007 43