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

Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sexual Violence Reported by Juvenile Correctional Authorities,
2005-06

July  2008,  NCJ 215337                 
----------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           
This file is text only without graphics and many of the
tables. A Zip archive of the tables in this report in 
spreadsheet format (.csv) and the full report including 
tables and graphics in .pdf format are available from:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/svrjca0506.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           
By Allen J. Beck, Ph.D., BJS Statistician
Devon B. Adams, Policy Analyst, and Paul Guerino, 
Statistician

----------------------------------------------------------------

The Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-79) requires
the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) to develop new national
data collections on the incidence and prevalence of sexual
violence within adult and juvenile correctional facilities. This
report fulfills the requirement under Sec. 4(c)(1) of the Act
for the collection and reporting of data in juvenile facilities.

In July 2005, BJS published Sexual Violence Reported by
Correctional Authorities, 2004 (NCJ 210333), detailing the
results from the first-ever national survey of administrative
records on sexual violence in adult and juvenile correctional
facilities. This report provides the findings from surveys 
conducted in 2005 and 2006 in juvenile residential placement
facilities only. 

BJS, with the Governments Division of the U.S. Census Bureau as
its collection agent, conducted the 2005 Survey of Sexual
Violence (SSV) between January and June 15, 2006, and the 2006
SSV between January 1 and July 31, 2007.  These surveys of state
juvenile correctional systems and local or private juvenile
facilities were designed to measure the number of reported
incidents of youth-on-youth sexual violence and staff-on-youth
sexual misconduct and harassment. The surveys provide an
understanding of what corrections officials know, what
information is recorded, how allegations are handled, where
incidents occur, and how officials respond to allegations
brought to their attention. 

The surveys also collected detailed information on substantiated
incidents. Items included the circumstances surrounding each
incident, characteristics of victims and perpetrators, the type
of physical force or pressure used, victim injuries, and
sanctions imposed.

The administrative records surveys were not designed to rank
systems or facilities. During 2007, BJS completed development
and testing of methodologies for the National Survey of Youth in
Custody (NSYC) that rely on reports of victimization provided
directly from youth. These methodologies utilize
self-administered surveys that offer anonymity for victims to
report their experiences. The survey will be administered using
audio computer- assisted self interview procedures. Youth will
use headphones to follow audio instructions and a touch-screen
to interact with a computer-assisted questionnaire. When NSYC is
completed by yearend 2008, these methodologies are expected to
provide the data needed to permit reliable facility-level 
comparisons.

In 2004, BJS developed uniform definitions of sexual violence.
Incidents of youth-on-youth sexual violence were classified as
either nonconsensual sexual acts (the most serious violent forms
of sexual assault) or abusive sexual contacts (less serious, but
unwanted). Incidents involving staff were separated into staff
sexual misconduct (any act of a sexual nature directed toward a
youth) or staff sexual harassment (repeated verbal statements of
a sexual nature to a youth). For this report, all such incidents
are considered sexual violence. (See Methodology for detailed
definitions.)

Detailed tabulations of the results of the 2005 and 2006 SSV
surveys are presented by state systems and sampled facilities in
appendix tables 1a through 5d, available on the BJS web site at 
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/svrjca0506.pdf.

2005 and 2006 surveys covered all state systems and a
representative sample of local and private facilities 

The surveys included all state-operated juvenile systems.  In
addition, a representative sample was drawn from locally and
privately operated  facilities. Entire systems were selected to
maximize reporting coverage. Local and private facilities were
sampled to ensure at least one in each state and with
probabilities proportionate to the number of youth assigned 
beds at the time of the last facility census. (See Methodology
for a description of sampling procedures.)

As enumerated in the most recent Juvenile Residential Facility
Census (JRFC), there were 2,746 locally or privately operated
juvenile facilities in 2004. ***Footnote 1. The Juvenile Residential
Facility Census is conducted every two years by the Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice 
Programs, U.S. Department of Justice***. Altogether, the
administrative surveys covered 279 local or private facilities
in 2005 and 330 in 2006, which met the requirement of sampling
not less than 10% of facilities covered under the Act.

More than 2,000 allegations of sexual violence reported each
year in juvenile facilities 

Reports of sexual violence varied across state juvenile systems.
Every state except Montana, New Hampshire, and Wyoming reported
at least one allegation. Among sampled local or private
facilities, 87 (of 262 participating
facilities) reported an allegation in 2005 and 100 (of 309
facilities) reported an allegation in 2006. (See Methodology for
the list of non-participating facilities.)

Taking into account weights for sampled juvenile facilities, the
estimated total number of allegations for the nation was 2,047
in 2005 and 2,025 in 2006 (table 1). Expressed as rates, there
were 16.7 allegations of sexual violence per 1,000 youth held in
juvenile facilities in 2005 and 16.8 per 1,000 in 2006.

The rate of allegations of sexual violence in state juvenile
correctional systems was more than 5 percentage points higher
than the rate in local or private facilities in 2006 and
slightly less (nearly 4 points higher) in 2005. These
differences were statistically significant at the 95% 
confidence level in 2006 but were not significant in 2005. 
(See Methodology for calculation of confidence intervals.)

About 36% of the reported allegations of sexual violence in
state juvenile systems and local or private juvenile facilities
involved youth-on-youth nonconsensual sexual acts; 21% involved
youth-on-youth abusive sexual contacts; 32% involved staff
sexual misconduct; and 11% involved staff sexual harassment (table 2).

About 1 in 5 allegations of sexual violence were substantiated

Allegations of sexual violence were classified as 

* substantiated, if they were determined to have occurred

* unsubstantiated, if the evidence was insufficient to make a
final determination that they occurred   

* unfounded, if they were determined not to have occurred 

* investigation ongoing, if a final determination had not been
made at the time of the data collection.

Upon completion of an investigation, 38% of youth-on-youth and
46% of staff-on-youth allegations of sexual violence were
determined to have been unfounded (table 3).
  
Another 40% of the youth-on-youth allegations and 35% of the
staff-on-youth allegations were unsubstantiated. A total of 21%
of youth-on-youth allegations and 18% of the staff-on-youth
allegations were substantiated.

Overall, there were 732 substantiated incidents of youth sexual
violence in    juvenile facilities (table 4). An estimated 437
incidents involved youth-on-youth and 295 involved
staff-on-youth. The observed rates of substantiated incidents
of sexual violence were higher instate juvenile systems (3.7 per
1,000 youth)than in local or private juvenile facilities (2.7
per 1,000 youth), but this difference was not statistically
significant.
 
The rates of substantiated incidents of sexual violence were
higher in juvenile facilities than in adult prisons and jails.
In 2005 and 2006, juvenile administrators reported 3.0
substantiated incidents per 1,000 youth. This rate was higher
than the number reported in publicly operated local jails (0.52
substantiated incidents per 1,000 inmates) and state prisons
(0.46  per 1,000) during 2006.***Footnote 2. See Sexual Violence Reported by
Correctional Authorities,2006 (NCJ 218914) at
<http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/svrca06.htm>.***  In
part, these differences may reflect the impact of state and
local laws that specify that all sexual acts involving youth
below certain ages are nonconsensual. In every
state, facility staff and administrators are also required by
law to record all allegations and report them to law enforcement
authorities and to child protective services. Differences
between rates of sexual victimization in adult
and juvenile facilities may largely be the result of more
complete reporting of incidents and more thorough investigations
when incidents of sexual violence involve youth.

Juvenile authorities provided detail on 90% of substantiated
incidents

Juvenile administrators were asked to provide detailed
information on each substantiated incident of sexual violence.
Using a separate incident form, the 2005 and 2006 surveys
obtained incident-based data, allowing for an in-depth analysis
of sexual violence. Data included details on the circumstances
surrounding each incident, characteristics of victims and
perpetrators, type of physical force, threat of force, pressure
used, sanctions imposed, and victim assistance provided.

Incident-level data were reported on 660 of the 732 total
substantiated incidents (90%).  A total of 17 substantiated
incidents were missing from state reports, including 7 from
Nebraska, 4 from Hawaii, and 2 from Illinois. An additional 55
(weighted) incidents were missing due to the lack of
incident-level reporting by 15 sampled local or private juvenile
facilities. Since most systems and facilities reported fully,
there was no evidence of any selection bias among the 660
incidents.

Across all state systems and local or private facilities,
incidents of youth-on-youth sexual violence accounted for nearly
two-thirds of substantiated incidents (table 5). Approximately
equal percentages of these incidents were reported as voluntary
sexual contact between youth (22%), unwanted touching
for sexual gratification (21%), and nonconsensual sexual acts
involving force or pressure (21%). Sexual misconduct accounted
for the greatest percentage of incidents involving staff (28%),
while sexual harassment accounted for the smallest percentage
(8%).

Data provided on substantiated incidents revealed that --

* Nearly two-thirds (64%) of the victims of sexual violence in
state systems and local or private facilities were male and a
third (36%) were female (table 6). Females were over represented
among victims because at the time of the most recent census in
2006, they represented 15% of youth in residential
placement.***Footnote 3. See Sickmund, M., Sladky, T.J., and Kang, W.,
Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement, 2006, at
<http://www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/cjrp/>.***

* More than half (54%) of the victims were white, compared to
35% of all youth in juvenile facilities nationwide.              

* Among victims of sexual violence, 33% were black and 11%,
Hispanic; however, among all youth held in residential placement
or juvenile correctional facilities in 2006, 40% were black and
20%, Hispanic.

* About 46% of victims were age 16 or 17, which was not
statistically different from their representation among all
youth held (52%).

Victims of substantiated incidents of youth-on-youth sexual
violence were more likely to be male (73%) than victims of
staff-on-youth violence (49%). Victims of staff sexual violence
were more likely to be female (51%) than victims of
youth-on-youth sexual violence (27%). Nearly 60% of the victims
of youth-on-youth sexual violence were age 15 or younger
compared to 16% of the victims of staff sexual violence. Victims
of staff sexual violence were typically older (65% age 16 or 17
and 19% age 18 or older) than other victims.

Most sexual violence occurred outside the victim's room and in
the evening

More than 60% of victims reported that sexual violence occurred
in a location other than their room or dormitory.  A quarter of
incidents took place in a common area (such as a shower or day
room), 19% in a program service area (such as commissary,
kitchen, storage area, laundry, cafeteria, workshop,
hallway, classroom, or clinic), and 17% outside of the facility.
A quarter occurred in the victim's room, and 16% in a dormitory
(table 7).

Youth-on-youth incidents were more likely to occur in the
victim's room (37%)or in a common area (32%), compared to
staff-on-youth incidents (7% and 13%,respectively). Nearly a
third of staff-on-youth incidents occurred outside the
facility (31%), and a quarter occurred in a dormitory (24%). 

While incidents of sexual violence occurred at all times of the
day, the majority occurred between 6 p.m. and midnight (44%) or
between noon and 6 p.m. (35%). The most  common times for
youth-on-youth incidents to occur were between noon and 6 p.m.
(37%) and 6 p.m. and midnight (36%), while staff-on-youth
incidents were most likely to occur between 6 p.m. and 
midnight (59%). 

In more than two-thirds of the incidents, the victim or another
youth reported the incident. Facility staff completed the
initial report in about one-third of substantiated  incidents.

Juvenile authorities reported that force, threat of force, or
pressure was involved in 36% of youth-on-youth incidents (table
8). About the same percentage of incidents (35%) was reported as
voluntary. The remainder involved unwanted touching for sexual
gratification (32%). 

Force or threat of force was more common among male victims
(32%) of youth-on-youth sexual violence than among female
victims (6%). Victims under age 16 were more likely to have been
persuaded or talked into participating in the sexual act (35%)
than victims age 16 or older (13%). A third of older victims 
had been injured, physically forced, held down, or threatened (34%).

Approximately 10% of the substantiated incidents of
staff-on-youth sexual violence involved force or pressure (not
shown). An additional 21% involved sexual harassment (14%),
inappropriate touching (5%), or indecent exposure (2%). 

Two-thirds of the incidents (66%) were characterized as "a
romantic relationship" or as "appeared to be willing." (See the
BJS web site at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/ssv5.pdf
for changes in the  reporting options in the 2005 and 2006
surveys.) Regardless of how correctional authorities reported
these incidents, they are considered an abuse of power, involve
an unknown level of coercion, and as such, classified as sexual
violence.

Most perpetrators of youth-on-youth sexual violence were male,
age 16  or older; most perpetrators of staff misconduct were
male, age 25 to 29

Most incidents of youth-on-youth sexual victimization (88%)
involved one victim and one perpetrator (not shown). Overall, 5%
of youth-on-youth incidents involved a single victim and
multiple perpetrators; 4% involved multiple victims and a single
perpetrator; and 3% involved multiple victims and multiple
perpetrators.

* Perpetrators of youth-on-youth sexual violence were typically
male (78%) and age 16 or older (57%). An estimated 49% of the
perpetrators were black; 40%, white; and 9%, Hispanic (table 9).

* About half of staff perpetrators were male (54%) and a
majority were under the age of 30 (63%). Among staff
perpetrators, 37% were white; 44%, black; and 19%, Hispanic
(table 10).

* Supervision staff was involved in 69% of female staff-on-youth
sexual misconduct and harassment and in 39% of male
staff-on-youth sexual misconduct and harassment. Among incidents
involving male staff, more than half were educational or other
program staff.

* Contract employees were involved in 5% of substantiated
staff-on-youth incidents.

* Among male staff perpetrators, more than a quarter (27%) had
worked at the facility for less than 6 months. Among female
staff perpetrators, nearly half (48%) had worked at the facility
for less than 6 months.

Victims received physical injuries in 12% of substantiated
incidents of youth-on-youth sexual violence; about half received
some form of medical follow-up

Across all substantiated incidents of youth-on-youth sexual
violence,  about  1 in 8 victims (12%) sustained an injury
(table 11). Anal or vaginal tearing was reported in 8% of the
incidents.

Victims received medical attention and counseling or mental
health treatment in nearly two-thirds of the incidents. Among
the most serious incidents (i.e., nonconsensual sexual acts),
52% of the victims were given a medical examination; 10% were
administered a rape kit; and 65% were provided counseling or
mental health treatment.

Nearly half of the victims of staff-on-youth sexual misconduct
or harassment received counseling or mental health treatment
(table 12). About two-thirds of victims of staff sexual
misconduct or harassment in state juvenile correctional
systems did not receive medical follow-up, compared to 44% of
victims in local or private facilities. One in five victims in
local or private facilities was tested for HIV/AIDS (20%) or for
another sexually transmitted disease (STD) (20%). 

The most common responses following a reported incident of
youth-on-youth sexual violence was to move the victim within the
facility (24%), place the victim in segregation or protective
custody (10%), or transfer the youth to another facility (10%).
In about half of the incidents (52%), there was no change in the
housing assignment or custody level of the victimized youth.

Most youth-on-youth perpetrators received legal sanctions or
solitary confinement; most staff were arrested, referred for
prosecution, or discharged 

* A legal sanction, including referral to law enforcement,
arrest, referral for prosecution, or a new sentence, was imposed
on perpetrators in 63% of all substantiated incidents involving
youth-on-youth nonconsensual sexual acts and in 27% of the
incidents involving abusive sexual contact.

* In the most serious incidents, youth perpetrators were moved
to solitary confinement or disciplinary segregation (28%) or
transferred to another unit/facility (51%).

* Even in the least serious incidents (those involving voluntary
sexual activity between youth), many perpetrators received legal
sanctions (31%), were transferred to another unit/facility
(37%), or given solitary/ disciplinary confinement (25%).

* Nearly 40% of perpetrators of staff misconduct or harassment
were arrested or referred for prosecution (table 13). 

* Among the multiple types of sanctions imposed on staff,
discharge was the most common 67% of the staff were discharged.

* Almost all staff perpetrators lost their job in local or
private facilities (99%), compared to 75% of staff perpetrators
in state systems.  

Methodology 

Sampling designs 

The 2005 and 2006 SSV included all state-operated juvenile
residential placement facilities used to house juveniles and
youthful offenders, regardless of age or reason for placement.
As defined in the 2004 Juvenile Residential Facility Census
(JRFC), residential placement facilities included detention
centers, training schools, long-term secure facilities; 
reception or diagnostic centers; group homes or halfway houses;
boot camps; ranches; forestry camps, wilderness or marine
programs, or farms; runaway or homeless shelters; and
residential treatment centers for juveniles. All states and the
District of Columbia operated a total of 501 juvenile facilities
in 2004.

Separate samples of locally and privately operated facilities
were drawn in accordance with the requirement that BJS  draw a
random sample, or other scientifically appropriate sample, of
not less than 10 percent of all facilities covered under the
Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003(P.L. 108-79). 

In the 2005 survey, facilities were first grouped into locally
operated facilities (700) and privately operated facilities
(2,046) and sampled independently:

1. 37 locally operated facilities were selected because they
were the largest in their respective states.
2. 37 other locally operated facilities were selected with
probabilities proportionate to size, where the measure of size
was the total number of persons assigned to beds in the
facility. One was selected with certainty due to its size; 36
were sampled from 8 strata based on region and commitment 
status. Region had 4 levels (midwest, northeast, south, and
west), while commitment status had 2 levels. Detention centers,
reception/diagnostic centers, and shelters were considered
non-commitment facilities, and schools, ranches, camps, farms,
halfway houses, and group homes were considered commitment 
facilities. 
3. 51 privately operated juvenile facilities were sampled with 
certainty because they were the largest in their respective
states. An additional 4 privately operated facilities were
selected with certainty due to their size.
 4. 150 of the remaining 1,991 private facilities were sampled
from 8 strata defined by region and commitment status.
Probabilities of selection were proportionate to size, with
equal sample proportions across strata. 

While 279 non-state facilities were sampled in the 2005 survey,
an additional 51 units were included in the sample in 2006,
bringing the total number of non-state facilities in the 2006
sample to 330. The sample was expanded to ensure representation
of non-state detention facilities. 

In the 2006 survey, non-state facilities were grouped into 3
categories: locally operated facilities (256), privately
operated facilities (1,921)and detention facilities (569): 

1. 37 locally operated facilities were sampled with certainty
because they were the largest in their respective states, and 1
additional facility was included in the sample based on its size
alone. 
2. 20 locally operated facilities that were not the largest in
their respective states were sampled with probabilities
proportionate to size from 2 strata based on commitment status
only.
3. 51 privately operated facilities were sampled with certainty
as the largest in their respective states, and 1 additional
facility was  included in the sample based on its size alone. 
4. 112 other privately operated facilities were sampled with
probabilities proportionate to size from 2 strata defined by
commitment status only.
5. 108 non-state detention facilities were sampled. Fourteen
facilities were included in the sample based on their sizes
alone, while the remaining 94 facilities were stratified by
region and selected with probability proportionate to size.

Data for each state system and sampled facility are displayed in
the Appendix tables. In each table, a measure of population size
(based on the number of youth held at yearend) has been provided
as a basis of comparison; however, the survey results should not
be used to rank systems or facilities. Variations in the number
of allegations and substantiated incidents may reflect 
differences in definitions and reporting criteria, as well as
variations in procedures for recording allegations and in the
thoroughness of subsequent investigations.

Survey participation

All state systems and the District of Columbia participated in
the surveys in both years. In the 2005 survey, all 74 locally
operated facilities and 188 (of 205)privately operated
facilities responded to the survey. Among those not responding,
11 had closed or were not eligible. Six facilities refused or
did not respond to repeated requests, including:

* Wilderness Program for Boys, Enterprise, Alabama

* Tuolumne House, Turlock, California

* Brown House, Turlock, California

* Excelsior Youth Center, Aurora, Colorado

* Colorado Boys Ranch, La Junta, Colorado

Klingberg Family Centers, Inc., New Britain, 
Connecticut.

In the 2006 survey, 55 (of 58) locally operated facilities, 149
(of 164) privately operated facilities, and 105 (of 108) non-state
detention facilities responded.  Among nonrespondents, 15 had 
closed or were not eligible. Seven facilities refused or did 
not respond to repeated requests, including:

Camp John Munz, Lake Hughes, California

Camp Karl Holton, San Fernando, California

Main Campus, Chatsworth, California

Oak Hill Youth Center, District of Columbia

Sargent House, Boston, Massachusetts

Hennipen County Home School, Minnetonka, Minnesota

Buchanan County Academy, St. Joseph, Missouri

Definitions of sexual violence

In 2004, BJS developed uniform definitions of sexual violence.
All incidents of youth-on-youth sexual violence involve sexual 
contacts with any person without his or her consent, or with a 
person who is unable to consent or refuse. The most serious 
incidents, nonconsensual sexual acts, include:

* Contact between the penis and the vagina or the penis and the
anus including penetration, however slight; or 

* Contact between the mouth and the penis, vagina, or anus; or

* Penetration of the anal or genital opening of another person
by a hand, finger, or other object. 

The less serious incidents, abusive sexual contacts, include:

* Intentional touching, either directly or through the clothing,
of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks 
of any person.

Incidents of staff-on-youth sexual violence are separated into
two categories. 

Staff sexual misconduct includes any behavior or act of a sexual
nature, either consensual or nonconsensual, directed toward a youth 
by an employee, volunteer, official visitor, or agency representative. 
Such acts include:

* Intentional touching of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast,
inner thigh, or buttocks with the intent to abuse, arouse, 
or gratify sexual desire; or

* Completed, attempted, threatened, or requested sexual acts; or

* Occurrences of indecent exposure, invasion of privacy, or
staff voyeurism for sexual gratification.

Staff sexual harassment involves repeated verbal statements or
comments of a sexual nature to a youth by an employee, volunteer, 
official visitor, or agency representative. Such statements include 
demeaning references to gender or derogatory comments about body or 
clothing; or profane or obscene language or gestures.

National estimates and accuracy

Survey responses were weighted to produce national estimates by
type of facility. Data from the state juvenile systems received a weight
of 1.00, because these systems were all selected (i.e., sampled with
certainty). Data from local and private facilities were assigned a weight
equal to the inverse of their probabilities of selection. 

Survey estimates for local and private juvenile facilities are
subject to sampling error. The error, as measured by an estimated sampling
error, varies by the size of the estimate and the size of the base
population. Estimates of the standard errors for selected survey items are
presented in tables 14 and 15.

These standard errors may be used to construct confidence
intervals around survey estimates (e.g., numbers, rates, and percentages),
as well as differences in these estimates. The 95% confidence interval
around the number of allegations of sexual violence in local or private
juvenile facilities in 2006 is approximately 1,239 plus or minus 1.96
times 216. Statistically, this implies a 95% confidence that the true
number of allegations in 2006 was between 816 and 1,661. 

Detail on substantiated incidents

The 2005 and 2006 surveys recorded 405 substantiated incidents
of youth sexual violence that is, incidents that were investigated and
determined to have occurred. Taking into account the sampling of local and
private juvenile facilities, the estimated total number of substantiated
incidents for the U.S. was 732. Juvenile authorities provided detail on an
estimated 660 incidents (or 90% of all substantiated incidents). Through
the use of a separate incident form, the survey collected details on
circumstances surrounding each incident, characteristics of victims and
perpetrators, type of force, threat of force, pressure used, sanctions
imposed, and victim assistance provided. 

Because the number of substantiated incidents were relatively
infrequent (2.4 per 1,000 youth in 2006 and 5.7 per 1,000 youth in 2005),
and because the standard errors for estimates in non-state facilities were
relatively large, the survey results for each year were combined to provide
more accurate estimates. 

Standard errors may be used to construct confidence intervals
around these combined survey estimates. For each combined estimate, the
standard error may be calculated by taking the square root of the sum of each
standard error squared in each survey year.  The standard error for the
number of substantiated incidents of youth-on-youth sexual violence in
2005 was 45.2 in 2005 and 27.7 in 2006. The pooled standard error was
53.0 (or the square  root of 45.22 plus 27.72). Statistically, this implies a
95% confidence that the true number of substantiated youth-on-youth incidents
in 2005 and 2006 was 439 plus or minus 1.96 times 53.0 (between 335 and 543). 

The Bureau of Justice Statistics is the statistical agency of
the U.S. Department of Justice. Jeffrey Sedgwick is the director. 

Allen J. Beck, Devon B. Adams, and Paul Guerino wrote this
report. Laura M. Maruschak provided statistical assistance. Georgette Walsh
edited the report, Tina Dorsey produced the report, and Jayne Robinson prepared the
report for final printing, under the supervision of Doris J.James.

Greta B. Clark, directed the data collection and processing,
under the supervision of Charlene M. Sebold and Pamela H. Butler,
Governments Division, U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Shannon James, Kathryn DiMeglio, Nicole Adolph, Patricia D. Torreyson, and
Garry Smith assisted in the data collection. Suzanne M. Dorinski drew the
facility samples and provided sampling weights.  

July 2008  NCJ 215337

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/svrjca0506.htm>.

Office of Justice Programs
Innovation   Partnerships   Safer Neighborhoods
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov

7/30/2008 /JER