U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

86–706 PDF 2003

PRISON RAPE REDUCTION ACT OF 2003

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, 

AND HOMELAND SECURITY

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

H.R. 1707

APRIL 29, 2003

Serial No. 36

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/judiciary 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., Wisconsin, Chairman 

HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee 

CHRIS CANNON, Utah 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana 

MARK GREEN, Wisconsin 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

JOHN R. CARTER, Texas 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California

PHILIP G. KIKO, Chief of Staff-General Counsel 

PERRY H. APELBAUM, Minority Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina, Chairman

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

MARK GREEN, Wisconsin 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts

JAY APPERSON, Chief Counsel 

SEAN MCLAUGHLIN, Counsel 

ELIZABETH SOKUL, Counsel 

KATY CROOKS, Counsel 

PATRICIA DEMARCO, Full Committee Counsel 

BOBBY VASSAR, Minority Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

APRIL 29, 2003

OPENING STATEMENT 

Page 

The Honorable Howard Coble, a Representative in Congress From the State 

of North Carolina, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and 

Homeland Security ............................................................................................... 1

The Honorable Robert C. Scott, a Representative in Congress From the State 

of Virginia, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, 

and Homeland Security ....................................................................................... 2

The Honorable Frank R. Wolf, a Representative in Congress From the State 

of Virginia ............................................................................................................. 6

WITNESSES 

Ms. Tracy A. Henke, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office 

of Justice Programs, United States Department of Justice 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 11

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 14

Mr. Ashbel T. (A.T.) Wall, II, Director, Department of Corrections, State 

of Rhode Island 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 16

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 18

Mr. Charles J. Kehoe, President, American Correctional Association 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 21

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 24

Mr. Frank A. Hall, Director, The Eagle Group 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 27

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 30

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Letter from Prison Fellowship Ministries (PFM) with coalition signatures ....... 4

Prepared statement of the Honorable Frank R. Wolf, a Representative in 

Congress From the State of Virginia .................................................................. 8

Prepared statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative 

in Congress From the State of Texas ................................................................. 37

Letter from Charles W. Colson, Chairman, and Mark Early, President, Prison 

Fellowship Ministries (PFM) ............................................................................... 42

Prepared statement of Pat Nolan, President, Justice Fellowship ....................... 44

Letter from Glenn Goord, Commissioner, Department of Correctional Services, State of New York ........................................................................................ 45

Letter from Robert Stalder, Secretary, Department of Public Safety and Corrections, State of Louisiana ................................................................................. 47

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Prepared statement of Michael J. Horowitz, Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute .. 51

Letter from Harold W. Clarke, Director, Department of Correctional Services, 

State of Nebraska, with attachments ................................................................. 53

Letter from Cindy Struckman-Johnson, Ph.D., in response to letter from 

Harold W. Clarke, with attachments ................................................................. 115

Page

IV

Letter from Joseph D. Lehman, Secretary, Department of Corrects, State 

of Washington ....................................................................................................... 141

Letter from Reginald A. Wilkinson, Ed.D., President, Association of State 

Correctional Administrators and Director, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction .............................................................................................. 144

Letter from Alida V. Merlo, Ph.D., Professor, Indiana University of Pennsylvania ...................................................................................................................... 147

Letter from Martin D. Schwartz, Ph.D., Presidential Research Scholar, Professor of Sociology, Ohio University ................................................................... 149

Letter from Leanne Fiftal Alarid, Ph.D., Associate Professor and Progam 

Coordinator, Criminal Justice and Criminology, University of Missouri-Kansas City ................................................................................................................. 151

(1)

PRISON RAPE REDUCTION ACT OF 2003

TUESDAY, APRIL 29, 2003

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM,

AND HOMELAND SECURITY

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 4:02 p.m., in Room 

2237, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Howard Coble [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Mr. COBLE. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. The Judiciary 

Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security will 

come to order. 

This hearing is to examine the issue of sexual assault within 

Federal, State, and local correctional institutions and actions that 

are to be taken to address the issue. 

Correctional institutions must deal with many issues that are 

unique to the population they house. H.R. 1707, the ‘‘Prison Rape 

Reduction Act of 2003,’’ which has been introduced by my friends, 

Mr. Wolf and Mr. Scott, is intended to make prevention of sexual 

assault within correctional facilities a priority for Federal, State, 

and local institutions and require the development of national 

standards for detection, prevention, reduction and punishment of 

these incidents. 

There were over two million individuals incarcerated in this 

country by the end of 2001. Although most correctional facilities 

have procedures in place to protect inmates against violence from 

other inmates while they are incarcerated, often these procedures 

are inadequate. We know violence occurs, but there is very little 

data regarding the number of violent incidences that occur in correctional facilities, and even less data on the incidence of sexual assaults. 

Estimates from different experts put the incidence of sexual assaults of inmates as high as 13 percent. However, many argue that 

these studies are not accurate and, in fact, the incidence is much 

lower. Regardless of percentages, it is difficult to—it is generally 

agreed that these incidents have real consequences for the physical, 

emotional and psychological well-being of the prisoners who may 

one day be released back into society. 

This legislation would require Federal, State and local governments to work with the Federal Bureau of Justice Statistics to 

study the number and effects of incidents of sexual assault in correctional facilities and hopefully provide accurate data for the first 

time on the actual number of incidents. It would also mandate that 

2

the State and local governments adopt and maintain compliance 

with the national standards developed by the Attorney General to 

be eligible for increases in grant funding. 

For institutions that comply with the Federal Government standards and requests for information, this legislation would increase 

of amount of all grant funding a State or local government receives 

by 10 percent at the expense of those States who do not comply 

with such requests or adopt such standards. Additionally, because 

this legislation requires that the grant funds designated must aggregate a minimum of one billion, affecting approximately onethird of all grants at the Office of Justice Programs, many different 

grants for many entities may be affected. 

I am grateful to Mr. Wolf, author of the legislation, and the other 

witnesses appearing here today, because I think this is a problem 

that must be addressed. I want to assure Mr. Wolf and Mr. Scott 

that our Subcommittee staff is prepared to work in earnest with 

you and your staffs to address the concerns our witnesses have 

raised in their testimony to craft a workable and meaningful solution to this problem, which the gentleman’s bill has aptly highlighted. 

I am now pleased to recognize the distinguished gentleman from 

Virginia, the Ranking Member, Mr. Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing 

on the Prison Rape Reduction Act. 

Of over two million people incarcerated today, it is estimated 

that one in ten, or roughly 200,000, have been raped. A 1996 study 

of Nebraska prisoners reflected 22 percent had been raped or pressured and intimidated into sexual activity against their will. A 

2001 report by the Human Rights Watch documented ‘‘shockingly 

high rates of sexual abuse in U.S. prisons.’’ The research indicates 

that those subjected to sexual abuse in prisons are not abused just 

once but, on the average, nine more times during their incarceration. Youths in adult prisons are five times more likely to be 

raped than adults. 

The effects of prison rape are devastating. The rape is recognized 

as a contributing factor to prison homicide, violence against staff, 

and institutional riots. Not only does it cause severe physical and 

psychological trauma to victims, it increases the transmission of 

HIV/AIDS, other sexually transmitted diseases, tuberculosis and 

hepatitis B and C, all of which exist at very high rates within U.S. 

prisons and jails. 

Society pays dearly for ignoring prison rape. It makes victimized 

inmates more likely to commit crimes when they are released, thus 

negating Federal programs designed to reduce the incidence of 

crime. Inmates, often nonviolent, first-time offenders, come out of 

prison rape experiences severely traumatized and leave prison not 

only more likely to commit crimes, but far more likely to commit 

violent crimes than when they entered. 

The high incidence of rape within prison also leads to increased 

transmission of HIV, hepatitis and other diseases outside of prison, 

which in turn imposes threats and costs to all of society. 

The Supreme Court held, in Farmer v. Brennan, that deliberate 

indifference to the risk of prison rape violates the 8th and 14th 

amendment to the United States Constitution. While conditions 

3

may be restrictive and even harsh, prison and jail officials must 

take reasonable measures to guarantee the safety of inmates. 

Mr. Chairman, this bill requires prison accreditation organizations to examine prison rape prevention practices as a critical component of their accreditation reviews. The legislation has been carefully drawn to ensure comprehensive study and reporting of prison 

rape and reverse the perverse prison administration incentives that 

often make it exceedingly difficult for prison officials to engage in 

priority efforts to abate prison rape. 

Mr. Chairman, I ask at this point unanimous consent to enter 

into the record a letter on the letterhead of Prison Fellowship Ministries, which includes the signatures of 35 organizations, diverse 

organizations such as the Religion Action Center on Reform Judaism, the Christian Coalition, the NAACP, the National Council of 

LaRaza, and many others. I ask unanimous consent that this be 

entered into the record. 

Mr. COBLE. Without objection. 

[The material referred to follows:]

4


ICL1.eps
5


ICL2.eps
6

Mr. SCOTT. In the end, and perhaps more importantly, the effort 

to combat prison rape is a moral imperative. Prison rape is nothing 

short of torture, the infliction of severe emotional and physical pain 

as punishment and coercion. Long after bodies have healed, the 

emotional trauma, shame and stigma of brutal and repeated prison 

rapes lasts and embitters the individual. Thus, prison rape not only 

derails justice; it destroys human dignity. 

We can do better than this as a society, and this bill ensures that 

we do. This is long overdue and I appreciate your willingness, Mr. 

Chairman, to move this matter further at this time. 

I would also like to thank my colleague, Frank Wolf from Virginia, Chairman of the Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations 

Subcommittee, and chief sponsor of the bill, for his leadership and 

diligence in moving this matter forward. 

I would also like to thank Michael Horowitz and Vinnie Sharaldi, 

leaders of an amazing coalition supporting this bill, for their vision, 

leadership and dedication. 

I thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for working with this coalition 

to move this bill forward. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Scott. 

Let me think aloud a minute, Frank, before I recognize you. Several weeks ago I met with the former Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, who has since retired. I told her that this issue 

very much concerns me. She, in fact, responded to me that she felt 

pretty good in the Federal system, that they have a pretty good 

handle on it, she said, that can detect prisoners who may well be 

vulnerable to these sort of inhumane attacks. I felt pretty good 

after having talked with her. I still know it’s a problem. 

Another feature that bothers me—and I haven’t even talked to 

Mr. Scott or Mr. Sensenbrenner about it—is the overcrowding conditions in prisons, and the two may well go hand in hand. There 

may be a corollary. But the overcrowding conditions in Federal and 

State prisons, folks, is a time bomb ticking, particularly in State 

and local prisons. 

I don’t know, Frank, whether you plan to touch on that or not, 

but that’s just food for thought, two matters that have plagued and 

troubled me for some time, and 50 State legislatures and perhaps 

the Congress may have to address the overcrowding which may 

well at least assuage some of the problems involving assaults. 

Mr. Wolf, we’re delighted to have you with us, the gentleman 

from the 10th District of Virginia. Mr. Scott and I usually adhere 

to the 5-minute rule inflexibly, but we will cut you a little slack, 

since you are a Virginia fellow and a friend of Mr. Scott. It’s good 

to have you with us, Frank. 

Mr. WOLF. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having the hearings, 

and I thank my colleague, Bobby Scott, for his support and effort 

and being a champion. 

I think what Mr. Scott said, of this being a moral imperative, is 

exactly what it is. I will be brief, and then I’m going to read something and then leave. 

A study in Nebraska found that 22 percent of prisoners in that 

State were forced to have sex against their will while in prison— forced. Think of your son, or think of your cousin, or think of your 

brother, or think of your next door neighbor, thing of somebody like 

7

that. Experts say that approximately 13 percent—and it’s true, 

probably not as much in Federal prisons as in State prisons, and 

quite frankly, the Congress ought to look at this whole issue of sentencing guidelines, because we are forcing people into prison many 

times who ought not really be in prison. These numbers indicate 

the prison system has a problem. 

This bill would address the problem in five ways: First, this legislation would allow officials to gather for the Bureau of Justice 

Statistics information about the extent of the problem of prison 

rape. There is probably not a lot of disagreement as to percentages. 

If it’s 12, that’s still high. If it’s 22, that’s absolutely high. If it’s 

1 percent, it’s too high. Prison officials and policymakers must 

know, though, how pervasive prison rape is in our jails. 

Secondly, the bill would make prison officials accountable for 

rape through a public review process. This is so private, there’s 

nothing public, and therefore they can almost ignore it like it’s not 

a problem. Prison officials must understand that what happens in 

prison to inmates matters. Containing prisoners behind four walls 

is not sufficient. They must be protected from violent rapes. 

Third, a crediting agency would be required to examine the issue 

of prison rape when reviewing prisons. This will make prison officials further accountable for what happens in their prisons. 

Fourth, a commission will be established to study the problems 

of prison rape and recommend national standards to address the 

problem. 

Finally, there would be modest grant programs to provide funds 

for innovative ways to launch prison rape prevention and prosecution programs. 

It is important to mention that this bill deals with prison rape 

in ways that respect the States’ rights. There are many awful stories, and I will close my testimony with paraphrasing. I would urge 

all of you to read this—and I will get copies for the Subcommittee. 

You will not be able to go through this because it will literally 

make you sick. But I will paraphrase one of the letters given, ‘‘No 

Escape: Male Rape in U.S. Prisons’’, the Human Rights Watch. 

This individual says, ‘‘I’ve been sentenced for a DUI offense, my 

third one. When I came to prison, I had no idea what to expect. 

Certainly none of this. I’m a tall male, who unfortunately has a 

small amount of feminine characteristics. And very shy. These 

characteristics have gotten me raped so many times I have had no 

more feelings physically. I have been raped at one time by seven 

men. I’ve had knives at my head and throat. I have fought and 

been beat so hard that I didn’t even think I would see straight 

again.’’

‘‘One time when I refused to enter a cell, I was brutally attacked 

by staff and taken to segregation, though I had only wanted to prevent the same and worse by not being locked up with my cell 

mate.’’

‘‘There is no supervision after lockdown. I was given a conduct 

report. I explained to the hearing officer what the issue was. He 

told me off the record, he suggested that I find a man I would or 

could willingly have sex with to prevent these things from happening. I requested protective custody, only to be denied. It is not 

available here.’’

8

He also said there was no where to turn, no where to turn, no 

where to run, and it was best for me to just accept things. 

He ends by saying, ‘‘I probably have AIDS now. I have great difficulty raising food to my mouth from shaking after 

nightmares...’’ and he goes on. A.H. in Indiana. 

The other one is, when we had a hearing over on the Senate 

side—and I’ll end with this statement. A mother of a young child, 

16 years old in Texas, who was repeatedly raped in prison, when 

her son reported the rapes, the prison officials he was told, ‘‘rape 

happens every day. Learn to deal with it. It’s no big deal.’’ This 16-

year-old, after repeatedly being abused and left to suffer by prison 

officials, hung himself. Why was he in prison? For setting a dumpster on fire. 

This is a moral imperative. Mr. Scott is exactly right. This legislation cannot be delayed. The Justice Department is now on board, 

but they drug their heels on this. Each and every day, someone will 

be raped in a prison somewhere. In fact, each and every day many 

will be raped. We will get, the Members of this Committee, these 

stories, and after you read about five or six of them, you’ll be 

sickened about what takes place. DUI, and now look what takes 

place. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for these hearings. I appreciate the 

willingness of you to move them. I want to reiterate the list of people that Mr. Scott said, from the Salvation Army to the NAACP, 

to Chuck Colson, who has forgotten more about this issue than 

anyone probably knows, the Southern Baptist Convention, the Religious Action Center for Reform and Judaism, and many others who 

are for this. So, with your good work and moving this quickly, I 

think we can really make a difference in wiping out this—I won’t 

even call it a problem—this terrible thing that takes place in prisons. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wolf follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE FRANK WOLF, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA

Thank you, Chairman Coble, for providing me with the opportunity to speak before the subcommittee on a matter which impacts the national prison system and 

our communities—prison rape. 

I also thank the subcommittee’s ranking member, my Virginia colleague Bobby 

Scott, for introducing the Prison Rape Reduction Act of 2003 with me. Representative Scott has been a champion of this legislation. I value his partnership on this 

bill. 

The Prison Rape Reduction Act of 2003 addresses the growing and tragic problem 

of prison rape. In a 1996 study, an estimated 22 percent of prisoners in Nebraska 

were pressured or forced to have sex against their will while in prison. Experts have 

estimated that approximately 13 percent of inmates in the United States have been 

victims of a sexual assault. Part of the problem with addressing the issue of prison 

rape is that there is insufficient data and research into this problem which experts 

claim is growing. This legislation would establish a program to collect prison rape 

statistics and data in the Department of Justice, providing prison officials and policymakers with a clearer idea of how pervasive the horrific problem of prison rape 

has become. 

Victims of prison rape often suffer severe psychological trauma, and are sometimes infected with HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and other diseases. Treatment for these 

infectious diseases costs federal, state, and local jurisdictions additional dollars in 

administering their prison systems. Prison rape not only costs its victims their 

health and dignity, society also pays a price. When we turn a blind eye to prison 

9

rape, we say that we do not care that prisoners are treated inhumanely. That is 

a position which portrays national and local leaders as callous and uncaring. 

This legislation would establish a National Prison Rape Reduction Commission 

which would conduct hearings on prison rape and would issue a final report. This 

commission is vital to provide national standards to reduce prison rape. Such a commission would send the message that we as a society will not accept prison rape. 

Mr. Chairman, prison rape is not an abstract or theoretical problem. It has a 

human face. 

There are thousands of tragic stories from victims about prison rape. I have attached to my remarks several stories of the toll prison rape too often takes on its 

victims. 

The Congress can act to make sure that these vile and violent acts are reduced. 

The legislation before you today takes concrete steps toward doing just that. I believe in being tough on crime. But this has nothing to do with being tough on crime. 

It has everything to do with human dignity and ending deliberate indifference toward prison rape, maintaining order in prisons, and reducing social and economic 

costs to a society left to deal with physically and psychologically damaged former 

inmates. 

Allow me to end my statement with the story of a mother who testified on Capitol 

Hill last year. Her 16-year-old son was repeatedly raped in a Texas prison. When 

the son reported the rapes to prison officials, he was told ‘‘(rape) happens everyday, 

learn to deal with it. It is no big deal.’’ This 16-year-old, after being repeatedly 

abused and left to suffer by prison officials, hung himself. 

Why was he in prison? 

For setting a dumpster on fire. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I respectfully urge you to move 

this bill and make sure that no mother ever has to live with such a haunting story 

for the rest of her life. 

I thank you for allowing me to speak before you today. 

Excerpts from Inmates Testimony to Human Rights Watch

Stories from No Escape: Male Rape in U.S. Prisons, Human Rights Watch, 2001. 

New inmates are often treated like property by older and more violent inmates. An inmate in New York writes...

When a man finally gets his victim, he protects him from everyone else, buys him 

anything, the victim washes his clothes, his cell etc. In return the entire prison 

knows that this guy has a ‘‘BITCH’’ or ‘‘girl.’’ Now I’ve seen this happen many times. 

The response from the guards is ‘‘the strong survive,’’ ‘‘who cares,’’ or they join in 

the teasing and tormenting. But someone who is not ‘‘protected’’ has other problems. 

I’ve seen inmates attacked by two or three men at a time and forced to the floor, 

while three men hold him down the fourth rapes him. I’ve known two men who have 

hung themselves after this.

An inmate from Arkansas...

I had no choice but to submit to being Inmate B’s prison wife. Out of fear for my 

life, I submitted to sex, and performing other duties as a woman, such as making 

his bed. In all reality, I was his slave, as the Officials of the Arkansas Department 

of Corrections under the ’color of law’ did absolutly nothing.

An inmate from Minnesota writes...

Most of the prisoners who rape are spending 5 to life. And are a part of a gang. 

They look for a smaller weaker individual. And make that person into a homosexual 

then sell him to other inmates of gangs. Anywhere from a pack of cigarettes to 2 

cartons. . . . No one cares about you or anyone else. If they show kindness or are 

trying to be helpful, it is only because they want something. And if they are offering 

you protection you can guarantee that their going to seek sexual favors. . . . When 

an inmate comes in for the first time and doesn’t know anyone. The clicks and 

gangs. Watch him like Wolves readying there attacks. They see if he spends time 

alone, who he eats with. Its like the Wild Kingdom. Then they start playing with 

him, Checking the new guy out. (They call him fresh meat.)

An inmate who was put in jail for a DUI offense...

10

I’ve been sentenced for a D.U.I offense. When I first came to prison, I had no idea 

what to expect. Certainly none of this. I’m a tall white male, who unfortunatly has 

a small amount of feminine characteristics. And very shy. These characteristics 

have got me raped so many times I have no more feelings physically. I have been 

raped by up to 5 black men and two white men at a time. I’ve had knifes at my 

head and throat. I had fought and been beat so hard that I didn’t ever think I’d 

see straight again. One time when I refused to enter a cell, I was brutally attacked 

by staff and taken to segregation though I had only wanted to prevent the same 

and worse by not locking up with my cell mate. There is no supervision after 

lockdown. I was given a conduct report. I explained to the hearing officer what the 

issue was. He told me that off the record, He suggests I find a man I would/could 

willingly have sex with to prevent those things from happening. I’ve requested protective custody only to be denied. It is not available here. He also said there was 

no where to run to, and it would be best for me to accept things . . . I probably 

have AIDS now. I have great difficulty raising food to my mouth from shaking after 

nightmares or thinking to hard on all of this . . . I’ve laid down without physical 

fight to be sodomized. To prevent so much damage in struggles, ripping and tearing. 

Though in not fighting it caused my heart and spirit to be raped as well. Something 

I don’t know if I’ll ever forgive myself for.

One Florida inmate, serving less than one year in prison...

I was raped in prison from Feb 1991 through Nov 1991. From that it left me 

H.I.V. positive.

Mr. COBLE. I’ll pledge to you and Mr. Scott publicly that I will 

do all I can to help move this along, Frank. We thank you for being 

with us. 

Mr. WOLF. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COBLE. We will invite our panelists to come forward. I’m 

going to read some background. I think you all in the audience 

need to know some of the credentials that these panelists bring to 

the table. 

Our first witness today is Miss Tracy Henke, Principal Deputy 

Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Justice Programs in 

the United States Department of Justice. Miss Henke was designated to serve by Attorney General Ashcroft in June 2001. Her 

position requires her to advise and assist the Assistant Attorney 

General to carry out all policy, programmatic, legal and managerial 

matters. 

Prior to joining the Justice Department, Miss Henke worked in 

the Senate for Senator Christopher Bond of Missouri as a senior 

policy advisor, and for Senator Jack Danforth. Miss Henke received 

her degree in political science from the University of Missouri at 

Columbia. 

Our next witness, Mr. A.T. Wall, is Director of the Department 

of Corrections for the State of Rhode Island. He will be representing the Association of State Correctional Administrators and 

the Council of State Governments. 

Mr. Wall was awarded a bachelor of arts degree and juris doctorate from Yale University. He has a distinguished career in corrections, beginning his career in corrections in 1976 as a probation 

officer. He subsequently served as Assistant District Attorney in 

Manhattan, NY, and as a principal policy analyst to the Governor 

of Rhode Island for issues related to criminal, juvenile justice, corrections, child welfare, and mental health and retardation. From 

1987 to 1991, Mr. Wall served as Assistant Director for Policy and 

Development in the Rhode Island Department of Corrections. 

In 1991, he became second in command in the Department as Assistant Director of Administration, and in 2000 Mr. Wall was apVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:04 Aug 12, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\CRIME\042903B\86706.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
11

pointed Director of the Department of Corrections, which supervises over 3,600 pretrial and sentenced inmates in eight institutions and 27,000 offenders in probation, parole and community confinement. He also currently serves as chair of the program and 

training committee for the Association of State Correctional Administrators and is a member of the Board of Directors for the Council 

of State Governments. 

Our third witness is Mr. Charles Kehoe, President of the American Correctional Association. Mr. Kehoe received a bachelor of arts 

in psychology and sociology from Lewis University, and a masters 

degree in social work from the University of Illinois at Chicago. 

He began his career as a social worker for the State of Illinois, 

first counseling delinquent youth, and then working in child protective services. Mr. Kehoe moved to Baltimore to become Deputy Director of Juvenile Services for the State of Maryland. In 1989, he 

became Director of the Department of Youth and Family for the 

State of Virginia. Most recently, Mr. Kehoe served as a consultant 

for juvenile and criminal justice correctional facilities for a number 

of organizations, including his current position as Vice President 

for Business Development, New Century, which provides technical 

assistance to adult and juvenile facilities. 

Our final witness is Mr. Frank Hall, Director of the Eagle Group. 

Mr. Hall received his bachelor of arts from the University of North 

Carolina and a masters degree in public administration from Syracuse University’s Maxwell School of Public Affairs. 

Mr. Hall currently serves as a consultant on issues of public safety and new technologies. He has also served as Director of Special 

Projects for a private corrections company, providing services to 

both adult and juvenile offenders in the United States, Puerto Rico, 

and Great Britain. 

Prior to that, Mr. Hall served as Commissioner of six State and 

local corrections departments, including Director of Juvenile Justice in New York, and most recently Commissioner of Corrections 

in Philadelphia. 

It’s good to have you all with us. I apologize for the lengthy introduction, but I think these panelists bring impressive credentials to 

the table and I felt that you all should know that. 

We have written statements from each of you. I ask unanimous 

consent to submit into the record their entirety. As I said earlier, 

folks, Mr. Scott and I are sort of inflexible about red lights shining 

into your faces. We will not ‘‘keelhaul’’ you, however. But when you 

see the red light appear, that’s a warning that your time is up. 

Why don’t we start with you, Miss Henke. 

STATEMENT OF TRACY A. HENKE, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Ms. HENKE. I will do my best, and I might speak fast, sir. 

Chairman Coble, Congressman Scott, my name is Tracy Henke, 

and as Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Justice 

Department’s Office of Justice Programs, it is a pleasure to be here 

today to discuss H.R. 1707, the ‘‘Prison Rape Reduction Act of 

2003.’’

12

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1707 focuses attention on the problem of 

sexual assaults, including rape and sodomy, that exists within the 

Nation’s prisons and jails. Congressman Wolf and Congressman 

Scott have been diligent in their efforts to advance the discussions 

on prison rape, and have shown clear leadership by introducing the 

Prison Rape Reduction Act. The Department of Justice is pleased 

to participate in this hearing. 

As you are aware, Mr. Chairman, the Justice Department supports the principles of this legislation. At the Department, we want 

to ensure that Federal prisons address, work to prevent, and punish those that commit any type of sexual assault in prison, and we 

want to encourage our colleagues who manage State and local prisons to do the same. We are committed to reaching a consensus 

which would comprehensively address and support efforts for preventing, prosecuting, and punishing sexual assault and rape within 

the Nation’s prisons and jails. By working with all interested parties, we are confident that an agreement can be reached. 

The Department has worked with the sponsors and supporters of 

this legislation to provide technical assistance and information 

prior to its introduction. The Department remains committed to an 

ongoing dialogue that we believe will result in an effective and enforceable approach in the near future. 

Mr. Chairman, as the Principal Deputy for the Office of Justice 

Programs, or OJP, it is important to discuss the impact that H.R. 

1707 will have on OJP’s formula grant programs which directly 

support State and local law enforcement and public safety activities. This is the issue which will be the focus of my comments. 

As background, it is important to state that the Department has 

been working on the issue of prison rape for over 2 years. In the 

spring of 2001, the Department initiated the Prison Rape Working 

Group, which worked with supporters of the legislation and with 

organizations such as the American Correctional Association, or 

ACA. The Department drafted a framework for the new standards 

and worked with the ACA to have them adopted. The new standards are now in effect. The Department believes that, collectively, 

these new standards will assist in the prevention of prison rape 

and the effective handling of rape and sexual assaults that occurs 

in prisons and jails. 

Without doubt, the Department’s current efforts to address prison rape and sexual assault will be enhanced by the $13 million provided by the Congress in the Department’s fiscal year 2003 appropriations act. Utilizing these funds, the Department will conduct 

research and statistical analysis on victims and victimization in 

correctional environments. 

As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Chairman, the Justice Department 

is supportive of the principles of the legislation. However, some ambiguity and concern remains. We look forward to working with the 

sponsors and supporters of the legislation to craft a workable solution that achieves our common goal of preventing, prosecuting, and 

punishing sexual assault and rape in our Nation’s correctional facilities. 

Specifically, one of the concerns that exists for OJP is the effect 

the incentive provisions of the legislation would have on existing 

grant programs, as well as the practical implementation of the necVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:04 Aug 12, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\CRIME\042903B\86706.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
13

essary augmentation that would be required to underlying formulas. 

As you are aware, under sections 8 and 11, States that adopt national standards would receive up to a 10 percent increase in their 

share of funding under any Federal formula grant program designated by the Attorney General as having a relationship to the 

failure to abate prison rape. This increase in funding would be 

achieved by reducing the shares of those States which do not comply. Programs that could potentially be impacted include the Byrne 

Formula, the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant, the Residential 

Substance Abuse Treatment for Prisoners, the Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grants, and Grants to Combat Violence 

Against Women. 

As an example, let’s look at sections 8 and 11 and the impact on 

the Byrne Formula as it relates to—let’s use five States. California, 

Florida, Illinois, New York and Texas are in compliance with provisions of section 8, hypothetically. These States would each receive 

a 10 percent increase over their allocation. The total increase for 

these five States for fiscal year 2003, if the bill were enacted, currently would amount to $15.6 million. This represents a $15.6 million reduction in funds available to remaining States and territories. Under this hypothetical, Mr. Chairman, your State of North 

Carolina would lose $694,000. Congressman Scott’s, Congressman 

Goodlatte’s and Congressman Forbes’ Commonwealth of Virginia 

would lost $607,000. 

These numbers reflect a 10 percent augmentation in the formula, 

but the legislation provides for substantially greater augmentation 

which could result in larger changes to the underlying formulas. 

This hypothetical focuses only on the Byrne Formula Program 

and doesn’t take into account potential reductions in other formula 

programs that the Office of Justice Programs administers or elsewhere within the Federal Government. The $497 million of the 

Byrne Program represents less than half, less than half of the minimum required to be designated by the Attorney General. 

The proposed formula augmentations would reduce funding for 

State and local law enforcement, including first responders such as 

local police and sheriffs departments, for State prisons and local 

jails, potentially for substance abuse programs, and efforts to protect children from sexual exploitation and kidnapping. 

I know my time is up, but real quickly, sir, another concern to 

the Department is that the Department believes that the integrity 

of the statistical collection and analysis by the Bureau of Justice 

Statistics be preserved. The legislation currently requires BJS not 

only to collect but also to analyze data and produce reports on that 

analysis in a very short timeframe. We recognize the need for quick 

access to this information, but it must be balanced by providing 

BJS the opportunity to accurately and sufficiently analyze the data 

collected. 

Finally, the law authorizing BJS prohibits BJS from gathering 

data for any use other than statistical or research purposes. By requiring BJS to identify facilities ‘‘where the incidence of prison 

rape is significantly avoidable,’’ the legislation calls for BJS to 

make judgments about what level of prison rape is ‘‘significantly 

14

avoidable’’. This responsibility goes beyond BJS’ authorized statistical role. 

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the time afforded and I look forward 

to any questions that you or Congressman Scott might have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Henke follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TRACY A. HENKE

Chairman Coble, Congressman Scott, members of the subcommittee, my name is 

Tracy Henke, and as Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Justice 

Department’s Office of Justice Programs, it is a pleasure to be here today to discuss 

H.R. 1707, the ‘‘Prison Rape Reduction Act of 2003.’’ Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1707 focuses attention on the problem of sexual assault, including rape and sodomy, that exists within the nation’s prisons and jails. Congressman Wolf and Congressman Scott have been diligent in their efforts to advance the 

discussions on prison rape and have shown clear leadership by introducing the 

‘‘Prison Rape Reduction Act.’’ The Department of Justice is pleased to participate 

in this hearing. 

As you are aware, Mr. Chairman, the Justice Department supports the principles 

of this legislation. At the Department we want to ensure that Federal prisons address, work to prevent, and punish those that commit any type of sexual assault 

in prison, and we want to encourage our colleagues who manage state and local 

prisons to do the same. We are committed to reaching a consensus which would 

comprehensively address and support efforts for preventing, prosecuting, and punishing sexual assault and rape within the nation’s prisons and jails. By working 

with all interested parties we are confident that an agreement can be reached. 

The Department has worked with the sponsors and supporters of this legislation 

to provide technical assistance and information prior to its introduction. In addition, 

the Department has provided information regarding concerns with the proposed language of the legislation. The Department remains committed to an ongoing dialogue 

that we believe will result in an effective and enforceable legislative product in the 

near future. 

Mr. Chairman, as the Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Office 

of Justice Programs, it is important to discuss the impact H.R. 1707 will have on 

OJP’s formula grant programs which directly support State and local law enforcement and public safety activities. This issue will be the focus of my comments. 

As background, it is important to state that the Department has been working 

on the issue of prison rape for over two years. In the spring of 2001, the Department 

initiated the Prison Rape Working Group which worked with supporters of the legislation and with organizations such as the American Correctional Association (ACA). 

The Department approached the ACA and requested that they consider adopting national standards to deal with prison rape. At the ACA’s request, the Department 

drafted a framework for the new standards and worked with the ACA to have them 

adopted. The new standards have been adopted and are now in effect. Some of the 

new standards are: 1) providing mandatory training courses to corrections staff in 

handling rape and sexual assault in both adult and juvenile facilities; 2) written 

policies and procedures addressing the handling of potential offenders, as well as 

intervention and treatment; 3) written policies and procedures requiring documented investigations of assaults and threats; 4) written policies and procedures 

which ensure that sexual contact between prison staff and inmates is prohibited and 

subject to administrative and criminal sanctions; and 5) ensuring that victims of 

sexual assault are referred to an appropriate treatment facility, receive appropriate 

mental evaluation and counseling, and if necessary, are referred for long-term follow-up care. The Department believes that, collectively, these new standards will assist in the prevention of prison rape and the effective handling of rape and sexual 

assault that occurs in prisons and jails. 

Without doubt, the Department’s current efforts to address prison rape and sexual 

assault will be enhanced by the $13 million provided by the Congress in the Department’s Fiscal Year 2003 appropriations act. Utilizing these funds, the Department 

will conduct research and statistical analysis on victims and victimization in correctional environments. 

Specifically, OJP’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) has developed plans to conduct a statistical analysis on sexual assault victims and victimization that measures 

the prevalence of that victimization. OJP’s National Institute of Justice (NIJ) will 

be sponsoring research focusing on sexual assault offenders and offenses in prisons 

and jails. This research will provide BJS with information it will need to adjust 

their prevalence estimates to account for outside factors influencing the incidence 

15

of sexual assault in correctional environments. Working collaboratively, BJS and 

NIJ will empanel a group of recognized subject matter experts from the research 

and practitioner communities to assist both agencies in defining the various characteristics and factors involved in sexual assault in ways that will allow their objective 

measurement. We need solid research so that we can determine what steps will be 

most effective to root this horrible problem out of our prisons and jails. 

As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Chairman, the Justice Department is supportive of 

the principles of the legislation; however, ambiguity and concern over just a few provisions still exist. For instance, we believe that there are better ways to address 

compliance issues associated with the abatement of prison rape than adjustments 

to formula grant programs as they are proposed in the current bill. We look forward 

to working with the sponsors and supporters of the legislation to craft a workable 

solution that achieves our common goal of preventing, prosecuting, and punishing 

sexual assault and rape in our nation’s correctional facilities. 

Specifically, one of the concerns that exists for OJP is the effect the incentive provisions of the legislation would have on existing grant programs as well as the practical implementation of the necessary augmentation that would be required to underlying formulas. 

As you are aware, under Sections 8 and 11, States that adopt national standards 

would receive up to a ten percent increase in their share of funding under any Federal formula grant program designated by the Attorney General as having a relationship to the failure to abate prison rape. This increase in funding would be 

achieved by reducing the shares of those States which do not comply. We have already tentatively identified twenty formula programs administered just by the Office of Justice Programs which could be impacted by these provisions. These programs include the Byrne Formula Grant Program, the Local Law Enforcement 

Block Grant Program, the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment for State Prisoners Grant Program, the Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant Program, 

and Grants to Combat Violence Against Women. 

As an example, consider the impact of Sections 8 and 11 on State allocations 

under the Byrne Formula Grant Program. As you know, under the Byrne Program, 

the Office of Justice Programs, through its component, the Bureau of Justice Assistance, makes awards directly to States. These funds are used by States and also subawarded by States to local governments. Byrne funds can be used by States and localities for a broad array of public safety activities including funding police and 

sheriff departments, correctional facilities, court systems, and drug enforcement efforts. In Fiscal Year 2003, Congress appropriated approximately $497 million in 

Byrne Formula funds. Assuming that H.R. 1707 was enacted into law as it is currently written, let’s look, as a hypothetical, at five States: if California, Florida, Illinois, New York, and Texas were in compliance with the provisions of Section 8, 

these States, under the incentive provisions of Sections 8 and 11, would each receive 

a ten percent increase over their allocation. The total increase for these five States 

would amount to $15.6 million, or three percent of the entire Fiscal Year 2003 appropriation. This also represents a $15.6 million reduction in funds available to the 

remaining States and territories. Under this hypothetical Mr. Chairman, your State 

of North Carolina would lose $694,000; Congressman Scott’s, Congressman 

Goodlatte’s, and Congressman Forbes’ Commonwealth of Virginia would lose 

$607,000; Congressman Chabot’s State of Ohio would lose $952,000; Congressman 

Green’s State of Wisconsin would lose $454,000; Congressman Pence’s State of Indiana would lose $513,000; and Congressman Meehan’s State of Massachusetts would 

lose $536,000. These numbers reflect a ten percent augmentation in the formula, 

but the legislation provides for substantially greater augmentation which would obviously result in larger changes to the underlying formulas and to the amounts each 

State would be entitled to. 

Mr. Chairman, this hypothetical focuses only on the Byrne Formula Program, and 

does not take into account potential reductions in the other nineteen formula programs the Office of Justice Programs administers or any other formula grant program throughout the Federal government. The $497 million of the Byrne Program 

represents less than half of the minimum total Federal funds that the Attorney 

General must identify under Section 11 for formula augmentation. Ultimately, the 

actual reduction in funds that States could see would be substantially more than 

just the Byrne program. 

The proposed formula augmentations would reduce funding for State and local 

law enforcement, including first responders such as local police and sheriffs departments, for State prisons and local jails, local narcotics task forces, shelters for battered and sexually abused women, substance abuse programs, efforts to protect children from sexual exploitation and kidnaping, and for numerous other State and 

local efforts. We must remain cognizant of the financial demands on State and local 

16

governments and the effects that unexpected changes in the availability of formula 

funds would have. 

The language of the legislation would present difficulties for the Department in 

implementation because of ambiguities in allocating the incentive funds. For instance, consider the example of both the State of North Carolina and the City of 

Raleigh being eligible for incentive awards. If the Byrne program is identified as a 

relevant program, OJP can easily increase North Carolina’s share of Byrne funds 

because the formula funds are awarded directly to States. However, OJP does not 

award Byrne funds directly to units of local governments. States are responsible for 

making decisions on how to subaward Byrne funds to local governments. It is unclear how OJP could increase Raleigh’s share of Byrne funds. 

It is also important to note another concern the Department has related to the 

statistical collection and analysis required by the legislation. It is of the utmost importance to the Department that the integrity of the statistical collection and analysis be preserved. The legislation currently requires BJS not only to collect, but also 

to analyze data and produce reports on that analysis in a very short time. We recognize the need for quick access to this information, but it must be balanced by providing BJS the opportunity to analyze accurately and sufficiently the data collected. 

Finally, the law authorizing BJS prohibits BJS from gathering data for any use 

other than statistical or research purposes. By requiring BJS to identify facilities 

‘‘where the incidence of prison rape is significantly avoidable,’’ the legislation calls 

for BJS to make judgments about what level of prison rape is ‘‘significantly avoidable.’’ This responsibility goes beyond BJS’ authorized statistical role. 

Mr. Chairman, the Justice Department shares your interest in reaching consensus 

upon an effective and enforceable approach to the problem of prison rape. I personally commit to working with the Committee, the sponsors, and supporters of this 

legislation to achieve our shared goal of effective prevention, prosecution, and punishment of prison rape. Again, thank you for the opportunity to appear before the 

subcommittee today. I would be happy to answer any question the members of the 

subcommittee might have.

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Miss Henke. 

I said Mr. Scott and I were inflexible. I’m going to violate that 

now. We gave you 6 minutes, so I’ll give the rest of you six as well, 

if you need it. 

Mr. Wall. 

STATEMENT OF ASHBEL T. WALL, II, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT 

OF CORRECTIONS, STATE OF RHODE ISLAND; ON BEHALF 

OF THE ASSOCIATION OF STATE CORRECTIONAL ADMINISTRATORS, AND THE COUNCIL OF STATE GOVERNMENTS 

Mr. WALL. Thank you, Chairman Coble, Representative Scott, 

Representative Jackson Lee, I am A.T. Wall. I’m the Director of the 

Rhode Island Department of Corrections and I’m here on behalf of 

the Council of State Governments, which represents all elected and 

appointed State officials, and also the Association of State Correctional Administrators, the professional association for the 50 Directors of Corrections and the Administrators of Nation’s largest jail 

systems. 

We appreciate very much the bipartisan concern regarding sexual assault in correctional facilities. After all, protecting inmates 

and staff, as well as the public safety, are at the core of our correctional mission, a mission I have upheld since I began in this profession some 29 years ago. 

We in corrections know that sexual assault occurs. We support 

the objectives of this bill. We want to prevent prison rape, assess 

the extent to which it occurs, respond swiftly and effectively, and 

we recognize this bill represents a moderate approach to dealing 

with the issue. We also recognize that, as corrections officials, we 

are accountable for the operations of our systems, including the imVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:04 Aug 12, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\CRIME\042903B\86706.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
17

plementation of the initiatives that come about as a result of this 

legislation. 

There is some provisions that we, as directors of corrections, believe would impede as opposed to assisting the efforts to reduce 

prisoner rape. We are also concerned that the bill not allocate significant resources to combat prison rape while overlooking another 

major issue in corrections that has widespread implications for the 

public safety. 

Some particular changes that we would like to propose to the 

bill: first, national statistics. The Department of Justice is assigned 

to do a statistical report. We have two concerns. One is definitional 

issues, what constitutes rape in a correctional context. Sorting out 

consensual sex in a prison context can be complicated. The bill is 

silent as to whether sexual assault includes staff-on-inmate sexual 

assault, as well as inmate-on-inmate sexual assault. 

We are also concerned that the bill draw on a wide variety of 

data sources beyond simply looking at self reports and inmate surveys. So we would recommend that the bill direct the Department 

of Justice to seek guidance from an advisory group in working out 

definitions and survey techniques, the group to include not only 

corrections administrators but prosecutors, police, victim advocates 

and former inmates. 

Second, the review panel. The review panel is charged with holding public hearings, and administrators who are from the random 

sample selected by BJS and whose rates of sexual assault exceed 

the median will be brought forward to testify why their facilities 

have high rates. The concern that we have is that the panel should 

be charged with developing an approach to analyzing the data by 

interviewing the victims, administrators from a random sample of 

selected facilities surveyed and not simply rely on the public hearing approach but, rather, take a broader approach if the goal is to 

understand the context and causes of the issue. 

Third, the national standards. We would like to assure that an 

accrediting organization such as ACA, that have done much work 

in this area, are consulted as part of the reviewing of the standards. 

Fourth, the incentives to testify and comply. Those have been 

covered by Miss Henke. We’re concerned that, in fact, as written, 

the language of the bill, which is intended to reward jurisdictions 

that are taking serious steps to combat sexual assault in prison 

and holding accountable those other systems, won’t achieve those 

objectives for some of the reasons that Miss Henke identified. 

We applaud the commitment to helping us protect inmates. We 

are also deeply concerned that a Federal initiative not ignore an 

emerging crisis in our field that has major implications for the 

safety of staff, inmates, and the general public. 

As you well know—in fact, Chairman Coble, you alluded to it to 

some degree in your introductory remarks—nearly unprecedented 

fiscal problems are prompting governors to look at dramatic cuts to 

corrections’ budgets. There are three ways to cut correctional budgets. One is to eliminate programs. The fact of the matter is, they’re 

already thread-bear. There is not a lot of money to be gained that 

way. 

18

The second is in operations, looking at staffing and security and 

making cuts there. The problem with that, of course, is that will 

compromise the safety of inmates as well as staff and, frankly, it 

will compromise the very objectives that H.R. 1707 seeks to 

achieve. 

The third way to get a handle on correctional costs is by managing correctional populations differently, limiting the rates of 

growth, taking a look at the sheer numbers of people who are incarcerated in facilities. In managing growth in corrections, we are 

engaging in high-stakes decisions as we look at who’s in there, how 

long they should stay, how well prepared they are for release, who 

should be supervised in the community as opposed to in custody, 

and how they should be supervised. Those are very important decisions and the risk is that they’re going to be made without resources to determine that they are informed decisions. Right now, 

there is the risk that they will be made nearly blind, that States 

will be playing Russian roulette with major public safety implications. 

What we are looking for is legislation to address this acute need 

for immediate targeted technical assistance in managing correctional costs without compromising public safety. We don’t want to 

simply release hundreds of inmates as has been done in other jurisdictions. We need data, we need expertise, we need forms of technical assistance, such as the center that is established and DOJ 

would provide. 

So thank you for giving us the opportunity to present specific, 

practical changes that will help correctional administrators combat 

rape. We hope that modifying the legislation will help us considerably to protect staff and inmates and ensure that deep cuts don’t 

jeopardize the safety of the public as we look at correctional issues. 

We look forward to working with a truly impressive coalition that 

is organized so that we can incorporate our recommendations into 

the bill. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wall follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ASHBEL T. WALL, II 

Good afternoon. Thank you Chairman Coble and Ranking Member Scott for inviting me to testify regarding H.R. 1707, The Prison Rape Reduction Act of 2003. 

My name is Ashbel T. Wall, and I am the Director of Corrections for the State 

of Rhode Island. Our corrections system is unified, meaning it includes both prisons 

and jails. Our average daily population is 3,500 inmates, housed in 8 institutions, 

and we receive about 17,000 commitments a year. 

I am testifying today on behalf of the Council of State Governments (CSG) and 

the (ASCA) Association of State Correctional Administrators. CSG is a membership 

association serving all elected and appointed and state government officials; ASCA 

represents the 50 state corrections directors and the administrators of the largest 

jails systems. 

Our organizations appreciate very much the bipartisan concern among members 

in Congress about sexual assault in corrections facilities. Protecting staff and inmates alike, in addition to maintaining community safety, is the core of our mission. 

We know sexual assault occurs in prisons and jails, including our facilities in 

Rhode Island. We also know this is an issue that has been difficult to measure in 

our state, as well as nationally, let alone to compare rates among states and counties. 

For these reasons, we support most of the objectives of H.R. 1707: we want to prevent prisoner rape; we want to assess the extent to which it occurs in our systems; 

and we want to respond swiftly and effectively when inmates are sexually assaulted. 

19

We appreciate efforts to date by sponsors of the bill to incorporate in H.R. 1707 

many changes that the corrections community recommended to earlier versions of 

this bill. There are, however, still some provisions remaining in H.R. 1707 that 

would impede—rather than assist—corrections administrators’ efforts to reduce sexual assault of inmates and end it altogether. We also are concerned that the bill 

allocates significant resources to combat prisoner rape while overlooking those 

issues in corrections that represent the greatest risk to the public in general. 

My testimony will explain the concerns elected officials and policymakers serving 

Republican and Democratic governors alike have about the bill. I will also suggest 

changes to particular provisions in the bill that we believe would improve the legislation and make it state-friendly without compromising its purpose. 

1. NATIONAL PRISON RAPE STATISTICS

Recommendation: Provide additional guidance to the authors of the study to ensure 

it reflects an accurate, comprehensive assessment of inmate sexual 

assault. 

Like the supporters of the bill, we think a report prepared by the Department of 

Justice that assesses the extent to which prisoner rape occurs in prisons and jails 

across the country would be useful. The study, as it is currently described in H.R. 

1707, however, would unlikely yield such a document. 

The legislation overlooks important considerations that will need to be made in 

developing and designing the study. First, the bill does not sufficiently define what 

constitutes rape in a correctional facility. Sorting out what is and is not consensual 

sex in a prison is a complicated matter. Second, H.R. 1707 does not explicitly state 

whether the study should capture information about staff-on-inmate sexual assault, 

which, itself, is a complex issue. There is no such thing as consensual sex between 

staff and an inmate; by statutes, such incidents are a crime in nearly every state. 

The bill drafters need to state explicitly whether these data should be included in 

the study. Third, the legislation minimizes the importance of drawing upon data 

sources other than inmate surveys only. 

We recommend the bill instruct DOJ to seek guidance regarding each of the above 

issues from an advisory group that would include corrections administrators, prosecutors, police chiefs, victim advocates, and former inmates. That way, we can be 

confident that the BJS study reflects an accurate and comprehensive assessment of 

prisoner rape in correctional facilities. 

2. REVIEW PANEL ON PRISON RAPE

Recommendation: Request testimony or input from administrators who represent a 

random selection of institutions 

Like the supporters of H.R. 1707, we think it would be useful for the Review 

Panel to hear from (and question) corrections administrators with varying rates of 

sexual assault in their facilities; such testimony should help to inform the annual 

report that DOJ issues. Instead of generating a constructive exchange, however, the 

hearing process that H.R. 1707 currently proposes would polarize discussion. 

According to the legislation, corrections administrators summoned to testify would 

represent facilities that appear to have high rates of sexual assault. In fact, these 

corrections administrators would represent only those facilities with a high rate of 

sexual assault among the small group of institutions randomly selected for the survey. Consequently, corrections directors would likely devote much of their testimony 

to an explanation of why their participation in the hearing inaccurately suggests 

that they operate the most dangerous institutions in the country. 

For these reasons, we recommend that the panel be charged with developing an 

approach to analyzing the data captured through the study and interviewing various 

experts and victims and administrators from a random selection of facilities surveyed ensures that hearings will be constructive and useful. 

3. NATIONAL STANDARDS

Recommendation: Require the Commission to consult accrediting organizations that 

currently have standards (or are in the process of developing such 

standards) on sexual assault 

The members and staff of accrediting organizations such as the American Correctional Association have spent time and resources preparing standards that address 

issues relating to sexual assault and the conditions of a facility or system that facilitate sexual assault. Nevertheless, the bill does not ensure that these accrediting organizations will be consulted on the development of the Commission’s standards—

or even recognize that these organizations already have, or are in the process of reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:04 Aug 12, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\WORK\CRIME\042903B\86706.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
20

vising or developing, such standards. The National Prison Rape Reduction Commission (which is distinct from the Panel that the bill also establishes) should be directed to consult accrediting organizations that currently have standards on sexual 

assault, and to review existing standards and standards under development, before 

making its final report. 

4. INCENTIVES TO TESTIFY AND COMPLY WITH COMMISSION STANDARDS

Recommendation: Limit the instances in which jurisdictions would be eligible for an 

increase and narrow the definition of the ‘‘source of funds for increases’’ from which the 10 percent reward will be drawn 

We appreciate that the supporters of the bill would like to reward corrections administrators who adopt the standards developed by the National Commission. We 

also recognize that the members of Congress want to see administrators of systems 

with seemingly high rates of prisoner rape held accountable. Two examples illustrate, however, however, that, as currently written, the bill would achieve neither 

of these objectives effectively. 

First, the bill provides an increase in federal grant funding to jurisdictions represented at the hearing convened by the National Review Panel. Because representatives of those jurisdictions that have seemingly high rates of prisoner rape are 

asked to testify, the bill appears to reward systems that do not necessarily merit 

an increase. Furthermore, funds for this increase would be drawn from ‘‘any [entity] 

not entitled to increases under this act.’’ Accordingly, it is conceivable that a jurisdiction would lose federal funding only because it had the ‘‘misfortune’’ of not being 

included in the random sample. 

Second, the universe of DOJ grants that a jurisdiction could see reduced includes 

funding support for a broad spectrum of issue-areas, such as victim compensation 

and community policing, which are completely beyond the scope of correctional administrators’ authority. As a result, the state and local government officials who 

would be held accountable for reducing prisoner rape would be those who are powerless to ensure compliance with the standards imposed by the legislation. 

5. THE EMERGING CRISIS IN CORRECTIONS

Recommendation: Make available limited, immediate, assistance, including peer-topeer technical assistance, to jurisdictions seeking to cut corrections 

costs without compromising the safety of inmates, staff, or the 

public in general. 

While we applaud Congress’ commitment to helping us protect inmates, we are 

deeply concerned that this federal initiative ignores an emerging crisis in corrections 

that has major implications for inmates and for the safety of staff and the general 

public. Nearly unprecedented fiscal problems are prompting governors and legislatures to recommend dramatic cuts to corrections budgets. Corrections administrators trying to find such savings have three options. First, we could reduce spending 

on institutional security, but that would compromise the safety of inmates (not to 

mention staff)—which is precisely what H.R. 1707 intends to increase. Second, we 

could cut programming expenses. But prison and jail-based services are already 

threadbare. They offer little or no potential for savings. And, given that nearly every 

inmate will return to the community, further gutting of these programs will impact 

public safety adversely. 

Really, the only way savings of the scale that governors and legislatures are looking for from our agencies can be achieved only by managing our prison population 

differently. In some states, that may mean limiting the rate of the system’s growth. 

Accordingly, state officials must soon make high-stakes decisions about their prison 

population—who is in there, how long they should stay, how they are prepared for 

release, and how they are supervised in the community. Yet policymakers are without the resources to ensure their decisions are informed ones. As a result, with 

budgetary pressures in the states as acute as they are, state and local government 

officials will need to make nearly blind decisions—Russian Roulette with major public safety implications. 

If Congress is to pass any legislation that addresses the safety of inmates, the accountability of corrections administrators, and the efficiency and effectiveness of federal expenditures through existing programs (as H.R. 1707 does), it needs to address 

state and local government officials’ acute need for immediate, targeted, peer-to-peer 

assistance that would assist them manage corrections costs effectively without compromising public safety. We are aware of states, such as Kentucky, that in recent 

months, have responded to extraordinary fiscal pressures by releasing hundreds of 

offenders from prison, some of whom subsequently committed high-profile crimes, 

generating a firestorm of public criticism. There are other very recent developments 

21

in states that we all hope to avoid: in California, legislators who voted for a bill 

making certain felons eligible for release, later asked the governor later to veto the 

legislation because they realized that it could be applied to some serious and violent 

offenders. These are experiences that other states could avert if they had the benefit 

of data, expertise, other forms of technical assistance, and information about what 

has worked in other jurisdictions across the country. 

CONCLUSION

As this testimony reflects, we believe there are some specific, very practical 

changes that can be made to this legislation that would help corrections administrators across the country combat prisoner rape. More importantly, modifying the legislation as we have suggested would help us considerably with our efforts to protect 

staff and inmates alike and ensure that deep cuts imposed on corrections agencies 

do not jeopardize the safety of the general public. We look forward to working with 

members of the Committee, your staff, and the impressive coalition of organizations 

supporting the bill to incorporate these recommendations in the bill. Thank you.

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Wall. 

Mr. Kehoe. 

STATEMENT OF CHARLES J. KEHOE, PRESIDENT,

AMERICAN CORRECTIONAL ASSOCIATION 

Mr. KEHOE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Charles Kehoe, 

President of the American Correctional Association. I wish to thank 

you and Ranking Member Scott for inviting us here today to discuss H.R. 1707, the ‘‘Prison Rape Reduction Act.’’ I would like to begin by commending the work of Representative 

Frank Wolf and Representative Bobby Scott on this issue. As a 

long-time Virginian, I have long admired their dedicated service to 

the Commonwealth and to our Nation. 

I am here today to represent the American Correctional Association. ACA was founded in 1870 and is the Nation’s only professional association representing all facets of corrections. It has nearly 19,000 members in all 50 States and more than 40 foreign countries. We promote broad-based public policies on crime and corrections, develop professional standards, administer a national accreditation program, and provide educational programs for corrections 

professionals at all levels. In short, we are a multi-disciplinary organization of corrections professionals. 

In his remarks introducing the Prison Rape Reduction Act of 

2003, Representative Wolf said prison rape has nothing to do with 

being tough on crime; it has to do with making our communities 

safer, reducing recidivism, and controlling the spread of communicable diseases. I agree completely with Congressman Wolf. In 

fact, those are central tenants of the American Correctional Association, and we wholeheartedly support the efforts of Mr. Wolf and 

Mr. Scott, as well as all others involved in their quest to reduce 

the incidence of prison rape. 

The ACA supports the objectives of H.R. 1707. We believe that 

there should be a zero tolerance standard for the incidence of prison rape. We believe that prison officials should make the prevention of prison rape a priority. We want to ensure that prison officials are accountable for what goes on within their institutions. We 

thank the bill’s sponsors for incorporating into H.R. 1707 many 

changes that the corrections profession recommended in earlier 

versions of the legislation. However, there remain a few provisions 

of H.R. 1707 about which we retain some reservations and would 

like to see clarified. 

22

The strength of the ACA is in the fact that we are the only organization that accredits total correctional facility operations, including health care. We have in excess of 1,600 facilities and programs 

that are involved in the process. 

Our profession has, within the past 3 years, adopted newer and 

more meaningful performance-based standards, standards that better define the value of what we do and how we do it. 

The ACA Standards Committee, in January of 2003, finalized the 

adoption of several specific standards that address sexual misconduct and prison rape. First, we revise the intake screening procedures that would require inmates to be specifically identified who 

are vulnerable or have tendencies to act out sexually aggressive behavior. 

It would also require that investigations be conducted and documented whenever there is an assault or threat of a sexual assault. 

And it would require that offenders identified who have histories 

of sexual assaultive behavior are assessed by mental health or 

other professionals as such. 

Those with a history of assaultive behavior would be identified, 

monitored and counseled. 

Lastly, the standards would require that offenders at risk for victimization are identified, monitored and counseled. 

H.R. 1707 would establish the National Prison Rape Reduction 

Commission, established to study prison rape, report findings to 

Congress, and propose national standards for prevention. However, 

there is no guarantee that those, including the ACA, who have 

unique experience in the development and implementation of 

standards, will be consulted in the course of the Commission’s 

work. 

We would like to see a requirement that the Commission consult 

entities involved in accreditation in the development of national 

standards for the reduction of prison rape. 

H.R. 1707 also calls for States to seek re-accreditation every 2 

years. We have found it to be more economical and more efficient 

to have a 3-year accreditation process and would so recommend 

that for your consideration. 

H.R. 1707 creates a Review Panel on Prison Rape to hear from 

correctional administrators whose departments are experiencing 

high rates of prison rape. The goals of the panel are no different 

than those of ACA accreditation—to ensure that corrections is open 

and accountable for the implementation of standards to prevent 

prison rape. 

The legislation establishes this panel with three individuals. 

However, the legislation provides little guidance for this panel. We 

believe the panel should be structured in such a way to ensure that 

the panel promotes a dialogue which allows for a true understanding of the incidence of prison rape and which aids in the 

study and determination of the true impact of prison rape. 

We, therefore, recommend that a majority of the members of the 

Review Panel on Prison Rape be drawn from the law enforcement 

community and have expertise in the operation of correctional facilities. 

H.R. 1707 also calls for a study of the incidence of prison rape. 

However, it overlooks an important fact that needs to be taken into 

23

account. First, the legislation as drafted does not adequately identify what constitutes rape in a correctional facility. Issues surrounding consensual sex are not addressed, and further defining 

what is meant by prison rape is necessary. 

Secondly, the legislation does not specifically address whether 

prison rape would address staff-on-inmate sexual assault, as Director Wall mentioned earlier. Thus, we would recommend that the 

Department of Justice, in the development of a study relating to 

the incidence of prison rape, consult correctional administrators, 

prosecutors, victim advocates, former inmates and others who have 

direct institutional knowledge, in addition to the self-reporting by 

inmates. 

As you well know, State and local correctional agencies across 

the country are grappling with shrinking budgets. In this environment, the efforts of the supporters of the bill to reward correctional 

administrators for their efforts in meeting the requirements of this 

bill are commendable. We appreciate the extent to which the sponsors of H.R. 1707 have gone to ensure that this bill does not place 

unfunded mandates upon the States. 

Specifically, we appreciate the inclusion of language that says 

‘‘significant additional costs compared to the costs presently expended by Federal, State, and local prison authorities’’ should be 

imposed. However, we believe that this term needs to be further 

defined. Thus, we recommend that the legislation be revised to define what, if any, further costs the implementation of national 

standards can place upon States and localities without providing 

Federal funding for the implementation of the standards. 

I’m going to skip ahead. Actually, I think I’m out of time. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Kehoe. 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, could he just read the recommendations? Since you have a couple of sentences on each one, if you can 

just read the recommendations, I would appreciate it. 

Mr. KEHOE. All right. 

We have recommendations relating to the manner in which funding will be distributed to States under the legislation, and reservations relating to the designation of programs for which funding for 

the implementation of this legislation be drawn. The current writing provides for an increase in Federal grant funding to jurisdictions represented at the hearings convened by the Panel. The legislation calls for these jurisdictions to be selected by among those included in a random sample of jurisdictions. Thus, those jurisdictions that are not a part of the random sample used to determine 

the incidence of prison rape would be ineligible for funding under 

the provisions of this legislation. In effect, this approach effectively 

rewards jurisdictions that appear to have a high incidence of rape, 

while reducing the funding available to jurisdictions that are not 

a part of the random sample. 

To simplify, if all 50 States are in compliance with the provisions 

of H.R. 1707, it would reward the 10 States that are chosen from 

the sample and at the same time 50 other States would not be so 

designated. Under the legislation, the 10 States chosen may be eligible for a 10 percent increase in funding from certain formula 

grant programs. Does this does mean that the 40 States not chosen 

24

at random are not eligible for an increase and could actually see 

decreased Federal assistance? 

Funding for the implementation of H.R. 1707 is to come from the 

existing universe of formula grant programs, most of which are 

completely beyond the scope of correctional administrators’ authority. In addition, relatively few DOJ grant programs are designated 

to provide aid exclusively to corrections. thus, other elements of 

State and local law enforcement could see reduced funding as a result of this legislation. 

I must ask whether the funding from victims’ assistance programs, community policing or drug treatment programs could be 

used to fund the implementation of this act. Even more alarming 

is that as the legislation is currently written, the term ‘‘formula 

grant programs’’ could go beyond DOJ programs that impact law 

enforcement and corrections. Given the billion dollar minimum included in the legislation, it is likely that you would have to go outside of the Department of Justice programs. Thus, the Attorney 

General——

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Kehoe, why don’t you suspend. 

Mr. KEHOE. All right, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kehoe follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHARLES J. KEHOE

Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. I am Charles Kehoe, President 

of the American Correctional Association. I wish to thank Chairman Coble and 

Ranking Member Scott for inviting me here today to discuss H.R. 1707, the Prison 

Rape Reduction Act of 2003. 

I would like to begin today by commending the work of Representative Frank 

Wolf and Representative Bobby Scott on this issue. As a former Director of the Virginia Department of Youth and Family Services, and a long-time citizen of Virginia, 

I have long admired their dedicated service to the Commonwealth. 

I am here today to represent the American Correctional Association (ACA). ACA 

was founded in 1870 and is the nation’s only professional association representing 

all facets of corrections. ACA has nearly 19,000 individuals members from all 50 

states and more than 40 countries. We promote broad-based public policies on crime 

and corrections, develop professional standards, administer a national accreditation 

program and provide educational programs for corrections officials at all levels. In 

short, we are a multi-disciplinary organization of professionals representing all facets of corrections and criminal justice, including federal, state, and military correctional facilities and prisons, county jails and detention centers, probation/parole 

agencies, and community corrections/halfway houses. ACA members bring a broad 

base of expertise that no other organization in the world can offer to the field. 

For more than 130 years, ACA has been the driving force in establishing national 

and international correctional policies. ACA is recognized as a worldwide leader on 

correctional policy and standards. Our standards pertain to both adult and juvenile 

corrections, and include guidelines designed to assist states and other agencies in 

their efforts to implement correctional policy and procedure, which provide safe, secure, and humane facilities for staff and offenders alike. 

In his remarks introducing the Prison Rape Reduction Act of 2003, Representative 

Wolf said ‘‘prison rape has nothing to do with being tough on crime; it has to do 

with making our communities safer, reducing recidivism, and controlling the spread 

of communicable diseases.’’ I agree completely with Congressman Wolf. In fact, 

those are central tenants of the American Correctional Association, and we wholeheartedly support the efforts of Mr. Wolf and Mr. Scott as well as all others involved 

in their quest to reduce the incidence of prison rape. 

The American Correctional Association supports the objectives of H.R.1707. We 

believe that there should be a zero-tolerance standard for the incidence of prison 

rape. We believe that prison officials should make the prevention of prison rape a 

priority. We want to ensure that prison officials are accountable for what goes on 

within their institutions. We thank the bill’s sponsors for incorporating into H.R. 

1707 many changes that the corrections profession recommended to earlier versions 

25

of the legislation. However, there remain a few provisions of H.R. 1707 about which 

we retain some reservations or which we would like to see clarified. 

The strength of the American Correctional Association is in the fact that we are 

the only organization that accredits total correctional facility operations, including 

health care programs. We have in excess of 1,600 facilities and programs that are 

involved in the accreditation process, including prisons and jails, boot camps, correctional industries, electronic monitoring, training academies, and community-based 

programs, for both adults and juveniles. We currently have accredited facilities or 

programs in 46 of the 50 states. Florida, Louisiana, New York, Ohio and Tennessee 

have accredited 100% of their correctional programs. And, approximately 95 percent 

of the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ facilities are also accredited. 

Our profession has, within the past three years, adopted newer and more meaningful Performance-based Standards—standards that better define the value of what 

we do, how we do it, why we do it and how successful we are through outcome 

measures. It is through the implementation of these measures that ACA has positioned itself to more closely collaborate with all elements within the criminal justice 

system to address specific issues facing the correctional profession, including those 

we are here to discuss today in relationship to the Prison Rape Reduction Act of 

2003. 

ACA’s Standards Committee, in January 2003, finalized the adoption of several 

specific standards that are intended to significantly impact sexual misconduct and 

prison rape. Working closely within and outside the corrections profession, the 

Standards Committee adopted standards:

I. to revise the intake screening requirements for all offenders to specifically 

identify those who are vulnerable or have tendencies to act out with sexually aggressive behavior;

II. to require that an investigation be conducted and documented whenever an 

assault or threat of assault is reported;

III. to require that offenders identified with history of sexually assaultive behavior are assessed by mental health or other qualified professionals. Those 

with history of sexual assaultive behavior are identified, monitored and 

counseled; and,

IV. to require that offenders at risk for victimization are identified, monitored 

and counseled.

H.R. 1707 would establish the National Prison Rape Reduction Commission, established to study prison rape, report its findings to Congress and propose national 

standards for the prevention of prison rape to the Attorney General. However, there 

is no guarantee that those, including the ACA, who have unique expertise and experience in the development and implementation of standards for correctional programs will be consulted in the course of the Commission’s work. We would like to 

see a requirement that the National Prison Rape Reduction Commission consult entities involved in accreditation in the development of national standards for the reduction of prison rape. 

H.R. 1707 calls for states to seek reaccreditation every two years. However, ACA’s 

current accreditation program has established a three-year cycle for the accreditation of correctional programs and we have found this time frame to be cost-effective 

and to provide adequate feedback relating to the state of operations within correctional facilities and programs. We believe that requiring states to seek accreditation 

every two years would result in a substantial increase in the costs associated with 

accreditation. Therefore, we recommend that the accreditation of correctional programs under any National Prison Rape Reduction Commission standard occur every 

three years. 

Openness and accountability are important qualities in the administration of correctional systems. In fact, in ACA’s accreditation process, which I discussed, we actively seek the input of those both inside and outside of the profession. We hold public hearings and we invite diverse groups representing a wide variety of interests 

to provide comments on our proposed standards. We want to ensure that the public 

has confidence that corrections departments are doing their job to the best of their 

abilities and that departments of corrections conform to the highest guidelines of 

our profession. 

H.R. 1707 creates a Review Panel on Prison Rape to hear from correctional administrators whose departments are experiencing high rates of prison rape. The 

goals of the panel are no different from those of the ACA accreditation process—

to ensure that corrections is open and accountable for the implementation of standards to prevent prison rape. The legislation establishes that the panel consists of 

three individuals with knowledge or expertise of the issues to be studied by the 

26

panel. However, the legislation provides little guidance for this panel. We believe 

that this panel should be structured in a way to ensure that the panel promotes 

a dialogue which allows for a true understanding of the incidence of prison rape and 

which aids in the study determining the true impact of prison rape. 

We recommend that a majority of the members of the Review Panel on Prison Rape 

be drawn from the law enforcement community and have expertise in the operation 

of correctional facilities. This would help to ensure that the panel does not promote 

confrontation but rather builds a dialogue allowing for a true understanding of the 

problems those testifying face. 

H.R. 1707 calls for a study of the incidence of prison rape; however, it overlooks 

important factors that need to be taken into account in the development and implementation of the study. First, the legislation, as drafted, does not adequately identify what constitutes rape in a correctional facility. Issues surrounding consensual 

sex are not addressed, and further defining what is meant by prison rape is necessary. Secondly, the legislation does not specify whether prison rape would include 

staff-on-inmate sexual assault. While there is no such thing as consensual sex between correctional employees and inmates, incidents of staff and inmate sex constitutes a crime in nearly every jurisdiction. Finally, the legislation places a great 

emphasis on prisoner surveys for determining the incidence of prison rape. However, 

in all surveys, not just those on issues as complex as prison rape, individuals tend 

to over-report the incidence. Thus, we recommend that the Department of Justice, 

in the development of a study relating to the incidence of prison rape, consult correctional administrators, prosecutors, victim advocates, former inmates and others with 

direct institutional knowledge in the development of the study. 

As you well know, state and local correctional agencies across the country are 

grappling with shrinking budgets and an expanding mandate. In this environment, 

the efforts of the supporters of the bill to reward correctional administrators for 

their efforts in meeting the requirements of this bill are commendable. We appreciate the extent to which the sponsors of H.R. 1707 have gone to ensure that this 

bill does not place unfunded mandates upon the states. Specifically, we appreciate 

the inclusion of language in H.R. 1707 preventing the adoption of measures that 

would impose ‘‘significant additional costs compared to the costs presently expended 

by Federal, State, and local prison authorities.’’ However, we believe that this term 

needs to be further defined. Thus, we recommend that the legislation be revised to 

define what, if any, further costs the implementation of national standards can place 

upon states and localities without providing federal funding for the implementation 

of such standards. 

Furthermore, we have reservations relating to the manner in which funding will 

be distributed to states under this legislation and reservations relating to the designation of programs from which funding for the implementation of this legislation 

will be drawn. Currently, H.R. 1707 provides for an increase in federal grant funding to jurisdictions represented at hearings convened by the Review Panel on Prison 

Rape. The legislation calls for these jurisdictions to be selected from among those 

included in a random sample of jurisdictions. Thus, those jurisdictions that are not 

a part of the random sample used to determine the incidence of prison rape are ineligible for funding under this provision of the legislation. In effect, this approach 

effectively rewards those jurisdictions that appear to have a high incidence of prison 

rape while reducing the funding available for those jurisdictions that were not part 

of the random sample. 

To simplify this concept, let’s assume that all fifty states are in compliance with 

the provisions of this legislation. Under the provisions of H.R.1707, ten states are 

chosen at random to participate in the sample. This means that forty states are not 

chosen. Under the legislation, the ten states chosen may be eligible for a ten percent 

increase in funding from certain ‘‘formula grant programs.’’ Does this mean that the 

forty states not chosen at random are not eligible for an increase and could actually 

see decreased federal assistance? 

Furthermore, funding for the implementation of H.R. 1707 is to come from the 

existing universe of ‘‘formula grant programs,’’ most which are completely beyond 

the scope of correctional administrators’ authority. In addition, relatively few current DoJ grant programs are designed to provide aid exclusively to corrections. 

Thus, other elements of state and local law enforcement could see reduced funding 

as a result of this legislation. I must ask whether funding from victim’s assistance 

programs, community policing or drug treatment programs should be used to fund 

the implementation of this act. Even more alarming is that as the legislation is currently written, the term ‘‘formula grant programs’’ goes beyond DoJ programs that 

impact law enforcement and corrections. Given that the $1 billion minimum included in the legislation, it is likely that you would have to go outside of DoJ programs. Thus, the Attorney General could identify highway funds, education funds, 

27

HUD funds—in theory, any federal formula grant program, could be tapped into 

under the provisions of this legislation. 

Thus, we recommend that the reward structure for the implementation of H.R. 

1707 be restructured in a manner that ensures that states do not in any manner see 

a reduction in funding from any formula grant program as a result of this legislation. Furthermore, the funding mechanism of this legislation should be restructured 

to ensure that the funding of the Prison Rape Reduction Act does not impact federal 

programs of which corrections is not the primary beneficiary. 

States across the nation are experiencing extraordinary fiscal crises that are 

prompting governors and legislatures to recommend dramatic cuts to all areas of 

state government. Correctional departments have not been immune to these cuts, 

and, in fact, have been among the hardest hit. While corrections appreciates the attention that the issue of prison rape has received from the United States Congress, 

we can not help but draw your attention to the larger issues currently facing our 

profession. Thus, the American Correctional Association joins the Council of State 

Government and the Association of State Correctional Administrators in recommending that this legislation be adapted to address state and local government officials’ acute need for immediate, targeted, peer-to-peer assistance that would assist in 

the management of corrections in a cost-effective manner without impacting the safety of correctional employees, inmates, or the community. 

The primary mission of correctional departments across this country is to protect 

the public. Our mission also includes assisting in the prevention and control of delinquency and crime. Prison rape is a crime and we will continue to do our duty 

to prevent it. 

Mr. Wolf was absolutely correct when he said that the issue of prison rape is not 

about being tough on crime. Prison rape is an issue centered upon the human rights 

and the human dignity of those within our nation’s prisons and jails. Yet, if we are 

truly concerned with the human rights and human dignity of offenders, we must, 

as a society, ensure that all citizens receive access to health care, access to education, and access to a living wage. This investment will go much farther to making 

our communities safer, to reducing recidivism, and to controlling the spread of communicable diseases than anything else that we can do. 

Prison rape is caused by larger, societal problems. It is a symptom of a disease 

and not the disease itself. And, ultimately, the prevention of criminal and delinquent behavior depends on the will of the individual and the constructive qualities 

of society and its basic entities: family, community, school, religion, and government. Without a significant investment in research and in the development of our 

communities, we will not be successful in achieving the admirable goals of making 

our communities safer, reducing recidivism and controlling the spread of communicable disease both inside and beyond our correctional systems. 

The corrections profession applauds the leadership of Representatives Wolf and 

Scott on this issue. And, we feel that if implemented properly, this legislation will 

have an impact on prison rape. We hope that it will be cost effective. We hope that 

it will make are communities safer. We hope that it will reduce recidivism. And we 

hope that it will reduce the spread of communicable disease. ACA looks forward to 

working with you on this noble pursuit. And, again, I wish to thank you all for inviting me here today.

Mr. COBLE. Let’s get to Mr. Hall, and then we can come back. 

Since just Bobby and I are here, we probably will have two rounds 

of questioning. 

Mr. Hall. 

STATEMENT OF FRANK A. HALL, DIRECTOR,

THE EAGLE GROUP 

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, my name is Frank Hall. I am currently 

a consultant in Washington, D.C. I spent 35 years in the corrections business, starting my career, Mr. Chairman, in your home 

State of North Carolina, where I spent 6 years and learned a great 

deal from a lot of very bright and capable people who were very 

committed to developing a humane and effective corrections department. 

I have had an opportunity to run three State correctional systems over the last 35 years, two large local corrections systems, as 

28

well as a juvenile justice system in the State of New York. I am 

gratified by the comments of my colleagues, Mr. Wall and Mr. 

Kehoe, who seem to be very supportive of the intent of this legislation and seem to be very supportive of the direction in which we’re 

trying to move. I commend the leadership of Representative Wolf 

and Representative Scott. I think they’ve done a remarkable job focusing on an issue that I think too often we have avoided and tends 

to sort of be in the recesses of our institutions. 

We don’t tend to talk about this issue. There has been almost a 

reluctance to talk about this issue throughout our history. But I 

think it’s a major problem. It is not only a problem of public safety 

and safety in our institutions for both staff and inmates, but I 

think it is, very frankly, a public safety issue and a public health 

issue. 

But I’m gratified by the comments, because I think these two 

people represent what is best in the corrections profession. There 

are a lot of very fine people working in this business that would 

like to solve this problem and would like to be able to come before 

this Committee or any other Committee in Congress and say this 

problem has been solved, thanks to your efforts and thanks to your 

help. 

I think there are several concerns that have been raised about 

the direction of the bill, most of which seem to address issues of 

funding and resource allocation, compliance issues. To me, these 

are relatively solvable problems. Congress deals with these problems almost every day, and I’m confident that these problems can 

be resolved. 

But the reality of it is, you know, this problem of prison rape affects people today. Probably in the last 20 years, a million prisoners have been raped in the United States of America. I think 

that’s unacceptable to all of us, not just in the corrections business 

but for every Member of Congress and every person in the United 

States. 

Unfortunately, in spite of efforts to accredit our facilities in this 

country, a still relatively small percentage of correctional institutions are accredited. The fact of it is we operate thousands of jails 

in this country, police lockups, and there are 630,000 people alone 

in the local jail system. Just 2 years ago, if you counted the number of admissions and discharges from the local jails and the prisons, we’re talking about 10 million people. Many people in the jail 

system haven’t even been found guilty of a crime. So it’s a major 

issue and it affects people, it affects the public health. 

I think it requires Federal action for a very simple reason: we 

haven’t done it at the State level. I’ve been at the State and local 

level all my life, but we haven’t yet solved this problem. In spite 

of mass resources and money and support, we still haven’t resolved 

this issue. In spite of much progress in the corrections business, we 

still haven’t resolved this issue. 

The other reality is—and I think it’s one we have to face—most 

prison staff are not adequately trained to prevent, to report, to 

treat and to deal with the issue. This bill provides some training, 

it provides opportunities for people to get resources to help deal 

with some of these issues. So we’re not where we need to be, Mr. 

Chairman and Members of the Committee. 

29

The bill doesn’t attempt to solve all the world’s problems, but it 

does attempt to do some very basic things. It sets up a program 

to gather the data, which we desperately need—we have so little 

real data that it’s an embarrassment that we don’t know more 

about the issue, that we don’t have better data on this issue—and 

Allen Beck is here from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, who I 

think is probably one of the best in the business. I’m sure his people, with support from Congress, can find out and get us much 

more information than we currently have. 

The other program would provide technical assistance and a 

clearinghouse to help resolve some of these issues, and then there’s 

a program that the Attorney General would have which would enable him to make grants up to a million dollars to States and localities who are trying to grapple with the problem. 

So there is an honest effort to put some resources in this program to draw attention to it, to establish standards over a period 

of 2 years, and then I think recognizing that we have a long ways 

to go, Mr. Chairman. 

I think what we’ve also said is that it’s not that complicated. It’s 

true that we have to work out some issues around formula grants; 

it’s true we have to work out some issues around compliance. But 

basically, what the act is requiring is really relatively simple, and 

as a former corrections administrator in several States, and in local 

governments, as well as in the juvenile system, I would not find it 

impossible to carry this out, even with existing budget constraints 

within which we all operate today. I mean, there’s always been a 

budget crisis as long as I’ve been in corrections, Mr. Chairman. It 

didn’t take this recession or this economic downturn that we’re 

having to create an economic crisis in the correctional system. 

We’re only asking that correctional administrators cooperate with 

the surveys and other efforts to measure accurately the prevalence 

of prison rape in our existing institutions, and be prepared to explain, in a public forum, if an institution or system is far above the 

established norm. It’s an issue of accountability. What gets measured, Mr. Chairman, is what gets done. 

After years of hearings, discussion and debate, where all the fine 

people you see here today, and others, would have a chance to 

agree on a set of standards, and a set of standards that do not require substantial new State and local resources. And while we may 

debate the means of ensuring compliance, it is imperative that we, 

at a minimum, take these three steps. 

If the Congress decides to act, then all of you will have the satisfaction of knowing your actions have enabled all of us to taken a 

historical step forward. As Members of this Committee can readily 

see, the Prison Rape Reduction Act is comprehensive and designed 

to shed light on dark, violent places. However, even more importantly, it provides prison and jail staffs with ideas, resources and 

performance accountability, all urgently needed if we are to lower 

the level of violence that exists today. 

Passage of this legislation would be an historic step in establishing our commitment to real public safety. In this great country, 

we sentence people to prison as punishment and to protect our fellow citizens. We do not, and must no longer, sentence them to be 

raped, murdered or exposed to dangerous diseases. Those of us who 

30

have worked in our correctional institutions, Mr. Chairman and 

Members of this Committee, we applaud your efforts, your concern, 

and your humanity. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF FRANK A. HALL

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Sub-committee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security, it is an honor and a privilege to appear before you today. I am here 

to express my gratitude for your leadership in reducing violence in our correctional 

institutions and to express my support for the Prison Rape Reduction Act. I am also 

honored to be here with two of my colleagues, Reggie Wilkinson and Chuck Kehoe. 

I have known these two professionals for many years and they represent the best 

of the fine women and men working in our jails, prisons, and juvenile facilities 

throughout the country. 

I have worked in the correction profession for more than thirty-five years in a 

broad range of positions. I have served as director, commissioner, or chief executive 

officer of the State corrections systems of Massachusetts, Maryland, and Oregon, the 

jail systems of Philadelphia and Santa Clara County, California and the New York 

juvenile justice system. To me, prison rape is much more than an academic issue. 

Prison rape impacts on human beings and on every jail, prison, and juvenile facility 

in America. It is an issue of violence and public health. 

At the end of this century, over two million persons were incarcerated in our Federal and State prisons and more than 630 thousand were locked up in local jails. 

In 1999, there were more than ten million admissions to and discharges from these 

institutions. Although the research is limited-another part of the problem which 

would be remedied by the legislation- experts have conservatively estimated that at 

least 13 percent of inmates in the United States have been sexually assaulted while 

under our supervision. Many of these individuals have suffered repeated assaults. 

The total number inmates who have been sexually assaulted in the past twenty 

years could easily exceed one million. 

America’s jails and prisons house more mentally ill individuals than all the Nation’s psychiatric hospitals combined and experienced correctional professionals 

know that inmates with mental illness are at increased risk of sexual assault. 

Young first offenders are also vulnerable and those placed in adult rather than juvenile facilities are five times more likely to be assaulted. 

HIV and AIDS have become an increasingly major health problem in corrections. 

More than 25,000 inmates in Federal and State prisons are infected. In 2001, more 

than six percent of all deaths in these institutions were attributable to these lifethreatening illnesses. Infection rates for other sexually transmitted diseases, tuberculosis, and hepatitis B and C are also far greater for prisoners than the American 

population as a whole. Prison rape is often a death sentence for the victim. 

Prison rape is nothing less than brutalizing violence and an act of rape or threat 

of rape in an institution increases the level of homicide and other violence against 

inmates and staff. Victims suffer severe physical and psychological effects that 

hinder their ability to re-integrate into the community and maintain stable employment after release. The result is higher recidivism, more homeless or at best individuals requiring some form of government assistance. 

Unfortunately, most prison and jail staff are not adequately trained or prepared 

to prevent, report, or treat inmate sexual assaults. As a result, prison rape often 

goes unreported and victims often receive inadequate treatment if they receive 

treatment at all. 

The Prison Rape Reduction Act is an historic bi-partisan effort to mobilize our efforts to combat a problem that, as we have seen, impacts far beyond the walls of 

the country’s jails and prisons. The law would establish a zero tolerance of rape in 

United States prisons and would make its prevention a top priority. National standards for the detection, prevention, reduction, and punishment will be established. 

Long needed data on the incidence of prison rape will become available which will 

improve the management and administration of our correctional institutions. It will 

increase the accountability of prison officials who fail to detect, prevent, reduce, and 

punish rape and increase the visibility of officials who are innovative and effective. 

The proposed legislation is designed to help jurisdictions that seek to create a safer 

environment. 

The Prison Rape Reduction Act establishes three programs in the Department of 

Justice-the Statistics Program, the Prevention and Prosecution Program, and the 

Grant Program. 

31

The first of these, the Statistics Program, would conduct annual studies of a significant sample of Federal, State, and county jails and prisons on the in the incidence and prevalence of rape. The program would then conduct an annual review 

of the performance of these systems where the incidence of rape greatly exceeds the 

national average. 

The Prevention and Prosecution Program will serve as a clearinghouse for the 

provision of information and assistance to those authorities responsible for the prevention, investigation, and punishment of rape. This program would also provide 

training and assistance to Federal, State, and local prison officials. 

The third and last leg of this tripod would be the Grant Program, which authorizes the Attorney General to make annual grants (up to $40 million each year) to 

State, and local programs that enhance the prevention and punishment of prison 

rape. 

In addition to the programs described above, the new legislation would establish 

a National Prison Rape Reduction Commission which would conduct comprehensive 

hearing and examine all penalogical, economic, physical, mental, medical and social 

issues related to prison rape in America. At the conclusion of its review the Commission will issue a comprehensive report on the subject, including a recommended 

set of national standards to reduce and eliminate prison rape. 

The standards will address practices for the investigation and elimination of prison rape including the training of correctional officers; sexually transmitted disease 

prevention; identifying, protecting, screening, isolating, and punishing vulnerable 

and potentially offending inmates; and other related issues. The Commission will be 

required to limit its proposals to those that do not impose substantial additional 

costs on States and local governments. The Commission’s recommended national 

standards will be independently reviewed by the Attorney General who may modify 

them before publishing them for notice and comment under the Administrative Procedure Act. 

Once the standards become final, they will be immediately applicable to the Federal Bureau of Prisons. States then may adopt the standards by statute and those 

that do will receive increased funds for two years from certain Federal grant programs. States will continue to receive increased funds thereafter if they receive certification from an accreditation agency that they are in compliance with the standards. 

The Act further requires that all prison accreditation organizations to examine 

prison rape prevention practices as a critical component of their accreditation reviews including, when and where adopted, the national standards promulgated pursuant to the Act. Failure to do so would make such organization ineligible for the 

receipt of any Federal funds. 

The problem today, Mr. Chairman and Members of this Committee, is that our 

focus has been on building institutions not on what goes on inside. As administrators we are held accountable for the visible-escapes and riots. These are the issues 

that result in blue ribbon commissions, legislative hearings, and the firing of wardens and commissioners and all too often line staff who shoulder the daily burden 

of keeping our facilities safe. The legislation before this committee requires a different level of accountability and it will change the reality for those living and working in the system. As the old adage states: ‘‘What gets measured, get done.’’

Ladies and Gentlemen of this committee, we are not asking too much of my corrections colleagues, we are only asking them to take these three modest actions:

• Cooperate with the surveys and other efforts to measure accurately the prevalence of prison rape in our existing institutions.

• Be prepared to explain in a public forum if an institution or system is far 

above the established norm.

• And after years of hearings, discussion, and debate, agree to set of standards 

that do not require substantial new State and local resources.

While we may debate the means of ensuring compliance, it is imperative that we, 

at a minimum, take these three steps. If the Congress decides to act, then all of 

you will have the satisfaction of knowing your actions have enabled all of us to take 

an historical step forward. 

As members of this committee can readily see, the Prison Rape Reduction Act is 

comprehensive and designed to shed light on dark violent places. However, even 

more importantly it provides prison and jail staffs with ideas, resources, and performance accountability-all urgently needed if we to lower the level of violence that 

exists today. Passage of this legislation would be an historic step in establishing our 

commitment to real public safety. In this great county we sentence people to prison 

32

as punishment and to protect our fellow citizens. We do not and must no longer sentence them to be raped, murdered, or exposed to dangerous disease. 

Those of us who have worked in our correctional institutions applaud your concern and your humanity. 

Thank You.

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Hall, and I thank the panelists. As 

I said, Mr. Scott and I are the only ones here and we’ll have two 

rounds of questioning. 

Mr. Hall, I’m sure that probably one of the reasons why there is 

very limited statistics available is probably fear of retribution, I 

would suspect—Is that correct, that being one reason? 

Mr. HALL. I think that’s one of the reasons, Mr. Chairman, yes. 

I think the other is that—and this almost goes—it is difficult to articulate, but I think there’s been a reluctance on the part of all of 

us in the business to really talk about this issue and be frank 

about it. 

Mr. COBLE. Yeah. 

Mr. HALL. I think that’s part of the problem also. 

Mr. COBLE. In your testimony you indicate that most prison and 

jail staff are inadequately trained or prepared to prevent, treat or 

report. What sort of training or preparation would you suggest? 

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I think you made a comment earlier 

about the Federal Bureau of Prisons. I think the Federal Bureau 

has provided a lot of leadership in this area. I think, if you look 

at the Federal regulations and policies, they very specifically deal 

with this issue. That is not true in many of the States; it’s not true 

in some of the juvenile systems in this country; and it’s certainly 

not true in many of the local jails. 

I think the training that would be provided under this is a relatively small grant, only five million dollars to the National Institute of Corrections. It could go a long way, since it’s practically increasing the National Institute of Corrections’ budget by 50 percent. So it could go a long ways to training staff, developing protocols—you have to have a protocol. In a corrections system, you have 

to have policy. But in training people in the policy, then giving 

them real tools to actually do the work that has to be done and the 

ability to investigate these things and protect the people that report. Because it’s dangerous to report, Mr. Chairman, very dangerous. No one wants to report being raped if they’re going to get 

killed within 24 hours after making the report. 

Mr. COBLE. Miss Henke, your testimony indicates that there 

could be as many as 20 Federal formula grant programs at the Office of Justice Programs affected by the increases/reductions under 

this legislation. 

What criteria will be used to choose which programs are affected? 

Ms. HENKE. Sir, the underlying legislation specifically says programs that are related to the failure to abate prison rape. That is 

the guidance that would be provided in the legislation. 

Specific criteria that would be used by the Attorney General to 

select the programs within OJP, others within the Department of 

Justice, or other programs throughout the Administration, is undetermined at this time. 

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Kehoe, what are the benefits—Let me put a two 

part question to you. 

33

What are the benefits to a State or institution of accreditation, 

(a), and (b), why do some States or institutions choose not to be accredited? 

Mr. KEHOE. Mr. Chairman, the benefits of accreditation are that 

it provides a State and a facility a program with an outside independent assessment of that facility’s strengths and weaknesses. It 

also helps to measure their compliance with attainable goals, and 

it implements in the implementation requirement for state-of-theart policies to be achieved through the accreditation process. 

In some cases, it has actually aided in the defense in lawsuits. 

Federal courts have sometimes lifted their involvement with States 

because States have come into compliance with standards and accreditation. It also raises staff morale and professionalism because 

of the standards that specifically address training and qualifications. 

I would say probably that the most important thing is that it 

helps you develop a road map for daily operations. That’s the thing 

that we see most often, that you have a consistent way of managing these facilities from day to day. 

I would say probably that, more often than not, what causes 

States, I think you asked, not to become involved—— Mr. COBLE. Yes. 

Mr. KEHOE.—is probably a lack of understanding and knowledge, 

and certainly the cost factor for some States is, to some extent, a 

deterrent. They just simply don’t know whether they have the 

money and the resources to do that. But I would say those would 

be the two major issues. 

Mr. COBLE. I have a question for Mr. Wall, but I will wait until 

the second round. Mr. Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I think what we have heard is general support for the legislation, 

if we can work out the details. So let me ask you all a couple of 

questions. 

Mr. Kehoe, what portion of prisons today are, in fact, accredited? 

Mr. KEHOE. About 10 percent of the adult corrections in the 

country are—actually, it’s more than that. In the U.S., about 30 

percent of adult prisons and jails are accredited, and about 10 percent of the juvenile programs are accredited. There’s about 1,600 

facilities in numbers. 

Mr. SCOTT. Both you and Mr. Wall have suggested that we make 

sure that we contact those who do the accreditation. Does anybody 

else, other than ACA, do accreditations? 

Mr. KEHOE. Yes. The National Commission on Correctional 

Health Care does accreditation specific to health care, but doesn’t 

go into the operations and beyond the health care. 

Mr. SCOTT. So if we wanted to contact a group that did accreditations, it would be ACA? 

Mr. KEHOE. Yes. 

Mr. SCOTT. I don’t remember which one it was, but somebody 

mentioned the composition of the panel. Other than corrections officials, who else ought to be on the panel? 

Mr. KEHOE. Certainly I would think, Mr. Scott, people with law 

enforcement background, who have some experience in investigative skills, who have experience in dealing with sexual assaults in 

34

a free society would also bring a lot of strength to that composition 

as well. 

Mr. SCOTT. Does somebody else want to respond to either of 

those questions? 

Mr. HALL. Mr. Scott, I would also urge that, if such a panel be 

appointed, that it also include some folks that represent the people 

that have come through the system. You know, we haven’t heard 

from those folks today. But those stories are compelling. I know 

these people personally, many of them, and they’re absolutely true. 

We have to have people on a panel like that who represent some 

other points of view. 

I would like to think that those of us in corrections are smart 

and sensitive and thoughtful about these issues, but it’s important 

to have other people there with us I think. 

Mr. SCOTT. You’re talking about a broad cross-section. The problems we have with that is the way we have them appointed, three 

by this person, two by that person, one by this person, so that you 

don’t get to appoint a group. You have to appoint one and that’s 

it. Then you look and see what you’ve got. That’s how we generally 

do it. We might have to tinker with that to make sure that, when 

all is said and done, we have a cross-section of the various disciplines. 

Mr. Wall? 

Mr. WALL. Yes, Representative Scott, if I may. There are really 

three components here, as I understand it. One is the BJS component, the second is this review panel to take the BJS statistics and 

help to present a profile of who the victims are, who the perpetrators are, and what the context is. The third is the commission that 

will promulgate standards for States to adhere to. 

I had suggested that, with regard to the first prong, the BJS 

study, that there be an advisory group that would be broadly representative, that would help with definitional questions and identifying the appropriate ways to gather information. That would absolutely include victims’ advocates as well as former inmates, as well 

as corrections professionals, law enforcement personnel and prosecutors. 

Mr. SCOTT. You mentioned definitional questions. Several have 

indicated a question about the definition of rape, including whether 

or not staff-in-inmate rapes would be included. 

Are there places that have already dealt with that question that 

we could find a definition? 

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Scott, I would suggest, even if you 

look at the state of current law on sexual assaults, it pretty well 

covers it. When you’re in a correctional facility, the mere threat of 

an assault in itself is a criminal act for all intents and purposes. 

When someone is threatened with rape or threatened with some 

sexual act, and if they don’t cooperate they’re going to be killed or 

maimed or whatever, I think the law pretty much covers most of 

these issues. 

Ms. HENKE. Sir, just one more thing, if I may. Congress did pro- vide $13 million to the Office of Justice Programs in the fiscal year 

2003 appropriations bill for the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the 

National Institute of Justice. Both of these entities, working collaboratively, are prepared to empanel a group of experts, practiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:04 Aug 12, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\CRIME\042903B\86706.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
35

tioners, researchers, et cetera, individuals from the field that can 

address these issues. So the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the 

National Institute of Justice can get a head start on identifying 

some of these issues. 

Mr. WALL. And, Representative Scott, with regard to the issue of 

staff on inmate sexual assault, that is a crime, a violation of the 

criminal code in 48 of the 50 States at the present time. Consent 

is not a defense in those instances. The mere fact of sexual misconduct between a staff member and an inmate is defined as a felony. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Bobby. 

Mr. Wall, I don’t think this has been touched on. We talk frequently and consistently about the lack of statistical data. How important, Mr. Wall, is it to reducing the incidence of sexual assault 

to obtain accurate statistics? 

Mr. WALL. I think that it is very important to obtain accurate 

statistics, and that’s why, Chairman Coble, I have recommended 

that there be an advisory group put together to assist the Bureau 

of Justice Statistics in assembling that data and also that it draw 

on a variety of surveys. 

Let me give you an example of one of the challenges that can be 

presented here. It is conceivable that a State which has good supervision, close supervision by staff, and good reporting mechanisms, 

could show up as having a high incidence of sexual assault on inmates, because in my experience over the years, if inmates have 

reason to believe that they will be believed and protected, they will 

report misconduct, whether it be by staff or other inmates. If inmates do not think they will be believed or protected, they will remain silent. That’s why the issue of collecting data and collecting 

accurate data is going to be a very important and challenging 

piece. 

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I certainly agree with what Mr. Wall 

has said. I think one of the reasons we’ve heard less about this 

issue over the years is because people have remained silent. I think 

many people who have been assaulted remain silent. 

I think the interest of Congress and the interest of the Federal 

Government in this problem I think will change that silence. I 

think it will have a very positive impact. 

Mr. COBLE. I hope so. 

Miss Henke, pardon my raspy voice. I have already apologized to 

others. I know this sounds terrible. 

Miss Henke, are the standards that have been adopted by the 

ACA also the standards that are required by the Federal correctional facilities? 

Mr. HENKE. Sir, to my knowledge, the Federal Bureau of Prisons 

has had their own standards in place since about 1997. However, 

the Bureau of Prisons also works to adopt the standards identified 

and used by the ACA. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you. 

Mr. Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Mr. Wall, you indicated there may be some things we’re overlooking. What were you referring to? 

36

Mr. WALL. My concern is this, Representative Scott, that there 

is another emerging crisis in the corrections field that has to do 

with the fact that our systems continue to grow but that we are 

facing nearly unprecedented fiscal constraints. 

In the late 1980’s and 1990’s, the philosophy really was to build 

more prisons and staff them up. We are now some 10-plus years, 

10 to 15 years later from the beginning, from the onset of that philosophical approach, the coffers are exhausted, governors and legislators are not willing to spend additional capital monies, are not 

willing to continue to staff up and operate expensive correctional 

institutions, but our numbers have not abated. As a result, governors are forced to consider how to manage the population and 

whether the populations of correctional facilities can be allowed to 

continue to grow, notwithstanding the fiscal constraints. In virtually every jurisdiction, steps are underway and serious discussion 

is occurring about how to deal with that problem. 

My point would be that this is an occasion where the States really could benefit from targeted, technical assistance, so that we 

don’t make those decisions unwisely and in contravention of the 

public safety. I would argue, as Mr. Hall has, that just as sexual 

assault in prisons can be looked at as a threat to public safety, 

through public health and through the consequences of people behaving on the street who have been abused that way, we also, of 

course, care deeply about the public safety associated with releasing inmates who might otherwise be incarcerated and want to be 

sure that those decisions are made soundly and wisely. We would 

appreciate the Federal Government’s assistance in providing us 

with the means to do that. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Several questions have been raised about the funding formula. 

Does anyone have any concern, or are we confident that there is 

common ground that we can solve this? Let me ask that of Miss 

Henke. 

Ms. HENKE. Sir, it is the Department of Justice’s hope that yes, 

there is common ground. In discussions with individuals at the 

table, as well as other supporters of the legislation, it is the Department’s hope that this issue can be addressed and that common 

ground exists for us to build from. 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Hall? 

Mr. HALL. Mr. Scott, all the members of the coalition that support this legislation left their agenda at the door and are focused 

on this issue and this issue alone. I am relatively certain, as long 

as there is some form of compliance in the legislation, that some 

formula and some understanding can be worked out. 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Wall and Mr. Kehoe, do you have any concern 

that we might not be able to find a common ground to get past the 

funding questions? 

Mr. KEHOE. Mr. Scott, I think we are in agreement with the Department of Justice on what has been said so far. People working 

collectively toward a unified cause, with a goal in mind, can 

achieve anything. I think we would be supportive of that. 

Our greatest concern is that we not end up in a situation where 

no good deed goes unpunished. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

37

I guess a final question. A couple of people have used the phrase 

‘‘integrity’’ in conjunction with the numbers that we get. What can 

we do to ensure—I think Mr. Wall kind of touched on this a little 

bit—that the numbers we get as a result of the surveys are accurate? 

Mr. HALL. Mr. Scott, I think that with Mr. Beck’s involvement 

from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the involvement of a lot of 

people that understand how to gather this data in a way that protects the people that give up the information, I’m convinced we can 

get the data. I mean, there are ways of doing these studies. I may 

be looking at people that have already been released, that are already off parole, that we have to look at some of those folks. But 

I think there’s ways of gathering this data without compromising 

it, and I’m convinced that can be done. I think people are smart 

enough to figure that one out. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Miss Henke? 

Ms. HENKE. Sir, if I may, once again under the $13 million that 

was provided in the BJS appropriations bill, the Bureau of Justice 

Statistics is prepared—we have worked over the past month, 

maybe 2 months, to develop a proposal that we have discussed with 

many individuals. What the Bureau of Justice Statistics is going to 

do is they’re going to pilot something they call the Audio Computer 

Assisted Self-Interviewing technique—it’s called the Audio CASI, is 

what we call it—to improve the reliability of numbers. 

One of the things the expert statisticians at the Bureau of Justice Statistics have said is currently there are pretty much two 

ways to gather the numbers: you provide a survey and let them fill 

it out whenever they fill it out, and turn it in whenever they turn 

it in; or there is a personal interview. 

Personal interviews often sometimes subdues what an individual 

will discuss. By using this audio computer system, one, it’s a more 

controlled environment, and two, it is not a person that you’re sitting there talking with. So the Bureau of Justice Statistics, at OJP, 

is going to be moving forward on that technique to pilot it relatively quickly. 

Mr. HALL. Mr. Scott, one other comment. 

I think, quite frankly, based on the studies that have been done, 

and the information that we currently have, it is still my opinion 

that we have underestimated the full extent of the problem. 

Mr. COBLE. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Does the gentlelady from Texas have questions? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Yes. 

Mr. COBLE. The gentlelady is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to 

submit my opening statement into the record. 

Mr. COBLE. Without objection. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson Lee follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SHEILA JACKSON LEE, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

I would like to thank Chairman Coble and Ranking Member Scott for convening 

this very important hearing today to hear testimony and discuss H.R. 1707, the 

‘‘Prison Rape Reduction Act of 2003.’’

38

This important bill will help to bring an end to the deplorable rapes, molestations, 

and sexual assaults that occur in our prisons. 

The negative impacts of prison rapes go beyond the physical trauma of the attack 

itself. The victims suffer psychological trauma, emotional scarring, shame, the stigma of being victimized, and the destruction of their dignity. 

H.R. 1707 is a moderate bill that seeks to address the scourge of prison rapes. 

The bill does not infringe on state and local governments role in administering their 

correctional institutions. Likewise the bill does not impose mandates on correctional 

facilities without providing funding. 

A critically important element of the bill is empowering the Department of Justice 

to conduct extensive research so that we can have a better understanding of the 

scope and character of the prison rape problem. The DOJ’s research will also enable 

us to educate and train correctional facility officers to prevent prison rapes, to investigate and punish those responsible for the attacks, and to establish a funding system does not conflict with state funding initiatives. 

By eliminating or significantly reducing prison rapes we will also benefit the general public. The psychological trauma of a prison rape has the potential to turn a 

person who was a non-violent offender when first incarcerated, into a violent offender when the person is released. Prison rape also increases the probability that 

prisoner rehabilitation efforts will be ineffective. Eliminating prison rapes will also 

reduce the incidence of infectious diseases like HIV/AIDS and hepatitis. 

As the Chair of the Children’s Caucus, I am particularly troubled by the impact 

that prison rapes have on minors who have been incarcerated. Imprisoned youths 

are five times more likely to be raped or sexually abused than incarcerated adults. 

Furthermore, the psychological trauma of a rape is far more serious to a child. 

We must do everything in our power to eliminate prison rapes. It is far too common for prison officials and members of the public to ignore the crimes that occur 

in our prisons, and the problems facing our prisoners. To neglect our prisoners is 

a violation of the Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled in Farmer v. Brennan, 

that deliberate, indifference to prison rape violates the 8th Amendment’s cruel and 

unusual punishment provisions. 

Thank you Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member, and I look forward to hearing the testimony of our distinguished witnesses to learn about how to eliminate 

prison rapes.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me applaud, first of all, the Chairman for 

holding this hearing, and applaud both the Ranking Member of 

this Subcommittee for his initiative in this legislation, along with 

Congressman Wolf. 

Just for the record—and I know that these numbers have already 

been stated, but I guess it provides a chilling effect of this hearing 

to indicate that about two million inmates in the United States 

today—approximately two-thirds in Federal and State prisons and 

one-third in local jails—that of these two million inmates, it is conservatively estimated that one in ten has been raped, over or more 

than 200,000 inmates, and as I was listening to the testimony, 

there may be even more. 

According to a 1996 study, 22 percent of prisoners in Nebraska 

have been either pressured or forced to engage in sexual activity 

against their will while incarcerated, and a 2001 report by the 

Human Rights Watch documented shockingly high rates of sexual 

abuse in U.S. prisons. 

The interesting thing, of course, is that, because of the age of majority, we have youngsters as young as 17 in adult prisons who 

may be victimized in this category. I am told by my interaction, my 

sad interaction with victims of sexual abuse, that it is a tragically 

life-changing experience. 

Then I would finally note that by increasing the transmission of 

HIV/AIDS and other sexually-transmitted diseases, tuberculosis 

and hepatitis B and C, all of which exist at a very high rate within 

U.S. prisons and jails, prison rape has serious health consequences. 

39

So I know that all of you are facing a very high and critical question and this legislation is very important. 

I would like to ask Miss Henke, right at this very moment, even 

without this legislation, knowing that this crisis or very severe 

problem exists, what are the Federal prisons doing, the Federal 

Bureau of Prisons doing, right as we speak to address this issue? 

Ms. HENKE. Congresswoman, I can tell you a little bit about 

what they’re doing, because I’m with the Office of Justice Programs 

and not with the Bureau of Prisons. But what I can tell you, as 

the Chairman stated early on, is that it has been noted that the 

Federal system has been working on this issue. The Bureau of Prisons has had policy in place since 1997, to my knowledge. 

In addition to that, they work to adopt the same standards that 

ACA adopts for State and local prisons. So yes, the Federal system 

has had a policy and practice in place since at least 1997. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Kehoe—and she is not with the Federal 

Bureau of Prisons, and I’m going to find out later why they’re not 

present. But in any event, Mr. Kehoe, can you assess whether 

there’s been any work that has been legitimate and substantial on 

this question, beyond obviously the movement of this legislation, 

which I think will be of great help, but what has been done and 

what has been noted about this crisis so that something could be 

done, even in the interim of passing this legislation? 

Mr. KEHOE. Let me ask a question. Are you specifically speaking 

to the Bureau or globally, corrections-wise? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Why don’t you speak both specifically and 

generally. If you have more information generally, I’ll accept that. 

Mr. KEHOE. Okay. I don’t have specific information about the Bureau, other than to say that 95 percent of the Bureau’s programs 

are involved in our accreditation process. To that extent, there are 

standards that address issues of assault. 

Most recently, in January of this year, the ACA standards committee passed four standards that specifically address the issue of 

sexual assault in institutions. They begin with the classification 

and intake process, to identify those perpetrators who may be the 

aggressor, and those who may be victims of possible sexual assault. 

The second issue addresses the need for prompt investigation 

when a threat or an assault actually happens, and the culmination 

of that investigation. 

The third and fourth standards really deal with the profile of an 

aggressive perpetrator, a sexually aggressive offender in prison, 

streamlining that person into the right program so that they get 

the appropriate level of custody as well as treatment. 

The last standard deals with those that might be considered potential victims in institutions, identifying them and properly—having standards that properly classify them so they’re not put in 

harm’s way. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. So you have been using standards to assess 

whether or not there have been any fix in the particular institutions that you’ve been dealing with, standards, reporting, et cetera? 

Mr. KEHOE. The standards that we have addressed specifically to 

sexual assault were just passed this past January, so there really 

hasn’t been a period of time yet to collect any meaningful data of 

that. 

40

Mr. HALL. Representative Lee, could I make one comment on 

that? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Yes. 

Mr. HALL. The accreditation process that was instituted by the 

American Correctional Association is a very positive process, and 

I think it’s been of enormous help in corrections. 

But as I pointed out earlier, the problem is there is just so few 

institutions that are accredited. When you get into the issues of 

local jails as well as juvenile correctional facilities, then you have 

a major problem area. 

Unfortunately, as good as the process is, and even though these 

standards were adopted rather late in the process, the reality of it 

is most institutions don’t go through an accreditation process. It’s 

not like your school system or your colleges and universities. You 

can run your prison without accreditation. It’s not like where if you 

have a college that doesn’t get accredited, they’ll probably end up 

closing their doors. That is certainly not true in this business. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, is there a second round? 

Mr. COBLE. No, just this. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. May I have an additional minute? 

Mr. COBLE. One additional minute. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I appreciate the response that you gave. I 

want to get the one representative State unfunded mandates, but 

I would like to know, one, what you’re doing in your State, but 

more importantly, how this legislation will be helpful to you. I 

think I heard the funding issue, if you want to repeat that again, 

but how would it relate in terms of helping you be successful in the 

cure of this crisis and the very bad actions that are going on? 

Mr. WALL. Certainly, Representative Jackson Lee, there are a 

number of ways in which this legislation would be of use to jurisdictions that are seeking to prevent the incidence of sexual assault 

in prison, to deal with the aftermath, and to prosecute as a result. 

One is that the legislation includes a clearinghouse. As you 

know, corrections is, by and large, a State and local function, and 

that means we are sometimes in isolation from one another, a point 

I was making in regard to the issue of managing correctional populations, and there is a real benefit to having access to information 

about best practices that are occurring in other States. That’s one 

way. 

Another way in which I would be helpful is that there are demonstration programs provided in the legislation, and at least in my 

experience over the years, when those succeed, they have a real effect on the profession and become the touchstone for changes in 

practice across the field. So that’s still another way. 

Third—and I think this is very important—the fact is that I 

speak from my own 29 years in corrections, and I speak on behalf 

of all the directors of corrections. We do know that sexual assault 

occurs in our prisons; we abhor it. It is difficult for us to measure 

it, and we would appreciate some opportunity for the kind of analysis that this legislation affords, identifying the characteristics of 

likely perpetrators, of likely victims, and also the situations, context, locations in the institution, times of day, that these things 

take place, so that we have data and tools to use in attacking the 

problem. 

41

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COBLE. Thanks you, Miss Jackson Lee. 

We thank the witnesses for your testimony. The Subcommittee 

very much appreciates your contribution. 

This concludes the legislative hearing on H.R. 1707. Do you have 

one more thing, Bobby? 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I would like unanimous consent to 

enter into the record letters from the Prison Fellowship Ministry, 

signed by Charles Colson and Mark Early, and from the Justice 

Fellowship from a statement by Pat Nolan, President of Justice 

Fellowship. 

Mr. COBLE. Without objection. 

[The material referred to follows:]

42


Colson1.eps
43


Colson2.eps
44

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PAT NOLAN

‘‘The opposite of compassion is not hatred, it’s indifference’’. These words were 

written by a prisoner who was severely beaten after refusing demands for sex from 

another inmate. 

While often the subject of jokes on late-night TV, prison rape is no laughing matter. It has terrible consequences, not just for the inmates who are brutalized, but 

for our communities as well. The rate of HIV in prisons today is ten times higher 

than in the general population. Every rape in prison can turn a sentence for a nonviolent crime into a death sentence. 

Prison rape leads to other types of death, also. Rodney Hulin set a dumpster on 

fire in his neighborhood. Despite being only sixteen years old, he was sentenced to 

eight years in an adult prison where he was repeatedly beaten and raped. Despite 

his pleas for help, no one in authority intervened to help him; he was told to fend 

for himself. Depressed and unwilling to face the remainder of his sentence at the 

mercy of sexual predators, Rodney committed suicide. Similar suicides have occurred in jails and prisons across the United States. 

Experts estimate that at least one in ten inmates is raped in prison. Because 95 

percent of prisoners will eventually be released back into our communities, the horrors that occur inside prison have consequences for the rest of us, too. 

Some who suffer through brutal rapes become predators themselves, both in prison and after their release, subjecting other innocent victims to the same degradation 

that they experienced. Or they vent their rage in other acts of violence, often racially motivated. One example is the tragic story of James Byrd, the African-American who was picked up by three white supremacists, beaten, chained to the back 

of their pickup truck and dragged for three miles to his death. One of his assailants 

was John William King, a burglar who had recently been released after serving a 

three year sentence in one of Texas’ toughest prisons. 

When John arrived at the prison, a group of white supremacists reportedly conspired with the guards to place John in the ‘‘black’’ section of the prison. At just 

140 pounds, John was unable to defend himself against a group of African American 

prisoners who repeatedly gang-raped him. This was exactly what the white power 

gang wanted. Filled with hatred, John was easily recruited into their group for protection. Over the remainder of his sentence, they filled John’s head full of hatred 

for blacks. When he was released, John King unleashed that pent-up hatred on 

James Byrd. The gang-rapes he endured in prison are no excuse for his murder of 

James Byrd, but they certainly help us understand what could lead him to hate so 

much. 

As troubling as the incidence of rape is, equally disturbing is the attitude of many 

government officials who are indifferent to it. When asked about prison rape, Massachusetts Department of Correction spokesman Anthony Carnevales said, ‘‘Well, 

that’s prison . . . I don’t know what to tell you.’’ In that offhand remark, he was 

expressing what many feel in their hearts but are loathe to admit—‘‘they deserve 

it.’’

But they don’t deserve it. Regardless of the crimes they have committed, no offender’s sentence includes being raped while in the custody of government. By its 

very nature, imprisonment means a loss of control over the circumstances in which 

inmates live. They cannot choose their ‘‘neighbors’’ i.e. their cellmates, nor arm 

themselves, nor take other steps to protect themselves. Because the government has 

total control over where and how inmates live, it is their responsibility to make sure 

they aren’t harmed while in custody. 

That is why Justice Fellowship strongly supports HR 1707, the Prison Rape Reduction Act, which would establish standards for investigating and eliminating rape, 

and hold the states accountable if they fail to do so. 

Winston Churchill said that the manner in which a society treats criminals ‘‘is 

one of the most unfailing tests of the civilisation of any country.’’ It is important 

that Congress deal with the scandal of prison rape, for in doing so, you will lead 

our nation in meeting Churchill’s test of a civilized society.

Mr. COBLE. Without objection, I would like to introduce into the 

record as well correspondence from Mr. Glenn Goord, the Commissioner, Department of Correctional Services for New York, and the 

Department of Public Safety Corrections from Louisiana, Mr. Richard Stalder, as secretary. 

[The material referred to follows:]

45


Gord1.eps
46


Gord2.eps
47


Stalder1.eps
48


Stalder2.eps
49


Stalder3.eps
50

Mr. COBLE. This concludes the legislative hearing on H.R. 1707, 

the ‘‘Prison Rape Reduction Act of 2003.’’ The record will remain 

open for 1 week. 

Thank you for your cooperation. The Subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 5:21 p.m., the Subcommittee adjourned.] 

(51)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL J. HOROWITZ

Chairman Coble, Congressman Scott and Members of the Subcommittee: 

I submit this statement in the hope that it will be of value to the Subcommittee 

in its consideration of H.R. 1707, the Wolf-Scott-Sessions-Kennedy Prison Rape Reduction Act of 2003. Having been involved from the start with the extraordinary 

right-left, bipartisan coalition engaged in the effort to enact it, I hope that the following comments will shed light on the context and character of the effort and the 

bill. 

The first and most critical fact about the bill is its modest, moderate and federalism-friendly nature. The coalition supporting the bill, whose strong letter of support of April 18, 2003 is attached to this statement, has steadfastly resisted calls 

to deal with massive and epidemic prison rape through major federal spending initiatives, major federal spending mandates, significant amendments of existing laws 

or expansions of the right to bring lawsuits in the courts. The coalition is therefore 

pleased that H.R. 1707, which has the committed, indeed passionate support of such 

groups as the NAACP and Focus on the Family; La Raza and the Salvation Army; 

Prison Fellowship and Human Rights Watch; the Southern Baptist Convention and 

the Union of American Hebrew Congregations; the National Association of 

Evangelicals, the Presbyterian Church, U.S.A., the American Probation and Parole 

Association, Physicians for Human Rights, the Christian Coalition and Amnesty 

International, U.S.A. only calls for limited but strategic steps to be taken. 

Insofar as penal systems are concerned, H.R. 1707 only calls for three simple reform steps—all of them highly moderate in light of the fact that:

• Between 10 and 15% of the nation’s two million prisoners are now estimated 

to be victims of sexual assault each year and, when victimized, to be repetitively assaulted—a violent outcome that, by far, hits first-time offenders, juveniles and the mentally handicapped hardest of all.

• Today’s systematic indifference to prison rape not only represents grievous 

and unacceptable penal and social policy; Congressional action is further in 

order because the Supreme Court’s Farmer v. Brennan decision makes deliberate indifference to prison rape a direct violation of the 8th Amendment of 

the Constitution.

The three actions called for by H.R. 1707 are these:

• Penal systems are called upon to cooperate with annual Justice Department 

prison surveys of prison rape;

• Heads of prison systems whose incidence of prison rape is found by the Justice surveys to exceed the national norm by 30% or more are called upon to 

publicly explain and defend their prison rape abatement policies; and

• Prison systems are called upon to comply with rape abatement standards established after years of study by a National Commission and by the Attorney 

General, and after full notice and comment rulemaking—under circumstances 

where the standards cannot impose significant spending mandates.

H.R. 1707 seeks to enforce the three above reforms through limited adjustments 

in formula entitlements for federal grant programs whose purposes are most undermined by the failure to abate prison rape. I know that there has been discussion 

over this means of achieving compliance with H.R. 1707’s three reforms, and believe 

that careful scrutiny of this approach will establish its moderate and non-intrusive 

character. Whatever one’s views of H.R. 1707’s grant formula adjustment approach, 

52

however, it is fair to say that the coalition’s singular determination is that jurisdictions should not be free to ignore the three reforms, or be unaffected if they do so. 

Thus, the coalition’s position may be summarized as follows:

• That meaningful mechanisms should be established to ensure that prison systems can be surveyed to determine the incidence of prison rape;

• That the heads of systems where the incidence of rape significantly exceeds 

national norms should publicly defend their rape abatement practices; and

• That prison systems should comply with carefully established, no-spendingmandate rape abatement practices.

As long as these three, limited objectives are achieved, Mr. Chairman, I believe 

that Congress will enact historic legislation that will be a credit to it, to our Constitution and to the decency of the American people.

53

LETTER FROM HAROLD W. CLARKE, WITH ATTACHMENTS


Clark1.eps
54


Clark2.eps
55


Clark3.eps
56


Clark4.eps
57


Clark5.eps
58


Clark6.eps
59


Clark7.eps
60


Clark8.eps
61


Clark9.eps
62


Clark10.eps
63


Clark11.eps
64


Clark12.eps
65


Clark13.eps
66


Clark14.eps
67


Clark15.eps
68


Clark16.eps
69


Clark17.eps
70


Clark18.eps
71


Clark19.eps
72


Clark20.eps
73


Clark21.eps
74


Clark22.eps
75


Clark23.eps
76


Clark24.eps
77


Clark25.eps
78


Clark26.eps
79


Clark27.eps
80


Clark28.eps
81


Clark29.eps
82


Clark30.eps
83


Clark31.eps
84


Clark32.eps
85


Clark33.eps
86


Clark34.eps
87


Clark35.eps
88


Clark36.eps
89


Clark37.eps
90


Clark38.eps
91


Clark39.eps
92


Clark40.eps
93


Clark41.eps
94


Clark42.eps
95


Clark43.eps
96


Clark44.eps
97


Clark45.eps
98


Clark46.eps
99


Clark47.eps
100


Clark48.eps
101


Clark49.eps
102


Clark50.eps
103


Clark51.eps
104


Clark52.eps
105


Clark53.eps
106


Clark54.eps
107


Clark55.eps
108


Clark56.eps
109


Clark57.eps
110


Clark58.eps
111


Clark59.eps
112


Clark60.eps
113


Clark61.eps
114


Clark62.eps
115

LETTER FROM CINDY STRUCKMAN-JOHNSON, WITH ATTACHMENTS


SJ1.eps
116


SJ2.eps
117


SJ3.eps
118


CSJB1.eps
119


CSJB2.eps
120


CSJB3.eps
121


CSJB4.eps
122


CSJB5.eps
123


CSJB6.eps
124


CSJB7.eps
125


CSJB8.eps
126


CSJB9.eps
127


CSJB10.eps
128


CSJACov.eps
129


CSJA1.eps
130


CSJA2.eps
131


CSJA3.eps
132


CSJA4.eps
133


CSJA5.eps
134


CSJA6.eps
135


CSJA7.eps
136


CSJA8.eps
137


CSJA9.eps
138


CSJA10.eps
139


CSJA11.eps
140


CSJA12.eps
141

LETTER FROM JOSEPH D. LEHMAN


Lehman1.eps
142


Lehman2.eps
143


Lehman3.eps
144

LETTER FROM REGINALD A. WILKINSON


Wilkin1.eps
145


Wilkin2.eps
146


Wilkin3.eps
147

LETTER FROM ALIDA V. MERLO


Merlo1.eps
148


Merlo2.eps
149

LETTER FROM MARTIN D. SCHWARTZ


Schwartz1.eps
150


Schwartz2.eps
151

LETTER FROM LEANNE FIFTAL ALARID

Æ


Alarid.eps