Prison Rape: A Critical Review of the Literature 

Gerald G. Gaes and Andrew L. Goldberg 

National Institute of Justice 

March 10, 2004 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The opinions expressed in this paper are those of the authors’ and should not be 

construed as the opinions or the policy of the National Institute of Justice, the Office of 

Justice Programs, or the U. S. Department of Justice.
Prison Rape: A Critical Review of the Literature – Executive Summary 

This executive summary covers the highlights of the report Prison Rape: A Critical

Review of the Literature, which analyzes obstacles and problems that must be overcome 

to effectively measure sexual assault at the facility level. Each bold heading in this 

summary refers to the same bold heading contained in the larger report. 

Federal Legislation. The Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 calls for research and 

policy changes to minimize sexual victimization of incarcerated juveniles and adults. The 

Act also calls for a zero tolerance policy; national standards for the detection, prevention, 

reduction, and punishment of prison rape; collection of data on incidence; and 

development of a system to hold prison officials accountable. Also, the Bureau of Justice 

Statistics is to design a methodology to assess the prevalence of prison sexual assault and 

monitor adult prisons, jails, and juvenile facilities. In the findings section of the public 

law, there is a claim from unnamed experts that a conservative estimate of victimization 

suggests that 13 percent of inmates in the United States have been sexually assaulted. 

Defining Sexual Victimization – Prevalence and Incidence. Research should 

distinguish various levels of sexual victimization from completed rapes to other forms of 

sexual coercion. Any measurement process will have to distinguish between the 

prevalence and incidence of the events. Prevalence refers to the number of people in a 

given population who have ever had a sexual assault experience. Incidence refers to the 

number of new cases. This distinction is important, because prevalence can be high, but 

the number of new cases is low due to some kind of intervention or enforcement of 

policy. 

Prison Rape Literature. Aside from one study conducted by the Bureau of Justice 

Statistics (BJS) in 1997, all other studies conducted in the United States included fewer 

than 50 prisons in total. In 2000, BJS reported there were 1,668 federal and state prisons. 

There has also been one study of sexual victimization in a jail system. In 1999, the 

Bureau of Justice Statistics reported there were 3,365 jails in the United States. 

Studies Involving Primarily Men, or Men and Women. Studies by StruckmanJohnson, Struckman-Johnson, Rucker, Bumby, and Donaldson (1996), StruckmanJohnson and Struckman-Johnson (2000), Davis (1968), Nacci and Kane (1982, 1983, 

1984), Saum, Surratt, Inciardi, and Bennet (1995), Tewksbury (1989), Maitland and 

Sluder (1998), Wooden and Parker (1982), Lockwood (1980), Toch (1977), Hensley, 

Tewksbury, and Castle (2003), Carroll (1977), Chonco (1989), Moss, Hosford, and 

Anderson (1979), Butler, Donovan, Levy, and Kaldor (2002), Fuller and Orsagh (1977), 

Butler and Milner (2003), Forst, Fagan, and Vivona (1989), and the Bureau of Justice 

Statistics (1997) reported on primarily male samples, or a combination of female and 

male samples. The Butler and Milner and Butler et al., studies were conducted as part of 

a larger health assessment in the prison system in New South Wales, Australia. Details of 

each of these studies are covered in the full report. 

March 10, 2004 1
Studies Involving Exclusively Women – Coerced Sex among Women. StruckmanJohnson and Struckman-Johnson (2002), and Alarid (2000) reported on exclusively 

female samples. These studies are reviewed in detail in the full report. There is also a 

great deal of research on consensual sex among women that is mentioned, but not 

reviewed in the report. 

U.S. National Probability Sample of Rape during Incarceration. The only attempt at a 

U.S. national probability sample of adults in state and federal prisons was conducted by 

BJS in 1997. In that study, 0.45 percent of men and 0.35 percent of women prisoners 

reported they had experienced an attempted or completed rape during a previous 

incarceration. 

U.S. National Probability Sample of Forced Sexual Activity among Youth in 

Juvenile Facilities. There has also been a national probability sample of youth living in 

juvenile facilities because they are accused or convicted of a crime. The Survey of Youth 

in Residential Placement (SYRP) was sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention. Over 7,000 juveniles participated (75 percent response rate) and 

detailed questions about forced sex were asked. The results will be released soon. 

Summary of Prison Rape Estimation Studies. Aside from the New South Wales and 

BJS studies, most other research papers report survey return rates of 50 percent or less. 

Many response rates are 25 percent or lower. The prevalence estimates in this research 

range from 0 to 40 percent. When the data are limited to definitions that involve primarily 

assault or a completed sexual victimization, most of the prevalences were 2 percent or 

less typically referring to the entire period of incarceration. When forms of sexual 

pressure are included, these estimates increase to an upper limit of about 21 percent or 

less except for a couple of prisons. National and system probability samples which are 

designed to give an estimate of victimization for the entire jurisdiction, reported sexual 

victimization rates of 2 percent or less. There are few incident studies, and these have 

little, or no, information on how to construct an appropriate denominator to get a 

percentage or rate. A “back of the envelope” estimate places this at no more than 2 

percent in a given year, based primarily on the one jail system study conducted in the 

1960’s and as low as 0.69 percent based on one prison study. Women’s victimization 

percentages appear to be lower than men’s. 

These studies use different methods to establish the level of victimization (questionnaires, 

interviews, informants, administrative records); they use different questions, and they use 

different time frames. Definitions vary widely from rape to sexual pressure. Some of 

these estimates rely on self-reported victimizations, while others are based on the 

perceptions of inmates and staff on the overall level of victimization in the prison. These 

latter estimates always appear higher than self reports, and it is unclear what these latter 

estimates mean since there is no presumption that inmates or staff actually witness all of

the sexual assaults they claim are occurring. Most studies fail to report how long the 

sexual assault victim has been in prison making it difficult to compare prisons across 

jurisdictions, due to the likelihood of different exposure periods. 

March 10, 2004 2
A Meta-analysis of Prison Sexual Assault Studies 

In an effort to get a summary estimate of the level of sexual victimization, a metaanalysis was conducted to provide a calculation of an average estimate over all of the 

studies, even though any single study may not meet conventional levels of statistical 

significance. Results of the meta-analysis indicate an average prison lifetime sexual 

assault prevalence of 1.91 percent. This means that 1.91 percent of inmates have 

experienced a sexual victimization over a lifetime of incarceration. This estimate is 

based primarily on studies which report completed victimizations, although it 

incorporates some studies which also include serious attempts of sexual assault and one 

study that includes sexual pressure. 

Social Desirability of Responses and the Nature of Sensitive Questions. Prison sexual 

assault surveys are similar to surveys conducted in the community eliciting information 

on other sensitive behaviors. Survey participants tend to underreport behaviors that are 

perceived to be against society’s norms (socially undesirable), that invade privacy, and 

that may be disclosed to third parties despite precautions by researchers to protect 

confidentiality. 

Study Procedures and the Problem of Selection Bias. There are often very low 

response rates in these studies and researchers usually do not report differences between 

those that choose to be surveyed and those refusing. Nor do any of the research reports 

make adjustments to the victimization estimates based on differences in characteristics of

the respondents. Such adjustments could easily change the level of sexual victimization, 

either to a higher or lower percentage. 

Recall and Telescoping. Most of the surveys conducted among inmates ask respondents 

to recall events since their initial incarceration. With such long periods of recall, it is 

likely respondents forget details or telescope events by placing them in a more recent 

time frame than they actually occurred. Most studies do not use techniques to help 

inmates place the time of an event in context of other life events. This is particularly 

important if a researcher wants to establish a prevalence rate that may refer to a given 

incarceration or specific time frame. 

Interview Modes. To date, most of the studies have used either interviews or paper and 

pencil self-administered questionnaires to record events. New methods are now available 

that allow a respondent to answer questions through a computer assisted survey format 

(CASI), or one that also includes an audio version where instructions and questions are 

asked by the computer, and the respondent answers these questions directly into the 

computer using touch screens (audio-CASI). This latter technique has been used in other 

surveys of sensitive information (drug use, sexual behavior, legal abortions), and has 

been shown to elicit more reliable and higher incidence response rates. The computer 

intervention removes the shame and embarrassment of the interview setting, and helps to 

insure the confidentiality of the response. There is another methodology called 

randomized response that has also been used to insure confidentiality of response. 

March 10, 2004 3
Neither method has been tried in the prison sexual victimization domain. The full report 

covers the use of these methods to measure other sensitive and stigmatized behavior, and 

evidence on the reliability and validity of these methods. 

The Problem of Validity. Unlike some other assessments of sensitive and stigmatized

behaviors such as sexual practices and legal abortions, there is no way to directly 

measure the veracity of the self-reported prison sexual victimization. We propose two 

models that use other information about drug use, the level of blood borne infectious 

disease, and the level of sexual victimization to try to establish the validity of the data at 

the individual or institution level, after a large scale survey has been conducted. This

method will not provide an independent validity check on the actual proportion of sexual 

victimization. It will, however, provide some assurance that the relative ranking of 

prisons, from best to worst, has some validity. 

Sample Size and Question Wording. If researchers are interested in completed or 

serious victimizations, and these are relatively rare, the sample sizes needed to establish 

the level of sexual assault in a particular prison will have to be fairly large and more 

costly than if the study were designed to measure the jurisdictional level of victimization. 

Adjustments to the Prison Rape Estimates and the Ranking of Problematic Prisons. 

The legislation recognizes that to report the best and worst prisons, jails, and juvenile 

facilities with respect to their ranking on sexual victimization, there will have to be some

adjustment in the rankings to “level the playing field.” For example, it is unfair to 

compare prisons that contain different inmate security compositions. Adjusting the 

victimization rates to make prisons appear equivalent is a technically difficult problem. 

Since there are consequences to low rankings, the adjustments and resulting rankings will 

also be controversial. 

Summary. The task framed by the Prison Elimination Act of 2003 presents problems of 

estimation, validity, and bias. The correctional setting amplifies the problems

encountered when researchers measure sensitive and stigmatized behaviors in the 

community. Most of the literature has been concerned with adult prisons. While there are 

difficulties encountered in prisons, there will be additional problems in jails and juvenile 

facilities. Jails have high turnover rates. To get compliance from adolescents, in most 

jurisdictions you need the consent of their parents. While the task is a formidable one, it 

is worth the effort, even if prison rape is a relatively rare event. The data can be used to 

raise or allay concerns depending on the results of the jurisdiction. The survey results can 

be used to train staff and inmates. The data may lead to better classification of victims 

and assailants which will help to reduce the level of sexual assault. The American 

Correctional Association has already promulgated new standards that address prevention, 

detection, and records collection associated with sexual assault. Because there is no 

validity check on the outcomes, there will probably always be some controversy 

associated with the results of a facility-based estimate. The adjustments to the estimates 

required by the public law will probably amplify that controversy. Furthermore, there are 

critics of correctional administration and some researchers who argue that prison sex is 

part of a subculture of sexuality that is not commonly understood by most analysts doing 

March 10, 2004 4
March 10, 2004 5

work in this domain. They argue that to fully understand the level of sexual victimization, 

one must first understand the language and subcultural definitions used by the confined. 

The data may also lead to a more objective understanding of the actual level of prison 

sexual victimization that will either support or invalidate the assumptions inherent in the 

Rape Elimination Act that make it appear prison rape is endemic in American 

correctional institutions. However, since there is no independent assessment of the 

validity of the self-reported incidents, there may well be dissatisfaction with the results of 

a national probability assessment regardless of the outcome. 
Prison Rape: A Critical Review of the Literature 

Gerald G. Gaes and Andrew L. Goldberg 

National Institute of Justice 

March 10, 2004 

The opinions expressed in this paper are those of the authors’ and should not be construed as the 

opinions or the policy of the National Institute of Justice, the Office of Justice Programs, or the 

U. S. Department of Justice. We want to express our appreciation to Tim Hughes for critiquing 

and commenting on this manuscript. 

Please cite this paper as Gerald G. Gaes and Andrew L. Goldberg. (2004) Prison Rape: A 

Critical Review of the Literature, Working Paper, National Institute of Justice, Washington, D.C. 
March 10, 2004 1

Prison Rape: A Critical Review of the Literature

Recent federal legislation has called for research and interventions to address the problem 

of prison rape. This paper critically reviews the published research on prison sexual victimization 

and places this research in the broader context of measuring sensitive and stigmatized behaviors. 

The paper is intended to offer substantive suggestions on the best ways to measure the 

prevalence and incidence of sexual victimization in prison, to explore problems that will be 

encountered in assessing and interpreting results of a national survey of prisons and jails, and to 

summarize the prior and current literature. While there are some similarities in measuring prison 

rape and sensitive behaviors in the community such as abortion, drug use, and homosexual 

behavior, the prison context also changes the nature of the measurement problem. 

First, we review the findings and goals of The Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 

("The Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003," 2003(c)(3) Data Adjustments). The second section 

of this paper discusses definitions of incidence and prevalence. Part of the confusion that arises 

in representing the quantity and rate of prison and jail rape is that different authors have used 

different definitions. The next section reviews the current literature on estimating the amount of 

prison and jail victimization. There have been very few attempts to measure sexual victimization 

in prison. Only the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) has attempted to study this topic using a 

national probability sample in the United States, although the Bureau of Prisons conducted a 

national probability sample of prisons under its jurisdiction (Nacci & Kane, 1982, 1983, 1984). 

There has also been a health survey conducted among inmates confined in New South Wales, 

Australia that included sexual victimization, and was designed as a probability sample for that 

jurisdiction (Butler & Milner, 2003). It is only with such a sample that we can ever attempt to 

understand the scope of the problem. We summarize the level of sexual victimization by 
March 10, 2004 2

reporting the results of a meta-analysis. The measurement problems for these surveys are 

formidable given the stigmatization associated with sexual victimization, as well as the fact that 

many of the previous attempts to measure victimization have resulted in large unit non-response. 

This is the term of art used by survey statisticians when individuals refuse to participate in the 

survey. This should be distinguished from item non-response which refers to questions that 

respondents either intentionally or inadvertently fail to answer. We elaborate on these problems 

in the paper. In the subsequent section, we review some of the literature on different modes that 

have been used to elicit reporting of stigmatized behavior in different national probability sample 

surveys that have been used to study sensitive behavior such as illicit drug use, abortions, and 

homosexuality. In the following section on validity, there is a discussion of possible ways to 

assess whether the self report data gathered from the surveys can be compared to some objective 

measures to give us greater confidence in the veracity of the survey data. We then briefly cover 

the problem of question wording, and relate it to whether the sample sizes will be large enough 

to detect sexual victimization at the facility level. In the section on institution adjustments, we 

review recent research that directly addresses the problem outlined in the legislation. The Act 

requires the prisons to be rank ordered so that the institutions with the best and worst levels of 

sexual victimization will be highlighted, but recognizes this requires a “level playing field.” 

Certain types of prisons will have higher victimization rates because of their security status, 

other dimensions of institutional operations, and the type and composition of the inmates. In the 

last section of this paper, we summarize the problems and issues. 
March 10, 2004 3

Federal Legislation 

In the findings section of The Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 ("The Prison Rape 

Elimination Act of 2003," 2003), the public law states that “Insufficient research has been 

conducted and insufficient data reported on the extent of prison rape.” (p. 2). The findings 

section of this bill also asserts that according to conservative estimates of experts, nearly 13 

percent of the inmates in the United States have been sexually assaulted in prison. Under current 

levels of imprisonment, this would imply that about 200,000 inmates now in prison have been 

sexually assaulted. The findings also assert that prison staff are unprepared by their training to 

“...prevent, report, or treat sexual assaults.”; that prison rape goes unreported; that prison rape 

contributes to the transmission of infectious diseases such as HIV, tuberculosis, hepatitis B and 

C; that rape victims pose a public safety problem because they are more likely to commit crime; 

that the interracial nature of sexual assault causes racial tensions both in prison and in the 

community; that rape exacerbates violence within prison; that members of the public and 

government are largely unaware of the epidemic proportions of prison rape and the daily horror 

of rape victims; that victims of prison rape are less likely to successfully reintegrate into their 

communities upon release from prison; that the high levels of prison rape violates prisoner’s 

rights under the Cruel and Unusual Punishment clause of the Eighth Amendment of the U. S. 

Constitution; and that prison rape undermines other government efforts to promote public health, 

public safety, salutary race relations, and economic sufficiency. 

To address these issues the Act calls for a zero-tolerance standard; an effort to make this 

a top priority in every prison system, national standards for the detection, prevention, reduction, 
March 10, 2004 4

and punishment of prison rape; increased data on the incidence; standardization of definitions for 

collecting data; a system that holds prison officials accountable to detect, prevent, and punish 

prison rape; and a reduction in the costs of prison rape on interstate commerce. 

The Act acknowledges that when the results of the survey of sexual victimization are 

reported, the data must be adjusted so that prisons are judged on a level playing field. The 

legislation also allows the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the agency responsible for obtaining 

prison rape data, leeway in determining how rape should be defined, although clarifying 

language under the Definitions Section of the bill are quite explicit. Rape means “...the carnal 

knowledge, oral sodomy, sexual assault with an object, or sexual fondling of a person forcibly, 

or against that person’s will (Sec.10.Definitions.(9)(A) ).” Fondling is defined as “...the touching 

of private body parts for the purpose of sexual gratification.” (Sec.10.Definitions.(11) ) 

Defining Sexual Victimization – Prevalence and Incidence 

There are two distinct ways in which researchers characterize the extent to which some 

attribute is present in a population. These terms and concepts have been borrowed from the study 

of disease. Epidemiologists distinguish between prevalence and incidence. Prevalence is the 

total number within a population infected with a particular disease at a given point in time. As an 

example, a researcher may be interested in the number of inmates currently in our nation’s prison 

infected with HIV. Incidence refers to new cases of a disease or other phenomenon in a specified 

period of time. Using the HIV example, researchers may try to estimate how many new cases of 

HIV infection have occurred within a calendar year. Prevalence rates or percentages are 

expressed as the number of cases of a disease present in a population at a particular time divided 
March 10, 2004 5

by the total number of individuals in the population at that time. Incidence proportions are 

expressed as the number of new cases, divided by the number of individuals at risk during that 

time period. 

Because most diseases have a limited duration, or they kill their host, incidence and 

prevalence rates can indicate very different pictures of the disease cycle. For example, If a 

disease has a long duration (such as HIV), and it was spread widely in 2002, even if the number 

of new cases has declined dramatically, there will still be a high prevalence in 2003. Conversely, 

a disease that is easily transmissible, but has a short duration may have a high incidence and low 

prevalence. Sometimes epidemiologists distinguish between first and total incidence. First 

incidence is the initial occurrence of an event such as the first occurrence of a cold, an accident, 

or a rape. There are of course some phenomena which can only have a first occurrence. There is 

no second incident of an HIV infection. Total incidence allows the individual to be counted more 

than once during some time frame. In a given year, if we count the number of rapes, and if 

someone is raped more than once that person is counted each time the assault occurs. Total 

incidence is also sometimes called the attack rate. There are actually comparable prevalence 

concepts. Lifetime prevalence is the number of people who have ever experienced an event. 

Point prevalence is the number of people who have experienced an event in a given time frame. 

Point and lifetime prevalence have both been used to characterize prison rape without explicitly 

recognizing the difference in meaning of the two statistics. 

When these concepts are translated into areas of interest outside of disease, we must 

recognize that the phenomenon we are dealing with may not have a cycle of infection. This is the 

case with sexual victimization. Someone who has been raped will always have that attribute. 

Nonetheless it is still important to distinguish between incidence and prevalence for the same 
March 10, 2004 6

reason it is important in the epidemiology of disease. A prevalence rate may be high at the same 

time the number of new cases (incidence) is declining, or equally compelling, prevalence may be 

low while incidence is increasing. 

 Incidence rates are bounded by a time frame. How many new cases have there been in 

one week, one month, one year? Prevalence rates of rape are not typically time bounded, but as 

indicated above they can be by collecting data to provide point prevalence. One could ask a 

sample from the current population of all prisoners whether they have ever been sexually 

assaulted in prison – the lifetime prevalence of sexual assault in prison. Or one could ask 

whether they have been sexually assaulted within there current period of incarceration – a point 

prevalence estimate, or as the legislation requires, whether they have been assaulted in the last 

year. 

To compare incidence or prevalence over time or across populations, the statistics must 

be expressed as a proportion or a rate. Thus, one must have an appropriate denominator. In the 

case of prevalence, the denominator is the number occurring within the population during the 

reference time period. For example, one might interview every inmate in a county jail on a given 

day and the denominator is the number of prisoners in that jail. Incidence proportions or rates 

require that the analyst be able to count the potential number of people exposed to the risk of 

sexual assault. For a specific prison, if we were to count all instance of rapes occurring in 

calendar year 2002, we would have to start with everyone in that prison on January 1, 2002, and 

also count every new prisoner admitted to prison during that one year period. Every one of those 

inmates would be potential targets of a sexual assault during that time period. 

One other distinction that should be clarified is the rate of victimization versus the rate of 

incidents. The former refers to the number of persons who have been victimized. The latter refers 
March 10, 2004 7

to the number of times a sexual assault has occurred. If one person is raped 10 different times, 

then there will be a single victim and 10 sexual assaults. 

In addition to the technicalities of measuring prevalence and incidence, researchers must 

establish a coherent, consistent definition of the phenomenon. In Table 1, we have recorded the 

different definitions of sexual victimization researchers have used along with other information 

on each study. There is language in the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 that can also be 

used to guide definitions. The operational definitions should distinguish completed sexual 

assaults, from attempted victimizations, from pressure to engage in sex. We cover this issue in 

detail after the review of relevant research. 

Prison Rape Literature 

 In this section, we review studies that have been conducted to ascertain the level of prison 

sexual victimization. The Bureau of Justice Statistics reported that there were 1,668 state and 

federal prisons in the United States in the year 2000 (Stephan & Karberg, 2003), and with the 

exception of one attempt at a national probability sample by BJS, the sexual victimization studies 

have been conducted in fewer than 40 – about 2.4 percent of all prisons in the U.S. While the 

Prison Rape Elimination Act calls for an assessment in jails as well, only Davis’ (1968; 2000) 

study was conducted in a jail. In 1999, there were 3,365 jails operating in the United States 

(Stephan, 2001). The studies listed and described in this section are also summarized in Table 1. 

 

Studies Involving Primarily Men, or Men and Women 
March 10, 2004 8

Struckman-Johnson and Struckman-Johnson and Colleagues

Two of the studies cited most often by advocates of legislation and/or policy to reduce or 

eliminate prison rape were those conducted by Cindy and David Struckman-Johnson and their 

colleagues (Struckman-Johnson & Struckman-Johnson, 2000; Struckman-Johnson, StruckmanJohnson, Rucker, Bumby, & Donaldson, 1996). 

The procedures used in both studies were quite similar. The first study was conducted in 

1994 using inmates under the custody of the Nebraska Department of Corrections housed in four 

institutions. The second study was conducted in 7 prisons in the Midwest. The Midwestern states 

were not identified. In both studies, paper and pencil surveys were distributed (mailed or hand 

delivered) to the inmates who then completed them at their convenience. In the Nebraska study, 

the institutions were two maximum and one minimum security men’s facility as well as one 

women’s prison. In the “Midwest” study, all of the prisons housed male inmates. Many of these 

facilities had mixed custody responsibilities housing maximum, medium, and minimum security 

inmates in different housing units. There was also a long-term maximum security segregation 

facility and a minimum security facility included in the study. The total number of available 

participants in the first study was 1,801 inmates (1,708 men and 93 women) and 714 staff. In the 

second study, the total available sample was 7,032 male inmates and 1,936 security staff. The 

distribution of surveys was accompanied by informed consent forms. In the Nebraska study, 

28.7 percent of the inmate surveys were returned and usable (n=516) and 37 percent of the staff 

surveys were returned and usable (n=264). In the Midwest study, 25 percent of the inmate 

(n=1,788) and 25 percent of the staff (n=475) surveys were returned and usable. 
March 10, 2004 9

To obtain an estimate of the prevalence of sexual victimization, inmates were asked “In 

the prison you are in now, about what percentage of inmates do you think have been pressured or 

forced to have sexual contact against their will?” The choices available to the respondents were 

0%, 1%, 5%, 10%, and then increments of 10% up to 100%. Both staff and inmates were asked 

to estimate this prevalence and inmate estimates averaged 19 percent. Staff estimates were, on 

average, 15 percent. This varied by facility. In men’s maximum security facility A, the respective 

estimates were staff 19 percent, inmates 19 percent. In men’s maximum facility B, the estimates 

were staff 16 percent, inmates 26 percent. In a men’s minimum security facility, the estimates 

were staff 11 percent, inmates 16 percent. In the women’s facility, the estimates were staff 8 

percent, inmates 3 percent. 

The key question in the 1996 study was “Since the time you have been in a Nebraska 

prison, has anyone ever pressured or forced you to have sexual contact (touching of genitals, 

oral, anal, or vaginal sex) against your will? A person could respond “yes,” “no,” or “not sure.” 

The estimate of victimization based on this question was 20 percent (104 out of 516 

respondents). There were 3 women out of 42, or 7.1 percent and 101 men out of 474, or 21.3 

percent who responded “yes.” For inmates who answered “yes” to this question, a skip pattern 

probed about details of the victimization. These victim targets indicated they had experienced, on 

average, 9 episodes of pressured or forcible sex. Of the 101 men targeted, 51 percent were 

victims of anal sex; 8 percent were victims of oral sex. The perpetrator was described as a staff 

member 18 percent of the time; however, most of the time the perpetrator was an inmate. Of the 

three women, two had been fondled and one groped. There were 75 inmate victims who provided 

descriptions of their sexual coercion. Fifty five percent of these were completed anal, oral, or 

vaginal sex that was forced by one or more perpetrators. Five percent were pressured into 
March 10, 2004 10

completed sexual victimization. The remaining were either incomplete sexual acts or involved 

only touching. Only 29 percent of the male victims said they disclosed the worst incident to staff 

at the institution. Based on data reported in Table 3 of their study, there were 76 men and one 

women who reported attempted or completed oral, vaginal, or anal sex. These data allow the 

construction of an estimate with sexual pressure excluded. Based on data in this table, 16 percent 

of the men and 0.23 percent of the women were sexually victimized. This is the number we use 

in our meta-analysis. The other cases were instances of sexual pressure or “unknown.” 

In the 2000 study, the same key questions as indicated above were asked to establish 

estimates of sexual coercion. The overall victimization percentage was 21 and the facility by 

facility prevalence estimates appear in Table 1. They vary between 4 and 41 percent depending 

on facility, and whether the estimate was made by staff or inmates. In Table 1 of that study, the 

researchers list different categories of assaults based on rape, force, or pressure. Row 7 of the 

table calculates the percentage of inmates who reported a worst-case incident of rape for each of 

the 7 prisons. The weighted average prevalence for the 7 prisons is 7.6 percent. For this study, 

this is the result we use in our meta-analysis. 

Other than Wooden and Parker (1982), the Struckman-Johnsons and their colleagues 

have recorded and reported the highest levels of sexual assault. This may be because the 

particular institutions they evaluated had high rates of assault, or it could be due to their 

particular methodology. In both of these studies, questionnaires were sent to the prisons and 

distributed by staff. Each inmate could mail the completed questionnaire back in a pre-addressed, 

postage paid envelope. This is probably not the most reliable way to collect these type of data. 

Inmates who participated in this study could have discussed the survey with each other before 

returning the questionnaire. Unfortunately, allowing inmates to fill out these self administered 
March 10, 2004 11

questionnaires back in their cells, or at their convenience, also raises suspicions about collusion 

and lack of independence in filling out the answers, especially when one considers how low the 

response rates were in these studies. In a later section of this paper, we discuss in more detail the 

low levels of response for many of the studies reviewed in this paper. 

The Davis Report on Philadelphia Jails in 1968

Alan J. Davis, a Chief Assistant District Attorney conducted an investigation of the 

Philadelphia Jail system as a result of allegations of widespread sexual victimization (Davis, 

1968). Davis, along with the cooperation of the Philadelphia police interviewed 3,304 inmates, 

and 562 employees. These investigators took 130 written statements and 45 polygraph tests. The 

investigation lasted from June 1, 1966 though July 31, 1968. A sample of about 5 percent of the 

approximately 60,000 inmates passing through the system during this time period was identified 

for participation. Of the 3,304 interviewed inmates, 97 victims were identified, or 2.9 percent. 

Since some of these inmates were repeatedly victimized. There were actually 156 separate 

assaults involving 176 aggressors. Interviews were conducted during a two week period, July 15, 

to July 31, 1968 in three separate Philadelphia facilities. There were also 561 staff interviews in 

these three institutions. 

Davis expresses his findings sometimes as if they were incidence rates and sometimes as 

if they were prevalence rates. The 97 documented victims represent a prevalence rate of 2.9 

percent of the total number of inmates interviewed. Thus, we can see, of the inmates in the 

Philadelphia jail system in this time period, 2.9 percent had a documented sexual victimization at 

some point in their jail experience. Later in the report, Davis discusses the reluctance of inmates 
March 10, 2004 12

to talk about a sexual victimization. He makes a back-of-the-envelope estimate, and conjectures 

that there were 2,000 sexual assaults in a 26 month time frame. This would yield an incident rate 

of about 3.3 percent (2,000/60,000) although this estimate includes repeated victimizations of the 

some of the same inmates. Therefore, this is an incidence estimate of sexual assaults, not sexual 

assault victims. 

Lie detector tests were given to some victims and some assailants and certain staff 

informants. All but one of the 26 staff who was asked to take a polygraph test refused. Of the 48 

inmates who were asked, 7 refused. Ten of the 41 inmates who submitted to a polygraph test 

showed indications of deception in their narration of the facts. This was the only study to attempt 

a validity check of self-reported sexual victimization. 

According to Davis, the likelihood of being approached for sex or sexually assaulted in 

the Philadelphia Correctional System if you were small in stature was almost certain. 

Sexual assaults are epidemic in the Philadelphia Prison System. Virtually every slightly built young man 

committed by the courts is sexually approached within a day or two after his admission to prison. Many of 

these young men are overwhelmed and repeatedly “raped” by gangs of inmate aggressors. Others are 

compelled by the terrible threat of gang rape to seek protection by entering a “housekeeping” relationship 

with an individual tormentor. Only the toughest and more hardened young men – and those few so 

obviously frail that they are immediately locked up for their own protection – escape penetration of their 

bodies. (Davis: 17) 

Davis goes on to recount narratives of sexual victimizations to sensitize the reader to the 

“raw, ugly, and chilling” (Davis: 18) nature of these assaults. 

The facts that were gathered about sexual assault were documented by institutional 

records, polygraph examination, or other methods. Davis argues that the true victimization rate 
March 10, 2004 13

was much higher than reported because inmates refused to cooperate in the investigation. Davis 

attributes this lack of cooperation to fear of retaliation, the shame associated with disclosure, and 

the mistrust of prison and criminal justice officials. Davis also argues that much of the putative 

consensual homosexual sex that occurred was actually a continuation of the victimization of 

intimidated inmates. 

Nacci and Kane , 1982 – a Study of the Federal Bureau of Prisons

Nacci and Kane have several reports on a study of sexual victimization conducted within 

the Federal Bureau of Prisons (Nacci & Kane, 1982, 1983, 1984). This study was prompted as a 

result of an unusual number of homicides at one the Bureau’s federal penitentiaries, and there 

was some evidence to indicate that many homicides were related to consensual and 

nonconsensual sexual activity. 

This is one of the few studies on the topic with a sound approach to the sampling 

methodology in its attempt to draw a sample representative of all inmates under the custody of a 

jurisdiction. A two stage probability sample was used to first randomly select 17 prisons from the 

federal system, and then randomly select 330 inmates from those prisons proportional to the 

institution population. In addition, every correctional officer in each of the 17 prisons was 

eligible to complete a survey as well. The inmate survey, however, was an interview conducted 

by “ an articulate, black ex-offender (Nacci & Kane, 1982: 2).” The inmate surveys contained 

over 300 items including questions of sexual victimization. Of the inmates contacted, 64 percent 

decided to volunteer for the interview. Given the sensitivity of the questions, this is a respectable 

response rate. In their 1982 paper, Nacci and Kane (1982), reported that the respondents were 
March 10, 2004 14

similar to non respondents with the exception that there were more African Americans and fewer 

whites among the participants. The authors also reported high reliabilities for the survey items 

and a coherent structure to the items. Although the 1982 paper did not include any statistics to 

support those contentions, the authors mentioned they conducted factor, cluster, and reliability 

analyses of the data. 

In their 1982 report, Nacci and Kane report a number of conclusions, but do not provide 

data or statistical evidence to support these assertions. Using the Kinsey study (Kinsey, Pomeroy, 

& Martin, 1948) as a baseline, they compare prisoner interview response to the sexual practices 

of men documented in the Kinsey study. Prisoners were less accepting about certain sexual 

practices than the Kinsey sample regarding mate swapping and homosexuality; however, the 

prisoner respondents were more accepting of sex before marriage, and “exotic” sexual practices 

than the Kinsey sample. A number of questions were asked about sexual behavior while in 

prison. Among the interviewees, 28 percent stated they had a homosexual experience some time 

in their lives; 25 percent had homosexual experiences as an adult; 12 percent had a homosexual 

experience in their current institution; 20 percent of inmates housed in the highest security levels 

claimed they had a homosexual experience in their current institution; 29 percent had been 

propositioned for sex in their current institution; 7 percent were “seduced” by inmates bearing 

gifts; 2 percent had taken money for performing sex; and 1.8 percent were in a long standing 

love relationship. 

Victimization was evaluated by a response to a question about whether anyone had 

forced or attempted to use force to get the inmate to perform sex against his will. In response to 

this question, 9 percent had been targeted sometime in their prison career (state or federal 
March 10, 2004 15

prisons), 2.0 percent were targeted in a federal prison, 0.6 percent had to perform an undesired 

sexual act in a federal prison, and 0.3 percent had been raped. 

Saum, Surratt, Inciardi, and Bennet, 1995

Saum, Surratt, Inciardi, and Bennet (1995) conducted a study of sexual victimization in 

the Delaware prison system among inmates in a therapeutic community (TC) located in one of 

the state prisons. The authors claim that since the treatment staff had an excellent rapport with 

the inmates, this would promote more honest responding to sensitive questions. Of the 106 TC 

inmates who had been in the program 30 days or more, 101 volunteered to participate in an 

interview. The inmates were asked to respond to questions about sexual activity in prison that 

had occurred prior to their assignment to the TC. They were asked to report on sexual activities 

that they had witnessed, heard about, or participated in during the previous year of their current 

incarceration. There were about 1,350 inmates housed in this institution at the time, and the 

authors of this study made no attempt to show the extent to which TC inmates were 

representative of the entire population. While there was a high degree of cooperation among the 

TC inmates, it is not known what degree of cooperation the researchers would have gotten had 

they tried to interview a sample from the entire population. 

About 51 percent of the inmates reported having heard about consensual sex in the prior 

year and 25 percent claimed to have witnessed consensual sex. Almost 60 percent of inmates had 

not heard about a rape occurring in the prior year, 3 percent said they had seen one rape and 1 

percent had seen two rapes. When asked to estimate how often rape occurred, almost 30 percent 
March 10, 2004 16

said once a month. When asked to report their own victimization, only one inmate reported 

being raped, while 5 inmates indicated there had been a rape attempt. 

Tewksbury, 1989

Tewksbury (1989b) conducted a study in the Lebanon State Correctional Institution in 

Ohio. He was primarily interested in more generic sexual activities of inmates, but his self 

administered questionnaire (SAQ) also included items about coerced sexual behavior. He 

collected 150 surveys but does not report how many inmates were housed at this particular 

institution. He recruited inmates in many different ways and does not discuss any kind of 

sampling strategy. Because one of his recruiting strategies was to enlist inmates after a college 

program class, it is not surprising that 84 percent of the survey respondents were enrolled in a 

college program while only 19.5 percent of the inmate population was enrolled in a college 

program. The research sample also over-represented inmates who were white and those who 

were never married. 

The SAQ included the item, “How many times have you been raped in this prison?’ No 

one reported a rape. Another question asked about coerced sex, “While in this prison, how many 

times has another male tried to have sex with you using threats or force?” Among the 

respondents, 4.5 percent answered affirmatively and 7.4 percent of those inmates indicated this 

had happened one or more times. Inmates were also asked to make estimates of the percentage 

of inmates in this prison who had been sexually assaulted. Inmates estimated this number to be 

14 percent. 
March 10, 2004 17

Tewksbury (1989a) also wrote a second paper on this same sample in which his primary 

concern was an analysis of the fear of sexual assault. Taller inmates were less likely to perceive a 

threat; however, heavier inmates were more likely to fear a sexual assault. Whether or not the 

inmate’s incarceration crime was violenct had no impact on perceived fear. Neither did the 

inmate’s race, number of friends in the institution, or religion. 

 

Maitland and Sluder 1996, 1998

 Maitland and Sluder (1998) assessed all forms of victimization (assault, sexual assault, 

threats) in a Midwestern, medium security prison that had an average daily population of 1,100, 

and held primarily youthful inmates. They used a self administered questionnaire. Unfortunately 

they did not use probability sampling techniques in soliciting volunteers for their study. A total 

of 111 inmates completed a survey out of 150 who attended classes on the day of the study. 

Although they had a response rate of about 74 percent, there was little analysis to compare the 

student inmates to the remaining population. The two variables they report indicated their sample 

had the same racial composition as the overall population, but was somewhat younger. The SAQ 

included a victimization question, “During this sentence has anyone forced sexual activity on 

you? “ Only 0.9 percent of the respondents said “yes.” A second question asked whether 

“...anyone made sexual comments to you that made you feel uncomfortable (Maitland & Sluder, 

1998: P. 63, Table 3)?” Of the 111 respondents, 16.2 percent answered yes to this question. 

 Maitland and Sluder also used the survey to measure the General Well-Being scale, an 

index to measure fear of victimization, a prison stress scale, indicators of social support, a scale 

assessing anomie, and gang affiliation. Administrative data were also collected including age, 
March 10, 2004 18

race, height, weight, IQ, education level, marital status, number of incarcerations, number of 

times on probation, length of current sentence, and current offense. Maitland and Sluder report 

that they used these measures in bivariate analyses to distinguish victims from nonvictims. Since 

there were so few victims of forced sex, no statistical distinction could be made. Maitland and 

Sluder also reported that these variables did not distinguish between victims and nonvictims with 

respect to sexual comments either. 

 This study was also reported in a Federal Probation article (Maitland & Sluder, 1996). In 

that article, the General Well Being scale was considered the dependent variable and 

victimization and other covariates were the independent variables. In a multivariate analysis of 

the data, Maitland and Sluder found that the more an inmate was victimized, the lower his sense 

of general well being. The variable was a composite measure of all types of victimizations, and 

therefore, there was no independent test of sexual victimization, although victimization of any 

type would probably lower general well being. 

Wooden and Parker, 1982

 Wooden and Parker (1982) investigated sexual behavior and victimization in a California 

medium security prison during 1979 and 1980. The prison held 2,500 inmates. This prison was 

used to house self-avowed homosexual and vulnerable inmates in single cells. The researchers 

distributed over 600 questionnaires to a random sample of inmates and received back 200. Of 

those, 14 percent claimed to have been the victim of sexual assault, although the definition also 

included pressure to engage in sexual activity. This is an unusually high level of sexual 

victimization in comparison to most studies, but may be explained by the question wording and 
March 10, 2004 19

the unusual composition of the inmate population. The researchers also distributed a 

questionnaire and interviewed a targeted subpopulation of self-defined homosexuals. Employees 

were also interviewed. One of the researchers was serving a four-year sentence at the facility. 

The co-researcher participated in the study by distributing questionnaires and by participant 

observation. 

 The authors note in the introductory chapter to their book that this prison was atypical 

and may not represent a true picture of inmate behavior that would generalize to the California 

Department of Corrections population at that time. Although they also suggest that victimization 

may have been higher in maximum security prisons than the medium security prison in their 

study. The major problem with this study is that it was conducted in a prison in which a large 

number of homosexuals were placed and this could bias the results in favor of finding a 

victimization effect. 

Lockwood, 1980

 Lockwood (1980) studied sexual victimization in the New York State prison system in 

1974 and 1975. The primary intent of his book, Prison Sexual Violence, was to describe the 

characteristics of sexual assault and sexual pressure by interviewing inmates and analyzing 

background data of 107 targets of sexual aggression and 45 sexual aggressors. Lockwood also 

conducted a small study of 89 randomly sampled offenders in two New York State prisons of 

which 15 percent refused to participate. Only 1 of the 76 respondents had been sexually assaulted 

while 28 percent had been the target of sexual pressure. While the rate of sexual victimization in 

the New York State Department of Corrections may be rare, when Lockwood focuses on the 
March 10, 2004 20

actual incidents, over 1/3 of the 148 he analyzed involved violence. Most of the aggressors were 

black and the targets were white. There was no analysis of the representativeness of the sample. 

Toch, 1977

 Toch (1977) discusses victimization in the New York State prison system in his book 

Living in Prison: The Ecology of Survival. In the chapter on inmate victimization, he notes that 

the extreme form of victimization is rape, but that it is very rare in prisons. He reports that 28 

percent of the inmates he interviewed were victimized. This is the same proportion as 

Lockwood’s study, and it is not clear whether the two books cover the same sample. The 

characteristics about the incidents reported by Toch indicated that most of the victims were white 

and most of the aggressors were black. Aggressors had assault histories. There is no report of a 

rape and this is different from Lockwood’s sample where he reported one sexual assault. Toch 

uses a lot of inmate narrative to characterize the social and cultural context of sexual aggression 

and the fear these incidents evoke in many of the threatened sexual targets. Because it is unclear 

whether the Toch data represent a new sample, his study was left out of summary Table 1. 

Hensley, Tewksbury, and Castle, 2003

 Hensley, Tewksbury, and Castle (2003) interviewed 174 Oklahoma inmates who agreed 

to participate in their study from a random sample of 300 (100 inmates each were randomly 

selected from a minimum, medium, and maximum security institution). Thus, the response rate 

was 58 percent. The study was conducted from August 1998 to May 1999. Whites were 
March 10, 2004 21

underrepresented at each security level and Native Americans were overrepresented in the 

minimum security sample. There is no other assessment of sample representativeness. A 44-item 

interview instrument was used; however, the exact wording of the interview items does not 

appear in the journal article. The inmate was asked if he had been sexually threatened or sexually 

assaulted. Two of the inmates who reported they had been sexually threatened (13.8 percent of 

the sample) said that they had been raped (1.2 percent). The question appears to have been 

unbounded. Inmates were to indicate if they had ever experienced sexual victimization at any 

point in their current or any previous incarceration. The targets were more likely to be 

homosexual or bisexual than the remainder of the sample who were not sexually coerced. The 

targets were young (median age 18.5 years) and were approached, on average, 143 days after 

their incarceration. 

Carroll, 1977

 Carroll’s (1977) study of Eastern Correctional Institution, a maximum security state 

prison of only 200 prisoners was more an ethnography than a systematic assessment of the level 

of sexual victimization. Carroll spent a 15-month period in 1970 and 1971 doing participant 

observation of the facility. He used unstructured interviews and many conversations to get some 

idea of the level of victimization and the antecedents of these actions. Carroll estimated there 

were 40 or more sexual assaults per year, but he does not say whether these were repeated or 

new victimizations. This translates into a one-year prevalence of 20 percent if these assaults 

involved different victims. Carroll states that he never observed an act of sexual victimization, 

and that these were informant reports that were not verified. If true, this would be the highest 
March 10, 2004 22

estimate of sexual assault prevalence found in any study. Carroll’s paper focuses on the 

interracial nature of the assaults (black on white) and the historical, social, and cultural 

antecedents of the prison setting that led to the asymmetrical racial nature of sexual predation in 

this prison. There is no way to know whether or not these social facts were unique, or whether 

his finding is spurious because it is based on exaggerations of informants. 

Chonco, 1989 

 

 Chonco’s (1989) study is a descriptive analysis of sexual assault in what was 

characterized as a pre-release center in a large Midwestern state. He interviewed 20 white, 19 

black, and one Mexican-American inmate, each interview lasting one to one and a half hours. 

Chonco’s main interest was to explain why African American inmates chose whites as their 

victims in a sexual assault. Various explanations have been offered based on cumulative 

discrimination, the rage resulting from psychological emasculation, the perception that whites 

are weak and sexually attractive, and the result of having been arrested, tried, convicted and 

confined in a white dominated criminal justice system. Since there are no estimates of 

victimization contained in this paper, it does not appear in Table 1. Chonco argues that perceived 

weakness and naivety, rather than race was a more salient factor leading toward victimization. 

He describes how potential targets are set up, probed, and tested prior to an assault. His 

informants claim that inmates were afraid to report assaults once they had occurred for fear of 

retaliation, and that correctional officers would only intervene if they had witnessed an attack. 

Moss, Hosford, and Anderson, 1979
March 10, 2004 23

 Moss, Hosford, and Anderson (1979) studied the characteristics of 12 individuals out of 

1,100 at a federal correctional institution who were segregated for having raped other inmates. 

This data, had it included new admissions during the year would produce a one-year incidence 

rate. The rate is no higher than 1.1 percent (12/1,100). However, there would have been a sizable 

number of admissions during the year and the denominator should be larger than the number of 

inmates on a given day. While these authors used a discriminant analysis to compare rapists and 

a randomly selected group of non-rapists, the samples were so small that the results are not 

reliable. This is one of the few studies that used administrative records to isolate known 

aggressors. However, it is not clear when these inmates had committed their assault. The 1.1 

percent is an upper bound of the one-year incidence estimate and the actual estimate is probably 

much lower since the denominator should be higher and these assaults may have occurred in 

previous years and in other institutions. 

Fuller and Orsagh, 1977

 In 1977, Fuller and Orsagh reported on a study of general victimization within ten 

institutions of the North Carolina prison system (Fuller & Orsagh, 1977). They used three 

sources of data. The first was based on administrative records collected from the 10 prisons in 

the last quarter of 1975. The second source was personal interviews with the superintendents of 

these institutions. The last source was a stratified sample of 400 inmates drawn from six of the 

prisons. The main purpose of the study was to assess overall levels of victimization, and to this 

end, the authors compared the three sources of information. For all types of victimization, the 
March 10, 2004 24

administrative records indicated a 1.7 percent incidence, the superintendent interviews indicated 

a 3.4 percent incidence, and the inmate self-reports revealed a 5.8 percent incidence. There was 

one instance of rape according to the administrative records; however, the superintendents 

indicated there were 31 incidents of sexual assault in the last year. Fuller and Orsagh incorrectly 

computed the incident rate for the year as 31 incidents divided by the standing population of 

4,495 inmates, or .69 percent. As we explained at the beginning of this paper, an incident rate 

must be based on the population at risk, and because prisons have many transfers the at-risk 

population consists of the standing population at the beginning of the year and all admissions 

during that year. There was no indication they had assessed sexual victimization with their 

inmate self-report method. It appears the definitions used in assessing the administrative records 

may have been a completed rape, while the administrators were estimating assaults. Furthermore, 

it is not clear what the superintendent’s subjective estimate of inmate sexual victimization 

means. Was this a guess, speculation, or was it based on some alternative data source? While we 

have included this study in Table 1 as a study of incidence, we did not include it in the metaanalysis of prevalence we report on later in this paper. 

Butler, Donovan, Levy, and Kaldor 2002; Butler and Milner, 2003

 As part of a broader health survey, inmates in New South Wales, Australia were 

interviewed about sexual practices in 1996 and 2001. Data from 789 inmates collected in 1996 

indicated that 2 percent of women and 2 percent of men had engaged in nonconsensual sex 

(Butler, Donovan, Levy, & Kaldor, 2002). The results reported from the 2001 survey were even 

lower (Butler et al., 2002; Butler & Milner, 2003). A cross-sectional random sample of inmates 
March 10, 2004 25

stratified by age, sex, and Aboriginality was conducted. The sample represented 10 percent of 

the men and 34 percent of the women held in full-time custody. The survey was conducted by 

using nurses who were not assigned to a given facility to interview inmates. During this 

assessment, blood and urine samples were drawn, and in addition to health measures, a mental 

health assessment was also taken. This latter testing was done by psychology masters degree 

students. The response rate for the 2001 survey was 85 percent. The sample of men was 745 and 

for women it was 163. Within these groups, 0.4 percent of males and 1 percent of females 

reported nonconsensual sex within the last year. Inmates were also asked if they had ever been 

sexually harassed or threatened with sex by another inmate. The percentages responding 

affirmatively were almost equivalent for men, 4.6 percent, and women, 4.7 percent. The majority 

of these cases involved verbal harassment only. These same inmates also reported on sexual 

assaults of other inmates. Among women, 23 percent indicated this happened, while 15 percent 

of the men said that they were aware of sexual assaults of other men in the previous 12 months. 

This seems typical of studies which ask about personal victimization, as well as the perception of 

the extent to which sexual victimization occurs. The latter estimate is typically much larger than 

the disclosure of a personal victimization. These latter estimates are always higher than the self 

reports, and it is unclear what they mean since there is no presumption that inmates or employees 

actually witness all of the sexual assaults they claim are occurring. One might argue that victims 

are ashamed or fearful of reprisals. Or, one might surmise that estimates of someone else’s 

victimization exaggerate the actual occurrence. 

Forst, Fagan, and Vivona, 1989
March 10, 2004 26

 The only published study on juvenile sexual victimization that we found was primarily 

designed to contrast the experience of youth in training schools as opposed to those who were 

sent to prison as a result of transferring the case to criminal court (Forst, Fagan, & Vivona, 

1989). The sample was drawn from youth adjudicated for violent offenses in four urban juvenile 

courts. There was no description or statistical analysis on the extent to which this sample was 

representative of the violent juvenile population in these jurisdictions. There were 59 youth 

adjudicated in juvenile court who were subsequently sent to the traditional training school. These 

juveniles were, on average, 15.7 years old at the time of their offense. Training school 

participants in the study were interviewed when they were released. They had spent, on average, 

2.9 years at the training school. There were 81 youth from these same jurisdictions who were 

transferred to criminal court, and who were sent to a state prison as a result of a conviction. This 

group averaged 16.1 years at the time of their offense. They were interviewed in prisons where 

they had served, on average, 1.8 years of a 29 year average sentence. All of the participants in 

the study were asked questions about staff assistance, case management services, the social 

climate of the facilities, and victimization experiences. For the purpose of this review, the 

important question was “Has anyone attempted to sexually attack you or rape you?” Among the 

training school sample, the prevalence was 1.7 percent, while the prevalence for the prison 

sample was 8.6 percent. Because this is a unique study of youth victimization, it is not included 

either in Table 1 or the meta-analysis we report later. It also suggests that youth may be 

particularly vulnerable in adult institutions. 

 

Studies Involving Exclusively Women -- Coerced Sex among Women 
March 10, 2004 27

 Although there have been only a handful of studies on sexual victimization of men, there 

are even fewer studies regarding women. Most of the research on women’s sexuality in prison 

has been on consensual behavior (Ford, 1929; Giallombardo, 1966; Greer, 2000; Halleck & 

Hersko, 1962; Heffernan, 1972; Hensley, Tewksbury, & Wright, ; Mitchell, 1969; Nelson, 1974; 

Otis, 1913; Owen, 1998; Propper, 1978; Propper, 1981; Propper, 1982; Selling, 1931; Ward & 

Kassenbaum, 1964, 1965). In some of this research, there is an indication of subtle coercion and 

cooptation, the fuzzy gray area between consensual and coerced sex inside of prison. In addition 

to the study of one women’s prison cited in Struckman-Johnson et al., (Struckman-Johnson et al., 

1996), in which 3 of 42 women (7 percent) were either groped or fondled, Struckman-Johnson 

and Struckman-Johnson (2002) report on 3 additional women’s prisons. This was actually data 

collected at the same time these researchers were collecting information in 7 male prisons. The 

same procedures were employed and the same questions elicited the victimization results. As 

depicted in Table 1, women inmates responded to the question “Since the time you have been in 

a Nebraska prison, has anyone ever pressured or forced you to have sexual contact (touching of 

genitals, oral, anal, or vaginal sex) against your will?” (Responses were “yes,” “no,” or “not 

sure”). In institution 1, 27 percent responded yes; in institution 2, 9 percent reported 

affirmatively; and in institution 3, the “yes” response was 8 percent. The worst incident resulting 

in a rape occurred among 5 percent of the women in the first institution; however, there were no 

reported rapes in the second or third prisons. When asked to estimate how many women were 

forced or pressured into sex in their current facility, the institution percentages were 21, 11, and 

13. There was no information on the representativeness of these three samples. 

 As reported above in the Butler and Milner study in New South Wales (Butler & Milner, 

2003), 1 percent of the women reported nonconsensual sex within the last year. In another study, 
March 10, 2004 28

Alarid (2000) used letters from an inmate in a southern jail/prison system who kept in weekly 

contact with her. Excerpts from these letters indicated that sexual assaults that did occur were 

rarely reported. Secondly, the inmate informer asserts that most women capitulate to sex through 

pressure, and it appeared that rape was not very common. 

U. S. National Probability Sample of Rape during Adult Incarceration

 In the 1997 Survey of Inmates in State Correctional Facilities (Bureau of Justice 

Statistics, 1997), there were several questions about sexual victimization prior to the current 

incarceration. If inmates indicated there had been sexual contact against their will, they were 

asked a series of questions including whether or not they were raped and whether the incident 

took place while incarcerated. To establish this prevalence, one has to be able to compute, the 

proportion of the sample with a prior incarceration to get an appropriate denominator. In fact, 

55.1 percent of the sample had a prior incarceration. With the appropriate denominator, 0.45 

percent of males and 0.35 percent of females reported a completed rape in a prior incarceration. 

This information was elicited in the BJS survey by an interviewer. To minimize the potential 

sensitivity of the question in the context of the current prison term, inmates were asked about 

incidents prior to their current incarceration. These data represent population estimates of the 

entire prison system at the time of this survey. There were 1,409 State prisons included in the 

sample design. The sample was conducted in two stages. In the first stage, 275 prisons were 

sampled. In the second stage, inmates were sampled. The 13 largest male and 17 largest female 

prisons were sampled with certainty. The remaining prisons were stratified by region, facility 
March 10, 2004 29

type (confinement and community based), security level, and size of the population. A total of 

14,285 prisoners were interviewed in the state survey with a 92.5 percent response rate. 

U.S. National Probability Sample of Forced Sexual Activity among Youth in Juvenile 

Facilities 

The Prison Rape Elimination Act also calls for investigation of sexual victimization of 

youth. There has already been a great deal of work sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice 

and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). The Survey of Youth in Residential Placement (SYRP) is 

a 10 percent national probability sample of youth, ages 10 to 20, living in juvenile facilities 

because they are accused or convicted of a crime (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention, 2004). OJJDP insured that SYRP was designed to address a variety of issues 

involving youth in these facilities including their needs, services, safety, health, security, 

accountability, and expectations for the future. SYRP was developed as an audio-computer 

assisted survey instrument (audio-CASI). We discuss the merits of this survey methodology later 

in this paper. More than 7,000 juveniles were interviewed, and the response rate was 75 percent. 

The administrators of the survey took precautions to insure confidentiality. 

 The SYRP approach to eliciting information on sexual victimization was to start with a 

global question, “Since you have been in this facility, has anyone forced you to engage in sexual 

activity.” If the answer was “Yes,” then the victim was asked “How many times has this 

happened? Please enter a number” and “Who did this to you?” with possible responses “Another 
March 10, 2004 30

resident that I know,” “Another resident that I don’t know,” “A staff member of the facility,” 

“Someone else.” Respondents could choose more than one assailant type. Youth were also asked 

whether a weapon was used during the threat, and if so, what type of weapon. The victim was 

also asked, “Did this person put any part of their body inside you?” For each incident, victims 

were also asked about injuries, medical care, whether the incident was reported to a staff 

member, counselor, teacher, or someone else who could help them. Finally, they were asked if 

anything had been done to stop this from happening again. When the data are made available, 

the SYRP results will give the first insight into the prevalence of sexual victimization among 

youth in juvenile placement. 

Summary of the Prison Rape Estimation Studies 

 Putting aside the one national probability sample conducted by BJS and the one 

conducted by the Corrections Health Service in New South Wales, the other studies represent 

only a fraction of the incarcerated adult male and female population. Most of the studies have 

extremely poor (less than 50 percent) response rates. When non-response is high, there is 

typically little or no effort to compare the respondents to the non-respondents, and no effort to do 

post survey adjustments to the responses using stratification procedures. There is no effort to 

gain an understanding of why inmates are not responding. Are they embarrassed? Are they afraid 

of retaliation? Are respondents trying to embarrass the prison administrators? There is no study 

which compares survey modes in an effort to understand the best method to collect these 

sensitive and stigmatized data. 
March 10, 2004 31

 For every researcher, there is a difference in the definition of victimization. What does 

sexual pressure mean? To make sense of the problem researchers will have to provide more 

definitive operational definitions of rape. Recalling each incident may be difficult for someone 

who has been serially raped; however, for each occurrence a prisoner should be asked to 

characterize precisely the victimization. The survey should include: the nature of a completed 

assault, the extent of injuries, the nature of an attempted, but uncompleted assault and associated 

injuries, the nature of pressure (threat, intimidation, and constant invitation), the number of 

assailants, and characteristics of the event (place, time, setting). 

 When we limit the studies to those that focus on assault or completed assault, the range is 

from 0 to 16 percent, although most of the prevalence estimates (typically lifetime prevalence) 

are 2 percent or less. When forms of pressure are included, the lifetime prevalence is 21 percent 

or less, although in at least one institution the result was 40 percent. The few studies that include 

incident information do not report enough information to construct a good denominator, or do 

not indicate the time frame of the estimate. “Back of the envelope” incident estimates are 

typically less than 2 percent, but this number is even less certain than the prevalence estimates. 

Carroll’s study indicated a high level of incidence, but was based on only a few informants. 

Women’s prevalence of sexual victimization appears to be lower than men’s, but there have only 

been a few studies. To meet the legislative requirements, the Bureau of Justice Statistics must 

produce one-year prevalence rates, and these are rarely, if ever, reported. Few studies indicate 

the amount of time the prevalence covers. A prison lifetime exposure may mean 5 years in some 

jurisdictions and 10 years in others. Exposure is crucial to our understanding of the nature of the 

problem if we are to make reasonable comparisons among prisons and jurisdictions. 
March 10, 2004 32

Meta-analysis of Prison Sexual Assault Studies 

To provide a summary estimate of sexual assault, the prison lifetime prevalence estimates 

were analyzed with meta-analysis methods (Lipsey & Wilson, 2000; Rosenthal, 1994; Shadish & 

Haddock, 1994). The Wooden and Parker estimate that was included in this analysis was based 

on sexual pressure, the only result reported in their study. The other estimates are based on either 

a completed rape, or serious sexual assault, although some of the question wordings are vague. 

The average effect size was first computed assuming a fixed effects model. In Figure 1, the 

individual study proportions and their 95 percent confidence intervals are represented. The 

prevalence for women is shown in red. The men’s prevalence is depicted in black. Some of the 

confidence intervals span 0 and by themselves those studies should not be considered statistically 

significant. These statistical tests rarely appear in the original studies. Under the assumption of a 

fixed effects model, the average effect size is weighted by the inverse variance estimates. Using 

proportions, this yields an average weighted estimate of .00448 (0.5 percent), with a standard 

error of .000427, and 95 percent confidence intervals of .00364 to .00532. To ascertain whether 

the assumption of a fixed effects model was appropriate, a homogeneity test statistic, Q, was 

computed. The test statistic was Q=372.62, df =18. Since Q is distributed approximately as χ

2

, 

this high value indicated that these studies failed the homogeneity test, and a fixed effects 

assumption was inappropriate. The average effect size was re-computed using an estimate of the 

between studies variance in addition to the within studies variance. The method of moments 

estimate of the between studies variance was used (Lipsey & Wilson, 2000: 119). The 

recalculation of the weighted average of prevalence yielded an estimate of .0191(1.91 percent), a 

standard error of .00277, with 95 percent confidence intervals of .0137 to .0246. This is a 
March 10, 2004 33

statistically significant effect. By definition, this is the most conservative estimate that could be 

calculated from the available studies. If we included sexual assault estimates from studies that 

used definitions of sexual pressure, this result would have been higher. The heterogeneity in 

effect sizes indicates that there are factors that might explain the variability between studies – 

possibly composition of the population, definitions of sexual assault, survey methods, and rates 

of unit nonresponse. However, because there are so many problems with the individual studies, 

we focus instead on reviewing these problems, and suggest ways to improve future estimates, 

rather than explore the different factors that account for the heterogeneity. In the next several 

sections of this report, some of the major obstacles inherent in this research are reviewed and 

discussed. 

Social Desirability Responses and the Nature of Sensitive Questions 

Tourangeau, Rips, and Rasinski (2000) discuss the self report of sensitive behaviors in 

their text entitled The Psychology of Survey Response. They identify three important 

psychological dimensions to question sensitivity, social (un)desirability of the response, the 

intrusiveness of the inquiry, and the perception of disclosure to third parties. As these authors 

note, “Sensitive questions ask, in effect, whether we have violated [certain] norms.(Tourangeau 

et al., 2000: 257)” If respondents are concerned enough about representing themselves in a 

positive manner, they may distort their responses. Intrusive questions invade privacy. 

Respondents may be unwilling to disclose simply because they perceive their privacy has been 

violated. Third party disclosure is an additional dimension to the sensitivity of a question. This is 

especially true in a prison or other criminal justice setting where admission to any kind of sexual 
March 10, 2004 34

behavior is a rule violation, if not a crime. As discussed later in this paper, the influence of social 

(un)desirability may be reduced by different modes of administering surveys. 

Study Procedures and the Problem of Sample Selection Bias 

 

Because there were such low response rates by both staff and inmates in many of these 

studies, it is incumbent upon the researchers to demonstrate that their returned samples were 

representative of the inmate population. There must be some accounting of the possibility of 

selection bias, namely that inmates and staff who returned the surveys may have over- or underrepresented the incidence and prevalence of sexual victimization. 

This is especially important when the topic is such a sensitive one. Returning to the 

Struckman-Johnson studies, in the Nebraska study, Struckman-Johnson and Struckman-Johnson 

compared the characteristics of the inmates who returned the surveys to the total inmate 

population using age, race, most severe crime type, most severe crime, and minimum sentence in 

years. The researchers assert that the returned survey sample was similar to the inmate 

population at these facilities on age, most severe crime (murder, sex offense, aggravated assault, 

robbery, drug related), minimum sentences, and average time in prison. The authors noted 

differences in most severe crime type (against persons, drug-related, against property, public 

order) and race. The returned survey sample had a higher proportion of whites than the inmates 

in the Nebraska facilities, and the returned sample also had a higher proportion of offenders who 

committed crimes against persons than other inmates in those facilities. The authors reported 

these differences and similarities without conducting statistical tests. The data also indicate that 

the return sample had an older age composition than the inmate population in those facilities and 
March 10, 2004 35

possibly longer sentences. Longer sentences would increase the risk period of sexual assault. 

There was no attempt in the second study to assess the degree to which the returned survey 

sample was representative of the extant inmate population in the 7 facilities at the time of the 

study. 

The fact that the characteristics of the sample of inmates returning the surveys were 

different than the characteristics of the inmate population at that time is a major flaw in the first 

study. The second study also raises questions of validity since no attempt was made to assess the 

representativeness of the sample. Because of such a low unit response rate, and a lack of 

information to compare the survey and population characteristics, it is impossible to know how 

to adjust the victimization estimates to make them valid estimates of the actual level of 

victimization. Are the survey respondents more likely or less likely to report sexual victimization 

than the prisoners who chose not to return the surveys? On the one hand, it may be that inmates 

who chose not to return the surveys were more likely to be sexual victims and were fearful of 

reprisals, or were ashamed to admit to the assault. On the other hand, inmates who did return the 

surveys may have been more inclined to embarrass the administration by claiming or 

exaggerating unwanted sexual approaches. This is also a problem with many of the other studies 

reported in this literature. 

Ever since the original Kinsey study (Kinsey et al., 1948), it has been widely reported 

that about 10 percent of the U. S. male population has homosexual preferences. This was the 

percentage among the men participating in the Kinsey interviews of sexual practices. Only one 

scientific national survey has ever been conducted of sexual practices among 18 to 59 year olds 

living in the U. S., and that study found that only 2 percent of the male respondents reported 

homosexual preferences (Michael, Gagnon, Laumann, & Kolata, 1994). In this case, the Kinsey 
March 10, 2004 36

method of soliciting interviewees increased the likelihood that they would get homosexual 

respondents. Other well publicized but non-scientific sexual practice surveys have also led to 

confusion about the rate of homosexuality in the United States. The Hite Report, the Redbook 

survey, and the Masters and Johnson study were all well publicized, but highly unscientific 

approaches to soliciting information on the estimates of sexual practices (Hite, 1976; Masters & 

Johnson, 1966; Sadd, 1975). It is unknown how the methods of eliciting a sample affected the 

estimate of prison sexual victimization in the studies reviewed in this paper. 

Catania et al., (Catania, Gibson, Chitwood, & Coates, 1990) reviewed some of the 

methodological problems in AIDS research that resulted from selection bias in the kinds of 

people volunteering to participate in sex research. The authors referred to this selection artifact 

as participation bias. Catania et al., hypothesize that if people refuse to participate because of 

stigmatization, then the participants represent a less risky population and the level of HIV 

transmission will be overestimated. If nonparticipation is the result of someone being less 

committed to participate because he or she does not practice risky behavior, then the biased 

estimate will over-represent the possible risk of HIV transmission. One solution to this problem 

is to study the reasons people will not respond. Clearly, the challenge for researchers in prison 

sexual victimization is to preclude, if possible, low response rates. If there is high unit nonresponse, then researchers must assess the extent to which their samples represent the population 

being studied. 

Recall and Telescoping 
March 10, 2004 37

One of the problems in asking respondents to recall events in the past, even abhorrent 

events, is that they tend to forget or to telescope those events. Forgetting would lead to the 

underreporting of past sexual assaults. Telescoping is the phenomena that occurs when a person 

recalls an event but misplaces it in a different time period than it actually happened. In studies of 

household expenditures, lengthening the recall period from one month to even three months can 

cause telescoping (Neter & Waksberg, 1964) where respondents are more likely to recollect 

current expenditures that actually occurred at an earlier time frame. This is an example of 

forward telescoping. While a vicious, brutal sexual attack may be a vivid memory, questions 

about pressured or co-opted sex may be more problematic. Sudman and Bradburn (1973) have 

found that some procedures that reduce telescoping increase forgetting, while other procedures 

do the opposite. While calendar methods have been shown to aid the dating of past events, 

survey research methodologists argue that questions should be bounded within recent time 

frames (Converse & Presser, 1986). 

 

Interview Modes 

Recent work on modes of interviewing indicate that self administered questionnaires are 

better at eliciting sensitive behavior than interviews, and that new computer assisted techniques 

may further increase the reporting of these behaviors. 

Interviewer versus Self-Administered Questionnaires
March 10, 2004 38

Many of the researchers conducting sexual assault studies argue that a major strength of 

their anonymous self-administered survey methodology is that it eliminates face-to-face 

interviews which suppress the self reporting of sexual victimization because this information is 

sensitive (stigmatized). A National Academy of Sciences study asked survey respondents their 

preferences for types of surveys (National Academy of Sciences, 1979). Respondents to this 

survey said they preferred the interview to self administered mail-in surveys, or telephone 

surveys. Interviews were preferred because they are more personal; they allow the interviewee to 

ask clarifying questions; and people feel it is a more trusting situation. In many situations, 

researchers have combined methods to elicit sensitive information. In the only study of sexual 

practices that has involved a national probability sample of the United States (Michael et al., 

1994), respondents were interviewed for about an hour and a half. The most sensitive questions 

about sexual practices were elicited by asking respondents at that point in the interview to 

answer the questions by filling out a self administered questionnaire, and sealing the answers in 

an envelope. 

There has also been published work on designing the best interviewing techniques to 

elicit information on human sexuality. Catania (1999) has reviewed and summarized this work. 

In his synthesis, he finds that there are two key variables that pose a threat to distortions of 

presentation of self in an interview, threat to self esteem and emotional distress. In his article he 

reviews factors associated with the respondent, the interviewer, the task, and the context that 

may minimize threats to self esteem and distress. 

There have been a number of recent studies comparing different modes of interview 

techniques comparing self-reported responses concerning sensitive information. Aquilino (1994) 

is typical of a number of investigations comparing interviewer versus self administered 
March 10, 2004 39

questionnaires (SAQs) for sensitive data. In this study, Aquilino also investigated the response 

patterns for a telephone interview. This mode was the least sensitive. Respondents were asked to 

provide information on alcohol and illegal drug use. The more sensitive the type of question, the 

more likely the SAQ mode elicited higher use rates. The mode effects were larger for AfricanAmericans than they were for white respondents. Jones and Forrest (1992) investigated the self 

reporting of abortions. In this study, independent estimates of abortions reported by clinics to the 

Alan Guttmacher Institute showed that self reporting of abortion was underreported on the 

National Survey of Family Growth, the National Surveys of Young Women, and the National 

Longitudinal Surveys of Work Experience of Youth. Jones and Forrest (1992) found that SAQs 

could be used to increase the reporting accuracy of abortion. Turner et al., (Turner, Lessler, & 

Devore, 1992) also found that self-administered questionnaire items elicited higher self-reported 

drug use than an interviewer mode. 

Computer Assisted Interviews and Self-Administered Surveys

Recent work has been conducted on video- and audio-computer assisted self-interviewing 

(video-CASI, audio-CASI) as a mode of surveying to tap into sensitive information. Audio-CASI 

includes both video and audio components. Respondents sit in front of a computer after receiving 

training, and respond to questions in privacy. 

Williams et al., (2000) compared audio-CASI to face-to-face interviewing in eliciting 

drug and sexual behavior at 10 sites recruiting participants from an HIV risk reduction study that 

targeted drug offenders. These were self-reported heroin or cocaine users (later confirmed by 

urinalysis). Every respondent was interviewed a second time within 48-72 hours of the first 
March 10, 2004 40

interview. This allowed the researchers to use a crossover design in which 1⁄4 of the respondents 

were interviewed with the audio-CASI mode twice, 1⁄4 were interviewed face-to-face twice, 1⁄4 

crossed over from audio-CASI to face-to-face, and 1⁄4 crossed over from face-to-face to audioCASI. This is a very powerful and sensitive experimental design. Urinalysis tests confirmed the 

validity of the self-reported drug use. Eighty percent of the self-report and lab test results agreed. 

When complex questions about number of times of drug use were compared, the face-to-face 

interview produced higher reported risky behaviors. When the questions were more 

straightforward, the two response modes produced similar estimates. The authors argue that 

highly trained interviewers may be necessary to guide a respondent through difficult types of 

responses. In this study, however, they were able to use a validity check to confirm the accuracy 

of self-reported drug use. 

Newman, DesJarlais, Turner, Gribble, Cooley, and Paone (2002) compared audiocomputer assisted self-interviewing (audio-CASI) with face to face interviews probing risky 

behaviors among participants in a needle exchange program. They found that using the audioCASI system increased the reporting of risky behaviors such as whether they were HIV positive, 

or had rented or sold their works (needles and injection paraphernalia) in the last 30 days. 

However, questions that had “emotional stress” content had higher self-report outcomes for the 

face-to-face method. Newman et al., reasoned that such questions require an empathetic listener 

to elicit such responses. 

DesJarlais et al., (1999) also found that audio-CASI elicited higher response percentages 

of sensitive questions. The sample was also composed of needle injecting users who were 

exchanging their works and were approached about participating in an interview. There were 724 

audio-CASI and 757 face-to-face interviews. As an example of the differences in response rates, 
March 10, 2004 41

audio-CASI interviewees reported having sex with a same sex partner in the 30 days prior to the 

interview 10 percent of the time. Face-to-face respondents reported such behavior 5 percent of 

the time. 

Similar underreporting in face-to-face interviews as compared to audio-CASI has been 

demonstrated by other authors in a population of people who have a low risk for AIDS (Miller, 

Gribble, Mazade, & Turner, 1998; Turner, Forsyth, & O'Reilly, 1998; C. F. Turner, L. Ku et al., 

1998). For example, Turner et al., (C. F. Turner, L. Ku et al., 1998) demonstrated that audioCASI increases reporting above self-administered questionnaires (SAQ’s) in an administration of 

the 1995 National Survey of Adolescent Males (NSAM). The stigmatized behaviors involved 

HIV-risk behaviors, drug use, and interpersonal violence among 15 to 19 year old men. 

Previously, sensitive questions were asked by having respondents fill out a paper questionnaire, 

and then sealing the responses in an envelope so that the interviewer could not see the answers. 

When the two modes were compared, SAQ versus audio-CASI, there were much higher response 

percentages to stigmatized questions about male-male sexual encounters among the audio-CASI 

interviewed youth. For example, youth were more likely to admit to anal and oral intercourse 

with another male when interviewed with audio-CASI. The overall male-male sex percentages 

were 1.5 percent with the SAQ modality and 5.5 percent with the audio-CASI method. Even 

telephone administered audio-CASI seems to elicit higher reporting rates than a normal 

telephone interviews. 

Tourangeau and Smith (1998) summarized research comparing six modes of data 

collection methods for sensitive behaviors: paper and pencil personal interviews (PAPI), paper 

and pencil self administered questionnaires (SAQs), Walkman-administered questionnaires 

(ASAQ), computer assisted personal interviews (CAPI), computer assisted self-administered 
March 10, 2004 42

interviews (CASI), and audio computer assisted self-administered interviews (audio-CASI or 

abbreviated as ACASI). As these authors point out, the major hypothesis guiding most of the 

literature on sensitive topics such as self reported drug use and sexual behavior is that there is 

deliberate misreporting. They review a great deal of research to show that SAQs have higher 

reporting rates of sensitive behaviors than personal interviews in studies of illicit drug use, 

sexual behavior, alcohol consumption, and abortion reporting. Tourangeau and Smith also 

reviewed mode research they conducted on the National Survey of Family Growth. This survey 

addresses issues involving pregnancy, contraception, fetal and infant deaths including abortions, 

sexually transmitted diseases, and infertility. The study was intended to examine different modes 

to improve the reliability and accuracy of the survey responses. The modality experiment had 

five variables: whether the questionnaire began with items about medical conditions or 

pregnancies; whether the interviewer was a NORC employee or nurse; whether the interview 

was done inside or outside the respondent’s home; whether the interviewer asked questions, or 

the questions were self-administered; and whether the data were collected by paper or computer. 

Thus, the data were measured with CAPI, PAPI, CASI, and SAQ techniques. 

When asked to report about their sex partners, women who completed self administered 

questionnaires reported more sex partners than women who responded to an interviewer. This 

was true whether the period of time was one year or lifetime. The computer assisted self 

administration method (CASI) elicited the highest number of reported sex partners in the past 

year and past five years. There were no differences in the reporting of lifetime drug use, although 

the researchers suggest that mode effects are more likely with shorter time horizons. Item nonresponse was higher for self-administration, and lower for computer administration, although the 
March 10, 2004 43

lowest proportion of questions answered was 94.6 percent for the SAQ. The CAPI proportion 

was 99.2 percent. 

In a second experiment, these authors reported the modes effects of CAPI, CASI, and 

ACASI on sensitive questions about drug use and sexual practices. ACASI produced the highest 

reported one-year, five-year, and lifetime number of sex partners for men and women. As is 

typically the case, there was a sex difference in the number of reported sex partners -- men 

reporting more than women. ACASI also elicited the highest level of reported drug use. This 

second study is reported in detail in Tourangeau and Smith (1996). Table 5 in the study shows 

ratios of reporting of sensitive behaviors comparing ACASI to CAPI and CASI to CAPI. The 

ratio of ACASI to CAPI is always above 1.00, with two exceptions, over 17 sensitive items. For 

example, the percentage reporting anal sex was 4.21 times higher for ACASI than for CAPI. 

ACASI proportions were often higher then CASI proportions. For example, among respondents 

reporting use of cocaine in the past year, the percentage for ACASI respondents was 5.4, while 

for CAPI it was 1.9, and for CASI it was 2.6. Item context also affected how women and men 

responded to the questions regardless of whether the interview mode was ACASI, CASI, or 

CAPI. The authors conclude that ACASI methods increase the level of sensitive item reporting 

by increasing the legitimacy of the context, and by increasing privacy, thus lowering 

embarrassment and the normative features of an interview setting. 

Turner and his colleagues (Charles F. Turner et al., 1998) have also reviewed the theory 

and evidence regarding the use of audio-CASI as a mode of response. Some of their work has 

already been covered in this section. Turner et al., argue that an interview creates a social 

interaction that introduces a social context to the collection of the data. Computer assisted self 
March 10, 2004 44

administration has the advantage of removing this social context which may especially have 

implications for sensitive questions. They state that: 

By removing the requirement that respondents divulge sensitive, stigmatized, or counter normative 

behaviors to another human, CASI procedures may substantially reduce the extent to which response 

accuracy for such measurements is compromised by the social presence of the human interviewer. (Charles 

F. Turner et al., 1998: 457) 

Audio features of CASI can reduce literacy problems, increase standardization of the 

presentation of questions, and provide for multilingual administration. Literacy is an important 

issue with an inmate population and may have been a problem with the self-administered 

questionnaires used by previous researchers conducting inmate sexual victimization studies. In 

this paper, Turner et al., report that audio-CASI increased the reporting of abortions in the NSFG 

above an interviewer administered questionnaire. In this study, a subset of the women who were 

interviewed was also asked to respond to the questionnaire by ACASI. Among sexually active 

females, age 15 to 44, an additional 4.5 percent reported having had one or more abortions in the 

ACASI mode. In this book chapter, Turner et al., also report on the results of ACASI in an 

administration of the NSAM. We have already reviewed that data showing men are much more 

likely to admit to homosexual sex using ACASI than a SAQ. 

This literature supports the use of audio-CASI as a mode that overcomes literacy 

problems, and stigmatization, while still allowing the researcher control of the interview 

environment. 

 

Randomized Response
March 10, 2004 45

Another technique for eliciting sensitive information from respondents is called 

randomized response (Fox & Tracy, 1986). To insure respondent anonymity, an interviewee is 

given two statements. The two statements can both be sensitive such as “I have had an abortion,” 

or “I have never had an abortion.” Or, one of the statements is innocuous such as “My birthday 

is in November.” The “trick” behind this approach is that the respondent is asked to 

affirm/disconfirm either statement one or statement two based on a random draw from a 

procedure that determines which statement to answer. For example, the respondent may be given 

a box containing red and green marbles. If a red marble is chosen, he or she responds to the first 

statement. If a green marble is chosen, he or she responds to the second statement. Only the 

respondent knows the color marble that has been chosen, and, therefore only the respondent 

knows whether he or she answered the first or second statement. The underlying proportion can 

be imputed because the researcher knows the probability of choosing a red versus a green 

marble, and the researcher also knows that the probability that the individual’s birthday occurs in 

November is p=1/12. 

The success of the method relies on whether the respondent actually believes the choice 

of answering the statement is actually reliant on a random process. In Fox and Tracy’s review of 

the research comparing randomized response and traditional methods, the two methods did not 

always yield different results. When the randomizing process was credible, the randomized 

response method indicated higher proportions of respondents admitting to sensitive questions. 

One of the drawbacks to this method is that it requires large samples, since the sampling variance 

of the estimator is increased by having the randomizing process. The variance of the estimate 

will always be larger than if a question were asked directly; however, the larger the probability 
March 10, 2004 46

that the randomizing process chooses the sensitive question to be answered rather than the 

innocuous question, the smaller the variance of that estimator. 

Lensvelt-Mulders and Hox (2000) conducted a meta-analysis of studies that compared 

randomized response (RR) methods to other survey techniques, and which included an external 

validity check to validate whether the RR methodology produced more accurate estimates of the 

underlying behavior. The sensitive topics in these studies involved cheating on university exams, 

admitting to bankruptcy, committing social security fraud, being arrested, driving under the 

influence of alcohol, and having a baby outside of marriage. There were only 7 such studies. In 

addition to several forms of RR methods, the survey methods included telephone interviewing, 

self administered questionnaires (SAQs), computer assisted self administered interviews (CASI), 

and face to face interviews. The randomized response technique showed the closest self reported 

estimate to the external validity criterion among all of the methods. However, there were so few 

studies and so many differences in the characteristics of the studies (populations sampled, the 

nature of the sensitive topics, and social desirability expectations) that Lensvelt-Mulders and 

Hox caution against drawing unalloyed conclusions from the meta-analysis results. 

While randomized response techniques hold promise for investigating sensitive topics, 

they require a great deal of explanation, and they rely on the respondent’s understanding of and 

trust in the method. Whether or not inmates have the literacy skills and trust to implement this 

method is unknown. 

The Problem of Validity 
March 10, 2004 47

 Social scientists who measure behavioral and social phenomena try to build in validity 

checks of the measurements to insure that there is veridicality to the self-reported results. As 

indicated above, abortions are under-reported by women. Men probably over-report the number 

of their sexual partners, while women probably under-report them. In the case of abortion, the 

number of self-reported legal abortions has been compared to the number of actual abortions 

reported by clinics. In the case of sexual partners, in a given bounded population, the total 

number of heterosexual partners should be the same for men and women. Both of these social 

facts are validity checks on self-reported sensitive behaviors. Unfortunately, there is no validity 

check on prison sexual victimization. Clearly, if a rape is reported immediately after it happens, 

then a medical examination can determine the veracity of the report. However, if inmates 

exaggerate victimization or under-report it because of social undesirability, embarrassment or 

fear of retaliation, there are no validity checks to ascertain the veracity of the estimate. While 

Davis (1968) used a lie detector to interview some of his rape victims, this is not feasible in a 

large probability sample. Tourangeau, Rips, and Rasinski (2000) review other domains where 

validity checks on sensitive topics have been used and cite a number of studies that demonstrate 

that underreporting in surveys is common in the self-reporting of racist attitudes, illicit drugs, 

consumption of alcohol, smoking, certain types of income, crime victimization, and criminal 

behavior. Respondents tend to over report their voting behavior and their attendance at religious 

services. In all of these areas, researchers were able to use an independent measure, such as 

administrative records, to check the survey response against external validation data. 

 Validity will be an important issue when the Bureau of Justice Statistics reports its 

results. Administrative records cannot provide a validity check on the actual level of prison 

sexual victimization because many sexual assaults are not reported. However, institutions with 
March 10, 2004 48

higher levels of administrative records indicating sexual assaults ought to have higher levels of 

self-reports as well. A second approach to validity would be to compare the self-report 

information to other administratively recorded information. Victimization should be related to 

age, build (slight), blood borne infectious disease, and possibly other indicators of victimization 

such as assault. If confidentiality procedures preclude matching survey responses with 

administrative records, a more imperfect approach to validity may be to examine the relationship 

to the institution levels of sexual assault to proxy measures of rape such as the level of blood 

borne infectious disease. Anal intercourse, especially, would be associated with potential 

increases in HIV infection, and other blood borne disease transmission. Because needle injection 

and homosexual behavior are also associated with these blood borne infections, data would have 

to be collected on random drug hit rates especially for narcotics as well as an assessment of 

reported homosexual behavior. One could speculate that in prisons where there are higher selfreported rates of anal rape, there should also be higher rates of blood borne infections, after 

controlling for self reported homosexuality and drug use rates. While this would not establish the 

precise estimate of rape victimization, it would at least provide an independent assessment of the 

validity of the ranking of prisons with respect to sexual victimization. This would, of course, be 

an imperfect measure, since blood borne infectious diseases depend on the level of the disease in 

the inmate population and because other public health precautions may be used to limit the 

spread of the infections including aggressive screening of the population. Nevertheless, it might 

be worthwhile to construct a model that predicts the level of these infectious diseases using the 

incidence of rape, the incidence of homosexual behavior, levels of random drug use (especially 

narcotics), and the prevalence of the infectious diseases in a particular institution if this data were 

available. To the extent the institution level of rape is a predictor of blood borne infectious 
March 10, 2004 49

disease, this would bolster our confidence in the relational nature of the estimate, but not the 

actual level of prevalence or incidence. If the level of incidence of sexual assault is low, this 

approach will not yield very reliable information. 

Sample Size and Question Wording 

The wording of sexual victimization will also have consequences for the sample size. 

Since the legislation requires that individual prisons are to be identified, it will be important to 

have a sufficient sample to detect the true level of the problem. If completed sexual assaults are 

relatively rare (1 to 5 percent), then a much larger sample size will be required to detect this 

prison level estimate than would be needed if the detection of sexual pressure were more 

important. Since the Act calls for the investigation and reporting of sexual predation from rape to 

unwanted touching, the sample sizes will have to be sufficient to detect these levels with some 

degree of statistical confidence. 

Adjustments to the Prison Rape Estimates and the Ranking of Problematic Prisons 

As was noted earlier in this paper, Congress recognized that adjustments to the prison 

estimates had to be made to make fair comparisons among the prisons. The legislation indicated 

that the adjustments could include the mission, security level, size, and jurisdiction under which 

the prison operates. The legislation specifies: 

“In preparing the information specified in paragraph (2), the Attorney General shall use established 

statistical methods to adjust the data as necessary to account for differences among institutions in the 
March 10, 2004 50

representative sample, which are not related to the detection, prevention, reduction and punishment of 

prison rape, or which are outside the control of the State, prison, or prison system, in order to provide an 

accurate comparison among prisons. Such differences may include the mission, security level, size, and 

jurisdiction under which the prison operates. For each such adjustment made, the Attorney General shall 

identify and explain such adjustment in the report.” ("The Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003," 

2003:SEC.4. (c) (3) Data Adjustments) 

 In a forthcoming book on prison performance, Gaes, Camp, Nelson, and Saylor (in press) 

present a framework for measuring what prisons do and techniques for comparing different 

prisons. In that book, Gaes et al., describe the difficulties of within-jurisdiction comparisons and 

the even greater difficulties in cross-jurisdiction contrasts. The fundamental problem, as 

suggested by the legislation’s language, is that different prisons contain populations of inmates 

whose composition varies along dimensions that would be related to the level of sexual 

victimization. Secondly, there are characteristics of the prisons themselves such as security level, 

prison architecture, and inmate-to-staff ratios that have implications for the level of sexual 

victimization. Even the limited evidence, to date, suggests sexual victimization is more likely at 

the higher security level prisons (see Table 1). There are probably other characteristics of 

inmates as well that will be related to the level of sexual victimization such as their individual 

risk of violence, their history of assault (sexual and otherwise), and victim-related factors such as 

age, race, and physical size. To do these comparisons analysts will have to construct a three-level 

multilevel model that simultaneously measures characteristics of the inmates, prisons, and 

jurisdictions. Then prisons can be rank-ordered depending on the extent to which their modelbased estimated levels of sexual victimization are higher or lower than what is predicted by the 

model. Examples of two-level hierarchical models (inmates and prison) can be found in studies 

by Camp and his colleagues (Camp, 1999; Camp, Gaes, Klein-Saffran, Daggett, & Saylor, 2002; 
March 10, 2004 51

Camp, Gaes, Langan, & Saylor, 2003; Camp, Gaes, & Saylor, 2002; Camp, Saylor, & Harer, 

1997; Camp, Saylor, & Wright, 1999). These models allow the analyst to compare prisons on a 

level playing field. 

 In several of Camp and colleagues studies, it was demonstrated that the raw, unadjusted 

rankings of a prison performance indicator, such as violent assault rates, gives a very different 

picture of prison quality than the adjusted rates. In say a ranking of 100 institutions, a prison can 

change rank dramatically when comparing the adjusted and unadjusted rates of victimization. 

This is going to be a particularly difficult problem for those analysts who are responsible for 

reporting the best and worst prisons, and defending that decision in a justifiable, transparent, and 

coherent manner. Since there are important consequences to the rankings, jurisdictions will 

vigorously challenge the methodology. 

Summary 

The task framed by the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 presents substantial 

problems of estimation, validity, and bias. The estimation problems are caused by the fact that 

prison sexual victimization is a stigmatizing event. There is no independent validity check for the 

self-reported results making any estimate vulnerable to criticism. Furthermore, bias can result 

from the failure of either victims or non-victims to participate in the study, or if inmates and 

juveniles use the research as a way of leveraging their dissatisfaction with incarceration. All of 

the problems that researchers encounter when they measure stigmatized behaviors in the 

community are amplified by the prison setting. In addition, inmates may fear real or perceived 

threats of retaliation if they admit to forced or pressured sex. Any kind of sexual activity inside 
March 10, 2004 52

of prison, other than sanctioned conjugal visits, violates prison rules. This may color inmates’ 

attitudes toward reporting of sexual predation and sexual pressure. Although we did not review 

this literature, some work has been conducted on the attitudes of staff toward rape. This may 

partly define an institutional culture that may be one of the most important dimensions of the 

prison setting determining whether inmates engage in honest self-reporting (Eigenberg, 1989, 

2002). 

 In this paper, we have concentrated on the problems of measurement primarily from the 

point of view of adult prisons. The legislation requires measurement in juvenile facilities and 

adult jails, which will raise other issues and logistical problems. Given the volume of turnover in 

jails, it may be difficult to get a good sample, especially of inmates who are admitted for a very 

short term or who are simply awaiting their bond hearing, and who may be released within hours 

of arrest or detention. Given their short length of stay, they may be the most vulnerable, 

especially if housed with sexually aggressive inmates. For juveniles, the informed consent 

process often requires a parent’s approval which may be difficult to obtain. In addition, 

precautions will have to be taken, whether the respondent is an adult or juvenile, if the 

questioning about a victimization causes the person psychological and emotional distress. There 

are other ethical issues as well. If the victim reports a crime to an interviewer, such as a rape, he 

may be obligated to report that event to officials, especially if the respondent is a juvenile. 

 While the task of estimating the level of prison rape will be a formidable one, it may be 

worth the resources and the effort. Even if prison sexual assault were a relatively rare event, 

simply reading the accounts of sexual victimization in the Human Rights Watch report No 

Escape (2001) is enough to sensitize any reader to the suffering and degradation of the prison 

rape victim. Even if a national probability sample of selected prisons cannot precisely establish 
March 10, 2004 53

the “true” level of sexual victimization, an analysis of the data could yield important information 

on the classification of potential victims, on the jurisdictions with the most problems, and the 

predicates of a sexual assault. This data could then be used to train staff and inmates on the 

potential for sexual pressure or assault. The data may also lead to a more objective understanding 

of the actual level of prison sexual victimization that will either support or invalidate the 

assumptions inherent in the Act that make it appear prison rape is endemic in American 

correctional institutions. However, since there is no independent assessment of the validity of the 

self-reported incidents, there may well be dissatisfaction with the results of a national probability 

assessment regardless of the outcome. Our meta-analysis implies, the lifetime prevalence may be 

much lower than 13 percent. 

 The legislation has already had an impact on correctional policy makers, even prior to the 

first estimate of sexual assault. During the January 10, 2003 Winter Meeting of the Standards 

Committee of the American Correctional Association, new standards were promulgated and 

approved that address some of the key concerns (Verdeyen, 2003). The new standards address 

vulnerability to sexual assault, investigation of threats or completed sexual assaults, 

identification of potential sexual aggressors, counseling of potentially vulnerable inmates, 

monitoring of potential aggressors, referral of sexual assault victims to a community facility for 

treatment and evidence gathering, protection of the victim from further assault, identification of 

designated staff (other than the point-of-contact officer) who may be contacted by a victim, and 

retention of records of the assault. 

 Although not covered as one of the topics in the body of this paper, it is also important to 

recognize the highly charged nature of this process. There are critics of prison administration and 

advocates of prison reform who have argued that prison homosexuality, sexual victimization, and 
March 10, 2004 54

sexual predation are the norm rather than the exception inside of American prisons, jails, and 

juvenile facilities (Donaldson, 1993). Some of this literature, as well as the ethnographically 

oriented prison sex research, also focuses on sex roles that are quite different from “normal white 

middle class” sexual behavior. From this point of view, some inmates see the sodomy of another 

inmate as “normal” behavior that helps to establish a masculine identity. According to this point 

of view, there are masculine and feminine roles in the act of sodomy even when the act is 

occurring among same sex participants. 

 Furthermore, there are many nuances to aggressive and passive sexual behavior. There 

may be many gray areas in which inmates are co-opted or pressured into sex without physical 

threats or extortion. Vulnerable and desirable victims may be targets of sophisticated inmates 

who have learned to probe weaknesses and dependencies of unsophisticated, young, newly 

admitted prisoners. These critics also argue that there are sex roles that can only be understood 

from the point of view of the inmate subculture. This poses yet another dilemma for the 

estimation of prison sexual assault. 

 Whether one uses a self administered questionnaire, audio-CASI, or interviewer, there is 

still a social setting and subcultural difference that may have to be overcome to get at an 

understanding of prison sexual assault. This is a subculture of sexuality that may be different 

from the one familiar to most researchers doing work in this domain. The estimation of sexual 

victimization may well depend on a deeper understanding of the language and subcultural 

definitions used by inmates, but misunderstood by most researchers. 
March 10, 2004 

Table 1. Incidence and prevalence of sexual victimization reported in different studies 

Study 

Prevalence 

Estimate % 

(Pressure and/or 

assault) 

Total 

Population Sample Number Participating Percent Participation 

Time 

Frame 

Bounded 

Y/N 

Notes: Including the wordi

inc

Struckman-Johnson et al., 1996 

SAQ 

Victim Reported Prevalence (All Institutions) 20% 1,801 1,801 516 28.7% N 

“Since the time you have been in or forced you to have sexual contsex) against your will?” (Respons

Men 21% 474 Women 7% 42 Completed Sexual Act (Men and Women) 

14.9% Further detail reported in the text 

assault by inmates or staff – Table (16% men, .23% women) 

Inmate Estimate of Population Prevalence 1,801 1,801 516 28.7% N 

“In the prison you are in now, abo

have been pressured or forced to h

Men’s Max. Sec. A 19% Men’s Max. Sec. B 26% Men’s Min. Sec. 16% Women’s 7% Staff Estimate of Population Prevalence 714 714 264 37% N 

“In the prison you are in now, abo

have been pressured or forced to h

Men’s Max. Sec. A 19% Men’s Max. Sec. B 16% Men’s Min. Sec. 11% Women’s 8% Struckman-Johnson et al., 2000 

SAQ 

Victim Reported Prevalence (All Institutions) 21% 7,032 7,032 1,788 25.4% N 

“Since the time you have been in or forced you to have sexual contsex) against your will?” (Respons

Study Estimate % 

Total Population 

Sample Number 

Participating 

Percent Participation 

Time Frame Bounded Y/N 

Notes Including the source of eith

Inmate Estimate of Population Prevalence 7,032 7,032 1,788 25.4% N 

“In the prison you are in now, abo

have been pressured or forced to h

Inst. 1 27% Inst. 2 41% Inst. 3 24% 
March 10, 2004 

Study 

Prevalence 

Estimate % 

(Pressure and/or 

assault) 

Total 

Population Sample Number Participating Percent Participation 

Time 

Frame 

Bounded 

Y/N 

Notes: Including the wordi

inc

Inst. 4 13% Inst. 5 17% Inst. 6 12% Inst. 7 7% Staff Estimate of Population Prevalence 1,936 1,936 475 24.5% N 

“In the prison you are in now, abo

have been pressured or forced to h

Inst. 1 18% Inst. 2 29% Inst. 3 12% Inst. 4 18% Inst. 5 11% Inst. 6 4% Inst. 7 -- Bounded Victimization Prevalence (All Institutions) 

7 % over 26 to 30 months 

 “Since the time you have been in 

or forced you to have sexual cont

sex) against your will?” (ResponsResponses were restricted to last 2

Struckman-Johnson and Struckman Johnson, 2002 

SAQ 

Inst 1. Women 

27% 148 50% Y 

“Since the time you have been in or forced you to have sexual contsex) against your will?” (Respons

Inst 2. Women 9% 79 79% Y Inst 3. Women 8% 36 36% Y Inst 1. Women 5% 

148 50% Y 

Worst case incident of rape in the 

Inst 2. Women 0% 79 79% Y Inst 3. Women 0% 36 36% Y Inst 1,2,3 Combined 2.7% 263 57% Worst case incident of rape in the Inst 1. Women 21% 

148 50% Y 

“In the prison you are in now, abohave been pressured or forced to h

Inst 2. Women 11% 79 79% Y Inst 3. Women 13% 36 36% Y Davis, 1968 Interview Lifetime Prevalence 2.9% Assault 3,304 3,304 3,304 100% N 

The facts that were gathered abouinstitutional records, polygraph exincluding interviews. There was no documentation of walso reported a back-of-the-envelosexual assaults involving 60,000 n
March 10, 2004 

Study 

Prevalence 

Estimate % 

(Pressure and/or 

assault) 

Total 

Population Sample Number Participating Percent Participation 

Time 

Frame 

Bounded 

Y/N 

Notes: Including the wordi

inc

system) 

Nacci & Kane, 1982 Interview Bounded Prevalence (In 17 federal prisons) 

0.67% Assault ~30,000 516 330 64% Y 

Federal Prison 

“The sample was intended to be rpopulation. ...if anyone had forcesex against his will.” 

Saum, Surratt, Inciardi, & Bennet (1995) 

Interview 

Lifetime Prevalence 5.9% 

1 rape 5 attempted rapes 

~1,350 106 101 95.3% N 

Note: Only 106 TC inmates were institution to participate. Only 5 Thowever, there is no indication hothe entire prison population. The 

Lockwood 1980 Interview Lifetime Prevalence 1.3% 1 rape 

28% pressured 

2,225 89 76 85% 

N 

Informants and staff reported 1 or 

Wooden & Parker 1982 SAQ Prevalence in current institution 

14% Assault 41% homosexuals 2% bisexuals 9% heterosexuals 

2,500 600 200 33.3% Y 

Current prison term 

“I have been pressured into havin

times.” 

Tewksbury 1989 SAQ Prevalence in current Institution 

0% Assault 4.5% -- threat not completed 

Not Reported 

No Sample 

150 Cannot be 

Computed Y 

How many times have you been rWhile in this prison, how many ti

you using threats or force? 

Maitland and Sluder, 1998 

SAQ 

Prevalence during current sentence 

0.9% Forced Sex 16.2% sexual comments that made them uncomfortable 

1,100 150 111 74% Y 

Current sentence 

“During this sentence, has anyone 

“During this sentence, has anyone 

feel uncomfortable?” 

Hensley, Tewksbury, and Castle, 2003 

Interview 

Lifetime Prevalence 1.2% Assault

13.8 percent 

Not Reported 

300 174 58% 

N 

Not Reported 

Carroll, 1977 Informants Incidents – 1 year 40 sexual assaults 

per year 

200 21 Y one 

year 

Carroll spent considerable time in 

tell him the level of sexual victimBased on the reports of informant
March 10, 2004 

Study 

Prevalence 

Estimate % 

(Pressure and/or 

assault) 

Total 

Population Sample Number Participating Percent Participation 

Time 

Frame 

Bounded 

Y/N 

Notes: Including the wordi

inc

Moss, Hosford, and Anderson, 1979 

Administrative Records 

Incident rate – 1 year 1.1% 

12 rapes 

1,100 Tried to do a discriminant analysi

samples were extremely small. 

Butler , Donovan, Levy, and Kaldor, 2002 

Interview 

Men 2% 789 789 Not reported Y one 

year 

The precise question was not descNon-consensual sex 

Women 2% The precise question was not desc

Non-consensual sex 

Butler and Milner, 2003 Interview 

. 

Men 0.4% 7,160 men 876 745 men 85% Y one 

year 

The precise question was not descNon-consensual sex 

Women 1% 514 women 192 163 women 85% Y one 

year 

The precise question was not descNon-consensual sex 

Fuller and Orsagh, 1977 Administrative 

Records and Superintendent Interview 

Incidents – 1 year 1 Adm. Records 

31 Sup. Interview 0.69% 

4,495 4,495 4,495 100% Y one 

year 

The precise question asked of Sup

reported in the study. The incident rate of 0.69 percent wincidents (31) divided by the stan
March 10, 2004 59

References 

Acquilino, W. S. (1994). Interview mode effects in surveys of drug and alcohol use. Public 

Opinion Quarterly, 58, 210-240. 

Alarid, L. F. (2000). Sexual assault and coercion among incarcerated women prisoners: Excerpts 

from prison letters. The Prison Journal, 80(4), 391-406. 

Butler, T., Donovan, B., Levy, M., & Kaldor, J. (2002). Sex behind the prison walls. Australian 

and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 26(4), 390. 

Butler, T., & Milner, L. (2003). The 2001 New South Wales Inmate Health Survey. Sydney, 

Australia: Corrections Health Service. 

Camp, S. D. (1999). Do Inmate Survey Data Reflect Prison Conditions? Using Surveys to Assess 

Prison Conditions of Confinement. The Prison Journal, 79(2), 250-268. 

Camp, S. D., Gaes, G. G., Klein-Saffran, J., Daggett, D. M., & Saylor, W. G. (2002). Using 

Inmate Survey Data in Assessing Prison Performance: A Case Study Comparing Private 

and Public Prisons. Criminal Justice Review, 27(1), 26-51. 

Camp, S. D., Gaes, G. G., Langan, N. P., & Saylor, W. G. (2003). The Influence of Prisons on 

Inmate Misconduct: A Multilevel Investigation. Justice Quarterly, 20(3), 501-533. 

Camp, S. D., Gaes, G. G., & Saylor, W. G. (2002). Quality of Prison Operations in the Federal 

Sector: A Comparison with a Private Prison. Punishment & Society, 4(1), 27-53. 

Camp, S. D., Saylor, W. G., & Harer, M. D. (1997). Aggregating Individual-Level Evaluations 

of the Organizational Social Climate: A Multilevel Investigation of the Work 

Environment at the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Justice Quarterly, 14(4), 739-761. 

Camp, S. D., Saylor, W. G., & Wright, K. N. (1999). Creating Performance Measures from 

Survey Data: A Practical Discussion. Corrections Management Quarterly, 3(1), 71-80. 

Carroll, L. (1977). Humanitarian reform and biracial sexual assault in a maximum security 

prison. Urban Life, 5(4), 417-437. 

Catania, J. A. (1999). A framework for conceptualizing reporting bias and its antecedents in 

interviews assessing human sexuality. The Journal of Sex Research, 36(1), 1-17. 

Catania, J. A., Gibson, D. R., Chitwood, D. D., & Coates, T. J. (1990). Methodological problems 

in AIDS behavioral research: Influences on measurement error and participation bias in 

studies of sexual behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 339-362. 

Chonco, N. R. (1989). Sexual assaults among male inmates: A descriptive study. The Prison 

Journal, 69(1), 72-82. 

Converse, J. M., & Presser, S. (1986). Survey Questions: Handcrafting the Standardized 

Questionnaire. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. 

Davis, A. J. (1968). Report on Sexual Assaults in the Philadelphia Prison System and Sheriff's 

Vans. Philadelphia: District Attorneys Office and Police Department. 

DesJarlais, D. C., Paone, D., Milliken, J., Turner, C. F., Miller, H., Gribble, J., Shi, Q., Hagan, 

H., & Friedman, S. L. (1999). Audio-computer interviewing to measure risk behaviour 

for HIV among injecting drug users: A quasi-randomised trial. The Lancet, 353, 1657-

1661. 

Donaldson, S. (1993). A Million Jockers, Punks, and Queens, Stop Prisoner Rape: Sex among 

American Male Prisoners and its Implications for Concepts of Sexual Orientation. Stop 

Prisoner Rape. Retrieved, from the World Wide Web: www.spr.org

Eigenberg, H. M. (1989). Male rape: An empirical examination of correctional officers' attitudes 

toward male rape in prison. The Prison Journal, 68(2), 39-56. 
March 10, 2004 60

Eigenberg, H. M. (2002). Prison Staff and Male Rape. In C. Hensley (Ed.), Prison Sex: Practice 

and Policy (pp. 49-67). Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers , Inc. 

Ford, C. (1929). Homosexual practices of institutionalized females. Journal of Abnormal and 

Social Psychology, 23, 442-449. 

Forst, M., Fagan, J., & Vivona, T. S. (1989). Youth in prisons and training schools: Perceptions 

and consequences of the treatment-custody dichotomy. Juvenile and Family Court 

Journal, 1-14. 

Fox, J. A., & Tracy, P. E. (1986). Randomized Response: A Method for Sensitive Surveys. 

Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 

Fuller, D. A., & Orsagh, T. (1977). Violence and victimization within a state prison system. 

Criminal Justice Review, 2, 35-55. 

Gaes, G. G., Camp, S. D., Nelson, J., & Saylor, W. G. (in press). Measuring Prison 

Performance: Government Privatization and Accountability. AltaMira, CA: AltaMira 

Press. 

Giallombardo, R. (1966). Society of Women: A Study of a Women's Prison. New York: John 

Wiley & Sons. 

Greer, K. R. (2000). The changing nature of interpersonal relationships in a women's prison. The 

Prison Journal, 80(4), 442-468. 

Halleck, S. L., & Hersko, M. (1962). Homosexual behavior in a correctional institution for 

adolescent girls. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 32, 911-917. 

Heffernan, E. (1972). Making It in Prison: The Square, the Cool, and the Life. New York: John 

Wiley & Sons, Inc. 

Hensley, C., Tewksbury, R., & Castle, T. (2003). Characteristics of prison sexual assault targets 

in male Oklahoma correctional facilities. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18(6), 595-

607. 

Hensley, C., Tewksbury, R., & Wright, J. The characteristics and motivations behind female 

prison sex. Women and Criminal Justice. 

Hite, S. (1976). The Hite Report. New York: Dell. 

Human Rights Watch. (2001). No Escape: Male Rape in U.S. prisons. Retrieved, from the World 

Wide Web: www.hrw.org/reports/2001/prison/report1.html

Jones, E. F., & Forrest, J. D. (1992). Underreporting of abortion in surveys of U. S. women: 

1976 to 1988. Demography, 29(1), 113-126. 

Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., & Martin, C. E. (1948). Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. 

Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Company. 

Lensvelt-Mulders, G., & Hox, J. (2000). Meta-analysis of randomized response research: 35 

years of validation studies. Paper presented at the Fifth International Congress on Social 

Science Methodology, Cologne, Germany. 

Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2000). Practical Meta-analysis (Vol. 49). Thiusand Oaks, CA: 

Sage. 

Lockwood, D. (1980). Prison Sexual Violence. New York: Elsevier. 

Maitland, A. S., & Sluder, R. D. (1996). Victimization in prisons: A study of factors related to 

the general well-being of youthful inmates. Federal Probation, 60(2), 24-31. 

Maitland, A. S., & Sluder, R. R. (1998). Victimization and yuthful prison inmates: An empirical 

analysis. The Prison Journal, 78(1), 55-73. 

Masters, W. H., & Johnson, V. E. (1966). Human Sexual Response. New York: Little, Brown 

and Company. 
March 10, 2004 61

Michael, R. T., Gagnon, J. H., Laumann, E. O., & Kolata, G. (1994). Sex in America: A 

Definitive Survey. New York: Little, Brown, and Company. 

Miller, H. G., Gribble, J. N., Mazade, L. C., & Turner, C. F. (1998). Abortion and breast cancer 

risk: Fact or artifact. In A. Stone (Ed.), Science of Self Report. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence 

Earlbaum Associates. 

Mitchell, A. (1969). Informal inmate social structure in prisons for women: A comparative study. 

Ph.D. Dissertation. 

Moss, C. S., Hosford, R. E., & Anderson, W. R. (1979). Sexual Assault in a Prison. 

Psychological Reports, 44, 823-828. 

Nacci, P. L., & Kane, T. R. (1982). Sex and sexual aggression in federal prisons. Washington, 

DC: Federal Bureau of Prisons. 

Nacci, P. L., & Kane, T. R. (1983). The incidence of sex and sexual aggression in federal 

prisons. Federal Probation, 47(4), 31-36. 

Nacci, P. L., & Kane, T. R. (1984). Sex and sexual aggression in federal prisons. Federal 

Probation, 48(1), 46-53. 

National Academy of Sciences. (1979). Report of the Panel on Privacy and Confidentiality as 

Factors in Survey Response. Washington, DC: NAS. 

Nelson, C. (1974). A study of homosexuality among women inmates at two state prisons. Temple 

University, Philadelphia. 

Neter, J., & Waksberg, J. (1964). A study of response errors in expenditures data from household 

interviews. American Statistical Association Journal, March, 18-54. 

Newman, J. C., Jarlais, D. C. D., Turner, C. F., Gribble, J., Cooley, P., & Paone, D. (2002). The 

differential effects of face-to-face and computer interview modes. American Journal of 

Public Health, 92(2), 294-297. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (2004). Survey of Youth in Residential 

Placement. Retrieved, from the World Wide Web: 

http://www.ncjrs.org/html/ojjdp/194819/chap8.html

Otis, M. (1913). A perversion not commonly noted. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 8, 113-

116. 

Owen, B. (1998). In the Mix: Struggles and Survival in a Women's Prison. Albany, NY: State 

University of New York Press. 

The Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003, (2003). 

Propper, A. M. (1978). Lesbianism in female and coed correctional institutions. Journal of 

Homosexuality, 3(3), 265-274. 

Propper, A. M. (1981). Prison Homosexuality: Myth and Reality. Lexington, MA: Lexington 

Books. 

Propper, A. M. (1982). Make-believe families and homosexuality among imprisoned girls. 

Criminology, 20(1), 127-138. 

Rosenthal, R. (1994). Parametric measures of effect size. In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), 

The Handbook of Research Synthesis (pp. 231-244). New York: Russel Sage Foundation. 

Sadd, C. T. a. S. (1975). The Redbook Report on Female Sexuality. New York: Delacorte. 

Saum, C. A., Surratt, H. L., Inciardi, J. A., & Bennett, R. E. (1995). Sex in prison: Exploring the 

myths and realities. The Prison Journal, 75(4), 413-430. 

Selling, L. (1931). The pseudo-family. American Journal of Sociology, 37, 247-253. 
March 10, 2004 62

Shadish, W. R., & Haddock, C. K. (1994). Combining estimates of effect size. In H. Cooper & L. 

V. hedges (Eds.), The Handbook of Research Synthesis (pp. 261-281). New York: Russell 

Sage Foundation. 

Stephan, J. J. (2001). Census of Jails, 1999: Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

Stephan, J. J., & Karberg, J. C. (2003). Census of Federal and State Correctional Facilities, 

2000. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

Struckman-Johnson, C., & Struckman-Johnson, D. (2000). Sexual coercion rates in seven 

midwestern prison facilities for men. The Prison Journal, 80(4), 379-390. 

Struckman-Johnson, C., & Struckman-Johnson, D. (2002). Sexual coercion reported by women 

in three midwestern prisons. The Journal of Sex Research, 39(3), 217-227. 

Struckman-Johnson, C., Struckman-Johnson, D., Rucker, L., Bumby, K., & Donaldson, S. 

(1996). Sexual coercion reported by men and women in prison. The Journal of Sex 

Research, 33(1), 67-76. 

Sudman, S., & Bradburn, N. M. (1973). Effects of time and memory factors on response in 

Ssurveys. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 68(344), 805-815. 

Tewksbury, R. (1989a). Fear of Sexual Assault in Prison Inmates. The Prison Journal, 69(1), 62-

71. 

Tewksbury, R. (1989b). Measures of sexual behavior in an Ohio prison. Sociology and Social 

Research, 74(1), 34-39. 

Toch, H. (1977). Living in Prison: The Ecology of Survival. New York: The Free Press. 

Tourangeau, R., Rips, L. J., & Rasinski, K. (2000). The Psychology of Survey Response. 

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

Tourangeau, R., & Smith, T. W. (1996). Asking sensitive questions: The impact of data 

collection mode, question format, and question context. Public Opinion Quarterly, 60, 

275-304. 

Tourangeau, R., & Smith, T. W. (1998). Collecting sensitive information with different modes of 

data collection. In M. P. Couper & R. P. Baker & J. Bethlehem & C. F. Clark & J. Martin 

& William L. Nicholls II & J. M. O'Reilly (Eds.), Computer Assisted Survey Information

(pp. 431-453). New York: John Wiley & Sons. 

Turner, C. F., Forsyth, B. H., & O'Reilly, J. (1998). Computer Assisted Survey Information 

Collection. New York: Wiley & Sons. 

Turner, C. F., Forsyth, B. H., O'Reilly, J., Cooley, P. C., Smith, T. K., Rogers, S. M., & Miller, 

H. G. (1998). Automated self-interviewing and the survey measurement of sensitive 

behaviors. In M. P. Couper & R. P. Baker & J. Bethlehem & C. F. Clark & J. Martin & 

William L. Nicholls II & J. M. O'Reilly (Eds.), Computer Assisted Survey Information

(pp. 455-473). New York City: John Wiley & Sons. 

Turner, C. F., Ku, L., Rogers, S. M., Lindberg, L. D., Pleck, J. H., & Sonenstein, F. L. (1998). 

Adolescent sexual behavior, drug use, and violence: Increased reporting with computer 

survey technology. Science, 280(May 8th), 867-873. 

Turner, C. F., Lessler, J. T., & Devore, J. W. (1992). Effects of Mode of Administration and 

Wording on Reporting of Drug Use. In C. F. Turner & J. T. Lessler & J. C. Gfroerer 

(Eds.), Survey Measurement of Drug Use: Methodological Studies (pp. 177-219). 

Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office. 

Verdeyen, R. J. (2003). Standards Committe Meeting Minutes.Unpublished manuscript, 

Charlotte, NC. 
March 10, 2004 63

Ward, D. A., & Kassenbaum, G. G. (1964). Homosexuality: A mode of adaptation in a prison for 

women. Social Problems, 12(2), 59-117. 

Ward, D. A., & Kassenbaum, G. G. (1965). Women's Prison: Sex and Social Structure. Chicago: 

Aldine Publishing Company. 

Williams, M. L., Freeman, R. C., Bowen, A. M., Zhao, Z., Elwood, W. N., Gordon, C., Young, 

P., Rusek, R., & Signes, C.-A. (2000). A comparison of the reliability of self-reported 

drug use and sexual behaviors using computer-assisted versus face-to-face interviewing. 

AIDS Education and Prevention, 12(3), 199-213. 

Wooden, W. S., & Parker, J. (1982). Men Behind Bars: Sexual Exploitation in Prison. New 

York: Plenum Press. 
March 10, 2004