U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Special Report

JANUARY 2016 NCJ 249145

Sexual Victimization Reported by Juvenile 

Correctional Authorities, 2007–12

Allen J. Beck and Ramona R. Rantala, BJS Statisticians

I

n 2012, juvenile correctional administrators reported 

865 allegations of sexual victimization in state juvenile 

systems and 613 in locally or privately operated facilities 

(figure 1). Of these, 193 were substantiated based on a 

follow-up investigation. A third (32%) of these substantiated 

incidents involved staff sexual misconduct or staff sexual 

harassment directed toward a juvenile or youthful offender. 

Juvenile correctional facilities reported nearly 9,500 

allegations from 2007 to 2012, including 2,750 allegations 

of nonconsensual acts, 2,463 allegations of abusive sexual 

contact, 3,617 allegations of staff sexual misconduct, and 

664 allegations of staff sexual harassment. Overall, 1,686 of 

these allegations (18%) were substantiated.

Data are from the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ (BJS) Survey 

of Sexual Violence (SSV), which was renamed the Survey 

of Sexual Victimization in 2013. Each year, the surveys 

include all state juvenile systems and a sample of locally 

and privately operated juvenile facilities. In 2008, juvenile 

correctional facilities in Indian country were added to the 

survey. (See Methodology for more information about the 

systems and facilities from which data were collected.)

HIGHLIGHTS

 In 2012, juvenile correctional administrators reported 

865 allegations of sexual victimization in state juvenile 

systems and 613 in local or private facilities and Indian 

country facilities.

 The number of allegations per year has fluctuated in state 

juvenile systems and the rate more than doubled, from 

19 per 1,000 youth in 2005 to 47 per 1,000 in 2012.

 In locally and privately operated facilities, the number of 

allegations dropped from 2009 to 2011 and then began 

to rise in 2012. Based on 2-year rolling averages, the rate 

in 2012 was 13.5 per 1,000 youth, up from 7.2 per 1,000 

in 2010.

 From 2007 to 2012, nearly 9,500 allegations of sexual 

victimization of youth were reported in state or local and 

private facilities. Fifty-five percent involved youth-on-youth 

sexual victimization and 45% involved staff-on-youth 

sexual victimization.

 Upon investigation, 25% of the allegations of youth-onyouth sexual victimization and 10% of the allegations of 

staff-on-youth sexual victimization were substantiated 

during the 6-year period.

 Relative to the number of youth held, the rates of sexual 

victimization were significantly higher in state juvenile 

systems (5.9 per 1,000 youth) than in local or private 

facilities (2.3 per 1,000) during the 6-year period.

 Across state systems and in locally or privately operated 

facilities, youth-on-youth sexual victimization accounted for 

more than three-quarters (76%) of substantiated incidents 

from 2007 to 2012.

 Fewer than a fifth (18%) of substantiated incidents were 

reported as nonconsensual sexual acts between youth, 

involving force or threat of force and penetration, and more 

than a third (35%) were reported as abusive sexual contact, 

involving unwanted touching for sexual gratification.

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

Local and private (2-year average)*

State

20122011201020092008200720062005

Number

Figure 1

National estimates of allegations of sexual victimization 

in state juvenile systems and local or private juvenile 

correctional facilities, 2005–2012

*Estimates based on 2-year moving averages, except for 2005. Includes Indian 

country facilities.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Sexual Violence, 2005–2012.

Continued on next page.
On behalf of BJS, staff of the U.S. Census Bureau mailed 

survey forms to correctional administrators in state juvenile 

systems, juvenile correctional facilities in Indian country, 

and a sample of locally or privately operated juvenile 

correctional facilities. The administrators provided summary 

counts of allegations and substantiated incidents for each 

survey year. They also completed a separate form for each 

substantiated incident, providing details about the victim, 

perpetrator, and circumstances surrounding the incident. 

Administrators were given the option of mailing back a 

completed form or completing it on the Internet. Data 

collection forms can be accessed on the BJS website.

Each sexual act, as defined by BJS, is classified by the 

perpetrator who carried it out (i.e., inmate or staff) and the 

type of act. Administrators provided counts for each of the 

four types of sexual victimization that occurred during the 

prior calendar year: youth-on-youth nonconsensual sexual 

acts, youth-on-youth abusive sexual contact, staff sexual 

misconduct, and staff sexual harassment. (See text box, 

Defining sexual victimization.)

 Force or threat of force was involved in nearly a quarter 

(22%) of youth-on-youth substantiated incidents.

 Victims were physically injured in 5% of substantiated incidents 

of youth-on-youth sexual victimization, and the majority of all 

victims (61%) received some form of medical follow-up.

 Sixty-four percent of perpetrators of staff sexual misconduct 

and 31% of perpetrators of staff sexual harassment 

were female.

 Among all substantiated incidents of staff sexual 

misconduct between 2007 and 2012, 64% involved a sexual 

relationship that “appeared to be willing.” These incidents 

were considered an abuse of power, with an unknown level 

of coercion, and were illegal.

 An estimated 13% of incidents of staff sexual misconduct 

involved unwanted touching for sexual gratification, 

9% involved pressure or abuse of power, and 6% involved 

indecent exposure, invasion of privacy, or voyeurism.

 The most commonly imposed sanctions for staff sexual 

misconduct were loss of job (in 92% of incidents) and arrest 

and referral for prosecution (51%).

 Nearly half of the staff (49%) involved in sexual harassment 

of juveniles lost their jobs, 43% were reprimanded or 

disciplined, 5% were demoted, and 4% were transferred 

to another facility. About 16% of the perpetrators of staff 

sexual harassment were arrested or referred for prosecution.

HIGHLIGHTS (continued)

Defining sexual victimization

To define sexual victimization under the Prison Rape 

Elimination Act of 2003 (P.L. 108–79), the Bureau of Justice 

Statistics uses uniform definitions that classify each sexual act 

by the perpetrator who carried out the incident (i.e., youth or 

staff) and the type of act.

Youth-on-youth sexual victimization involves sexual 

contact with a person without his or her consent or with a 

person who is unable to consent or refuse.

Nonconsensual sexual acts are the most serious 

victimizations, and include—

 contact between the penis and the vagina or the penis and 

the anus including penetration, however slight; or

 contact between the mouth and the penis, vagina, 

or anus; or

 penetration of the anal or genital opening of another 

person by a hand, finger, or other object.

Abusive sexual contacts are less serious victimizations, 

and include—

 intentional touching, either directly or through clothing, of 

the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of 

any person; and

 incidents in which the intent was to sexually exploit (rather 

than to harm or debilitate).

Staff-on-youth sexual victimization includes both 

consensual and nonconsensual acts perpetrated on a youth 

by staff. Staff includes an employee, volunteer, contractor, 

official visitor, or other agency representative. Family, friends, 

and other visitors are excluded.

Staff sexual misconduct includes any behavior or act of a 

sexual nature directed toward a juvenile or youthful offender 

by staff, including romantic relationships. Such acts include—

 intentional touching of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, 

inner thigh, or buttocks with the intent to abuse, arouse, or 

gratify sexual desire; or

 completed, attempted, threatened, or requested sexual 

acts; or

 occurrences of indecent exposure, invasion of privacy, or 

staff voyeurism for sexual gratification.

Staff sexual harassment includes repeated verbal 

statements or include comments of a sexual nature 

to a juvenile or youthful offender by staff. Such 

statements include—

 demeaning references to gender or derogatory comments 

about body or clothing; or

 repeated profane or obscene language or gestures.
SEXUAL VICTIMIZATION REPORTED BY JUVENILE CORRECTIONAL AUTHORITIES, 2007–12 | JANUARY 2016 3

For each type of victimization, juvenile correctional 

administrators indicated how many of the allegations 

were substantiated (determined to have occurred), 

unsubstantiated (insufficient evidence to make a final 

determination), unfounded (determined not to have 

occurred), and still under investigation. The administrators 

then completed a separate form for each substantiated 

incident, providing details about the victim, perpetrator, and 

circumstances surrounding the incident.

In each year, survey responses were weighted to produce 

national estimates for all state systems, locally and privately 

operated juvenile facilities, and juvenile facilities in Indian 

country. Weights for locally and privately operated facilities 

were adjusted for nonresponse by multiplying the initial 

sampling weights in each stratum by the ratio of the sum of 

the weights for active facilities in the stratum to the sum of 

the weights for participating facilities. (See Methodology for 

a description of sampling procedures and weighting.)

Detailed tabulations for state systems and sampled 

facilities for each year are presented in the companion 

report, Survey of Sexual Violence in Juvenile Correctional 

Facilities, 2007–12 - Statistical Tables (NCJ 249143, BJS 

web, January 2016) which provides unweighted counts of 

the number of allegations and substantiated incidents by 

type of sexual victimization. Survey results should not be 

used to rank systems or facilities. Variations in the number 

of allegations and substantiated incidents may reflect 

differences in definitions and reporting criteria as well as 

variations in procedures for recording allegations and in the 

thoroughness of subsequent investigations.

Between 2007 and 2012, BJS also conducted the National 

Survey of Youth in Custody (NSYC), which relies on reports 

of victimization directly from youth. First conducted in 

2008–09 and again in 2012, the NSYC uses methodologies 

that provide the data needed to permit reliable facility- and 

state-level comparisons. The NSYC is administered using 

audio computer-assisted self-interview procedures, which 

allow victims to report their experiences anonymously. 

Youth use headphones to follow audio instructions 

and a touch screen to interact with a computer-assisted 

questionnaire. For facility- and state-level rankings, see 

Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 

2012 (NCJ 241708, BJS web, June 2013).

Allegations of sexual victimization

From 2005 to 2012, the rate of allegations of sexual 

victimization rose steadily in state systems but varied in 

local and private facilities

State juvenile correctional administrators reported 

865 allegations of sexual victimization in 2012, a significant 

increase over the 735 allegations reported in 2011 (table 1). 

The annual number of allegations has fluctuated, rising from 

771 in 2005 to 912 in 2007, then dropping to 690 in 2010. 

At the same time, the number of youth held in state juvenile 

systems declined sharply, from 38,580 at yearend 2006 to 

19,095 at yearend 2012 (not shown). As a result, the rate of 

allegations per 1,000 youth held in state juvenile systems 

more than doubled, from 19 per 1,000 in 2005 to 47 per 

1,000 in 2012 (figure 2).

Table 1. 

National estimates of allegations of sexual victimization 

in state juvenile systems and local or private juvenile 

correctional facilities, 2005–2012

All facilitiesa State juvenile systems

Local and private 

juvenile facilitiesa

Number of allegations

2012* 1,478 865 613

2011 1,117** 735 382**

2010 1,108** 690 418**

2009 1,782 814 968

2008 2,162** 906 1,256**

2007 2,110** 912 1,198**

2006 2,044** 786 1,258**

2005 2,047 771 1,276**

Rate per 1,000 youth

2012* 23.0 46.9 13.5

2011 16.8** 35.6 8.2**

2010 14.2** 30.3 7.2**

2009 19.9 31.3 15.1

2008 21.9 30.1 18.1

2007 19.4 29.3 15.3

2006 16.8** 20.4 15.3

2005 16.7** 19.2 15.4

*Comparison year.

**Difference with the comparison year is significant at the 95% confidence level.

aIncludes Indian country facilities. Except for 2005, annual number of allegations 

and rates are based on 2-year moving averages. See appendix table 1 for 

standard errors. 

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Sexual Violence, 2005–2012.

0

10

20

30

40

50

Local and private (2-year average)

State

20122011201020092008200720062005

Number

Figure 2

Rate of allegations of sexual victimization per 1,000 youth 

in state juvenile systems and local or private juvenile 

correctional facilities, 2005–2012

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Sexual Violence, 2005–2012.
SEXUAL VICTIMIZATION REPORTED BY JUVENILE CORRECTIONAL AUTHORITIES, 2007–12 | JANUARY 2016 4

In locally and privately operated juvenile facilities, the 

estimated number of allegations of sexual victimization 

dropped sharply after 2008 and then began to rise in 2012. 

National estimates, based on reports from administrators 

in sampled locally and privately operated juvenile facilities 

and in Indian country facilities, are subject to survey 

sampling error. However, even after smoothing year-to-year 

variations by relying on 2-year moving averages, the number 

of allegations dropped from approximately 1,247 per year 

between 2005 and 2008 to 382 by 2011. (See appendix table 

1 for standard errors for each 2-year estimate.)

The declining number of youth held partially explained 

the drop in the reported allegations of sexual victimization 

in local or private juvenile facilities. On census day 

in October 2006, local and private juvenile facilities 

held 57,677 youth; by 2012, they held 38,542 youth.1

Administrators in these facilities reported about 15 to 18 

allegations of sexual victimization per 1,000 youth each 

year from 2005 to 2009. The rates declined to 7 per 1,000 in 

2010 and 8 per 1,000 in 2011, then increased to 14 per 1,000 

in 2012.

The reasons for the sharp contrast between rates of 

allegations of sexual victimization in state juvenile systems 

(47 per 1,000 in 2012) and those in local or private facilities 

1Hockenberry, S., Sickmund, M., and Sladky, A. (2009). Juvenile Residential 

Facility Census, 2006: Selected Findings (NCJ 228128). Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention. Hockenberry, S., Sickmund, M., and Sladky, A. (2015). 

Juvenile Residential Facility Census, 2012: Selected Findings (NCJ 247207).

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention.

(14 per 1,000) are not known. The rates may reflect 

differences in the types of youth held in these facilities, 

with state systems holding youth who have more serious 

behavioral problems and other risk factors associated with 

sexual victimization. The rates might also reflect differences 

in facility or staff characteristics—such as size, crowding, 

understaffing, or inadequate training or management—that 

are associated with sexual victimization. The differing rates 

may also be due to variations in reporting capabilities. 

Most state systems are able to report on the four types of 

allegations of sexual victimization in the SSV, while record 

systems in locally and privately operated facilities might be 

less able to report on the four types of allegations separately. 

(See Methodology for reporting capabilities.)

Nearly 9,500 allegations of sexual victimization were 

reported from 2007 to 2012

Correctional administrators in state juvenile systems 

reported more than 4,900 allegations of sexual victimization 

between 2007 and 2012 (table 2). Taking into account 

weights for sampled facilities, administrators of locally and 

privately operated juvenile facilities and in Indian country 

facilities reported more than 4,500 allegations.

Thirty-eight percent of the reported allegations were for staff 

sexual misconduct and 7% were for staff sexual harassment. 

About 29% of the allegations involved youth-on-youth 

nonconsensual sexual acts, the most serious form of sexual 

victimization among youth, and 26% involved youth-onyouth abusive sexual contact.

Table 2.

National estimates of allegations of sexual victimization in state juvenile systems and local or private juvenile correctional 

facilities, by type of incident, 2007–12

Type of incident

All facilities State juvenile systems* Local and private juvenile facilitiesa

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Total 9,494 100% 4,922 100% 4,572 100%

Youth-on-youth

Nonconsensual sexual acts 2,750 29.0% 906 18.4% 1,844** 40.3%**

Abusive sexual contacts 2,463 25.9 1,235 25.1 1,228 26.9

Staff-on-youth

Staff sexual misconduct 3,617 38.1% 2,307 46.9% 1,310** 28.6%**

Staff sexual harassment 664 7.0 474 9.7 190** 4.2**

Note: Detail may not sum to total due to rounding. See appendix table 2 for standard errors.

*Comparison group.

**Difference with the comparison group is significant at the 95% confidence level.

aIncludes Indian country facilities.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Sexual Violence, 2007–12.
SEXUAL VICTIMIZATION REPORTED BY JUVENILE CORRECTIONAL AUTHORITIES, 2007–12 | JANUARY 2016 5

Staff sexual misconduct accounted for nearly half (47%) 

of all allegations in state systems, compared to less than a 

third (29%) in local or private facilities. Youth-on-youth 

nonconsensual sexual acts represented a higher percentage 

of allegations reported in local or private facilities (40%) 

than in state systems (18%). Allegations of staff sexual 

harassment were less common, accounting for 10% of 

all allegations in state systems and 4% in local or private 

facilities and in Indian country facilities.

Most allegations of sexual victimization were 

unsubstantiated or unfounded

Based on completed investigations between 2007 and 

2012, 53% of youth-on-youth and 49% of staff-on-youth 

allegations were unsubstantiated (i.e., the evidence was 

insufficient to determine whether the alleged victimization 

occurred) (table 3). These investigations determined that 

about 1 in 5 allegations involving other youth and 2 in 

5 allegations involving staff were unfounded (i.e., the 

investigation determined that the event did not occur). 

During the 6-year period, 10% of allegations of staff-onyouth sexual victimization were substantiated, compared to 

25% of allegations involving youth-on-youth victimization.

In 2012, 192 of the estimated 1,477 allegations (13%) of 

sexual victimization in juvenile facilities were substantiated 

based on follow-up investigation. A third (32%) of these 

incidents involved staff sexual misconduct or staff sexual 

harassment directed toward a juvenile or youthful offender 

(not shown).

During the 6-year period, the outcomes of investigations 

differed significantly between state juvenile systems 

and locally or privately operated facilities. In state 

systems, 32% of the allegations of youth-on-youth sexual 

victimization were substantiated, compared to 20% in local 

or private facilities. Approximately 48% of the allegations 

of staff sexual misconduct or harassment in local or private 

facilities were determined to be unfounded, compared to 

38% in state systems.

Table 3. 

National estimates of outcomes of investigations into allegations of sexual victimization of juveniles, by type of incident and 

facility, 2007–12

Type of incident 

All facilities State juvenile systems* Local and private juvenile facilitiesa

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Youth-on-youth 5,201 100% 2,141 100% 3,060 100%

Substantiated 1,282 25.2% 658 32.4% 624 20.4%**

Unsubstantiated 2,691 53.0 993 48.9 1,698** 55.7

Unfounded 1,109 21.8 380 18.7 729 23.9

Investigation ongoing 119 110 9

Staff-on-youth 4,279 100% 2,781 100% 1,498 100%

Substantiated 404 9.9% 219 8.3% 185 12.6%

Unsubstantiated 1,989 48.6 1,408 53.6 581** 39.6**

Unfounded 1,701 41.5 999 38.0 702** 47.8**

Investigation ongoing 185 155 30

Note: Detail may not sum to total due to rounding. Percents are based on allegations for which investigations had been completed, and exclude allegations for which 

investigations were ongoing. See appendix table 3 for standard errors.

*Comparison group.

**Difference with the comparison group is significant at the 95% confidence level.

aIncludes Indian country facilities.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Sexual Violence, 2007–12.
SEXUAL VICTIMIZATION REPORTED BY JUVENILE CORRECTIONAL AUTHORITIES, 2007–12 | JANUARY 2016 6

Substantiated incidents of sexual victimization

On average, 281 allegations of sexual victimization were 

substantiated each year

Between 2007 and 2012, there were 1,686 substantiated 

incidents of youth sexual victimization in juvenile facilities, 

or approximately 281 each year (table 4). An estimated 

1,282 incidents involved youth-on-youth victimizations and 

404 involved staff-on-youth victimizations. The number of 

substantiated incidents was slightly greater in state systems 

(877) than in local or private facilities (809) including Indian

country facilities. Relative to the number of youth held, the

rates of sexual victimization were significantly higher in

state juvenile systems (5.9 per 1,000 youth) than in local or

private facilities (2.3 per 1,000 youth).

Juvenile authorities provided details on 97% of 

substantiated incidents

Juvenile correctional administrators were asked to provide 

detailed information on each substantiated incident of 

sexual victimization. Using a separate incident form, 

the SSV obtained incident-based data, allowing for an 

in-depth analysis of sexual victimization. Data included 

details on the circumstances surrounding each incident, 

characteristics of victims and perpetrators, type of physical 

force, threat of force, pressure used, sanctions imposed, and 

victim assistance.

Incident-level data were reported on 866 of the 877 

substantiated incidents (99%) in state systems and 190 of 

the 208 (unweighted) substantiated incidents (91%) in local 

or private facilities (including Indian country facilities). 

Upon investigation, 56 incidents of youth-on-youth sexual 

victimization in state systems and 13 incidents in local or 

private facilities were reported by correctional officials as 

voluntary and were excluded from the analysis.

There was no evidence of reporting bias among the 

987 substantiated incidents with detailed data. Most state 

systems and facilities provided data on all substantiated 

incidents every year. Data from state juvenile systems were 

missing in Georgia (7 in 2012), Louisiana (2 in 2009), Illinois 

(1 in 2010), and the District of Columbia (1 in 2011). Data 

were missing from local and private facilities in Colorado 

(4 in 2007 and 2 in 2011), Indiana (6 in 2008), Georgia (3 in 

2009), and Wisconsin (3 in 2008).

Across all state systems and in local or private facilities, 

incidents of youth-on-youth sexual victimization accounted 

for nearly three-quarters (73%) of substantiated incidents 

(table 5). Forty-one percent of substantiated incidents in 

state systems involved abusive sexual contact, compared to 

26% in locally or privately operated facilities. Approximately 

13% of substantiated incidents in state systems were 

nonconsensual sexual acts, compared to 25% of incidents 

in local or private facilities. Sexual misconduct accounted 

for the largest percentage of incidents involving staff 

(21%), while sexual harassment accounted for the smallest 

percentage (6%).

Table 4. 

National estimates of substantiated incidents of sexual 

victimization in state juvenile systems and local or private 

juvenile correctional facilities, 2007–12

All facilities

State juvenile 

systems*

Local and private 

juvenile facilitiesa

Number of substantiated

 incidentsb 1,686 877 809

Youth-on-youth 1,282 658 624

Staff-on-youth 404 219 185

Rate per 1,000 youthc 3.4 5.9 2.3**

Youth-on-youth 2.6 4.4 1.8**

Staff-on-youth 0.8 1.5 0.5**

Note: See appendix table 4 for standard errors.

*Comparison group.

**Difference with the comparison group is significant at the 95% confidence 

level.

a Includes Indian country facilities. 

bAllegations were classsified as substantiated if, upon investigation, they were 

determined to have occurred.

cRates were based on the total number of youth held at yearend 2007–12. 

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Sexual Violence, 2007–12.

Table 5. 

National estimates of substantiated incidents of sexual 

victimization of juveniles, by type of incident and facility, 

2007–12

Type of incident All facilities

State juvenile 

systems*

Local and private 

juvenile facilitiesa

Youth-on-youth 72.9% 73.6% 71.9%

Nonconsensual sexual act 18.4 13.3 25.2**

Abusive sexual contact 35.0 41.4 26.1**

Voluntary sexual act 19.6 19.0 20.3

Staff-on-youth 27.3% 26.5% 28.4%

Sexual misconduct 21.3 18.6 24.2

Sexual harassment 6.0 7.6 3.9**

Number of incidents 1,420 810 610

Note: See appendix table 5 for standard errors.

*Comparison group.

**Difference with the comparison group is significant at the 95% confidence 

level.

aIncludes Indian country facilities.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Sexual Violence, 2007–12.
SEXUAL VICTIMIZATION REPORTED BY JUVENILE CORRECTIONAL AUTHORITIES, 2007–12 | JANUARY 2016 7

Approximately 20% of all substantiated incidents between 

youth were determined to be voluntary. Correctional 

authorities reported these incidents because they began as 

allegations of nonconsensual sexual acts or abusive sexual 

contact. Upon investigation, authorities determined these 

incidents were voluntary; however, the juveniles involved 

could not legally consent to these acts.

Youth-on-youth victimization

Juvenile correctional administrators reported detailed 

data on substantiated incidents of youth-on-youth sexual 

victimization, including nonconsensual sexual acts and 

abusive sexual contact. Taking into account weights 

for sampled facilities, detailed data were provided on 

1,031 incidents that occurred between 2007 and 2012. 

These incidents involved an estimated 1,108 victims and 

1,247 perpetrators. The data revealed that—

 Nearly two-thirds (64%) of the victims in state systems

and three-quarters (74%) of those in locally or privately

operated facilities were male, while about a third (36%) in 

state systems and a quarter (26%) in locally or privately 

operated facilities were female (table 6). Females were 

overrepresented among victims because at the time of the 

2011 Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement, they 

represented 10% of youth in state systems and 15% of 

youth in locally or privately operated facilities.2

2 Sickmund, M., Sladky, T. J., Kang, W., and Puzzanchera, C. (2015). Easy 

Access to the Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement, available at 

www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezacjrp/.

Table 6. 

Characteristics of victims and perpetrators of substantiated incidents of youth-on-youth sexual victimization, by type of 

facility and incident, 2007–12

Type of facility Type of incident

Characteristic All facilities

State juvenile 

systems*

Local and private 

juvenile facilitiesa Voluntary act*

Abusive sexual 

contact

Nonconsensual 

sexual act

Victim

Sex

Male 67.9% 63.7% 73.6%** 63.2% 64.3% 79.8%**

Female 32.1 36.3 26.4** 36.8 35.7 20.2**

Age

12 or younger 5.6% 1.6% 10.8%** 6.0% 4.0% 8.1%

13–15 41.9 36.0 49.6 39.2 37.2 53.5

16–17 39.3 44.6 32.2 39.3 44.1 30.2

18–19 10.4 13.8 6.1** 11.8 11.4 7.2

20 or older 2.8 4.0 1.3** 3.7 3.3 1.1**

Race/Hispanic origin

Whiteb 54.8% 60.9% 46.6%** 42.4% 62.6%** 53.8%

Black/African Americanb 28.5 25.4 32.6 43.1 25.5** 18.5**

Hispanic/Latino 12.2 10.5 14.4 12.1 8.4 19.1

Otherb,c 5.2 3.8 7.1 2.6 4.2 9.8

Number of victims 1,108 633 475 294 532 283

Perpetrator

Sex

Male 76.9% 70.3% 85.5%** 78.5% 73.0% 81.7%

Female 23.1 29.7 14.5** 21.5 27.0 18.3

Age

12 or younger 1.7% 0.7% 3.1% 0.6% 1.5% 3.5%

13–15 37.7 29.4 48.9** 43.7 32.1** 40.8

16–17 44.3 46.4 41.5 39.1 50.1** 40.0

18–19 13.1 18.7 5.6** 12.6 13.4 13.1

20 or older 3.2 4.8 0.9** 4.1 2.8 2.6

Race/Hispanic origin

Whiteb 42.5% 45.7% 37.8% 46.7% 41.9% 38.9%

Black/African Americanb 42.5 37.6 49.8** 44.8 40.2 43.6

Hispanic/Latino 11.8 11.9 11.7 8.0 11.4 16.9

Otherb,c 3.2 4.9 0.7** 0.6 6.5** 0.6

Number of perpetrators 1,247 707 540 363 561 324

Note: Detail may not sum to total due to rounding. See appendix table 6 for standard errors.

*Comparison group.

**Difference with the comparison group is significant at the 95% confidence level. 

aIncludes Indian country facilities.

bExcludes persons of Hispanic or Latino origin.

cIncludes American Indian or Alaska Native; Asian, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander; and persons of two or more races.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Sexual Violence, 2007–12.
SEXUAL VICTIMIZATION REPORTED BY JUVENILE CORRECTIONAL AUTHORITIES, 2007–12 | JANUARY 2016 8

 More than half (55%) of all victims were white, compared

to a third of all youth held in juvenile facilities (33% in

state systems and 32% in local or private facilities).

 Among victims, 28% were black and 12% were Hispanic.

In comparison, among all youth held in juvenile

correctional facilities in 2011, 40% were black and 23% 

were Hispanic.

 Nearly half of all victims (47%) were age 15 or younger,

while less than a third (30%) of all youth held nationwide

were age 15 or younger. About 60% of victims in local or 

private facilities were age 15 or younger, compared to 38% 

of victims in state systems.

Nearly 80% of victims and perpetrators of youth-on-youth 

nonconsensual sexual acts were male

Upon investigation, it was determined that most victims of 

youth-on-youth sexual assault experienced abusive sexual 

contact (532) or engaged in voluntary sexual acts (294). 

About a quarter (283) of victims experienced more serious 

nonconsensual sexual acts involving penetration or contact 

with the penis, vagina, or anus. Victims of youth-on-youth 

nonconsensual sexual acts were more likely to be male (80%) 

than victims of other sexual assaults (64%).

Across all forms of youth-on-youth sexual victimization, 

most perpetrators were male (70% of perpetrators in state 

systems and 86% in local or private facilities). As with victims, 

more perpetrators in local or private facilities were age 15 or 

younger (52%) than perpetrators in state systems (30%).

Black youth accounted for 42% of perpetrators, compared 

to 40% of black youth held nationwide. Approximately 12% 

of perpetrators of youth-on-youth sexual victimizations 

were Hispanic, compared to 23% of Hispanic youth held in 

juvenile facilities overall.

Most incidents of sexual victimization occurred outside the 

victim’s room in a common area or program service area

More than 60% of incidents of youth-on-youth sexual 

victimization occurred in a location other than the victim’s 

room or dormitory (table 7). Thirty-seven percent of 

incidents took place in a common area (such as a shower 

or day room), 20% in a program service area (such as 

the commissary, kitchen, storage area, laundry, cafeteria, 

workshop, hallway, classroom, or clinic), and 8% outside of 

the facility or in transit. A quarter occurred in the victim’s 

room (25%) and 15% occurred in a dormitory.

Table 7. 

Circumstances surrounding substantiated incidents of youth-on-youth sexual victimization, by type of facility and incident, 

2007–12

Type of facility Type of incident

Circumstance All facilities

State juvenile 

systems*

Local and private 

juvenile facilitiesa Voluntary act*

Abusive sexual 

contact

Nonconsensual 

sexual act

Location of incident

Victim’s room 25.3% 15.3% 38.8%** 26.3% 18.6% 36.8%

Perpetrator’s room 2.6 2.4 2.9 3.2 0.4 6.1

Dormitory 14.6 16.8 11.6 11.8 13.2 20.4

Common areab 36.8 42.8 28.7** 43.9 42.5 18.6**

Program service areac 19.9 25.1 12.9** 10.9 24.5** 20.8

Otherd 8.2 4.0 13.9 7.6 6.1 12.9

Time of day

6 a.m. to noon 25.6% 25.1% 25.5% 15.2% 34.3%** 18.6%

Noon to 6 p.m. 34.4 38.5 28.2** 39.0 37.6 22.2**

6 p.m. to midnight 38.8 37.6 40.6 43.4 28.6** 55.8

Midnight to 6 a.m. 6.0 5.7 6.6 5.9 5.0 8.4

Who reported the incident

Victim 53.2% 54.6% 51.1% 33.4% 62.4%** 55.0%**

Another youth 16.2 17.4 14.6 22.9 11.2** 19.2

Line staff 21.8 24.6 17.8 25.3 24.4 13.1**

Administrative staff 2.7 2.1 3.7 7.3 0.8 2.0

Other staff 11.3 5.0 20.1** 11.2 9.1 15.5

Othere 3.9 6.2 0.7** 9.2 2.5** 1.6**

Number of incidents 1,031 594 437 275 496 261

Note: Detail sums to more than 100% because multiple responses were allowed for each item. See appendix table 7 for standard errors.

*Comparison group.

**Difference with the comparison group is significant at the 95% confidence level. 

aIncludes Indian country facilities.

bIncludes dayroom, bathroom, shower, gymnasium, recreational area, and yard.

cIncludes commissary, kitchen, storage, laundry, cafeteria, workshop, classroom, and hallway.

dIncludes vacant room or cell, temporary holding cell, while in transit, and other.

eIncludes anonymous report, hotline report, intelligence, interception of letter, community member, and relative or family member.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Sexual Violence, 2007–12.
SEXUAL VICTIMIZATION REPORTED BY JUVENILE CORRECTIONAL AUTHORITIES, 2007–12 | JANUARY 2016 9

Youth-on-youth incidents in locally or privately operated 

facilities (39%) were more likely to occur in the victim’s 

room, compared to incidents in state systems (15%). 

More than 40% of incidents in state systems occurred in a 

common area and 25% occurred in a program service area.

While incidents of youth-on-youth sexual victimization 

occurred at all times of the day, the majority occurred 

between 6 p.m. and midnight (39%) or between noon and 

6 p.m. (34%). Nonconsensual sexual acts occurred most 

often between 6 p.m. and midnight (56%), while incidents 

of abusive sexual contact were spread across a broader 

timeframe, with the majority occurring between 6 a.m. 

and noon (34%), noon and 6 p.m. (38%), and 6 p.m. and 

midnight (29%).

In two-thirds of incidents of youth-on-youth sexual 

victimization, the victim (53%) or another youth (16%) 

reported the incident. Facility staff made the initial report in 

about a third of substantiated incidents.

About 6% of victims were physically held down by other 

youth

Juvenile correctional authorities reported that force or threat 

of force was involved in nearly a quarter (22%) of youthon-youth incidents (table 8). About a third of the incidents 

(36%) were reported as involuntary (i.e., they involved 

unwanted touching for sexual gratification without force, 

threat of force, bribery, or other forms of coercion).

Force or threat of force was more common among male 

victims (27%) of youth-on-youth sexual victimization 

than among female victims (12%). Victims age 15 or 

younger (30%) were more likely to have experienced force or 

threat of force than victims age 16 or older (17%).

In about 22% of the incidents, the victims had been talked 

into it or otherwise persuaded to be involved in the sexual 

contact or activity. Victims age 15 or younger (29%) were 

more likely than older victims (17%) to report such forms 

of pressure.

Table 8.

Type of incident and type of pressure or force involved in substantiated incidents of youth-on-youth sexual victimization, by 

sex and age of victim, 2007–12

Characteristic All incidents Male* Female Age 15 or younger* Age 16 or older

Type of incident

Nonconsensual sexual act 25.2% 28.2% 17.6% 34.4% 17.5%**

Abusive sexual contact 47.9 43.8 58.0** 42.9 53.6

Voluntary sexual act 26.9 27.9 24.4 22.6 28.9

Type of pressure or forcea

None 55.2% 50.9% 68.6%** 44.7% 65.0%**

Voluntaryb 19.0 21.0 16.3 13.9 23.0

Involuntaryc 36.2 30.5 52.0** 30.9 42.3

Force or threat of force 22.4% 26.6% 12.3%** 30.3% 16.6%**

Threatened with physical harm 12.3 16.2 3.1** 19.1 7.4

Physically held down or restrained 6.1 6.2 6.4 6.9 5.5

Physically harmed or injured 7.3 9.3 2.8 10.1 5.2

Persuaded or talked into it 21.9% 23.9% 18.7% 28.9% 16.7%**

Bribed or blackmailed 1.4% 1.8% 0.3%** 1.7% 1.3%**

Number of incidents 1,031 736 294 484 543

Note: Detail may not sum to total due to rounding. See appendix table 8 for standard errors.

*Comparison group.

**Difference with the comparison group is significant at the 95% confidence level.

aDetail may sum to more than 100% because multiple responses were allowed.

bExcludes incidents in which the victim was persuaded or talked into the sexual act or contact.

cIncludes nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual contacts without force, threat of force, persuasion, bribery, or other forms of coercion.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Sexual Violence, 2007–12.
SEXUAL VICTIMIZATION REPORTED BY JUVENILE CORRECTIONAL AUTHORITIES, 2007–12 | JANUARY 2016 10

Victims received some form of medical follow-up in more 

than 60% of all incidents

Across all substantiated incidents of youth-on-youth sexual 

victimization, 1 in 20 victims (5%) sustained an injury 

(table 9). Fifteen percent of victims of nonconsensual sexual 

acts were physically injured.

The majority of victims (61%) received medical attention. 

Counseling or mental health treatment was provided in 

about half of all incidents (51%). Twenty-one percent 

of victims were given a medical examination, 4% were 

administered a rape kit, 5% were tested for HIV/AIDS, and 

5% were tested for other STDs.

Nearly 90% of youth who were victims of nonconsensual 

sexual acts received medical attention or counseling—34% 

were given a medical examination, 14% were administered 

a rape kit, 12% were tested for HIV/AIDS, 12% were tested 

for other STDs, and 78% received counseling or mental 

health treatment.

Table 9. 

Impact on victims and perpetrators of substantiated incidents of youth-on-youth sexual victimization, by type of facility and 

incident, 2007–12

Type of facility Type of incident

Impact

All 

incidents

State juvenile 

systems*

Local and private 

juvenile facilitiesa Voluntary act*

Abusive sexual 

contact

Nonconsensual 

sexual act

Victim injured

Yes 5.4% 4.6% 6.5% 1.1% 2.8%** 15.0%**

No 94.6 95.4 93.5 98.9 97.2** 85.0**

Medical follow-up for victim

Given medical examination 21.0% 26.3% 14.0%** 17.9% 16.0% 34.1%**

Administered rape kit 3.8 2.9 5.0 0.4 0.4** 14.2**

Tested for HIV/AIDS 5.0 2.7 7.8 7.3 0.0 11.7

Tested for other STD 4.8 2.2 8.2 6.6 0.0 12.1

Provided counseling or mental health treatment 51.4 42.2 65.0** 34.3 48.4** 77.8**

None of the above (no medical follow-up) 38.8 41.1 34.8 62.0 38.9** 12.0**

Change in housing or custody for victim

Placed in administrative segregation or protective custody 10.9% 11.7% 10.0% 12.9% 6.0%** 18.4%

Placed in medical unit 0.8 1.0 0.5** 0.4 0.6** 1.6**

Confined to own room 3.6 6.6 1.3** 6.2 3.1** 4.6

Moved within facility 24.9 14.6 37.9** 34.3 13.7** 35.7

Transferred to another unit or facility 2.2 2.3 2.0 1.8 0.4** 5.8**

Otherb 2.5 3.1 1.6 5.8 1.2** 1.2**

None of the abovec 57.8 63.1 49.4** 41.5 76.9** 36.4

Sanctions imposed on perpetrator

Solitary or disciplinary confinement 23.8% 32.2% 12.5%** 18.0% 26.4% 25.2%

Confined to own room 9.4 10.2 8.2 9.3 11.4 5.6

Placed in higher custody 24.0 23.7 24.5 29.0 19.3** 27.7

Transferred to another unit or facility 10.6 7.3 15.1 9.6 6.3 20.0

Loss of privileges 30.6 26.1 38.0 28.5 34.8 26.9

Loss of good time 13.7 13.3 14.3 12.5 12.3 17.7

Legal action 27.9 23.7 33.7 12.7 23.2** 53.5**

Referred to law enforcement or arrested 13.0 5.3 23.4** 7.1 7.5 30.0**

Referred for prosecution 22.8 20.6 25.7 8.7 17.4** 48.4**

Given new sentence 2.4 1.5 3.5 3.9 2.1 1.2

Other 17.1 23.0 9.2** 20.8 20.7 6.1**

Given extra work or assignment 4.8 4.9 4.6 8.1 5.0 0.8

Displinary report issued 6.2 7.8 4.0** 4.0 8.9** 3.4

Given treatment or counseling 5.2 8.7 0.5** 9.5 4.9** 1.2**

Other/none 1.5 2.6 0.0** 0.0 2.6** 0.8**

Don’t know 1.7 2.9 0.0** 1.8 1.6 1.6

Note: Detail may sum to more than 100% because multiple responses were allowed for each item. See appendix table 9 for standard errors.

*Comparison group. aIncludes Indian country facilities.

**Difference with the comparison group is significant at the 95% confidence level. 

aIncludes Indian country facilities.

bIncludes loss of privileges, sent to counseling or conflict resolution, and separation in line movement.

cIncludes incidents without a victim and incidents in which youth had been discharged or transferred before the allegation was made.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Sexual Violence, 2007–12.
SEXUAL VICTIMIZATION REPORTED BY JUVENILE CORRECTIONAL AUTHORITIES, 2007–12 | JANUARY 2016 11

Victims of other types of incidents received less medical 

follow up. About a third of youth involved in voluntary acts 

(34%) and half of the victims of abusive sexual contact (48%) 

received counseling or mental health treatment following 

the incident.

The most common responses following a substantiated 

incident of youth-on-youth sexual victimization was to 

move the victim within the facility (25%), place the victim 

in segregation or protective custody (11%), or confine 

the youth to his or her room (4%). In more than half of 

the incidents (58%), there was no change in the housing 

assignment or custody level of the victimized youth.

Victims of nonconsensual sexual acts (64%) were more likely 

to be moved than victims of abusive sexual contact. Eighteen 

percent were placed in segregation or protective custody, 

5% were confined to their room, 36% were moved elsewhere 

within the facility, and 6% were transferred to another unit 

or facility.

Most youth-on-youth perpetrators of nonconsensual 

sexual acts received legal sanctions or were placed in 

solitary confinement or higher levels of custody

A legal sanction (including referral to law enforcement, 

arrest, referral for prosecution, or a new sentence) was 

imposed on perpetrators in 54% of all substantiated 

incidents involving youth-on-youth nonconsensual 

sexual acts and in 23% of the incidents involving abusive 

sexual contact. Authorities in locally or privately operated 

facilities (23%) were more likely to refer the incident to law 

enforcement than were state authorities (5%).

In the most serious incidents, youth perpetrators were 

moved to solitary confinement or disciplinary segregation 

(25%), placed in higher custody (28%), or transferred to 

another unit or facility (20%).

Even in the least serious incidents (i.e., those involving 

voluntary sexual activity between youth), many perpetrators 

received legal sanctions (13%), were transferred to another 

unit or facility (10%), placed in higher custody (29%), or 

given solitary or disciplinary confinement (18%).

Among the multiple types of sanctions imposed on youth 

perpetrators, the most common were loss of privileges 

(31%), loss of good time (14%), and other sanctions (17%), 

including extra work, receiving a disciplinary report, and 

mandatory treatment or counseling.

Staff-on-youth victimization

Juvenile administrators reported detailed data on 

substantiated incidents of staff-on-youth sexual 

victimization, including staff sexual misconduct and staff 

sexual harassment. Taking into account weights for sampled 

facilities, detailed data were provided on 383 incidents that 

occurred between 2007 and 2012. These incidents involved 

an estimated 446 victims and 467 staff perpetrators. The data 

revealed that—

 Females accounted for 10% of all youth held in state

systems and 15% of youth held in locally or privately

operated facilities in 2011, but represented 38% of victims 

of staff-on-youth sexual victimization in state systems 

and 23% of victims in locally or privately operated 

facilities (table 10). Forty percent of victims of staff sexual 

harassment were female.

 Nearly half of the victims (49%) of staff sexual abuse were

white, compared to nearly a third of all youth in juvenile

facilities nationwide (32%).

 Forty-two percent of victims of staff sexual misconduct

and sexual harassment were black and 12% were

Hispanic, compared to the proportion of black (40%) and 

Hispanic (23%) youth held in residential placement or 

juvenile correctional facilities in 2011.

 More than three-quarters of the victims of staff-onyouth sexual abuse were age 16 or older (77%), which

was higher than their representation among victims of 

youth-on-youth sexual victimization (52%) and their 

representation among youth held in juvenile facilities 

nationwide (70%).
SEXUAL VICTIMIZATION REPORTED BY JUVENILE CORRECTIONAL AUTHORITIES, 2007–12 | JANUARY 2016 12

Table 10. 

Characteristics of victims and perpetrators involved in substantiated incidents of staff-on-youth sexual victimization, by type 

of facility and incident, 2007–12

Type of facility Type of incident

Characteristic All facilities

State juvenile 

systems*

Local and private 

juvenile facilitiesa Sexual misconduct*

Sexual 

harassment

Victim

Sex 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Male 68.7 62.4 77.2** 71.8 59.6**

Female 31.3 37.6 22.8** 28.2 40.4**

Age 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

12 or younger 3.2 0.0 7.6 4.4 0.0

13–15 19.8 15.5 25.4 16.7 29.0**

16–17 49.5 48.0 51.5 50.1 47.4

18–19 25.1 33.3 14.4** 27.2 19.2**

20 or older 2.2 3.2 1.0** 1.5 4.4**

Race/Hispanic origin 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Whiteb 48.6 45.5 52.5 50.2 44.1

Black/African Americanb 41.2 41.1 41.4 40.8 42.0

Hispanic/Latino 12.5 12.2 13.0 12.5 12.8

Otherb,c 0.9 1.2 0.6** 0.6 1.9**

Number of victims 446 255 191 332 114

Perpetrator

Sex 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Male 45.3 49.0 40.5 35.9 69.2**

Female 54.7 51.0 59.5 64.1 30.8**

Age 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

24 or younger 19.6 9.4 32.9** 23.2 10.9**

25–29 22.5 25.9 18.7 23.2 21.3

30–34 19.3 18.5 20.4 18.6 21.2

35–39 11.6 13.8 8.8 11.5 11.3

40–44 8.7 10.2 6.6 10.6 3.9**

45–54 13.2 15.0 11.0 10.7 19.7**

55 or older 5.0 7.5 1.7** 2.3 11.7**

Race/Hispanic origin 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Whiteb 60.9 62.3 59.2 59.8 63.9

Black/African Americanb 32.5 33.3 31.4 33.0 30.1

Hispanic/Latino 5.5 3.2 8.4 6.5 3.0

Otherb,c 1.3 1.2 1.5 0.6 3.0**

Type of staff involved 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Full/part time employee 91.6 89.7 94.0 91.8 91.0

Contract employee 6.5 7.2 5.5 7.3 4.5

Other 1.9 3.0 0.5** 0.9 4.5**

Position of staff involved 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Administrator 0.6 1.1 0.0** 0.3 1.5**

Supervision staff 80.1 75.9 85.7 80.0 81.0

Maintenance/support 2.8 3.4 1.9 3.6 0.8**

Medical/health care/counselor 4.1 3.8 4.5 5.1 1.5**

Educational 9.6 13.6 4.4** 9.0 11.2

Other program staff 2.8 2.3 3.4 1.9 4.1

Number of perpetrators 467 263 204 333 133

Note: Detail may not sum to total due to rounding. See appendix table 10 for standard errors.

*Comparison group.

**Difference with the comparison group is significant at the 95% confidence level. 

aIncludes Indian country facilities.

aExcludes persons of Hispanic or Latino origin.

bIncludes American Indian or Alaska Native; Asian, Native Hawaiian, or Other Pacific Islander; and persons of two or more races.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Sexual Violence, 2007–12.
SEXUAL VICTIMIZATION REPORTED BY JUVENILE CORRECTIONAL AUTHORITIES, 2007–12 | JANUARY 2016 13

Female staff were more frequently implicated in incidents 

of sexual misconduct, and male staff were more frequently 

implicated in incidents of sexual harassment

The majority of staff perpetrators were female (55%), and 

nearly two-thirds were age 34 or younger (61%). However, 

the sex and age of staff differed by type of incident. Females 

accounted for 64% of substantiated incidents of staff sexual 

misconduct and males accounted for 69% of incidents of 

staff sexual harassment.

Perpetrators of staff sexual harassment were older than 

those involved in sexual misconduct. Approximately 31% 

of perpetrators of sexual harassment were age 45 or older, 

compared to 13% of staff involved in sexual misconduct. 

Nearly half of staff involved in sexual misconduct (46%) 

were age 29 or younger.

For perpetrators of sexual misconduct and sexual 

harassment combined, 61% were white, 32% were black, 

and 6% were Hispanic. The involvement of staff by race 

or Hispanic origin did not differ by type of facility or type 

of incident.

Most perpetrators of staff sexual abuse were supervision 

staff

Supervision staff were responsible for approximately 80% 

of all incidents of staff sexual misconduct and harassment. 

These staff were involved in 86% of substantiated 

incidents in local or private facilities and 76% in state 

systems. Educational staff were involved in nearly 10% of 

substantiated staff-on-youth incidents and medical, health 

care, and counseling staff were involved in 4%.

Full-time or part-time employees (92%) accounted for the 

majority of perpetrators, 6% were contract employees, and 

2% were other employees such as interns and volunteers.

The sexual relationship “appeared to be willing” in nearly 

two-thirds of the incidents of staff sexual misconduct

Juvenile correctional authorities reported that sexual contact 

between the youth and staff “appeared to be willing” in 

50% of substantiated incidents (table 11). Few incidents 

of staff sexual harassment were determined to be willing 

(2%). When limited to incidents of staff sexual misconduct, 

64% of incidents were classified as “appeared to be willing.” 

Regardless of how juvenile correctional authorities reported 

these incidents, they were considered an abuse of power, 

involved an unknown level of coercion, and were illegal.

Nine percent of incidents of staff sexual misconduct involved 

physical force, pressure, or abuse of power. An estimated 

13% of incidents of staff sexual misconduct involved 

unwanted touching for sexual gratification and 6% involved 

indecent exposure, invasion of privacy, or voyeurism.

The nature of staff-on-youth sexual victimization also 

differed by type of facility. Physical force, pressure, or abuse 

of power were more common among substantiated incidents 

in local or private facilities (13%) than in state systems (8%). 

Sexual harassment or repeated verbal statements of a sexual 

nature were more common among substantiated incidents in 

state systems (32%) than in local or private facilities (18%).
SEXUAL VICTIMIZATION REPORTED BY JUVENILE CORRECTIONAL AUTHORITIES, 2007–12 | JANUARY 2016 14

Table 11. 

Circumstances surrounding substantiated incidents of staff-on-youth sexual victimization, by type of facility and incident, 

2007–12

Type of facility Type of incident

Circumstance

All 

facilities

State juvenile 

systems*

Local and private 

juvenile facilitiesa Sexual misconduct*

Sexual 

harassment

Nature of incident

Physical force resulting in a nonconsensual sexual act 2.8% 0.0% 6.3% 3.6% 0.0%

Pressure or abuse of power resulting in a nonconsensual sexual act 7.2 7.5 6.9 9.3 0.0**

Indecent exposure, invasion of privacy, or voyuerism 4.9 7.0 2.2** 5.7 1.8

Unwanted touching for sexual gratification 10.6 8.9 12.7 13.3 1.2**

Sexual harassment or repeated verbal statements of a sexual nature 26.1 32.2 18.4** 6.8 93.5**

Sexual relationships between youth and staff that “appeared to be willing” 50.2 45.3 56.3 63.8 2.3**

Other inappropriate sexual contactsb 10.6 8.9 12.8 12.3 4.7

Location of incident

Victim’s room 18.9% 16.6% 21.7% 20.5% 13.3%

Dormitory 15.2 14.2 16.5 13.0 23.1**

Common areac 31.8 25.4 39.8 28.9 43.0**

Program service aread 32.1 37.8 25.3 33.4 26.6

Othere 20.6 17.6 24.3 24.8 6.1**

Time of day

6 a.m. to noon 32.8% 30.5% 35.8% 34.5% 28.0%

Noon to 6 p.m. 34.5 44.7 20.8** 30.4 47.8**

6 p.m. to midnight 44.1 44.2 44.0 45.5 39.1

Midnight to 6 a.m. 10.6 11.6 9.2 12.4 5.0**

Who reported the incident

Victim 45.7% 48.1% 42.7% 39.0% 68.8%**

Another youth 16.7 20.2 12.4 19.1 8.3**

Line staff 20.2 19.2 21.3 20.1 20.7

Administrative staff 13.4 7.5 20.8 15.3 7.1

Other staff 11.5 11.3 11.9 12.0 10.1

Otherf 11.0 7.6 15.2 13.4 2.4**

Number of incidents 383 212 171 299 84

Note: Detail may sum to more than 100% because multiple responses were allowed for each item. See appendix table 11 for standard errors.

*Comparison group.

**Difference with the comparison group is significant at the 95% confidence level.

aIncludes Indian country facilities.

bIncludes kissing, exchanging letters, requesting sex, showing pornography, and grooming behaviors.

cIncludes dayroom, bathroom, and shower.

dIncludes commissary, kitchen, storage, laundry, cafeteria, workshop, classroom, hallway, clinic, and office.

eIncludes outside the facility, written communication, while in transit, and other.

f

Includes anonymous report, hotline report, intelligence, interception of letter, community member, and relative or family member.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Sexual Violence, 2007–12.
SEXUAL VICTIMIZATION REPORTED BY JUVENILE CORRECTIONAL AUTHORITIES, 2007–12 | JANUARY 2016 15

Nearly a third of the incidents of staff sexual misconduct 

occurred in a program service area

The most common location for staff-on-youth sexual 

misconduct (33%) was in a program service area, such as 

the commissary, kitchen, storage area, laundry, cafeteria, 

workshop, classroom, or hallway. Other locations included 

a common area, such as a dayroom, bathroom, or shower 

(29%); the victim’s room (20%); or a dormitory (13%). 

Although the location of incidents varied somewhat 

among types of facilities, the differences were not 

statistically significant.

Incidents of staff sexual harassment were more likely to 

occur in a common area (43%) or a dormitory (23%) than 

were incidents of staff sexual misconduct (29% in a common 

area and 13% in a dormitory).

Incidents of staff sexual victimization occurred at all times 

of the day

Staff sexual victimization occurred at all times of the 

day. The peak time for staff-on-youth incidents to occur 

was between 6 p.m. and midnight (46%) for staff sexual 

misconduct and between noon and 6 p.m. (48%) for staff 

sexual harassment.

A higher percentage of incidents of staff-on-youth sexual 

victimization occurred between noon and 6 p.m. in state 

systems (45%) than in local or private facilities (21%).

When reported, staff sexual victimization was reported by 

the victim or another youth, rather than by staff

In more than half of the incidents of staff sexual 

victimization, either the victim (46%) or another youth 

(17%) reported the incident to correctional authorities. Line 

staff reported 20% of the incidents and administrative staff 

reported 13% of the incidents.

The person reporting the incident to authorities differed 

depending on the type of incident. Significantly fewer 

incidents of staff sexual misconduct were reported by victims 

(39%), compared to incidents of staff sexual harassment 

(69%). Incidents of staff sexual misconduct (13%) were 

more likely than incidents of sexual harassment (2%) to have 

been discovered from an anonymous report, hotline report, 

interception of a letter, community member, or relative or 

family member.

Less than half of the victims of staff sexual misconduct 

received counseling or mental health treatment

More than half of the victims of staff sexual misconduct 

(52%) did not receive any medical follow-up (table 12). 

Victims of staff sexual misconduct in local or private 

facilities (60%) were more likely than victims in state 

systems (36%) to receive medical follow-up.

The most common type of medical follow-up after an 

incident of staff sexual misconduct was counseling or mental 

health treatment (42%). Victims of staff sexual misconduct 

in local or private facilities (54%) were more likely than 

victims in state systems (29%) to receive counseling or 

mental health treatment.

Among all facilities, 10% of the victims were given a medical 

examination, 6% were tested for HIV/AIDS, and 7% were 

tested for other STDs. None of the victims sustained physical 

injuries from staff-on-youth sexual misconduct (not shown).

Table 12. 

Medical follow-up for victims of staff sexual misconduct, by 

type of facility, 2007–12

Medical follow-up for victims

All 

facilities

State juvenile 

systems*

Local and private 

juvenile facilitiesa

Given medical examination 10.4% 10.6% 10.2%

Administered rape kit 1.0 2.1 0**

Tested for HIV/AIDS 6.0 3.5 8.4

Tested for other STD 7.4 4.2 10.4

Provided couseling or mental 

 health treatment 41.8 28.9 54.4**

None of the above (no medical

 follow-up) 52.1 64.1 40.4**

Number of incidents 289 142 147

Note: Detail may sum to more than 100% because multiple responses were 

allowed. See appendix table 12 for standard errors.

*Comparison group.

**Difference with the comparison group is significant at the 95% confidence 

level.

aIncludes Indian country facilities.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Sexual Violence, 2007–12.
SEXUAL VICTIMIZATION REPORTED BY JUVENILE CORRECTIONAL AUTHORITIES, 2007–12 | JANUARY 2016 16

Staff perpetrators lost their job or faced legal action in 

82% of incidents

Staff were discharged in 58% of substantiated incidents of 

staff sexual misconduct or harassment, resigned in 25% of 

substantiated incidents, and were arrested or referred for 

prosecution in 43% of incidents (table 13). In approximately 

21% of incidents, staff were reprimanded, disciplined, 

demoted, or transferred to another facility.

More staff were discharged or resigned from local or private 

facilities (90%) than from state systems (76%).

Sanctions against staff differed by type of incident. The most 

commonly imposed sanctions for staff sexual misconduct 

were loss of job (92%) and legal action (51%). Staff sexual 

harassment resulted in loss of job (49%) and sanctions 

other than legal action (52%), including reprimand or 

discipline (42%), demotion or diminished responsibilities 

(5%), and transfer to another facility (4%). About 16% of the 

perpetrators of sexual harassment received legal sanctions.

Table 13. 

Sanctions imposed on staff involved in substantiated incidents of staff-on-youth sexual victimization, by type of facility and 

incident, 2007–12

Type of facility Type of incident

Sanction All facilities

State juvenile 

systems*

Local and private 

juvenile facilitiesa Sexual misconduct*

Sexual 

harassment

Legal action 42.6% 39.0% 47.3% 50.3% 15.5%**

Arrested 16.8 15.7 18.2 20.7 3.6**

Referred for prosecution 36.7 32.9 41.8 43.1 14.3**

Loss of job 81.7% 75.7% 89.5%** 91.6% 48.6%**

Discharged 58.3 51.9 66.7 63.1 41.4**

Staff resigned (prior to investigation) 17.4 15.7 19.7 21.2 4.8**

Staff resigned (after investigation) 7.3 9.5 4.3** 7.7 6.0

Other sanction 21.0% 24.3% 16.8% 12.2% 51.5%**

Reprimanded or disciplined 18.1 20.5 14.9 10.8 43.1**

Demoted or diminished responsibilities 1.4 2.4 0.0** 0.4 4.8**

Transferred to another facility 0.8 1.0 0.6** 0.0 3.6**

Otherb 3.0 3.8 1.9** 2.1 6.0**

Number of incidents 370 210 160 286 84

Note: Detail may sum to more than 100% because multiple responses were allowed for each item. See appendix table 13 for standard errors.

*Comparison group.

**Difference with the comparison group is significant at the 95% confidence level.

aIncludes Indian country facilities.

bIncludes additional training, counseling, loss of license or teaching certificate, and revocation of volunteer status.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Sexual Violence, 2007–12.
SEXUAL VICTIMIZATION REPORTED BY JUVENILE CORRECTIONAL AUTHORITIES, 2007–12 | JANUARY 2016 17

Methodology

Sample designs

The Survey of Sexual Violence (SSV), conducted each year 

from 2007 to 2012, included all state-operated juvenile 

residential placement facilities used to house juveniles and 

youthful offenders, regardless of age or reason for placement. 

Residential placement facilities include detention centers; 

training schools; long-term secure facilities; reception or 

diagnostic centers; group homes or halfway houses; boot 

camps; ranches; forestry camps, wilderness or marine 

programs, or farms; runaway or homeless shelters; and 

residential treatment centers for juveniles.

The survey relied on the Juvenile Residential Facility Census 

(JRFC) and the Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement 

(CJRP), which the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention conducts in alternating years. The JRFC in 2006, 

2008, and 2010 was used as a sampling frame for the SSV in 

2007, 2009, and 2011. The CJRP in 2007, 2010, and 2011 was 

used for the SSV in 2008, 2010, and 2012.

In each year, the SSV samples included all facilities within 

the juvenile correctional systems operated by the 50 states 

and the District of Columbia. Based on the JRFC and CJRP, 

the SSV included 501 state-operated juvenile facilities in 

2007, 495 in 2008, 473 in 2009, 450 in 2010, 450 in 2011, and 

422 in 2012.

In each year beginning in 2008, the survey also included 

all juvenile correctional facilities in Indian country. Based 

on the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ (BJS) Annual Survey of 

Jails in Indian Country, facilities that held only juveniles 

were determined to be eligible. There were 20 juvenile 

correctional facilities in Indian country in the SSV in 2008, 

19 in 2009, 18 in 2010, 16 in 2011, and 20 in 2012.

Separate samples of locally and privately operated facilities 

were drawn in accordance with the requirement that BJS 

draw a random sample, or other scientifically appropriate 

sample, of not less than 10 percent of all facilities covered 

under the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (P.L. 108–

79). In each year, 330 locally or privately operated facilities 

were selected.

In the 2012 survey, facilities were first grouped into locally 

operated facilities (623) and privately operated facilities 

(1,003) and sampled independently. Of the 330 nonstate 

facilities in the sample, 35 locally operated facilities and 

48 privately operated facilities were selected because they 

were the largest in their respective states.

The remaining sample was allocated proportionally across 

seven strata that were defined by type of facility and region: 

(1) detention facilities, Midwest; (2) detention facilities,

Northeast; (3) detention facilities, South; (4) detention

facilities, West; (5) local noncommitment facilities; (6) local 

commitment facilities; and (7) privately operated facilities.

Based on the number of persons assigned to beds, 

17 nonstate detention facilities, 4 locally operated 

facilities, and 8 privately operated facilities were too large 

compared to other facilities in their strata and were selected 

with certainty. The remaining facilities were selected 

systematically with probabilities proportionate to size:

 stratum 1: 23 (of 154) facilities

 stratum 2: 7 (of 64) facilities

 stratum 3: 22 (of 149) facilities

 stratum 4: 22 (of 106) facilities

 stratum 5: 3 (of 33) facilities

 stratum 6: 30 (of 141) facilities

 stratum 7: 111 (of 867) facilities.

Similar sampling procedures were employed in all 

other survey years for locally and privately operated 

juvenile facilities.

Survey participation

All state systems and the District of Columbia participated 

in the survey in the 6 years of data collection.

During the 5 years of data collection in Indian country, three 

juvenile correctional facilities closed prior to data collection: 

two in 2008 and one in 2009. One facility did not respond to 

the survey:

 Gerald Tex Fox Justice Center Juvenile Detention, New

Town, ND (2009 and 2011).

During the 6 years, 14 locally operated juvenile correctional 

facilities closed prior to data collection: 1 in 2007, 5 in 2009, 

2 in 2010, 5 in 2011, and 1 in 2012. Two facilities did not 

respond to the survey:

 Camp Glenn Rockey, San Dimas, CA (2012)

 Dorothy Kirby Center, Los Angeles, CA (2009).

During the 6 years, 29 privately operated juvenile 

correctional facilities closed prior to data collection: 

9 in 2007, 8 in 2008, 3 in 2009, 2 in 2010, and 7 in 2011. 

Eighteen facilities did not respond to the survey:

 Big Brothers Home Away from Home #2, Courtland, AL

(2011)

 Bonnie Brae Farms, Liberty Corner, NJ (2009)

 Carmela House Girl’s Detention, Feura Bush, NY (2010)

 Catholic Charities Services (Parmadale), Cleveland, OH

(2009)

 Eckerd Youth Development Center, Clearwater, FL (2009)
SEXUAL VICTIMIZATION REPORTED BY JUVENILE CORRECTIONAL AUTHORITIES, 2007–12 | JANUARY 2016 18

 Excelsior Youth Center, Aurora, CO (2007)

 Harmony Center, Baton Rouge, LA (2009)

 Harmony Hill School, Chepachet, RI (2007)

 High Point School, Pittsfield, MA (2008)

 Hilo Emergency Shelter, Hilo, HI (2007 and 2008)

 Madison Center for Children, South Bend, IN (2009)

 Newton Campus, Wichita, KS (2009)

 Pathways, Kern County, TX (2009)

 St. Gabriel’s Hall, Audubon, PA (2010)

 Three Springs, Mountain Home, ID (2009, 2010,

and 2011)

 Three Springs Residential Treatment Center,

Courtland, AL (2008)

 Youth Bridge Therapeutic Group Home and Substance

Abuse Program, Fayetteville, AL (2011)

 Youth Farm Campus, Peoria, IL (2009).

Reports of sexual victimization

Since BJS first developed uniform definitions of sexual 

victimization, juvenile correctional administrators have 

enhanced their abilities to report uniform data on sexual 

victimization. In 2012, administrators in all 49 state juvenile 

systems and the District of Columbia recorded both 

attempted and completed nonconsensual sexual acts (versus 

completed acts only). Arkansas did not report any statelevel data after it placed all of its youth in locally or privately 

operated juvenile facilities.

Administrators in the 47 state juvenile systems and the 

District of Columbia were also able to report allegations 

of abusive sexual contact separately from nonconsensual 

sexual acts, an increase of two systems since 2007. All state 

juvenile systems were able to report data on staff sexual 

misconduct using survey definitions. Two systems were 

unable to separate staff sexual harassment from misconduct, 

and one did not track allegations of staff sexual harassment 

in a central database.

Administrators of locally operated juvenile facilities were 

less likely than state juvenile administrators to report sexual 

victimization based on the definitions provided. Nearly a 

fifth (18%) of the 148 locally operated juvenile correctional 

facilities selected in 2012 did not record abusive sexual 

contacts separately from the more serious nonconsensual 

sexual acts. One local juvenile correctional facility did not 

record allegations of abusive sexual contact and one based 

counts of nonconsensual sexual acts on completed acts 

only. All local juvenile correctional facilities kept records on 

allegations of nonconsensual sexual acts, and all facilities 

counted all allegations of nonconsensual sexual acts (rather 

than counting only those that were substantiated).

Most administrators of local juvenile facilities were able to 

report staff-on-youth sexual victimization based on the SSV 

definitions. Administrators of all local facilities except one 

recorded allegations of staff sexual misconduct, while one 

recorded substantiated incidents only. One did not record 

allegations of staff sexual harassment. Sixteen percent were 

unable to separate allegations of staff sexual harassment 

from allegations of staff sexual misconduct.

Administrators of all sampled privately operated juvenile 

facilities except one kept records on allegations of both types 

of youth-on-youth sexual victimization (nonconsensual 

sexual acts and abusive sexual contact). A quarter (25%) of 

these administrators were unable to separate abusive sexual 

contact from nonconsensual sexual acts. One privately 

operated facility recorded only substantiated incidents of 

nonconsensual sexual acts, and two recorded completed 

acts only. All administrators of privately operated facilities 

kept records on staff-on-youth sexual abuse. Four recorded 

only substantiated incidents of staff sexual misconduct, and 

32 (18%) were unable to separate staff sexual harassment 

from staff sexual misconduct.

Nonresponse adjustments

In each year, survey responses were weighted to produce 

national estimates by type of correctional facility. Data 

from all state systems received a weight of 1.00 because 

they were all selected with certainty and had 100% 

survey participation.

Data from locally and privately operated juvenile facilities 

were assigned an initial weight equal to the inverse of the 

probability that they would be selected. Within each stratum, 

a nonresponse weighting adjustment factor was calculated 

by summing the product of the measure of size (population 

on the census frame) for each active facility and the initial 

sampling weight of each selected facility in each stratum and 

dividing by the sum of the product of the measure of size 

and the initial sampling weights of each responding facility.

nh ∑i=1 MOShi × Whi × ACTIVEhi

NRh = __________________________

nh ∑i=1 MOShi × Whi × RESPONDhi

where

NRh = nonresponse weighting adjustment factor for 

stratum h

nh = number of sampled facilities in stratum h

Whi= sample weight for facility i in stratum h

MOShi = measure of size (population) for facility i in 

stratum h.
SEXUAL VICTIMIZATION REPORTED BY JUVENILE CORRECTIONAL AUTHORITIES, 2007–12 | JANUARY 2016 19

The final weight, FWhi, for each responding facility is

FWhi = Whi × NRh

As a result, the sum of the final weights in each stratum 

equaled the sum of weights of the active facilities in 

each stratum.

Tests of statistical significance

Estimated standard errors were calculated using SUDAAN.3

For summary statistics, the 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 

and 2012 data files were treated separately. For each year, the 

sampling and weighting information was retained for each 

stratum. Each file had 8 strata: 1 certainty stratum (including 

state systems and large locally or privately operated facilities 

selected with certainty); 4 noncertainty strata representing 

detention facilities in the Midwest, Northeast, South, and 

West; 2 noncertainty strata representing noncommitment 

and commitment private facilities; and 1 noncertainty 

stratum representing locally operated facilities.

Substantiated incident data files were combined and treated 

as one file. The sampling information for each year was 

retained by treating each facility-level sample as its own 

stratum, for a total of 48 separate strata, and then combining 

strata within years to obtain 20 separate strata to ensure 

sufficient data for calculation of standard errors.

Estimates of the standard errors are included in the appendix 

tables. These standard errors may be used to construct 

confidence intervals around survey estimates (e.g., numbers, 

rates, and percentages) and around differences between 

these estimates. For example, based on estimates in table 3 

and standard errors in appendix table 3, the 95% confidence 

interval around the percentage of youth-on-youth allegations 

that were substantiated was 25.2% plus or minus 1.96 times 

1.8%, resulting in a confidence interval of 21.7% to 28.7%.

To facilitate the analysis, differences in the estimates of 

sexual victimization for subgroups in the tables have been 

tested for significance at the 95% confidence level. For 

example, the difference in percentage of youth-on-youth 

allegations in state systems (32.4%) compared to locally or 

3Research Triangle Institute. (2013). SUDAAN Release 11.0.1, Research 

Triangle Park, NC.

privately operated facilities (20.4%) is statistically significant 

at the 95% confidence level (table 3). In all tables that 

provide detailed comparisons, statistical differences at 

the 95% confidence level have been designated with two 

asterisks (**). The comparison group has been designated 

with one asterisk (*).

Other BJS reports on sexual victimization in juvenile 

facilities

Jurisdiction- and facility-level counts are provided in the 

companion report, Survey of Sexual Violence in Juvenile 

Correctional Facilities, 2007–12 - Statistical Tables (NCJ 

249143, BJS web, January 2016). The tables in this report 

provide counts of allegations and substantiated incidents 

by type of victimization for every jurisdiction and facility 

that responded to the 2007–12 surveys. Each table includes 

a measure of population size (based on the number of 

youth held at yearend) as a basis of comparison. However, 

the survey results should not be used to rank systems 

or facilities.

The SSV has annually collected official records on allegations 

and substantiated incidents of youth-on-youth and staffon-youth victimization since 2004. Past reports of sexual 

victimization in juvenile facilities include—

 Sexual Violence Reported by Juvenile Correctional

Authorities, 2005–06 (NCJ 215337, BJS web, July 2008).

 Sexual Violence Reported by Correctional Authorities, 2004

(NCJ 210333, BJS web, July 2005).

The SSV is one of a number of BJS data collections that 

are conducted to meet the mandates of the Prison Rape 

Elimination Act of 2003 (P.L. 108–79). BJS also collects data 

on the incidence and prevalence of sexual victimization 

directly from victims through surveys of youth held in state 

juvenile systems and locally or privately operated facilities 

that hold adjudicated youth under state contract. Past 

reports based on victim self-reports include—

 Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by

Youth, 2012 (NCJ 241708, BJS web, June 2013).

 Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by

Youth, 2008–09 (NCJ 228416, BJS web, January 2010).
SEXUAL VICTIMIZATION REPORTED BY JUVENILE CORRECTIONAL AUTHORITIES, 2007–12 | JANUARY 2016 20

appendix Table 1. 

Standard errors for table 1: National estimates of allegations 

of sexual victimization in state juvenile systems and local or 

private juvenile correctional facilities, 2005–2012

All facilities

Local and private

juvenile facilities

Number of allegations

2012 70 70

2011 42 42

2010 54 54

2009 200 200

2008 227 227

2007 160 160

2006 180 180

2005 289 289

Rate per 1,000 youth

2012 1.1 1.5

2011 0.7 0.9

2010 0.7 0.9

2009 2.1 3.1

2008 1.5 3.4

2007 1.5 2.1

2006 1.3 2.0

2005 2.0 3.0

Note: State juvenile correctional systems were complete enumerations and not 

subject to sampling error. 

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Sexual Violence, 2005–2012.

appendix Table 2. 

Standard errors for table 2: National estimates of allegations 

of sexual victimization in state juvenile systems and local or 

private juvenile correctional facilities, by type of incident, 

2007–12

Type of incident

All facilities

Local and private 

juvenile facilities

Number Percent Number Percent

Youth-on-youth

Nonconsensual sexual acts 284 2.0% 284 3.8%

Abusive sexual contacts 268 2.0 268 4.1

Staff-on-youth

Staff sexual misconduct 136 2.0% 136 3.4%

Staff sexual harassment 28 0.4 28 0.7

Note: State juvenile correctional systems were complete enumerations and not 

subject to sampling error.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Sexual Violence, 2007–12.

appendix Table 3.

Standard errors for table 3: National estimates of outcomes 

of investigations into allegations of sexual victimization of 

juveniles, by type of incident and facility, 2007–12

Type of incident 

All facilities

Local and private 

juvenile facilities

Number Percent Number Percent

Youth-on-youth 455 455

Substantiated 118 1.8% 118 2.8%

Unsubstantiated 263 2.8 263 4.7

Unfounded 206 2.9 206 4.8

Investigation ongoing 3 3

Staff-on-youth 144 144

Substantiated 39 0.8% 39 2.3%

Unsubstantiated 81 1.6 81 4.4

Unfounded 102 1.7 102 4.7

Investigation ongoing 6 6

Note: State juvenile correctional systems were complete enumerations and not 

subject to sampling error.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Sexual Violence, 2007–12.

appendix Table 4. 

Standard errors for table 4: National estimates of 

substantiated incidents of sexual victimization in state 

juvenile systems and local or private juvenile correctional 

facilities, 2007–12

All facilities

Local and private 

juvenile facilities

Number of substantiated incidents 124 124

Youth-on-youth 118 118

Staff-on-youth 39 39

Rate per 1,000 youth 0.3 0.4

Youth-on-youth 0.2 0.3

Staff-on-youth 0.1 0.1

Note: State juvenile correctional systems were complete enumerations and not 

subject to sampling error.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Sexual Violence, 2007–12.

appendix Table 5. 

Standard errors for table 5: National estimates of 

substantiated incidents of sexual victimization of juveniles, 

by type of incident and facility, 2007–12

Type of incident All facilities

Local and private 

juvenile facilities

Youth-on-youth 1.91% 4.47%

Nonconsensual sexual act 2.46 5.57

Abusive sexual contact 2.30 5.43

Voluntary sexual act 1.82 4.24

Staff-on-youth 1.95% 4.52%

Sexual misconduct 1.85 4.37

Sexual harassment 0.44 0.96

Note: State juvenile correctional systems were complete enumerations and not 

subject to sampling error.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Sexual Violence, 2007–12.
SEXUAL VICTIMIZATION REPORTED BY JUVENILE CORRECTIONAL AUTHORITIES, 2007–12 | JANUARY 2016 21

appendix Table 6. 

Standard errors for table 6: Characteristics of victims and perpetrators of substantiated incidents of youth-on-youth sexual 

victimization, by type of facility and incident, 2007–12

Type of incident

Characteristic All facilities

Local and private 

juvenile facilities

Voluntary 

act

Abusive sexual 

contact

Nonconsensual 

sexual act

Victim

Sex

Male 2.26% 5.00% 5.01% 2.74% 4.70%

Female 2.26 5.00 5.01 2.74 4.70

Age

12 or younger 1.36% 3.30% 2.97% 1.58% 3.16%

13–15 3.23 7.16 5.49 3.94 7.29

16–17 2.80 6.36 5.32 3.85 5.13

18–19 1.00 2.15 2.37 1.49 1.00

20 or older 0.49 1.11 0.36 1.00 0.15

Race/Hispanic origin

White 3.22% 7.33% 5.17% 4.03% 8.27%

Black/African American 2.85 6.68 5.48 4.24 3.80

Hispanic/Latino 2.13 4.93 3.31 0.73 7.22

Other 2.27 5.24 1.61 0.31 8.24

Perpetrator

Sex

Male 1.48% 2.90% 2.42% 1.97% 3.73%

Female 1.48 2.90 2.42 1.97 3.73

Age

12 or younger 0.65% 1.54% 0.05% 0.92% 1.94%

13–15 2.78 6.71 5.21 2.57 7.06

16–17 2.91 6.94 4.07 3.54 7.56

18–19 0.92 1.81 2.04 1.30 1.70

20 or older 0.41 0.91 1.33 0.19 0.33

Race/Hispanic origin

White 2.57% 6.41% 4.92% 1.94% 7.10%

Black/African American 2.56 6.42 5.31 2.03 6.93

Hispanic/Latino 1.90 4.75 2.42 1.23 6.05

Other 0.13 0.06 0.05 0.25 0.09

Note: State juvenile correctional systems were complete enumerations and not subject to sampling error.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Sexual Violence, 2007–12.
SEXUAL VICTIMIZATION REPORTED BY JUVENILE CORRECTIONAL AUTHORITIES, 2007–12 | JANUARY 2016 22

appendix Table 7. 

Standard errors for table 7: Circumstances surrounding substantiated incidents of youth-on-youth sexual victimization, by 

type of facility and incident, 2007–12

Type of incident

Circumstance All facilities

Local and private 

juvenile facilities

Voluntary 

act

Abusive sexual 

contact

Nonconsensual 

sexual act

Location of incident

Victim’s room 3.33% 7.56% 5.91% 4.75% 7.80%

Perpetrator’s room 0.75 1.77 2.05 0.03 2.02

Dormitory 2.35 5.59 1.18 1.36 8.20

Common area 2.70 6.17 4.66 4.07 3.26

Program service area 2.03 4.74 1.00 2.06 7.25

Other 2.26 5.27 3.18 1.52 7.57

Time of day

6 a.m. to noon 3.39% 8.45% 2.07% 4.95% 7.75%

Noon to 6 p.m. 2.15 4.98 3.84 3.28 4.20

6 p.m. to midnight 2.88 7.26 4.60 2.50 7.85

Midnight to 6 a.m. 1.19 2.98 0.48 2.14 2.26

Who reported the incident

Victim 3.25% 7.69% 4.99% 4.74% 8.81%

Another youth 2.54 6.11 2.88 1.58 8.42

Line staff 2.48 5.96 3.06 4.27 3.05

Administrative staff 1.31 3.14 4.91 0.06 0.49

Other staff 3.17 7.32 3.33 4.76 7.72

Other 0.22 0.26 0.74 0.19 0.46

Note: State juvenile correctional systems were complete enumerations and not subject to sampling error.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Sexual Violence, 2007–12.

appendix Table 8. 

Standard errors for table 8: Type of incident and type of pressure or force involved in substantiated incidents of youth-onyouth sexual victimization, by sex and age of victim, 2007–12

Characteristic All incidents Male Female Age 15 or younger Age 16 or older

Type of incident

Nonconsensual sexual act 3.20% 4.22% 3.54% 5.88% 1.95%

Abusive sexual contact 3.04 4.12 3.00 5.19 3.30

Voluntary sexual act 2.49 3.43 1.97 3.81 3.12

Type of pressure or force

None 3.19% 4.25% 3.49% 5.34% 2.90%

Voluntary 2.37 3.29 0.84 3.37 3.18

Involuntary 2.92 4.04 2.78 4.71 3.50

Force or threat of force 3.17% 4.28% 2.17% 6.01% 1.68%

Threatened with physical harm 2.99 4.10 0.16 5.93 1.06

Physically held down or restrained 0.98 1.02 2.21 1.85 0.90

Physically harmed or injured 2.43 3.37 0.14 4.99 0.76

Persuaded or talked into to it 2.72% 3.54% 3.80% 5.16% 2.18%

Bribed or blackmailed 0.07% 0.13% 0.02% 0.16% 0.08%

Note: State juvenile correctional systems were complete enumerations and not subject to sampling error.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Sexual Violence, 2007–12.
SEXUAL VICTIMIZATION REPORTED BY JUVENILE CORRECTIONAL AUTHORITIES, 2007–12 | JANUARY 2016 23

appendix Table 9. 

Standard errors for table 9: Impact on victims and perpetrators of substantiated incidents of youth-on-youth sexual 

victimization, by type of facility and incident, 2007–12

Type of incident

Impact All incidents

Local and private 

juvenile facilities Voluntary act

Abusive sexual 

contact

Nonconsensual 

sexual act

Victim injured

Yes 1.87% 4.38% 0.10% 0.79% 6.99%

No 1.87 4.38 0.10 0.79 6.99

Medical follow-up for victim

Given medical examination 1.62% 3.40% 2.59% 1.28% 6.22%

Administered rape kit 0.98 2.33 0.03 0.03 4.15

Tested for HIV/AIDS 1.54 3.64 4.48 0.00 3.82

Tested for other STD 1.55 3.67 4.55 0.00 3.84

Provided counseling or mental health treatment 2.96 6.14 4.72 3.96 4.33

None of the above (no medical follow-up) 2.67 6.07 4.75 3.24 2.81

Change in housing or custody for victim

Placed in administrative segregation or protective custody 2.41% 5.63% 2.13% 1.42% 8.47%

Placed in medical unit 0.04 0.05 0.03 0.05 0.25

Confined to own room 0.32 0.58 0.57 0.24 1.19

Moved within facility 3.04 7.23 5.60 2.30 8.63

Transferred to another unit or facility 0.45 1.05 0.17 0.03 1.92

Other 0.58 1.34 2.04 0.10 0.19

None of the above 3.22 7.55 4.10 2.59 7.67

Sanctions imposed on perpetrator

Solitary or disciplinary confinement 1.98% 4.23% 4.84% 2.31% 4.75%

Confined to own room 1.08 2.50 2.32 1.67 1.41

Placed in higher custody 2.13 5.03 4.30 2.00 6.04

Transferred to another unit or facility 2.74 6.34 5.11 1.03 8.57

Loss of privileges 3.45 7.88 4.98 4.75 7.68

Loss of good time 2.04 4.82 1.14 1.98 7.04

Legal action 3.19 7.32 3.49 2.52 8.07

Referred to law enforcement or arrested 3.20 7.10 3.55 2.17 9.71

Referred for prosecution 3.18 7.40 2.56 2.09 8.52

Given new sentence 0.84 1.97 2.60 0.90 0.18

Other 1.71 3.72 4.26 2.19 1.96

Given extra work or assignment 1.41 3.33 4.49 1.37 0.12

Disciplinary report issued 0.76 1.71 0.37 1.26 1.82

Given treatment or counseling 0.25 0.06 0.86 0.37 0.18

Other/none 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.12

Don’t know 0.08 0.00 0.17 0.12 0.24

Note: State juvenile correctional systems were complete enumerations and not subject to sampling error.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Sexual Violence, 2007–12.
SEXUAL VICTIMIZATION REPORTED BY JUVENILE CORRECTIONAL AUTHORITIES, 2007–12 | JANUARY 2016 24

appendix Table 10. 

Standard errors for table 10: Characteristics of victims and perpetrators involved in substantiated incidents of staff-on-youth 

sexual victimization, by type of facility and incident, 2007–12

Characteristic All facilities

Local and private 

juvenile facilities

Type of incident

Sexual misconduct Sexual harassment

Victim

Sex

Male 2.87% 6.57% 3.73% 2.55%

Female 2.87 6.57 3.73 2.55

Age

12 or younger 3.21% 7.18% 4.26% 0.00%

13–15 2.87 6.72 3.72 2.93

16–17 3.57 8.27 4.73 2.86

18–19 2.64 5.96 3.54 1.59

20 or older 0.14 0.14 0.12 0.25

Race/Hispanic origin

White 3.59% 7.91% 4.68% 2.67%

Black/African American 3.37 7.68 4.40 3.04

Hispanic/Latino 1.88 4.29 2.47 1.06

Other 0.06 0.08 0.05 0.11

Perpetrator

Sex

Male 3.17% 7.07% 4.12% 2.11%

Female 3.17 7.07 4.12 2.15

Age

24 or younger 3.53% 7.87% 4.86% 0.86%

25–29 2.31 5.19 3.24 1.02

30–34 3.10 7.14 4.20 2.85

35–39 1.66 3.74 1.86 3.22

40–44 2.31 5.35 3.22 0.19

45–54 1.92 4.42 2.58 2.02

55 or older 0.57 1.15 0.71 0.56

Race/Hispanic origin

White 3.22% 7.29% 4.48% 2.17%

Black/African American 2.73 6.10 3.77 2.16

Hispanic/Latino 2.30 5.14 3.25 0.14

Other 0.08 0.20 0.05 0.14

Type of staff involved

Full/part time employee 1.80% 4.19% 2.53% 0.42%

Conract employee 1.81 4.19 2.53 0.21

Other 0.11 0.07 0.07 0.21

Position of staff involved

Administrator 0.04% 0.00% 0.02% 0.07%

Supervision staff 2.24 5.06 3.05 1.68

Maintenance/support 0.63 1.44 0.91 0.03

Medical/health care/counselor 0.87 2.02 1.24 0.07

Educational 1.77 4.15 2.49 0.51

Other program staff 0.91 2.10 1.03 1.76

Note: State juvenile correctional systems were complete enumerations and not subject to sampling error.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Sexual Violence, 2007–12.
SEXUAL VICTIMIZATION REPORTED BY JUVENILE CORRECTIONAL AUTHORITIES, 2007–12 | JANUARY 2016 25

appendix Table 11. 

Standard errors for table 11: Circumstances surrounding substantiated incidents of staff-on-youth sexual victimization, by 

type of facility and incident, 2007–12

Circumstance All facilities

Local and private 

juvenile facilities

Type of incident

Sexual misconduct Sexual harassment

Nature of incident

Physical force resulting in a nonconsensual sexual act 2.76% 6.11% 3.54% 0.00%

Pressure or abuse of power resulting in a nonconsensual sexual act 2.71 6.10 3.47 0.00

Indecent exposure, invasion of privacy, or voyuerism 0.57 1.14 0.84 1.77

Unwanted touching for sexual gratification 3.00 6.71 3.84 0.08

Sexual harassment or repeated verbal statements of a sexual nature 2.49 5.02 2.05 1.73

Sexual relationships between youth and staff that “appeared to be willing” 4.05 9.04 5.13 0.15

Other inappropriate sexual contacts 3.63 8.08 4.63 0.30

Location of incident

Victim’s room 3.02% 6.84% 3.90% 1.36%

Dormitory 2.73 6.12 3.35 3.00

Common area 4.11 9.11 5.18 3.56

Program service area 3.78 8.51 4.87 1.78

Other 4.38 9.58 5.49 0.41

Time of day

6 a.m. to noon 3.89% 9.12% 5.12% 2.79%

Noon to 6 p.m. 3.41 7.56 4.32 3.34

6 p.m. to midnight 3.77 8.85 4.89 3.67

Midnight to 6 a.m. 2.05 4.78 2.73 0.34

Who reported the incident

Victim 3.84% 8.50% 4.68% 2.06%

Another youth 2.22 4.86 2.88 0.54

Line staff 3.11 6.99 3.93 2.60

Administrative staff 3.73 8.19 4.75 0.46

Other staff 3.56 7.98 4.54 1.75

Other 3.93 8.60 4.98 0.15

Note: State juvenile correctional systems were complete enumerations and not subject to sampling error.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Sexual Violence, 2007–12.
SEXUAL VICTIMIZATION REPORTED BY JUVENILE CORRECTIONAL AUTHORITIES, 2007–12 | JANUARY 2016 26

appendix Table 12. 

Standard errors for table 12: Medical follow-up for victims of 

staff sexual misconduct, by type of facility, 2007–12

Medical follow-up for victims All facilities

Local and private 

juvenile facilities

Given medical examination 2.53% 4.97%

Administered rape kit 0.09 0.00

Tested for HIV/AIDS 2.22 4.42

Tested for other STD 2.46 4.93

Provided couseling or 

mental health treatment 5.31 10.45

None of the above (no medical follow-up) 5.29 10.52

Note: State juvenile correctional systems were complete enumerations and not 

subject to sampling error.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Sexual Violence, 2007–12.

appendix Table 13. 

Standard errors for table 13: Sanctions imposed on staff involved in substantiated incidents of staff-on-youth sexual 

victimization, by type of facility and incident, 2007–12

Sanction All facilities

Local and private 

juvenile facilities

Type of incident

Sexual misconduct Sexual harassment

Legal action 4.06% 9.17% 5.01% 4.13%

Arrested 3.89 8.93 4.94 0.24

Referred for prosecution 4.20 9.43 5.19 4.18

Loss of job 1.72% 3.31% 1.25% 3.31%

Discharged 3.79 8.52 4.69 3.36

Staff resigned (prior to investigation) 3.52 8.09 4.5 0.32

Staff resigned (after investigation) 1.13 2.48 1.43 1.18

Other sanction 2.47% 5.60% 3.12% 3.41%

Reprimanded or disciplined 2.44 5.58 3.13 2.86

Demoted or diminished responsibilities 0.09 0.00 0.03 0.32

Transferred to another facility 0.05 0.10 0.00 0.24

Other 0.20 0.29 0.18 0.40

Note: State juvenile correctional systems were complete enumerations and not subject to sampling error.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Sexual Violence, 2007–12.
Office of Justice Programs

Innovation • Partnerships • Safer Neighborhoods

www.ojp.usdoj.gov

The Bureau of Justice Statistics of the U.S. Department of Justice is the principal 

federal agency responsible for measuring crime, criminal victimization, criminal 

offenders, victims of crime, correlates of crime, and the operation of criminal 

and civil justice systems at the federal, state, tribal, and local levels. BJS collects, 

analyzes, and disseminates reliable and valid statistics on crime and justice 

systems in the United States, supports improvements to state and local criminal 

justice information systems, and participates with national and international 

organizations to develop and recommend national standards for justice statistics. 

William J. Sabol is director.

This report was written by Allen J. Beck and Ramona R. Rantala. Ramona R. 

Rantala and Jessica Stroop verified the report.

Greta B. Clark carried out data collection and processing under the supervision 

of Stephen G. Simoncini, Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce. Linda 

Gehring and Patricia Torreyson assisted in the data collection. Suzanne M. 

Dorinski drew the facility samples and provided sampling weights.

Irene Cooperman and Jill Thomas edited the report, and Barbara Quinn produced 

the report.

January 2016, NCJ 249145