U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Sexual Victimization in Prisons 

and Jails Reported by Inmates, 

2008-09

Allen J. Beck, PhD, and Paige M. Harrison, 

BJS Statisticians

Marcus Berzofsky, Rachel Caspar, 

and Christopher Krebs, PhD, 

RTI International

August 2010, NCJ 231169

BJS

Local Jails 

Federal and State Prisons

National Inmate Survey, 2008-09

Federal and State Prisons

Local Jails

 

 

 
2 August 2010

Bureau of Justice Statistics

James P. Lynch 

Director

BJS Website:

www.bjs.usdoj.gov

askbjs@usdoj.gov

The Bureau of Justice Statistics is the 

statistics agency of the U.S. Department 

of Justice. James P. Lynch is director.

This compendium was written by Allen 

J. Beck, PhD, and Paige M. Harrison, 

BJS Statisticians, and Marcus Berzofsky, 

Rachel Caspar, and Christopher Krebs, 

PhD, RTI International.

Paige M. Harrison, under the supervision of Allen J. Beck, was the project 

manager for the NIS-2. RTI, International staff, under a cooperative 

agreement and in collaboration with 

BJS, designed the survey, developed the 

questionnaires, and monitored the data 

collection and processing, including 

Rachel Caspar, Principal Investigator/

Instrumentation Task Leader; Christopher Krebs, Co-principal Investigator; 

Ellen Stutts, Co-principal Investigator 

and Data Collection Task Leader; Susan Brumbaugh, Logistics Task Leader; 

Jamia Bachrach, Human Subjects Task 

Leader; David Forvendel, Research 

Computing Task Leader; Ralph Folsom, Senior Statistician; and Marcus 

Berzofsky, Statistics Task Leader.

Jill Duncan edited the report, Barbara 

Quinn designed and produced the 

report, and Jayne Robinson prepared 

the report for final printing under the 

supervision of Doris J. James.

August 2010, NCJ 231169 
4 August 2010

Contents

Highlights 5

National Inmate Survey-2 6

Incidents of Sexual Victimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

Facility Level Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

Demographic Characteristics 12

Sexual History and Orientation 14

Criminal Justice Status 16

Predicted Victimization Rates 18

Inmate-on-Inmate Victmization 21

Staff Sexual Misconduct 23

Appendix 1. Survey items related to inmate-on-inmate sexual 

victimization, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 25

Appendix 2. Survey items related to staff sexual misconduct, 

National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 26

Appendix 3. Follow-up questions for inmates reporting no sexual 

activity, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 26

Methodology 27

List of Tables

Table 1. Inmates reporting sexual victimization, by type of facility and 

incident, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 7

Table 2. Facilities with high rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization, 

by type of facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 8

Table 3. Facilities with high rates of staff sexual misconduct, by type of 

facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 9

Table 4. Facilities with low rates of any type of sexual victimization, by type 

of facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Table 5. Rates of sexual victimization in special correctional facilities, by type 

of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 11

Table 6. Prevalence of sexual victimization, by type of incident and 

demographic inmate characteristic, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 12

Table 7. Multivariate logistic regression models of sexual victimization, by 

inmate demographic characteristic, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 13

Table 8. Prevalence of sexual victimization, by type of incident and sexual 

history, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 14

Table 9. Multivariate logistic models of sexual victimization, by sexual history, 

National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 15

Table 10. Prevalence of sexual victimization, by type of incident and criminal 

justice status, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 16

Table 11. Multivariate logistic models of sexual victimization, by criminal 

justice status and history, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 17

Table 12. Final multivariate logistic models of sexual victimization in prisons 

and jails, by type of incident, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 18 

Table 13. Estimated and predicted rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual 

victimization in high-rate prisons and jails, National Inmate Survey, 

2008-09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Table 14. Estimated and predicted rates of staff sexual misconduct in highrate prisons and jails, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 20

Table 15. Experiences of victims of inmate-on-inmate victims of sexual 

victimization, by type of facility and sex, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 21

Table 16. Circumstances surrounding inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization, 

by type of facility and sex, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 22

Table 17. Circumstances surrounding incidents of staff sexual misconduct, by 

type of facility and sex of victim, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 23

Table 18. Sex of perpetrator of staff sexual misconduct, by facility type and 

sex of victim, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 24

Table 19. Sexual touching between inmates and staff during and not during 

strip searches and pat downs, by sex of victim, National Inmate Survey, 

2008-09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

List of Appendix Tables

Appendix Table 1. Characteristics of state and federal prisons and prevalence 

of sexual victimization, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 34

Appendix Table 2. Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimization, 

by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 41

Appendix Table 3. Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimization 

by level of coercion, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 47

Appendix Table 4. Percent of prison inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual 

acts and abusive sexual contacts, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 

2008-09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Appendix Table 5. Characteristics of jails and prevalence of sexual 

victimization, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 59

Appendix Table 6. Percent of jail inmates reporting victimization, by type of 

incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 67

Appendix Table 7. Percent of jail inmates reporting sexual victimization, by 

level of coercion, and facility, National Inmate Survey, 

2008-09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Appendix Table 8. Percent of jail inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual 

acts and abusive sexual contacts, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 

2008-09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Appendix Table 9. Characteristics of special correctional facilities and 

prevalence of sexual victimization, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 

2008-09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Appendix Table 10. Wald F statistics for inmate risk characteristics in the final 

multivariate logistic models of sexual victimization in prisons and jails, by 

type of incident, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 92
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09 5

Highlights

Prevalence of sexual victimization

 An estimated 4.4% of prison inmates and 3.1% of jail 

inmates reported experiencing one or more incidents 

of sexual victimization by another inmate or facility staff 

in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, 

if less than 12 months. Nationwide, these percentages 

suggest that approximately 88,500 adults held in prisons 

and jails at the time of the survey had been sexually 

victimized.

 About 2.1% of prison inmates and 1.5% of jail inmates 

reported an incident involving another inmate. An 

estimated 1.0% of prison inmates and 0.8% of jail inmates 

said they had nonconsensual sex with another inmate 

(the most serious type of acts), including unwilling 

manual stimulation and oral, anal, or vaginal penetration.

 About 2.8% of prison inmates and 2.0% of jail inmates 

reported having had sex or sexual contact with staff. At 

least half of the inmates who experienced staff sexual 

misconduct (1.8% in prison and 1.1% in jail) said that they 

willingly had sex or sexual contact with staff. 

Facility rankings

 Eight male prisons, 2 female prisons, and 6 jails were 

identified as “high rate” facilities based on the prevalence 

of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization; 4 male 

prisons, 2 female prisons, and 5 jails were identified 

as “high rate” based on the prevalence of staff sexual 

misconduct. Each of these facilities had a lower bound of 

the 95%-confidence interval that was at least 55% higher 

than the average rate among comparable facilities.

 Seven male prisons, 4 female prisons, and 9 jails 

were identified as “low rate” facilities based on a 

small percentages of inmates reporting any sexual 

victimization by another inmate or staff and a low 

upper bound for the 95%-confidence interval around 

the rate. Among the 167 prisons and 286 jails in the 

survey, 6 prisons and 28 jails had no reported incidents 

of sexual victimization.

 Except for a 6.0% rate of sexual victimization in the U.S. 

Disciplinary Barracks (Leavenworth, KS), rates in the 5 

surveyed facilities operated by ICE, 3 operated by the 

U.S. Military, and 2 facilities in Indian country were lower 

than average rates in state and federal prisons (4.4%) 

and jails (3.1%). 

Variations in victimization rates

 Rates of reported sexual victimization varied among 

inmates:

•	 Female inmates in prison (4.7%) or jail (3.1%) were 

more than twice as likely as male inmates in prison 

(1.9%) or jail (1.3%) to report experiencing inmateon-inmate sexual victimization. 

•	 Sexual activity with facility staff was reported by 

2.9% of male prisoners and 2.1% of male jail inmates, 

compared to 2.1% of female prisoners and 1.5% of 

female jail inmates.

•	 Rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization in 

prisons and jails were significantly higher among 

inmates who were white or multi-racial compared 

to blacks, inmates with a college degree or more 

(compared to those who had not completed high 

school), a sexual orientation other than heterosexual 

compared to heterosexual, and who had experienced 

a sexual victimization before coming to the facility 

compared to those who had not.

•	 After controlling for multiple inmate characteristics, 

rates of reported staff sexual misconduct were 

lower among white inmates (compared to black 

inmates), lower among inmates ages 25 or older 

(compared to inmates ages 20 to 24), higher 

among inmates with a college degree (compared 

to those who had not completed high school), 

and higher among inmates who had experienced 

sexual victimization before coming to the facility 

(compared to those who had not).

Circumstances surrounding victimization

 Among inmates who reported inmate-on-inmate sexual 

victimization, 13% of male prison inmates and 19% of 

male jail inmates said they were victimized within the 

first 24 hours after admission, compared to 4% of female 

inmates in prison and jail.

 Inmate-on-inmate victimization in prisons and jails was 

most commonly reported to have occurred between 

6 pm and midnight: more than 40% of victims reported 

this time period.

 Most victims of staff sexual misconduct were males; most 

perpetrators were females. Among male victims of staff 

sexual misconduct, 69% of those in prison and 64% of 

those in jails reported sexual activity with female staff. An 

additional 16% of prison inmates and 18% of jail inmates 

reported sexual activity with both female and male staff.

 Among inmates who reported staff sexual misconduct, 

nearly 16% of male victims in prison and 30% of male 

victims in jail said they were victimized by staff within the 

first 24 hours, compared to 5% of female victims in prison 

and 4% of female victims in jail.
6 August 2010

National Inmate Survey-2

Between October 2008 and 

December 2009, BJS completed the second National 

Inmate Survey (NIS-2) in 167 state 

and federal prisons, 286 jails, and 10 

special confinement facilities operated by Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement (ICE), the U.S. Military, 

and correctional authorities in Indian 

country. The survey, conducted by 

RTI International (Research Triangle 

Park, NC), was administered to 81,566 

inmates ages 18 or older, including 

32,029 inmates in state and federal 

prisons, 48,066 in jails, 957 in ICE 

facilities, 399 in military facilities, and 

115 in Indian country jails.

The NIS-2 is part of the National 

Prison Rape Statistics Program, which 

collects administrative records of reported sexual violence, and allegations 

of sexual victimization directly from 

victims, through surveys of adult inmates in prisons and jails and surveys 

of youth held in juvenile correctional 

facilities. Administrative records have 

been collected annually since 2004. 

Reports by victims of sexual victimization have been collected since 2007. 

The NIS-2 survey consisted of an 

audio computer-assisted self-interview 

(ACASI) in which inmates, using 

a touch-screen, interacted with a 

computer-assisted questionnaire and 

followed audio instructions delivered 

via headphones. Some inmates (726) 

completed a short paper form. Most 

of these inmates were housed in 

administrative or disciplinary segregation or were considered too violent to 

be interviewed. 

The NIS-2 collects only allegations 

of sexual victimization. Because participation in the survey is anonymous and 

reports are confidential, the survey does 

not permit any follow-up investigation 

or substantiation of reported incidents 

through review. Some allegations in the 

NIS-2 may be untrue. At the same time, 

some inmates may remain silent about 

sexual victimization experienced in the 

facility, despite efforts of survey staff 

to assure inmates that their responses 

would be kept confidential. Although 

the effects may be offsetting, the relative 

extent of under reporting and false 

reporting in the NIS-2 is unknown.

Incidents of Sexual Victimization

4.4% of prison inmates and 3.1% of 

jail inmates reported one or more 

incidents of sexual victimization

Among the 76,459 inmates 

participating in the NIS-2 sexual 

victimization survey, 2,861 reported 

experiencing one or more incidents 

of sexual victimization in the past 12 

months, or since admission to the 

facility, if less than 12 months. Because 

the NIS-2 is a sample survey, weights 

were applied for sampled facilities and 

inmates within facilities to produce 

national-level and facility-level 

estimates. The estimated number of 

prison and jail inmates experiencing 

sexual victimization totaled 88,500 (or 

4.4% of all prison inmates and 3.1% of 

jail inmates, nationwide) (table 1).

Among all state and federal inmates, 

2.1% (or an estimated 30,100 prisoners) 

reported an incident involving another 

inmate, and 2.8% (41,200) reported an 

incident involving facility staff. Some 

prisoners (0.5%) reported sexual victimization by both another inmate and 

facility staff.

About 1.5% of jail inmates (11,600) 

reported an incident with another 

inmate, and 2.0% (15,800) reported 

an incident with staff. Approximately 

0.4% of jail inmates (3,400) reported 

being sexually victimized by both 

other inmates and staff.

The NIS-2 screened for specific 

sexual activities in which inmates may 

have been involved during the past 

12 months or since admission to the 

facility, if less than 12 months. Inmates 

were then asked if they were forced or 

pressured to engage in these activities by another inmate or staff. (See 

appendices 1 through 3 for specific 

survey questions.) Reports of inmateon-inmate sexual victimization were 

classified as either nonconsensual 

sexual acts or abusive sexual contacts. 

Approximately 1.0% of prisoners 

and 0.8% of jail inmates said they were 

forced or pressured to have nonconsensual sex with another inmate, 

including manual stimulation and 

oral, anal, or vaginal penetration. An 

additional 1.0% of prison inmates and 

0.7% of jail inmates said they had experienced one or more abusive sexual 

contacts only, or unwanted touching of 

specific body parts in a sexual way by 

another inmate. (See page 7 for definition of terms.)

An estimated 1.7% of prison 

inmates and 1.5% of jail inmates 

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and 

Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008-09

The Prison Rape Elimination Act of 

2003 (P.L. 108-79) (PREA) requires 

the Bureau of Justice Statistics 

(BJS) to carry out a comprehensive 

statistical review and analysis of 

the incidents and effects of prison 

rape for each calendar year. This 

report fulfills the requirements 

under Sec. 4(c)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act 

to provide a list of prisons and 

jails according to the prevalence 

of sexual victimization.
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09 7

reported that they had sex or sexual 

contact unwillingly with staff as a 

result of physical force, pressure, or offers of special favors or privileges. An 

estimated 1.8% of all prison inmates 

and 1.1% of jail inmates reported they 

willingly had sex or sexual contact 

with staff. Regardless of whether an 

inmate reported being willing or 

unwilling, any sexual contact between 

inmates and staff is illegal; however, 

the difference may be informative 

when addressing issues of staff training, prevention, and investigation.

Facility Level Rates

NIS-2 provides a basis for identifying 

high rate and low rate facilities

As required under the Prison Rape 

Elimination Act, the NIS-2 provides 

facility-level estimates of inmateon-inmate sexual victimization and 

staff sexual misconduct. Since these 

estimates are based on a sample of 

inmates rather than a complete enumeration, they are subject to sampling 

error. (See Methodology for description 

of sampling procedures.)

The precision of each of the facility-level estimates can be calculated 

based on the estimated standard error. 

Typically, a 95%-confidence interval 

around each survey estimate is calculated by multiplying the standard error 

by 1.96 and then adding and subtracting the result from the sample estimate 

to create an upper and lower bound. 

This interval expresses the range of 

values that could result among 95% 

of the different samples that could be 

drawn.

For small samples and estimates 

close to 0%, as is the case with facilitylevel estimates of sexual victimization 

by type of incident, the use of the standard error to construct the 95%-confidence interval may not be reliable. 

An alternative method developed by 

Wilson has been shown to perform 

better than the traditional method.1

 

This method provides asymmetrical 

confidence intervals for facilities in 

which the lower bound is constrained 

to be no less than 0%. It also provides 

confidence intervals for facilities in 

which the survey estimates are 0% (but 

other similarly conducted samples 

could yield non-zero estimates). 

Table 1

Inmates reporting sexual victimization, by type of facility and incident, National 

Inmate Survey, 2008-09

Number of victimsa Percent of inmates Standard errorsb

Type of incident Prisons Jails Prisons Jails Prisons Jails

Total 64,500 24,000 4.4% 3.1% 0.3% 0.1%

Inmate-on-inmate 30,100 11,600 2.1% 1.5% 0.2% 0.1%

Nonconsensual sexual acts 15,100 6,000 1.0 0.8 0.1 0.1

Abusive sexual contacts only 15,000 5,600 1.0 0.7 0.1 0.1

Staff sexual misconduct 41,200 15,800 2.8% 2.0% 0.2% 0.1%

Unwilling activity 25,400 11,400 1.7% 1.5% 0.2% 0.1%

Excluding touching 19,000 8,200 1.3 1.1 0.1 0.1

Touching only 5,800 3,100 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.0

Willing activity 25,500 8,500 1.8% 1.1% 0.1% 0.1%

Excluding touching 21,700 7,200 1.5 0.9 0.1 0.1

Touching only 3,800 1,300 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0

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

victimization by both other inmates and staff. 

aEstimates of the number of victims nationwide are based on weighted data and rounded to the nearest 100.

bStandard errors may be used to construct confidence intervals around each estimate. See Methodology for calculations.

Definition of terms 

Sexual victimization—all types of sexual activity, e.g., oral, anal, or vaginal 

penetration; hand jobs; touching of the inmate’s buttocks, thighs, penis, 

breasts, or vagina in a sexual way; abusive sexual contacts; and both willing 

and unwilling sexual activity with staff.

Nonconsensual sexual acts—unwanted contacts with another inmate or any 

contacts with staff that involved oral, anal, vaginal penetration, hand jobs, 

and other sexual acts.

Abusive sexual contacts only—unwanted contacts with another inmate or 

any contacts with staff that involved touching of the inmate’s buttocks, thigh, 

penis, breasts, or vagina in a sexual way.

Unwilling activity—incidents of unwanted sexual contacts with another 

inmate or staff.

Willing activity—incidents of willing sexual contacts with staff. These 

contacts are characterized by the reporting inmates as willing; however, all 

sexual contacts between inmates and staff are legally nonconsensual.

Staff sexual misconduct—includes all incidents of willing and unwilling 

sexual contact with facility staff and all incidents of sexual activity that involved oral, anal, vaginal penetration, hand jobs, blow jobs, and other sexual 

acts with facility staff.

1

Brown, L.D., Cai, T., and DasGupta, A. (2001). 

Interval Estimation for a Binomial Proportion. 

Statistical Science, 16(2), pp. 101-138.

Wilson, E.B. (1927). Probable Inference, the Law of 

Succession, and Statistical Inference. Journal of the 

American Statistical Association, 22, pp. 209-212.
8 August 2010

Although the NIS-2 provides 

facility-level estimates and measures 

of precision, it cannot provide an exact 

ranking for all facilities as required 

under PREA. Rates of inmate-oninmate sexual victimization and staff 

sexual misconduct differ across facilities, but the observed differences are 

not always statistically significant. To 

address PREA requirements, facilities 

have been categorized as having high 

rates or low rates based on criteria applied to the lower and upper bounds of 

the 95%-confidence interval for each 

facility.

The criterion that the lower bound 

of the confidence interval be at least 

55% higher than the average rate 

for comparable facilities was used to 

identify high rate male prisons, female 

prisons, and jails. The criterion that the 

upper bound of the confidence interval 

be lower than 65% of the average rate 

for comparable facilities was used to 

identify low rate facilities. 

To better identify variations among 

correctional facilities in rates of sexual 

victimization, prisons and jails are 

compared separately by type of sexual 

victimization. Though informative, 

an analysis of a single, overall prevalence rate of sexual victimization for 

each sampled facility would confound 

differing risk factors, circumstances, 

and underlying causes of victimization. For the same reasons, prisons 

are compared separately by the sex of 

inmates housed. 

The NIS-2 sample was designed to 

ensure a sufficient number of femaleonly prison facilities (35 facilities participated) and a sufficient number of 

female respondents (6,279 completed 

the survey) to allow for valid comparisons among female prisons. Only 2 

of the 286 participating jails in NIS-2 

housed only females; as a result, rates 

of sexual victimization in jails could 

not be compared separately by sex of 

inmate housed.

Eight male prisons, 2 female prisons, 

and 6 jails were identified as having 

high rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual 

victimization

Among the 167 prisons and 

286 jails surveyed in NIS-2, 8 male 

prisons, 2 female prisons, and 6 jails 

were designated as high rate facilities 

based on reports of inmate-on-inmate 

sexual victimization (table 2). Each 

of these facilities had a rate of inmateon-inmate sexual victimization that 

was at least twice the national rate of 

1.9% for male prisons, 4.8% for female 

prisons, and 1.5% for jails. Each had a 

95%-confidence interval with a lower 

bound that was at least 55% higher 

than the average rate among comparable facilities.

Selection of slightly lower criteria 

would have had only a minor impact 

on the list of facilities with high rates 

of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization. Lowering the criteria of the 

lower bound to at least 50% higher 

than the average comparable rate 

would not have increased the number 

of high rate facilities (16); lowering the 

criteria to 35% would have increased 

the number to 22 (including 10 male 

prisons, 2 female prisons, and 10 jails).

Table 2

Facilities with high rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization, by type of 

facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09

Any inmate-on-inmate incidenta

95%-confidence 

interval

Facility name

Number of 

respondentsb

Response 

rate Percentc

Lower 

bound

Upper 

bound

All prisons 29,954 71% 2.1% 1.7% 2.5%

Male prisons 23,675 70% 1.9% 1.5% 2.3%

Hughes Unit (TX) 159 57 8.6 5.2 14.0

Allred Unit (TX) 161 55 7.6 4.4 12.9

Pontiac Corr. Ctr. (IL) 96 32 6.9 3.0 15.0

Plainfield Corr. Fac. (IN) 181 69 6.1 3.3 11.0

Michael Unit (TX) 158 60 6.1 3.3 11.0

Maine State Prison - Warren (ME) 143 59 5.9 3.1 11.0

California Med. Fac. (CA) 258 60 5.8 3.7 9.1

Pleasant Valley State Prison (CA) 181 62 5.5 3.0 9.9

Female prisons 6,279 78% 4.8% 4.0% 5.9%

Taycheedah Corr. Inst. (WI)d 171 75 11.9 8.2 16.9

Fluvanna Corr. Ctr. (VA)d 199 79 11.4 7.7 16.5

All jails 45,126 68% 1.5% 1.4% 1.7%

Orleans Parish - South White Street Jail (LA)d 138 83 7.5 5.5 10.2

Madison Co. Det. Fac. (AL) 293 71 5.5 3.7 7.9

Miami-Dade Co. - Pre-trial Det. Ctr. (FL) 158 50 5.1 2.9 9.1

Houston Co. Jail (AL) 216 89 4.0 2.3 6.7

Jefferson Co. Jail (MO) 127 81 4.0 2.5 6.2

Madison Co. Det. Ctr. (IN) 158 78 3.9 2.5 6.1

Note: High rate facilities are those in which the lower bound of the 95%-confidence interval is larger than 1.55 times the 

average among prisons, by sex of inmates housed, and 1.55 times the average among all jail facilities.

aPercent of inmates reporting one or more incidents of sexual victimization involving another inmate in the past 12 

months or since admission to the facility, if less than 12 months.

bNumber of inmates who responded to the sexual victimization survey.

cWeights were applied so that inmates who responded accurately reflected the entire population of each facility on 

selected characteristics, including age, sex, race, time since admission, and sentence length.

dFacility houses only female inmates.
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09 9

Among male prisons, Hughes Unit 

(Texas) recorded an inmate-on-inmate 

sexual victimization rate of 8.6%, 

and Allred Unit (Texas) recorded a 

rate of 7.6%. Among female prisons, 

Taycheedah Correctional Institution 

(Wisconsin) had a rate of 11.9%, and 

Fluvanna Correctional Center (Virginia) had a rate of 11.4%. 

Orleans Parish - South White Street 

Jail (Louisiana), a female-only facility, 

recorded an inmate-on-inmate sexual 

victimization rate of 7.5%, which was 5 

times the average rate among jails nationwide. Madison County Detention Facility 

(Alabama) reported a rate of 5.5%.

Four male prisons, 2 female prisons, 

and 5 jails were identified as having 

high rates of staff sexual misconduct

Eleven facilities were identified as 

high rate facilities based on reports 

of staff sexual misconduct—4 male 

prisons, 2 female prisons, and 5 jails 

(table 3). Each had a confidence 

interval with a lower bound that was at 

least 55% higher than the national rate 

of male prisons (2.9%), female prisons 

(2.2%), and jails (2.0%).

Selection of slightly lower criteria 

would have had only a minor impact 

on the list of facilities with high rates 

of staff sexual misconduct. Lowering the criteria of the lower bound to 

at least 50% higher than the average 

comparable rate would have increased 

the number of high rate facilities from 

11 to 14 (including 5 male prisons, 2 female prisons, and 7 jails); lowering the 

criteria to 35% would have increased 

the number to 20 (including 6 male 

prisons, 2 female prisons, and 12 jails).

In 3 state prisons, at least 8% of 

surveyed inmates reported incidents 

of staff sexual misconduct, including 

8.2% of males in Crossroads Correctional Facility (Missouri), 8.1% of 

males in Attica Correctional Facility 

(New York), and 11.5% of females in 

Bayview Correctional Facility (New 

York). Two jails, Caroline County Jail 

(Maryland) with 10.0% and Eastern 

Shore Regional Jail (Virginia) with 

9.9%, had rates of reported staff sexual 

misconduct that exceeded 8%.

The reported use or threat of 

physical force to engage in sexual 

activity with staff was generally low 

among all prison and jail inmates 

(1.0%); however, at least 5% of the inmates in 2 state prisons and 2 jails said 

that they had been physically forced 

or threatened with force. Caroline 

County Jail (Maryland), with 10%, 

Table 3

Facilities with high rates of staff sexual misconduct, by type of facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09

Any staff sexual misconducta

95%-confidence interval Level of coercionb

Facility name

Number of 

respondentsc Response rate Percentd

Lower 

bound

Upper 

bound

Physically 

forcede Pressuredf

Without force 

or pressureg

All prisons 29,954 71% 2.8% 2.5% 3.2% 1.0% 1.6% 1.8%

Male prisons 23,675 70% 2.9% 2.5% 3.3% 1.0% 1.6% 1.8%

Crossroads Corr. Fac. (MO) 207 77 8.2 5.3 12.6 3.8 5.2 4.1

Attica Corr. Fac. (NY) 170 61 8.1 4.8 13.3 6.4 6.0 2.8

Elmira Corr. Fac. (NY) 167 63 7.7 4.5 12.7 2.5 7.1 1.3

Ferguson Unit (TX) 236 82 7.6 4.7 11.9 1.1 3.1 5.8

Female prisons 6,279 78% 2.2% 1.6% 2.9% 0.8% 1.8% 0.6%

Bayview Corr. Fac. (NY) 96 73 11.5 8.3 15.6 6.5 10.8 0.6

Fluvanna Corr. Ctr. (VA) 199 79 6.0 3.7 9.5 1.5 4.3 2.4

All jails 45,126 68% 2.0% 1.9% 2.2% 1.0% 1.3% 1.1%

Caroline Co. Jail (MD) 32 46 10.0 3.2 27.4 10.0 7.9 7.9

Eastern Shore Regional Jail (VA) 27 49 9.9 4.3 21.5 2.6 2.6 9.9

Clallam Co. Corr. Fac. (WA) 75 71 6.1 3.4 10.6 5.2 5.0 2.0

Orleans Co. Jail (NY) 55 82 5.6 3.5 8.9 0.0 0.0 5.6

Cook Co. Jail - Division 6 (IL) 268 86 5.5 3.6 8.3 2.0 1.7 3.8

Note: High rate facilities are those in which the lower bound of the 95%-confidence interval is larger than 1.55 times the average among prisons, by sex of inmates housed, and 1.55 times 

the average among all jail facilities. 

aPercent of inmates reporting one or more incidents of sexual victimization involving facility staff in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if less than 12 months.

bDetail may not sum total because an inmate may report more than one incident or level of coercion.

cNumber of inmates who responded to the sexual victimization survey.

dWeights were applied so that inmates who responded accurately reflected the entire population of each facility on selected characteristics, including age, sex, race, time since admission, 

and sentence length. 

ePhysical force or threat of physical force. 

f

Includes incidents in which the perpetrator, without using force, pressured the inmate or made the inmate feel they had to participate. 

gIncludes incidents in which staff offered favors or privileges in exchange for sex or sexual contact and incidents in which the inmate reported they willingly had sex or sexual contact with staff. 
10 August 2010

had the highest percentage of inmates 

reporting physical force or threat force 

by staff, followed by Bayview Correctional Facility (New York) and Attica 

Correctional Facility (New York), with 

6.5% and 6.4%, respectively. 

An estimated 1.6% of prison 

inmates and 1.3% of jail inmates also 

reported being coerced by facility staff 

without any use or threat of force, 

including being pressured or made to 

feel they had to have sex or sexual contact. In 6 of the 11 facilities with high 

rates of staff sexual misconduct, at 

least 5% of the inmates reported such 

pressure by staff. Among state prisoners, the highest rates were reported by 

female inmates (10.8%) in the Bayview 

Correctional Facility (New York) and 

by male inmates (7.1%) in the Elmira 

Correctional Facility (New York). 

Among jail inmates, the highest rates 

were reported by inmates in the Caroline County Jail (7.9%).

Seven male prisons, 4 female prisons, 

and 9 jails were identified as “low 

rate” for sexual victimization overall

Six prisons and 28 jails had no 

reported incidents of sexual victimization of any kind. (See appendix tables 

1 and 5.) However, estimates of the 

number of inmates who experienced 

a sexual victimization in each of these 

facilities are also subject to sampling 

error and could vary if a different 

group of inmates had been interviewed. Although the lower bound of 

the 95%-confidence interval in each of 

these facilities is 0%, the upper bound 

varies depending on the number of 

completed interviews in each facility.

Combining reports of inmate-oninmate sexual victimization and staff 

sexual misconduct, 7 male prisons 

and 4 female prisons were designated 

as low rate facilities. These designations were based on their low rate 

of sexual victimization overall and 

the upper bound of their 95%-confidence interval that was less than 65% 

of the average rate among male and 

female prisons (table 4). Four of these 

facilities had no reported incidents of 

sexual victimization; 7 had at least one 

inmate who reported a sexual victimization.

C. Moore Transfer Facility (Texas), 

with a reported sexual victimization rate of 0.4%, had a confidence 

interval with the lowest upper bound 

(1.9%) among male prisons. Halbert 

Substance Abuse Felony Punishment 

Facility (Texas), with reported sexual 

rate of 0.9%, had a confidence interval 

with the lowest upper bound (2.5%) 

among female prisons. 

Nine jails were designated as low rate 

facilities based on the upper bound of 

the 95%-confidence interval that was less 

than 65% of the average for jails nationTable 4

Facilities with low rates of any type of sexual victimization, by type of facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09

Inmates reporting any 

sexual victimizationa

95%-confidence 

interval

Facility name

Number of 

respondentsb

Response 

rate Percentc

Lower 

bound

Upper 

bound

All prisons 29,954 71% 4.4% 3.9% 5.0%

Male prisons 23,675 70% 4.3% 3.8% 4.9%

C. Moore Transfer Fac. (TX) 184 72 0.4 0.1 1.9

Elkton Fed. Corr. Inst. (BOP) 176 64 0.0 0.0 2.1

Morgantown Fed. Corr. Inst. (BOP) 159 65 0.0 0.0 2.4

Centinela State Prison (CA) 143 52 0.0 0.0 2.6

Maximum Security Fac. (RI) 115 55 0.6 0.1 2.7

Northern Nevada Corr. Ctr. (NV) 206 82 0.8 0.2 2.9

Corr. Reception Ctr. (OH) 242 84 1.1 0.4 3.1

Female prisons 6,279 78% 6.0% 5.0% 7.3%

Halbert Substance Abuse Felony Punishment 

Fac. (TX) 229 97 0.9 0.3 2.5

Bridgeport Pre-Parole Fac. (TX)d 128 88 0.0 0.0 2.9

Swannanoa Corr. Ctr. for Women (NC) 56 81 1.3 0.5 3.4

Lincoln Corr. Ctr. (IL) 190 77 1.4 0.5 3.9

All jails 45,126 68% 3.1% 2.9% 3.3%

Hinds Co. Penal Farm (MS) 164 80 0.5 0.2 1.6

Lake Co. - Adult Max. Security Det. Ctr. (OH) 120 70 0.5 0.1 1.6

Tulsa Co. - David L. Moss Criminal Justice 

Ctr. (OK) 216 59 0.4 0.1 1.8

Lake Co. - Hill Road Corr. Fac. (CA) 111 57 0.5 0.2 1.9

Nassau Co. Det. Fac. (FL) 168 87 0.7 0.2 1.9

Bristol Co. - New Bedford Fac. (MA) 124 75 0.7 0.2 1.9

Lenawee Co. Jail (MI) 141 76 0.9 0.4 2.0

Carson City Jail (NV) 136 77 0.8 0.3 2.0

Coweta Co. Prison (GA) 184 91 0.0 0.0 2.0

Note: Low rate facilities are those in which the upper bound of the 95%-confidence interval is lower than 0.65 times the 

average among prisons, by sex of inmates housed, and 0.65 times the average among all jail facilities. 

aPercent of inmates reporting one or more incidents of sexual victimization involving another inmate or facility staff in the 

past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if less than 12 months.

bNumber of inmates who responded to the sexual victimization survey.

cWeights were applied so that inmates who responded accurately reflected the entire population of each facility on 

selected characteristics, including age, sex, race, time since admission, and sentence length.

dPrivately operated facility.
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09 11

wide. Hinds County Penal Farm (Mississippi) and Lake County - Adult Maximum Security Detention Center (Ohio), 

both with a 0.5% overall sexual victimization rate, had confidence intervals with 

the lowest upper bounds (1.6%).

Low rates of sexual victimization were 

reported in military, Indian country, 

and ICE facilities

The NIS-2 also surveyed 10 special 

confinement facilities including 5 ICE 

facilities, 3 military facilities, and 2 

Indian country jails. (See Methodology 

for sample description.) Except for a 

6.0% overall rate of sexual victimization in the U.S. Disciplinary Barracks 

(Leavenworth, KS), rates in these facilities were lower than the average rates 

in state and federal prisons (4.4%) and 

jails (3.1%). (Not shown. See appendix 

table 9.)

Reports of inmate-on-inmate 

sexual victimization were highest in 

the El Paso Processing Center (Texas), 

operated by ICE; however, its rate of 

2.1% equaled the average rate among 

prisoners nationwide (table 5). The 

U.S. Disciplinary Barracks, which is 

operated by the U.S. Army and holds 

the most serious offenders under 

military jurisdiction, had a rate of staff 

sexual misconduct (5.6%) that was 

double the average of prisons nationwide (2.8%). Gila River Department of 

Corrections and Rehabilitation (Arizona), the largest jail in Indian country, 

had no reports of inmate-on-inmate 

sexual victimization and one report of 

staff sexual misconduct (1%).

Table 5

Rates of sexual victimization in special correctional facilities, by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09

Any inmate-on-inmate incident Any staff sexual misconduct

Number of 

completed 

interviews

95%-confidence interval 95%-confidence interval

Facility name Percenta Lower bound Upper bound Percenta Lower bound Upper bound

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facilities

Eloy Det. Ctr. (AZ)b,c 241 0.0% 0.0% 1.6% 0.7% 0.2% 2.4%

Stewart Det. Ctr. (GA)c 138 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.9 0.2 4.5

Elizabeth Contract Det. Fac. (NJ)b,c 100 0.8 0.3 2.7 0.0 0.0 3.7

El Paso Processing Ctr. (TX)b 250 2.1 1.1 4.0 0.2 0.1 1.0

South Texas Det. Complex (TX)b 164 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 2.3

Military facilities 

Marine Corps Base Brig, Camp Pendleton (CA) 105 0.5% 0.2% 1.6% 0.5% 0.2% 1.6%

Naval Consolidated Brig, Miramar (CA)b 125 1.4 0.5 3.5 1.5 0.6 3.9

U.S. Disciplinary Barracks, Leavenworth (KS) 149 0.4 0.1 1.7 5.6 3.3 9.5

Tribal jails

Gila River DOC and Rehab. (AZ)b 97 0.0% 0.0% 3.8% 1.0% 0.4% 2.6%

Navajo Nation - Window Rock (AZ) 10 0.0 0.0 27.8 0.0 0.0 27.8

aWeighted percent of inmates reporting one or more incidents of sexual victimization involving another inmate or facility staff in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if 

less than 12 months. 

bFacility houses both males and females; both were sampled at this facility.

cPrivately operated facility.
12 August 2010

Demographic Characteristics

Rates of reported sexual victimization 

varied across demographic categories 

of prison and jail inmates

 Rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual 

victimization among prison inmates 

were higher among females (4.7%) 

than males (1.9%), higher among 

whites (3.0%) or multi-racial (4.4%) 

than among blacks (1.3%), higher 

among inmates with a college 

degree (3.4%) than among inmates 

who had not completed high school 

(2.0%), and lower among currently 

married inmates (1.3%) than 

among inmates who never married 

or who were widowed, divorced, or 

separated (2.2%) (table 6).

 Similar patterns of inmate-on-inmate 

sexual victimization were reported 

by jail inmates. Females (3.1%), 

whites (1.5%), and inmates with a 

college degree reported higher rates 

of victimization (2.9%) than males 

(1.3%), blacks (1.2%), and inmates 

who had not completed high school 

(1.3%).

 Rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual 

victimization were unrelated to age 

among state and federal prisoners, 

but were lower among jail inmates 

in older age categories (ages 35 to 

44, 45 to 54, and 55 or older) than 

among inmates ages 20 to 24. 

 Patterns of staff sexual misconduct 

were different—with reports of staff 

sexual misconduct being higher 

among males in prisons (2.9%) and 

jails (2.1%) than among females 

in prisons (2.1%) and jails (1.5%), 

and higher among black inmates in 

prisons (3.2%) and jails (2.4%) than 

among white inmates in prisons 

(2.3%) and jails (1.5%).

 In both prisons and jails, rates of 

reported staff sexual misconduct 

were lower among inmates in the 

oldest age categories (ages 45 to 54 

and ages 55 or older) compared to 

inmates ages 20 to 24. 

Table 6

Prevalence of sexual victimization, by type of incident and inmate demographic 

characteristic, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09

Prison inmates reporting 

sexual victimizationa

Jail inmates reporting 

sexual victimizationa

Demographic 

characteristic

Number of 

inmatesb

Inmate-oninmateStaff sexual 

misconduct

Number of 

inmatesb

Inmate-oninmateStaff sexual 

misconduct

Sex

Male* 1,357,100 1.9% 2.9% 678,100 1.3% 2.1% 

Female 100,600 4.7** 2.1** 99,100 3.1** 1.5**

Race/Hispanic origin

Whitec 456,800 3.0%** 2.3%** 271,900 1.5%** 1.5%**

Blackc* 565,400 1.3 3.2 279,000 1.2 2.4

Hispanic 304,400 1.4 2.4** 158,500 1.5 1.9

Otherc,d 43,600 2.7 2.9 17,300 1.9 2.4

Two or more racesd 72,100 4.4** 4.3 43,000 3.1** 3.5**

Age

18-19 27,800 1.6% 3.9% 51,400 2.1% 2.7% 

20-24* 182,800 2.1 3.5 162,500 1.9 2.9

25-34 482,500 2.2 3.4 255,400 1.5 2.3**

35-44 406,400 2.3 2.7 173,200 1.2** 1.4**

45-54 259,000 1.8 2.1** 105,800 1.2** 1.1**

55 or older 98,400 1.5 0.9** 28,700 0.9** 0.7**

Education

Less than high school* 867,200 2.0% 2.9% 422,500 1.3% 1.9% 

High school graduate 275,600 1.9 2.2** 179,600 1.5 2.0

Some collegee 220,800 2.2 2.7 126,600 1.6 2.1

College degree 

or more 88,800 3.4** 3.8 45,500 2.9** 3.4**

Marital status

Married* 249,900 1.3% 2.0% 138,000 1.2% 2.2% 

Widowed, divorced, 

or separated 398,700 2.2** 2.1 184,000 1.6 1.6**

Never married 781,300 2.2** 3.3** 445,800 1.6 2.1

Weightf

1st quartile* 350,200 2.4% 3.0% 265,500 1.8% 1.9% 

2nd quartile 360,400 2.1 2.6 191,600 1.3** 1.9

3rd quartile 324,500 1.9 2.6 140,000 1.1** 2.0

4th quartile 390,900 1.7** 2.6 163,600 1.5 2.2

*Comparison group.

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

aPercent of inmates reporting one or more incidents of sexual victimization involving another inmate or facility staff in the 

past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if less than 12 months.

bEstimated number of inmates at midyear 2008 in prisons and jails represented by NIS-2, excluding inmates under age 18. 

Estimates have been rounded to the nearest 100.

cExcludes persons of Hispanic or Latino origin.

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

eIncludes persons with an associate degree.

f

Weight quartiles are defined by sex. Men: 1st quartile—60 to 168 lbs., 2nd quartile—169 to 186 lbs., 3rd quartile—187 

to 209 lbs., 4th quartile—210 to 700 lbs. Women: 1st quartile—65 to 144 lbs., 2nd quartile—145 to 166 lbs., 3rd 

quartile—167 to 194 lbs., 4th quartile—195 to 450 lbs.
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09 13

These variations in rates of sexual 

victimization among demographic 

groups are statistically independent 

and largely unexplained by covariation 

with other demographic characteristics. 

Multivariate logistic regression was 

used to determine which demographic 

characteristics are statistically significant 

for predicting a sexual victimization, 

while simultaneously controlling for 

the effects of other inmate demographic 

characteristics. (See Methodology for 

discussion of logistic regression.) 

Results are displayed in terms of their 

conditional predicted probability, which 

represents the probability that an inmate 

with a particular characteristic has experienced a given sexual victimization outcome conditional on the inmate having 

the mean value for all other predictors in 

the model (table 7). For example, based 

on models with demographic characteristics only, a female prison inmate has a 

3.8% chance of being sexually victimized 

by another inmate, while a male inmate 

has a 1.6% chance (given that the inmates 

are at the mean of the joint distribution 

of race or Hispanic origin, education 

level, and marital status).2

Table 7

Multivariate logistic regression models of sexual victimization, by inmate 

demographic characteristic, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09

Predicted percent of prison 

inmates reporting 

sexual victimizationa

Predicted percent of jail 

inmates reporting 

sexual victimizationa

Demographic characteristic

Inmate-oninmateStaff sexual 

misconduct

Inmate-oninmateStaff sexual 

misconduct

Sex

Male* 1.6% 2.5% 1.2% 1.8% 

Female 3.8** 1.8** 2.8** 1.2**

Race/Hispanic origin

Whiteb 2.8%** 2.1% 1.3% 1.4%**

Blackb* 1.2 2.7 1.1 2.1

Hispanic 1.3 2.1 1.4 1.7**

Otherb,c 2.4** 2.6 1.5 2.2

Two or more racesb 4.0** 4.0** 2.7** 3.1**

Age

18-19 -- 3.4% 2.0% 2.7% 

20-24* -- 3.0 1.8 2.9

25-34 -- 3.0 1.3** 2.1

35-44 -- 2.5 1.0** 1.3**

45-54 -- 1.9** 1.0** 1.0**

55 or older -- 0.8** 0.7** 0.5**

Education 

Less than high school* 1.7% 2.5% 1.1% 1.6% 

High school graduate 1.6 1.7** 1.4 1.7

Some colleged 1.8 2.5 1.4 2.0**

College degree or more 2.8** 4.5** 2.8** 4.0**

Marital status 

Married* 1.1% 1.8% -- --

Widowed, divorced, or separated 1.6 2.2 -- --

Never married 2.1** 2.8** -- --

Weighte

1st quartile* -- -- 1.5% --

2nd quartile -- -- 1.1** --

3rd quartile -- -- 1.0** --

4th quartile -- -- 1.4 --

--Characteristic deleted from model when Wald statistic was not significant at the 95%-confidence level. 

*Comparison group.

**Difference with comparison group is significant at the 95%-confidence level. (See Methodology for tests of significance.)

aConditional predicted percent of inmates reporting one or more incidents of sexual victimization involving another 

inmate or facility staff in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if less than 12 months.

bExcludes persons of Hispanic or Latino origin.

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

dIncludes persons with an associate degree.

eWeight quartiles are defined by sex. Men: 1st quartile—60 to 168 lbs., 2nd quartile—169 to 186 lbs., 3rd quartile—187 

to 209 lbs., 4th quartile—210 to 700 lbs. Women: 1st quartile—65 to 144 lbs., 2nd quartile—145 to 166 lbs., 3rd 

quartile—167 to 194 lbs., 4th quartile—195 to 450 lbs.

2

These estimates represent the expected risk 

of victimization for an inmate, conditional on 

the inmate belonging to a particular group 

(defined by each characteristic in the final model) 

and having the mean value on all of the other 

characteristics in the model. For characteristics 

that are categorical (which is the case for every 

variable in the NIS-2 logistic regression models), 

the mean value is a weighted value of the joint 

distribution of all other characteristics in the 

respective model. 

See Research Triangle Institute (2008). SUDAAN 

Language Manual Release 10.0. Research Triangle 

Park, NC, Section 4.8.3, pp. 209-211
14 August 2010

Based on four separate models, 

each representing the type of sexual 

victimization in prison and jail, variations by sex, race, Hispanic origin, and 

education remain statistically significant. Except for reports of inmate-oninmate sexual victimization in prison, 

older inmates (ages 45 and older in 

prison and ages 35 and older in jails) 

still have lower rates of sexual victimization, after controlling for the effects 

of the other demographic characteristics. Among prison inmates, never 

married inmates remain somewhat 

more likely than married inmates to 

report sexual victimization; however, 

among jail inmates, there are no differences by marital status.

Sexual History and Orientation

Large differences in sexual 

victimization were found among 

inmates based on their sexual 

orientation and past sexual 

experiences

Inmates with a sexual orientation other than heterosexual reported 

significantly higher rates of inmate-oninmate sexual victimization and staff 

sexual misconduct:

 Among heterosexual state and 

federal prisoners, an estimated 1.3% 

reported being sexually victimized 

by another inmate, and 2.5% 

reported being victimized by staff 

(table 8). In contrast, among prison 

inmates with a sexual orientation 

other than heterosexual (including 

bisexual, homosexual, gay or 

lesbian, or other), 11.2% reported 

being sexually victimized by another 

inmate, and 6.6% reported being 

sexually victimized by staff. 

 Similar differences were reported 

among jail inmates, with 

heterosexual inmates reporting 

lower rates of inmate-on-inmate 

victimization (1.1%) and staff sexual 

misconduct (1.9%) than nonheterosexual inmates (7.2% and 

3.5%, respectively). 

 Inmates who had experienced 

sexual victimization before coming 

to the facility were also more 

likely than inmates with no sexual 

Table 8

Prevalence of sexual victimization, by type of incident, inmate sexual history, and orientation, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09

Prison inmates reporting sexual victimizationa Jail inmates reporting sexual victimizationa

Sexual orientation and history

Number of 

inmatesb

Inmate-oninmateStaff sexual 

misconduct

Number of 

inmatesb

Inmate-oninmateStaff sexual 

misconduct

Sexual orientation

Heterosexual* 1,316,000 1.3% 2.5% 706,000 1.1% 1.9%

Bi-sexual, homosexual, or other 114,300 11.2** 6.6** 52,900 7.2** 3.5**

Number of sexual partners

0-1* 229,800 1.4% 2.4% 121,600 1.2% 1.3%

2-4 181,500 2.3** 2.1 108,800 1.6 1.6

5-10 248,500 2.5** 2.0 141,700 1.5 1.5

11-20 227,600 1.8 2.5 125,200 1.1 1.6

21 or more 509,200 2.2** 3.6** 247,000 1.8** 3.1**

Prior sexual victimization

Yes 177,000 11.0%** 8.7%** 100,100 7.4%** 6.1%**

No* 1,280,400 0.8 2.0 676,900 0.6 1.4

*Comparison group.

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

aPercent of inmates reporting one or more incidents of sexual victimization involving another inmate or facility staff in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if less than 12 

months.

bEstimated number of inmates at midyear 2008 in prisons and jails represented by NIS-2, excluding inmates under age 18. Estimates have been rounded to the nearest 100.
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09 15

victimization history to report 

incidents of sexual victimization 

involving other inmates and 

staff. Among inmates who had 

experienced sexual victimization 

before coming to the facility, 

11.0% of prisoners and 7.4% of 

jail inmates reported having been 

sexually assaulted by another 

inmate at the current facility. An 

estimated 8.7% of prisoners and 

6.1% of jail inmates who had 

experienced sexual victimization 

before coming to the facility 

reported sexual activity with staff.

 Prison and jail inmates with 21 

or more sexual partners prior 

to coming to the current facility 

reported higher rates of staff sexual 

misconduct than inmates with 1 or 

no prior sexual partners.

Variations in rates of sexual victimization among groups of inmates based 

on their sexual orientation and past 

sexual experiences overlapped somewhat. After simultaneously controlling 

for the effects of these characteristics, 

the regression models reveal that 

variations in inmate-on-inmate sexual 

victimization remain associated with 

sexual orientation and prior sexual victimization, but are not associated with 

the number of past sexual partners 

(table 9). Except for reports of staff 

sexual misconduct in jails, an inmate’s 

sexual orientation remained an important predictor of victimization. In all 

models, inmates who had experienced 

sexual victimization before coming 

to the facility were more likely than 

inmates with no sexual victimization 

history to report incidents of sexual 

victimization.

Table 9

Multivariate logistic models of sexual victimization, by inmate sexual history and orientation, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09

Predicted percent of prison inmates reporting sexual 

victimizationa

Predicted percent of jail inmates reporting sexual 

victimizationa

Sexual orientation and history Inmate-on-inmate Staff sexual misconduct Inmate-on-inmate Staff sexual misconduct

Sexual orientationb

Heterosexual* 0.9% 2.2% 0.8% --

Bi-sexual, homosexual, or other 4.0** 3.6** 2.4** --

Number of sexual partners

0-1* -- 2.6% -- 1.3%

2-4 -- 1.7 -- 1.5

5-10 -- 1.6 -- 1.2

11-20 -- 2.1 -- 1.4

21 or more -- 3.0 -- 2.6**

Prior sexual victimization

Yes 7.3%** 7.4%** 5.7%** 5.5%**

No* 0.8 1.9 0.6 1.4

--Characteristic deleted from model when Wald statistic was not significant at the 95%-confidence level. 

*Comparison group.

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

aConditional predicted percent of inmates reporting one or more incidents of sexual victimization involving another inmate or facility staff in the past 12 months or since admission to 

the facility, if less than 12 months.

bInmates were asked to report if they considered themselves to be heterosexual or straight, bisexual, homosexual, gay, or lesbian, or other.
16 August 2010

Criminal Justice Status

Inmates held for a violent sexual 

offense reported higher rates 

of inmate-on-inmate sexual 

victimization than inmates held for 

other offenses

An estimated 4.6% of violent sex 

offenders in prison and 3.9% of violent 

sex offenders in jail reported being sexually victimized by another inmate in 

the last 12 months or since admission 

to the facility, if less than 12 months 

(table 10). These rates were higher than 

those reported by inmates held for 

other offenses. Among state and federal 

prisoners, rates of inmate-on-inmate 

sexual victimization were—

 higher among prison inmates 

serving a long sentence (2.9% with 

a sentence of 20 or more years 

and 3.8% with a sentence to life or 

death) than among inmates serving 

a sentence of 1 to 5 years (1.5%).

 higher among prison inmates who 

had served 5 years or more in prison 

prior to coming to the current 

facility (2.6%) than among inmates 

who had not served any prior time 

(1.6%).

 higher among prison inmates who 

had been at their current facility for 

5 years or more (3.3%) than among 

inmates who had been admitted in 

the last month (1.4%).

Among jail inmates, rates of inmateon-inmate sexual victimization—

 were higher among first time 

offenders (2.0%) than among those 

who had been arrested 2 to 3 times 

in the past (1.3%) or 4 to 10 times in 

the past (1.4%).

 increased with the length of time 

served in the current facility, rising 

from 0.9% among inmates who 

had been at the facility for less than 

a month to 1.7% among inmates 

in jail for 1 to 5 months, to 2.0% 

among inmates in jail for 6 to 11 

months, and to 2.3% among those in 

jail for 1 to 5 years.

Table 10

Prevalence of sexual victimization, by type of incident and inmate criminal justice 

status and history, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09

Prison inmates reporting sexual 

victimizationa

Jail inmates reporting sexual 

victimizationa

Criminal justice 

status and history

Number of 

prison inmatesb

Inmate-oninmateStaff sexual 

misconduct

Number of 

jail inmatesb

Inmate-oninmateStaff sexual 

misconduct

Most serious offense

Violent sexual offense* 198,000 4.6% 2.8% 36,500 3.9% 2.8%

Other violent offense 435,500 2.2** 4.0** 121,600 1.8** 3.0

Property 260,700 2.5** 3.0 169,000 1.9** 2.3

Drug 344,300 0.6** 1.4** 179,700 1.0** 1.8

Other 157,300 1.6** 2.3 209,000 1.2** 1.5**

Sentence length

Less than 1 year 76,500 1.6% 0.9%** -- -- --

1-5 years* 405,400 1.5 1.9 -- -- --

5-10 years 326,200 1.9** 2.8** -- -- --

10-20 years 285,300 1.6 2.3 -- -- --

20 years or more 196,400 2.9** 4.1** -- -- --

Life/death 130,900 3.8** 4.6** -- -- --

Time in a correctional facility 

prior to current facility

0 months* 292,600 1.6% 2.1% 220,000 1.7% 1.5%

1-5 months 169,200 2.0 2.2 156,700 1.7 1.6

6-11 months 135,600 2.1 1.4 76,200 1.5 1.9

1-5 years 425,800 1.8 2.6 187,600 1.2** 2.3**

5 years or more 405,700 2.6** 3.8** 126,800 1.4 2.9**

Number of times arrested

1 time* 192,100 2.1% 2.1% 82,000 2.0% 2.0%

2-3 times 424,200 2.1 2.7** 215,900 1.3** 1.7

4-10 times 525,800 1.9 2.8** 291,500 1.4** 1.8

11 or more times 281,800 2.1 2.8 174,600 1.6 2.8**

Time since admission

Less than 1 month* 105,000 1.4% 1.6% 264,200 0.9% 1.5%

1-5 months 418,400 1.6 2.6 354,700 1.7** 2.0**

6-11 months 259,500 2.1 2.7** 97,100 2.0** 3.0**

1-5 years 512,600 2.2 2.8** 58,000 2.3** 3.3**

5 years or more 161,500 3.3** 2.8** 2,600 5.4 3.5

--Not calculated.

*Comparison group.

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

aPercent of inmates reporting one or more incidents of sexual victimization involving another inmate or facility staff in the 

past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if less than 12 months.

bEstimated number of inmates at midyear 2008 in prisons and jails represented by NIS-2, excluding inmates under age 18. 

Estimates have been rounded to the nearest 100.
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09 17

Rates of staff sexual misconduct also 

varied among inmates based on their 

criminal justice status and history

 Among state and federal prisoners, 

inmates with a long sentence, 

inmates who had served 5 years 

or more in prison prior to coming 

to the current facility, and inmates 

who had served 5 years or more at 

the current facility were more likely 

to report experiencing staff sexual 

misconduct than inmates with a 

sentence of 1 to 5 years, inmates 

who had not served any prior time, 

and inmates who had been admitted 

in the last month.

 Among jail inmates, the rates of 

reported staff misconduct increased 

with time served in the current 

facility and were higher among 

inmates who had previously served 

time in a correctional facility for 1 

year or more.

Based on controls for the criminal 

justice status variables and past history 

variables, the regression models reveal 

that rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual 

victimization remain higher for violent 

sex offenders in prison and jail. A 

violent sex offender has a 4.4% chance 

of experiencing sexual victimization 

by another inmate in prison and 3.1% 

chance of being sexually victimized 

by another inmate in jail. Inmate-oninmate sexual victimization rates for 

inmates held for other offenses are 

significantly lower (table 11).

In each of the regression models 

for jails, rates of sexual victimization 

remain associated with an inmate’s 

time since admission and prior time 

served in a correctional facility. Jail 

inmates who had served longer (i.e., 6 

months to 5 years in the current facility 

and 6 months or more in other facilities) had statistically significant higher 

rates of staff sexual misconduct than 

jail inmates who had served less time 

(i.e., less than one month in the current 

facility and no time in other facilities in 

the past).

Table 11.

Multivariate logistic models of sexual victimization, by inmate criminal justice status and history, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09

Predicted percent of prison 

inmates reporting sexual 

victimizationa

Predicted percent of jail inmates 

reporting 

sexual victimizationa

Inmate characteristic

Inmate-oninmateStaff sexual 

misconduct

Inmate-oninmateStaff sexual 

misconduct

Most serious offense

Violent sexual offense* 4.4% 2.5% 3.1% 2.4%

Other violent offense 1.8** 3.1 1.5** 2.4

Property 2.5** 2.9 1.7** 2.2

Drug 0.6** 1.4** 0.9** 1.7

Other 1.5** 2.5 1.1** 1.5**

Sentence lengthb

Less than 1 year 1.7 1.1** -- --

1-5 years* 1.4 2.0 -- --

5-10 years 1.7 2.6 -- --

10-20 years 1.2 2.1 -- --

20 years or more 2.0 3.5** -- --

Life/death 2.8** 3.6** -- --

Time in a correctional facility prior to 

current facility

0 months* 1.3% 2.0% 1.5% 1.4%

1-5 months 1.5 2.1 1.8 1.8

6-11 months 1.8** 1.4 1.3 1.9**

1-5 years 1.6 2.5 1.0** 2.2**

5 years or more 2.0** 3.2** 1.1 2.5**

Number of times arrested

1 time* -- -- 1.5% 2.3%

2-3 times -- -- 1.0** 1.8

4-10 times -- -- 1.3 1.6**

11 or more times -- -- 1.6 2.3

Time since admission

Less than 1 month* -- -- 0.8% 1.5%

1-5 months -- -- 1.6** 1.9

6-11 months -- -- 1.8** 2.4**

1-5 years -- -- 2.0** 2.7**

5 years or more -- -- 4.9** 3.2

--Characteristic deleted from model when Wald statistic was not significant at the 95%-confidence level.

*Comparison group.

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

aConditional predicted percent of inmates reporting one or more incidents of sexual victimization involving another 

inmate or facility staff in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if less than 12 months.

bSentence length is the total maximum sentence to prison for all sentences for which an inmate was currently serving. 

Sentence length for jail inmates is not included in the models.
18 August 2010

Predicted Victimization Rates

Sexual victimization among high rate 

facilities only partially explained by 

variations in risk among inmates held 

The variations in rates of sexual 

victimization among inmates grouped 

by demographic characteristics, sexual 

orientation and history, and criminal 

justice status and history provide a 

basis for predicting the probability of 

victimization for each inmate. The 

final multivariate logistic regression 

models summarize the net contribution of each characteristic to the 

predicted probability of victimization, 

by type of victimization in prison and 

jail (table 12). 

Because the effects of each characteristic overlap, the estimated conditional probabilities are smaller than 

those in previous regression models. 

However, the net effects of sexual 

orientation and prior sexual victimization remain the largest among all 

characteristics in predicting inmateon-inmate victimization in prison and 

jail. An inmate’s race (black), age (ages 

20 through 24), and education (college 

degree or more) are found to increase 

the probability of experiencing staff 

sexual misconduct, controlling for 

other factors. 

Taking into account the effects of 

sexual history and orientation and 

criminal justice status and history, female inmates have lower rates of sexual 

victimization than male inmates in 

both prison and jail and for both types 

of victimization. 

Predicted rates of sexual victimization at the facility level have been 

calculated by combining all of the 

inmate-level characteristics into a final 

logistic regression model for each type 

of sexual victimization. Based on the 

predicted conditional probabilities of 

victimization of each inmate (derived 

from the multivariate logistic regression models) and the distribution 

of inmates in each facility, predicted 

Table 12 

Final multivariate logistic models of sexual victimization in prisons and jails, 

by type of incident, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09

Predicted percent of prison 

inmates reporting 

sexual victimizationa

Predicted percent of jail 

inmates reporting 

sexual victimizationa

Inmate characteristic

Inmate-oninmateStaff sexual 

misconduct

Inmate-oninmateStaff sexual 

misconduct

Demographic characteristics

Sex

Male* 0.9% 1.9% 0.7% 1.4%

Female 0.7** 0.6** 0.5** 0.5**

Race/Hispanic origin

Whiteb 1.1% 1.4%** -- 0.9%**

Blackb* 0.8 2.2 -- 1.6

Hispanic 0.8 1.6** -- 1.3

Otherb,c 1.2 1.7 -- 1.5

Two or more racesb 1.4** 2.3 -- 1.7

Age

18-19 -- 4.7% 1.2% 2.7%

20-24* -- 3.4 1.0 2.5

25-34 -- 2.3** 0.7** 1.5**

35-44 -- 1.6** 0.5** 0.8**

45-54 -- 1.2** 0.5** 0.6**

55 or older -- 0.4** 0.3** 0.4**

Education 

Less than high school* -- 1.8% 0.6% 1.1%

High school graduate -- 1.5 0.8 1.3**

Some colleged -- 1.8 0.7 1.4

College degree or more -- 2.9** 1.4** 3.0**

Marital status 

Married* 0.7% -- -- --

Widowed, divorced, or separated 0.8 -- -- --

Never married 1.0** -- -- --

Weighte

1st quartile* -- -- 0.9% --

2nd quartile -- -- 0.6** --

3rd quartile -- -- 0.6** --

4th quartile -- -- 0.7 --

Sexual orientation/history characteristics

Sexual orientation

Heterosexual* 0.8% 1.7% 0.6% --

Bi-sexual, homosexual, or other 3.4** 3.1** 2.3** --

Number of sexual partners

0-1* -- 2.1% -- 1.2%

2-4 -- 1.5 -- 1.3

5-10 -- 1.3 -- 1.0

11-20 -- 1.5 -- 1.0

21 or more -- 2.2 -- 1.7**

Prior sexual victimization

Yes 5.8%** 6.8%** 5.1%** 5.7%**

No* 0.7 1.4 0.5 1.0
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09 19

rates of sexual victimization have been 

calculated for each of the high rate 

facilities. 

These predicted rates take into 

account the underlying inmate risk 

factors and the variations in the distribution of inmates within each of the 

facilities. At the facility level, the difference between the predicted rate and 

observed rate represents the percent 

not accounted for by variations in inmate characteristics. (See Methodology

for facility-level calculations.)

Table 12 (continued) 

Final multivariate logistic models of sexual victimization in prisons and jails, 

by type of incident, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09

Predicted percent of prison 

inmates reporting 

sexual victimizationa

Predicted percent of jail 

inmates reporting 

sexual victimizationa

Inmate characteristic

Inmate-oninmateStaff sexual 

misconduct

Inmate-oninmateStaff sexual 

misconduct

Criminal justice status/history 

characteristics

Most serious offense

Violent sexual offense* 1.5% 1.5% 0.9% --

Other violent offense 1.0** 2.0 0.7 --

Property 1.4 2.3** 0.8 --

Drug 0.4** 1.2 0.5** --

Other 1.0 2.1 0.7 --

Sentence lengthf

Less than 1 year 0.9% 0.7% -- --

1-5 years* 0.8 1.4 -- --

5-10 years 1.0 1.8 -- --

10-20 years 0.7 1.6 -- --

20 years or more 1.2 2.9** -- --

Life/death 1.3 3.0** -- --

Time in a correctional facility prior to 

current facility

0 months* -- 1.7% -- 0.9%

1-5 months -- 1.6 -- 1.1

6-11 months -- 1.0** -- 1.2

1-5 years -- 1.7 -- 1.5**

5 years or more -- 2.3 -- 1.9**

Number of times arrested

1 time* -- -- 1.0% 1.5%

2-3 times -- -- 0.6** 1.2

4-10 times -- -- 0.6** 1.1

11 or more times -- -- 0.8 1.7

Time since admission

Less than 1 month* -- -- 0.4% 1.0%

1-5 months -- -- 0.8** 1.3**

6-11 months -- -- 1.0** 1.7**

1-5 years -- -- 1.2** 1.9**

5 years or more -- -- 3.4** 2.6

Note: See appendix table 10 for Wald statistics and tests of significance for each inmate characteristic.

--Characteristic deleted from model when Wald statistic was not significant at the 95%-confidence level. 

*Comparison group.

**Difference with comparison group is signficant at 95%-confidence level. (See Methodology for tests of significance.) 

aConditional predicted percent of inmates reporting one or more incidents of sexual victimization involving another 

inmate or facility staff in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if less than 12 months.

bExcludes persons of Hispanic or Latino origin. 

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

dIncludes persons with an associate degree. 

eWeight quartiles are defined by sex. Men: 1st quartile - 60 to 168 lbs.; 2nd quartile - 169 to 186 lbs.; 3rd quartile - 187 to 

209 lbs.; 4th quartile - 210 to 700 lbs. Women: 1st quartile - 65 to 144 lbs.; 2nd quartile - 145 to 166 lbs.; 3rd quartile - 167 

to 194 lbs.; 4th quartile: 195 to 450 lbs.

f

Sentence length is the total maximum sentence to prison for all sentences for which an inmate was currently serving. 

Sentence length for jail inmates is not included in the models.

Logistic regression models

Multivariate logistic regression 

estimation is a modeling technique 

used to determine what characteristics are statistically significant for 

predicting a dichotomous outcome 

(e.g., victimized or not victimized) 

while controlling for all the other 

characteristics in the model. NIS-2 

used this technique to determine 

what inmate-level characteristics 

were significant predictors of 

inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization and staff sexual misconduct.

In each of the logistic regression models, the conditional predicted probability represents the 

probability that an inmate with a 

particular characteristic has experienced sexual victimization (by 

type) conditional on the inmate 

having the mean value for all 

other predictors in the model. For 

example, based on demographic 

characteristics only, a female 

prison inmate has a 3.8% chance 

of being victimized by another 

inmate given that she was at the 

mean of the joint distribution of 

race or Hispanic origin, education 

level, and marital status. (See table 

7 and note 2 on page 13.) (See 

Methodology for full discussion on 

logistic regression models.)
20 August 2010

Among high rate male prisons, the 

observed rate of inmate-on-inmate 

sexual victimization was 6.7%, while 

the predicted rate was 3.6% (table 13). 

Among high rate female prisons, the 

observed rate was 11.6%, while the 

predicted rate was 8.0%. Among high 

rate jails, the observed rate was 4.9%, 

while the predicted rate was 1.9%.

Similar patterns are found for rates 

of staff sexual misconduct among the 

high rate facilities. In the 4 high rate 

male prisons, the observed rate of staff 

sexual misconduct was 7.8%, while 

the predicted rate was 4.1% (table 14). 

In the 2 high rate female prisons, the 

observed rate was 8.1%, while the predicted rate was 2.6%. In the 5 high rate 

jails, the observed rate was 7.4%, while 

the predicted rate was 2.6%.

These data suggest that rates among 

the 16 facilities with high rates of 

inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization 

and the 11 facilities with high rates of 

staff sexual misconduct are only partially explained by variation in inmate 

demographic characteristics, sexual 

orientation and past sexual experience, 

and criminal justice status and history.

Differences between the observed 

and predicted rates were statistically 

significant at the 95% level of confidence in only 3 of the 16 facilities 

with high rates of inmate-on-inmate 

sexual victimization and in 1 of the 

11 facilities with high rates of staff 

sexual misconduct. However, the 

tests for statistical significance within 

each facility were limited by the small 

number of surveyed inmates for whom 

the predicted and observed rates of 

victimization differed. When the 

Table 13

Estimated and predicted rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual 

victimization in high-rate prisons and jails, National Inmate 

Survey, 2008-09

Percent of inmates reporting inmate-oninmate sexual vicimization

Facility name Estimateda Predictedb Difference

High rate prisons

Male prisons 6.7% 3.6% 3.1%**

Hughes Unit (TX) 8.6 5.1 3.5

Allred Unit (TX) 7.6 3.8 3.8

Pontiac Corr. Ctr. (IL) 6.9 2.6 4.4

Plainfield Corr. Fac. (IN) 6.1 3.3 2.8

Michael Unit (TX) 6.1 5.7 0.4

Maine State Prison - Warren (ME) 5.9 4.8 1.1

California Med. Fac. (CA) 5.8 2.7 3.1**

Pleasant Valley State Prison (CA) 5.5 2.1 3.4**

Female prisons 11.6% 8.0% 3.6%**

Taycheedah Corr. Inst. (WI)c 11.9 8.8 3.1

Fluvanna Corr. Ctr. (VA)c 11.4 7.3 4.1

High rate jails 4.9% 1.9% 3.1%**

Orleans Parish - South White Street 

Jail (LA)c 7.5 3.3 4.3

Madison Co. Det. Fac. (AL) 5.5 1.8 3.7**

Miami-Dade Co. - Pre-trial Det. Ctr. (FL) 5.1 1.9 3.2

Houston Co. Jail (AL) 4.0 1.9 2.1

Jefferson Co. Jail (MO) 4.0 1.0 3.0

Madison Co. Det. Ctr. (IN) 3.9 1.6 2.4

Note: High rate facilities are those in which the lower bound of the 95%-confidence interval 

is larger than 1.55 times the average among prisons, by sex of inmates housed, and 1.55 

times the average among all jail facilities. 

**Significant at the 95% confidence level.

aPercent of inmates reporting one or more incidents of sexual victimization in the past 12 

months or since admission to the facility, if less than 12 months.

bConditional predicted percent of inmates (based on the final multivariate logistic models 

in table 12) reporting one or more incidents of sexual victimization involving another 

inmate or facility staff in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if less than 

12 months.

cFacility houses only female inmates.

Table 14

Estimated and predicted rates of staff sexual misconduct in 

high-rate prisons and jails, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09

Percent of inmates reporting staff 

sexual misconduct

Facility name Estimateda Predictedb Difference

High rate prisons

Male prisons 7.8% 4.1% 3.7%**

Crossroads Corr. Fac. (MO) 8.2 4.8 3.4

Attica Corr. Fac. (NY) 8.1 4.1 4.0

Elmira Corr. Fac. (NY) 7.7 3.9 3.8

Ferguson Unit (TX) 7.6 3.9 3.7

Female prisons 8.1% 2.6% 5.5%**

Fluvanna Corr. Ctr. (VA)c 6.0 2.9 3.1

Bayview Corr. Fac. (NY)c 11.5 2.1 9.4**

High rate jails 7.4% 2.6% 4.8%**

Caroline Co. Jail (MD) 10.0 3.1 6.9

Eastern Shore Regional Jail (VA) 9.9 3.1 6.8

Clallam Co. Corr. Fac. (WA) 6.1 1.9 4.1

Orleans Co. Jail (NY) 5.6 1.9 3.7

Cook Co. Jail - Division 6 (IL) 5.5 2.8 2.7

Note: High rate facilities are those in which the lower bound of the 95%-confidence 

interval is larger than 1.55 times the average among prisons, by sex of inmates housed, 

and 1.55 times the average among all jail facilities. 

**Significant at the 95%-confidence level.

aPercent of inmates reporting one or more incidents of sexual victimization in the past 

12 months or since admission to the facility, if less than 12 months.

bConditional predicted percent of inmates (based on the final multivariate logistic 

models in table 12) reporting one or more incidents of sexual victimization involving 

another inmate or facility staff in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if 

less than 12 months.

cFacility houses only female inmates.
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09 21

number of inmates in all high rate 

male prisons, female prisons, and jails 

were combined, the differences were 

found to be statistically significant. 

With the exception of 2 facilities—the 

Michael Unit (in Texas) and Maine 

State Prison - Warren—the differences 

between the observed and predicted 

rates were large relative to the average 

rates of sexual victimization among 

male prisons, female prisons, and jails 

nationwide.

Inmate-on-Inmate Victimization

Reports of inmate-on-inmate sexual 

victimization differed among males 

and females by type of facility 

Among inmates who reported 

inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization 

in state and federal prisons—

 Males (16%) were more likely 

than females (6%) to have been 

victimized 11 or more times in the 

last 12 months, or since admission if 

less than 12 months (table 15).

 Males were more likely than females 

to report having been bribed or 

blackmailed to take part in the 

sexual activity (42% compared 

to 26%), offered protection (39% 

compared to 19%), or threatened 

with harm or a weapon (48% 

compared to 30%). 

 Males were more likely than females 

to report more than one perpetrator 

(25% compared to 11%), that 

the perpetrator was of Hispanic 

or Latino origin (24% compared 

to 16%), and that one or more 

incidents were initiated by a gang 

(20% compared to 4%).

Among victims of inmate-oninmate sexual violence in jails—

 Females were more likely than 

males to have been victimized only 

once (56% compared to 36%) and 

less likely to have been victimized 

11 or more times (9% compared to 

20%). 

 Males were more likely than females 

to report all forms of pressure or 

force (except for being persuaded or 

talked into it). 

 Males were more likely than females 

to report more than one perpetrator 

(43% compared to 16%), that 

the perpetrator was of Hispanic 

or Latino origin (37% compared 

to 17%), and that one or more 

incidents were initiated by a gang 

(36% compared to 6%).

Table 15

Experiences of victims of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization, by type of facility 

and sex of victim, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09

Victims in prison Victims in jail

Experiences Male* Female Male* Female

Number of victims 25,312 4,774 8,611 3,023

Number of incidentsa

1 35.2% 41.6% 35.8% 55.8%**

2 18.1 27.1 15.4 16.0

3 to 5 16.7 15.9 10.5 13.1

6 to 10 13.8 10.0 18.0 5.8**

11 or more 16.2 5.5** 20.3 9.4**

Type of pressure or forceb

Persuaded/talked into it 46.7% 53.8% 43.3% 38.1% 

Bribed/blackmailed 41.7 25.7** 47.9 19.1**

Given drugs 18.5 9.5** 25.5 4.4**

Offered protection 38.6 18.9** 39.9 18.3**

Offered to settle debt 13.7 4.0** 19.3 6.2**

Threatened with harm/weapon 48.1 29.5** 57.5 16.2**

Physically held down/restrained 24.3 23.3 40.5 19.7**

Physically harmed/injured 18.1 13.0 31.9 8.8**

Victimized by more than one perpetrator

Yes 24.7% 10.8%** 42.5% 16.0%**

Hispanic/Latino origin of perpetrator(s)

Yes 23.8% 15.9%** 37.1% 17.0%**

Race of perpetrator(s)b

White 38.9% 36.5% 46.2% 35.0% 

Black 64.6 60.4 59.2 60.6

American Indian/Native Alaskan 7.4 7.5 17.0 5.6**

Other 6.3 5.7 20.0 3.9**

Was any incident initiated by a gang?

Yes 19.9% 4.2%** 36.0% 6.3%**

*Comparison group.

**Significant at the 95%-confidence level, when compared to male victims.

aIncludes the number of sexual acts (i.e., hand job, oral/vaginal/anal sex) reported by inmate in the last 12 months or since 

admission to the facility, if less than 12 months. 

bDetail sums to more than 100% because some inmates reported more than one incident or reported more than one type 

of pressure or force during an incident.
22 August 2010

Inmate-on-inmate victimization 

occurred most often in the victim’s cell 

between 6 pm and midnight 

 Among inmates who reported 

inmate-on-inmate sexual 

victimization, males were much 

more likely than females to 

experience sexual victimization 

by another inmate within the first 

24 hours after admission. Among 

inmates reporting victimization 

by another inmate, 13% of male 

prison inmates and 19% of male jail 

inmates said they were victimized 

within the first 24 hours, compared 

to 4% of female inmates in prison 

and jail (table 16).

 In both prisons and jails inmateon-inmate victimization was 

most commonly reported to 

have occurred between 6 pm and 

midnight. More than 40% of male 

and female victims reported this 

time period.

 In both prisons and jails inmateon-inmate victimization was 

most commonly reported to have 

occurred in the victim’s cell or 

sleeping area. Among victims 

in prison, more than half of the 

male and female victims reported 

an incident in their cell. Among 

victims in jail, 63% of male victims 

and 43% of female victims reported 

at least one incident occurred in 

their cell or sleeping area.

 Among inmates who reported 

inmate-on-inmate sexual 

victimization in jail, 37% of males 

reported being injured, compared to 

8% of females. In prison, males and 

females were almost equally as likely 

to report being injured (21% and 

17%, respectively) during the sexual 

victimization.

 Male and female inmates who 

experienced inmate-on-inmate 

sexual victimization in prisons 

and jails most commonly reported 

sustaining bruises, scratches, cuts, 

and other minor injuries. Among 

victims in prison, anal or vaginal 

tearing was reported by nearly 10% 

of males and 6% of females. Among 

victims in jails, anal or vaginal 

tearing was reported by 21% of 

males and 3% of females.

Table 16

Circumstances surrounding inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization, by type of 

facility and sex of victim, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09

Victims in prison Victims in jail

Circumstance Male* Female Male* Female

Number of victims 25,312 4,774 8,611 3,023

When first happeneda

Within 24 hours of admission 13.1% 4.1%** 19.2% 4.3%**

1 to 3 days 12.3 6.4** 18.4 16.9

4 to 30 days 25.3 23.8 33.5 39.9

More than 30 days 49.4 65.7** 28.9 39.0

Time of dayb

6 am to noon 29.7% 17.0%** 30.6% 12.0%**

Noon to 6 pm 34.7 32.3 37.6 28.4

6 pm to midnight 47.4 52.0 44.9 42.4

Midnight to 6 am 28.4 32.1 40.9 20.0**

Where occurredb

In victim’s cell/sleeping area 51.1% 53.4% 62.8% 43.2%**

In other inmate’s cell/room 33.2 26.8 41.8 31.4

Elsewhere in the facility

Closet/locked office 13.4% 14.4% 19.8% 2.3%**

Workshop/kitchen 19.2 17.1 14.6 1.9**

Shower/bathroom 29.5 33.9 27.4 13.3**

Classroom/library 11.2 3.2** 11.5 3.2**

Yard/recreation area 21.8 24.2 15.7 9.6

On the stairs 11.0 5.3** 13.6 2.9**

Off facility groundsc 4.8 3.7 13.3 3.3**

Ever injuredb

Yes 20.7% 17.2% 37.2% 8.2%**

Knife/stab wound 4.6 1.0** 9.5 1.4**

Broken nose 3.9 1.4 12.9 0.4**

Anal/vaginal tearing 9.7 6.3 21.2 2.8**

Chipped teeth 5.7 2.6 19.7 2.1**

Internal injuries 7.1 2.2** 16.0 1.3**

Knocked unconscious 8.6 3.2** 21.2 0.7**

Bruises, scratches, cuts 14.1 15.2 30.7 7.5**

Ever report an incident

Yes 23.6% 18.4% 31.3% 15.4%**

*Comparison group.

**Significant at the 95%-confidence level, when compared to male victims. 

aInmate report of when the first victimization at the facility occurred.

bDetail sums to more than 100% because some inmates reported more than one victimization.

cIncludes in a bus, van, or car and at a courthouse, temporary holding facility, or medical facility.
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09 23

Staff Sexual Misconduct

Most victims of staff sexual 

misconduct in prisons and jails 

reported at least one incident that 

involved pressure, force, or threat of 

force

 Among victims in prison, male 

victims of staff sexual misconduct 

(64%) were more likely than female 

victims (30%) to report incidents 

that involved no pressure or force 

(table 17). A similar pattern was 

reported by victims in jail, with an 

estimated 56% of male victims and 

31% of female victims reporting one 

or more incidents that involved no 

pressure or force by staff.

 Nearly 82% of the female victims 

in prison said they were pressured 

by staff to engage in sexual activity, 

compared to 55% of male victims in 

prison.

 In both prisons and jails, male 

victims were more likely than 

female victims to report that 

the first incident of staff sexual 

misconduct occurred within the 

first 24 hours following admission 

to the facility. Nearly 16% of male 

victims in prison and 30% of the 

male victims in jail said they were 

victimized within the first 24 hours, 

compared to 5% of the female 

victims in prison and 4% of female 

victims in jail.

 In prisons, both male and female 

victims reported that the staff sexual 

misconduct was most likely to have 

occurred in a closet or locked office, 

the victim’s cell or sleeping area, or 

the shower or bathroom area. 

 In jails, 45% of male victims and 

24% of female victims identified a 

closet or locked office as the most 

common area in which the staff 

sexual misconduct occurred. 

 Among victims of staff sexual 

misconduct in jail, 17% of male 

victims and 8% of female victims 

reported they had been injured 

during the incident. 

 Among victims of staff sexual 

misconduct in prison, 9% of males 

and 19% of females said they had 

been injured by staff; however, 

the difference was not statistically 

significant.

Table 17

Circumstances surrounding incidents of staff sexual misconduct, by type of facility 

and sex of victim, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09

Victims in prison Victims in jails

Circumstance Male* Female Male* Female 

Number of victims 39,121 2,123 14,334 1,485

Number of incidentsa

1 24.9% 32.1% 23.9% 38.9%**

2 20.5 19.2 21.9 26.2

3 to 5 17.4 19.3 13.3 19.0

6 to 10 16.7 15.5 14.2 10.1

11 or more 20.5 13.9 26.7 5.8**

Type of coercion or forceb

Without pressure or force 64.1% 29.8%** 56.3% 31.0%**

Pressured 54.8 81.9** 61.7 70.1

Force/threat of force 35.4 38.8 51.4 47.4

When first happenedc

Within 24 hours of admission 15.8% 5.0%** 30.4% 4.2%**

1 to 3 days 11.3 13.8 14.6 19.9

4 to 30 days 25.7 12.6** 27.8 42.4

More than 30 days 47.2 68.5** 27.2 33.4

Time of dayb

6 am to noon 34.3% 31.1% 31.1% 32.9% 

Noon to 6 pm 32.5 32.9 27.8 18.9

6 pm to midnight 34.8 29.5 34.6 16.5**

Midnight to 6 am 36.8 29.1 52.2 35.3**

Where occurredb

In victim’s cell/sleeping area 36.2% 32.4% 39.1% 21.1%**

Elsewhere in the facility

Closet/locked office 51.6% 44.3% 44.6% 24.3%**

Workshop/kitchen 31.7 36.8 23.0 9.6**

Shower/bathroom 30.6 28.2 29.1 7.3**

Classroom/library 17.5 7.6** 18.7 9.2**

Yard/recreation area 12.7 9.3 13.2 11.9

Other common aread 19.9 19.8 22.4 13.1

Off facility groundse 7.0 2.8** 15.0 11.6

Ever injured

Yes 9.3% 19.2% 17.4% 7.5%**

Ever report an incident

Yes 20.6% 34.7%** 20.6% 19.6% 

*Comparison group.

**Significant at the 95%-confidence level, when compared to male victims.

aNumber of reported willing and unwilling incidents of sexual misconduct.

bDetail sums to more than 100% because some inmates reported more than one victimization.

cBased only on victims reporting incidents involving force, threat of force, or pressure.

dIncludes another inmate’s cell/room and stairs.

eIncludes in a bus, van, or car and at a courthouse, temporary holding facility, or medical facility.
24 August 2010

Most victims and perpetrators of 

staff sexual misconduct were of the 

opposite sex

Among the 39,121 male prison 

inmates who had been victims of staff 

sexual misconduct, 69% reported 

sexual activity with female staff; an 

additional 16% reported sexual activity 

with both female and male staff (table 

18). In comparison, among the 2,123 

female prison inmates who had been 

victimized, 72% reported that the staff 

perpetrator was male; an additional 

19% reported both male and female 

staff.

Similar patterns of staff sexual misconduct were reported by jail inmates. 

Nearly two-thirds of the male jail 

inmates who had been victimized said 

the staff perpetrator was female (64%). 

About the same percentage (63%) of 

female victims said the perpetrator was 

a male staff member at the jail.

Reports of staff sexual misconduct 

were linked to strip searches and pat 

downs

Victims of staff sexual misconduct 

were asked if they touched a facility 

staff person’s body or had their body 

touched in a sexual way. Regardless of 

whether they had wanted it to occur or 

not, nearly two-thirds of all victims of 

staff sexual misconduct in prison and 

jail reported at least one incident of 

sexual touching. An estimated 38,270 

inmates reported such touching in 

the last 12 months or since admission 

to the facility, if less than 12 months 

(table 19). At least 4 of every 10 of 

these victims said that this had happened at least once as part of a strip 

search or a pat down. Among victims 

of sexual touching, male inmates (43%) 

were as likely as female inmates (40%) 

to report staff sexual misconduct as 

part of a strip search or pat down.

The majority of victims said they 

had also touched staff or been touched 

by staff in a sexual way outside of a 

strip search or pat down. An estimated 

86% of male victims and 91% of female 

victims in prisons and jails said that 

this had happened at least once outside 

of a strip search or pat down. 

Table 19

Sexual touching between inmates and staff during and not during strip searches 

and pat downs, by sex of victim, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09

Prison and jail inmates reporting staff sexual touchinga

All Male Female

Number of victims 38,270 35,887 2,383

All incidentsb

Part of strip search/pat down 42.7% 42.9% 40.0% 

Strip search 30.8 30.8 30.0

Pat down 36.4 36.3 36.7

Not part of a strip search/pat down 86.1% 85.8% 90.8% 

Not during strip search 78.4 78.0 84.1

Not during pat down 75.7 75.7 77.2

aInmates being touched or touching a facility staff’s body “in a sexual way.”

bDetail sums to more than 100% because some inmates reported more than one victimization.

Table 18

Sex of perpetrator of staff sexual misconduct, by facility type and sex of victim, 

National Inmate Survey, 2008-09

Victims in prison Victims in jail

Male* Female Male* Female

Number of victims 39,121 2,123 14,334 1,485

Sex of perpetrator(s)

Male only 14.9% 71.8%** 18.2% 62.6%**

Female only 68.8 9.3** 64.3 27.7**

Both male and female 16.3 18.9 17.5 9.8

Note: Sex of staff perpetrator was reported for 69% of prison inmates and 66% of jail inmates reporting staff sexual 

misconduct.

*Comparison group.

**Significant at the 95%-confidence level, when compared to male victims.
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09 25

Appendix 1. Survey items related to inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09

Males

E16. During the last 12 months, did 

another inmate use physical force to 

touch your butt, thighs, or penis in a 

sexual way?

E17. During the last 12 months, did 

another inmate, without using physical 

force, pressure you or make you feel 

that you had to let them touch your 

butt, thighs, or penis in a sexual way?

E22. During the last 12 months, did 

another inmate use physical force to 

make you give or receive a hand job?

E23. During the last 12 months, did 

another inmate, without using physical 

force, pressure you or make you feel 

that you had to give or receive a hand 

job?

E26. During the last 12 months, did 

another inmate use physical force to 

make you give or receive oral sex or a 

blow job?

E27. During the last 12 months, did 

another inmate, without using physical 

force, pressure you or make you feel 

that you had to give or receive oral sex 

or a blow job?

E32. During the last 12 months, did 

another inmate use physical force to 

make you have anal sex?

E33. During the last 12 months, did 

another inmate, without using physical 

force, pressure you or make you feel 

that you had to have anal sex?

E34. During the last 12 months, did 

another inmate use physical force 

to make you have any type of sex or 

sexual contact other than sexual touching, hand jobs, oral sex or blow jobs, or 

anal sex?

E35. During the last 12 months, did 

another inmate, without using physical 

force, pressure you or make you feel 

that you had to have any type of sex or 

sexual contact other than sexual touching, hand jobs, oral sex or blow jobs, or 

anal sex?

Females

E18. During the last 12 months, did 

another inmate use physical force to 

touch your butt, thighs, breasts, or 

vagina in a sexual way?

E19. During the last 12 months, did 

another inmate, without using physical 

force, pressure you or make you feel 

that you had to let them touch your 

butt, thighs, breasts, or vagina in a 

sexual way?

E24. During the last 12 months, did 

another inmate use physical force to 

make you give or receive oral sex?

E25. During the last 12 months, did 

another inmate, without using physical 

force, pressure you or make you feel 

that you had to give or receive oral sex?

E28. During the last 12 months, did 

another inmate use physical force to 

make you have vaginal sex?

E29. During the last 12 months, did 

another inmate, without using physical 

force, pressure you or make you feel 

that you had to have vaginal sex?

E32. During the last 12 months, did 

another inmate use physical force to 

make you have anal sex?

E33. During the last 12 months, did 

another inmate, without using physical 

force, pressure you or make you feel 

that you had to have anal sex?

E34. During the last 12 months, did 

another inmate use physical force 

to make you have any type of sex or 

sexual contact other than sexual touching, oral sex, vaginal sex, or anal sex?

E35. During the last 12 months, did 

another inmate, without using physical 

force, pressure you or make you feel 

that you had to have any type of sex or 

sexual contact other than sexual touching, oral sex, vaginal sex, or anal sex?
26 August 2010

Appendix 2. Survey items related to staff sexual misconduct, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09

These next questions are about the 

behavior of staff at this facility during the last 12 months. By staff we 

mean the employees of this facility and 

anybody who works as a volunteer in 

this facility.

G4. During the last 12 months, have 

any facility staff pressured you or made 

you feel that you had to let them have 

sex or sexual contact with you?

G5. During the last 12 months, have you 

been physically forced by any facility staff 

to have sex or sexual contact?

G7. During the last 12 months, have 

any facility staff offered you favors or 

special privileges in exchange for sex 

or sexual contact?

G2. During the last 12 months, have 

you willingly had sex or sexual contact 

with any facility staff?

G11. [IF G2 OR G4 OR G5 OR G7 = 

Yes] During the last 12 months, which 

of the following types of sex or sexual 

contact did you have with a facility 

staff person?

G11a. You touched a facility staff person’s body or had your body touched 

in a sexual way.

G11b. You gave or received a hand job.

G11c. You gave or received oral sex or 

a blow job.

G11d. You had vaginal sex.

G11e. You had anal sex.

Appendix 3. Follow-up questions for inmates reporting no sexual activity, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09

Follow-up questions for inmates 

reporting no sexual activity in the 

screener questions for sexual activity 

with inmates:

LCM1. During the last 12 months, 

did another inmate use physical force, 

pressure you, or make you feel that you 

had to have any type of sex or sexual 

contact?

LCM2. How long has it been since 

another inmate in this facility used 

physical force, pressured you, or made 

you feel that you had to have any type 

of sex or sexual contact?

1. Within the past 7 days

2. More than 7 days ago but within the 

past 30 days

3. More than 30 days ago but within 

the past 12 months

4. More than 12 months ago

5. This has not happened to me at this 

facility

LCM3.

[If Male] During the last 12 months, 

did another inmate use physical force, 

pressure you, or make you feel that you 

had to have oral or anal sex? 

[If Female] During the last 12 months, 

did another inmate use physical force, 

pressure you, or make you feel that you 

had to have oral, vaginal, or anal sex?

LCM4.

[If Male] How long has it been since 

another inmate in this facility used 

physical force, pressured you, or made 

you feel that you had to have oral or 

anal sex?

[If Female] How long has it been since 

another inmate in this facility used 

physical force, pressured you, or made 

you feel that you had to have oral, 

vaginal, or anal sex?

Follow-up questions for inmates 

reporting no sexual activity in the 

screener questions for sexual activity 

with staff:

LCM5. During the last 12 months, 

have you had any sex or sexual contact 

with staff in this facility whether you 

wanted to have it or not?

LCM6. How long has it been since you 

had any sex or sexual contact with staff 

in this facility whether you wanted to 

or not?

1. Within the past 7 days

2. More than 7 days ago but within the 

past 30 days

3. More than 30 days ago but within 

the past 12 months

4. More than 12 months ago

5. This has not happened to me at this 

facility

LCM7.

[If Male]In the last 12 months, did you 

have oral, vaginal, or anal sex with any 

staff at this facility whether you wanted 

to or not?

[If Female] In the last 12 months, did 

you have oral, vaginal, or anal sex with 

any staff at this facility whether you 

wanted to or not?

LCM8.

[If Male] How long has it been since 

you had oral, vaginal, or anal sex with 

any staff at this facility whether you 

wanted to or not?

[If Female] How long has it been since 

you had oral, vaginal, or anal sex with 

any staff at this facility whether you 

wanted to or not?
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09 27

Methodology

The National Inmate Survey, 2008-09 (NIS-2) was 

conducted in 167 state and federal prisons between 

October 13, 2008, and March 11, 2009; 286 jails 

between January 20, 2009, and August 13, 2009; and 10 

special (military, Indian country, and Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement (ICE)) facilities between May 11, 

2009, and December 17, 2009. The data were collected by 

RTI International under a cooperative agreement with the 

Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). The NIS-2 comprised 

two questionnaires—a survey of sexual victimization and a 

survey of past drug and alcohol use and treatment. Inmates 

were randomly assigned to receive one of the questionnaires so that at the time of the interview the content of the 

survey remained unknown to facility staff and the interviewers. A total of 81,566 inmates participated in the survey, including 32,029 inmates in state and federal prisons, 

48,066 inmates in jails, 399 inmates in military facilities, 

115 inmates in Indian country jails, and 957 inmates in 

facilities operated by ICE. 

The interviews, which averaged 25 minutes in length, 

used computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI) and 

audio computer-assisted self-interviewing (ACASI) data 

collection methods. For approximately the first two minutes, survey interviewers conducted a personal interview 

using CAPI to obtain background information and date of 

admission to the facility. For the remainder of the interview, respondents interacted with a computer-administered 

questionnaire using a touch-screen and synchronized audio 

instructions delivered via headphones. Respondents completed the ACASI portion of the interview in private, with 

the interviewer either leaving the room or moving away 

from the computer. 

A shorter paper questionnaire was made available for 

inmates who were unable to come to the private interviewing room or interact with the computer. The paper form 

was completed by 496 prison inmates (or 1.5% of all prison 

interviews), 226 jail inmates (0.5%), and 4 military inmates 

(1%). Most of these inmates were housed in administrative 

or disciplinary segregation or were considered too violent 

to be interviewed. No inmates in Indian country or ICE 

facilities completed the paper questionnaire.

Before the interview, inmates were informed verbally 

and in writing that participation was voluntary and that all 

information provided would be held in confidence. Interviews were conducted in either English (98% in prisons, 

95% in jails, 40% in ICE facilities, and 100% in military and 

Indian country facilities) or Spanish (2% in prisons, 5% in 

jails, and 60% in ICE facilities). 

Selection of state and federal prisons

A sample of 171 state and federal prisons was drawn 

to produce a sample representing approximately 10% of 

the 1,260 state and 192 federal adult confinement facilities 

identified in the 2005 Census of State and Federal Adult

Correctional Facilities. The 2005 census was a complete 

enumeration of state prisons, including all publicly operated and privately operated facilities under contract to state 

correctional authorities. The NIS-2 was restricted to confinement facilities—institutions in which fewer than 50% 

of the inmates were regularly permitted to leave, unaccompanied by staff, for work, study, or treatment. Such facilities 

included prisons, penitentiaries, prison hospitals, prison 

farms, boot camps, and centers for reception, classification, or alcohol and drug treatment. The NIS-2 excluded 

community-based facilities, such as halfway houses, group 

homes, and work release centers. Based on estimates from 

2008 National Prisoner Statistics, the prisons in the study 

universe held an estimated 1,267,400 state and 190,300 

federal inmates age 18 or older on June 30, 2008.

State and federal confinement facilities were sequentially sampled with probabilities of selection proportionate to size (as measured by the number of inmates held in 

state prisons on December 30, 2005, and in federal prisons 

on September 28, 2006). Facilities on the sampling frame 

were stratified by gender of inmates housed. The measures 

of size for facilities that participated in NIS-1 in 2007 were 

reduced to lower their probability of selection in NIS-2. 

(See page 32 for a listing of NIS-1 reports.) Within each 

stratum, facilities on the sampling frame were first sorted 

by region, state, and public or private operation. The sample 

size for facilities housing only female inmates was set to 36 

facilities to ensure a sufficient number of women and allow 

for meaningful analyses of sexual victimization by gender. 

Facilities were sampled ensuring that at least one facility 

in every state was selected. Federal facilities were grouped 

together and treated like a state for sampling purposes. The 

remaining facilities were selected from each region with 

probabilities proportionate to size.

Of the 171 selected prison facilities, 4 were deemed ineligible and excluded from the survey for the following reasons:

 Albion Correctional Facility (NY)—Ongoing 

litigation.

 Robert Scott Correctional Facility (MI)—Ongoing 

litigation.

 Dinwiddie Correctional Unit (VA)—Closed prior to 

the start of data collection.

 Waseca FCI (BOP)—Transitioned from holding males 

to females during the data collection period (treated 

as a closed facility).
28 August 2010

All other selected prison facilities participated fully in 

the survey.

Selection of inmates within prisons

The number of inmates sampled in each facility varied 

based on 6 criteria:

 an expected sexual victimization prevalence rate of 

4%.

 a desired level of precision based on a standard error 

of 1.75%.

 a projected 70% response rate among selected 

inmates.

 a 5% chance among participating inmates of not 

receiving the sexual victimization questionnaire.

 an adjustment factor of 1.75 to account for the 

complex survey design.

 the size of the facility.

A roster of inmates was obtained just prior to the start 

of interviewing at each facility. Inmates under age 18 and 

inmates expected to be released prior to data collection 

were deleted from the roster. Each eligible inmate was assigned a random number and sorted in ascending order. 

Inmates were selected from the list up to the expected number of inmates determined by the sampling criteria.

A total of 46,189 prison inmates were selected. After 

selection, 1,302 ineligible inmates were excluded—936 

(2%) were released or transferred to another facility before 

interviewing began, 246 (0.5%) were mentally or physically unable to be interviewed, 13 (0.02%) were under age 

18 or their age could not be obtained during the interview 

process, 11 (0.02%) were selected in error (i.e., an inmate 

was incorrectly listed on the facility roster), and 96 (0.2%) 

were on unsupervised work release or only served time on 

weekends.

Of all selected eligible prison inmates, 23% refused 

to participate in the survey, 2% were not available to be 

interviewed (e.g., in court, in medical segregation, determined by the facility to be too violent to be interviewed, or 

restricted from participation by another legal jurisdiction), 

and 2% were not interviewed due to survey logistics (e.g., 

language barriers, releases, or transfers to another facility 

after interviewing began).

Overall, 32,029 prison inmates participated in the 

survey, yielding a response rate of 71%. Approximately 95% 

of the participating inmates (29,954) received the sexual 

assault survey. (See appendix table 1 for the number of 

participating inmates in each prison facility.)

Selection of jail facilities

A sample of 320 jails was drawn to represent approximately 10% of the 3,007 jail facilities identified in the Census of Jail Inmates, 2005. The 2005 census was a complete 

enumeration of all jail jurisdictions, including all publicly 

operated and privately operated facilities under contract to 

jail authorities. The NIS-2 was restricted to jails that had 

five or more inmates on June 30, 2005. Based on estimates 

from the Annual Survey of Jails, 2008, these jails held an 

estimated 777,200 inmates age 18 or older on June 30, 2008.

Jail facilities were sequentially sampled with probabilities of selection proportionate to size (as measured by the 

number of inmates held on June 30, 2005). Eight facilities 

that were unable to participate in NIS-1 were selected with 

certainty, while the measures of size of facilities that participated in NIS-1 were reduced to give them a lower probability of selection. The remaining facilities were stratified such 

that facilities in each of the 10 largest jail jurisdictions were 

placed into strata; all other facilities were placed in a single 

stratum. Within the large jurisdiction stratum, 3 facilities 

were selected from the 5 largest jurisdictions with probability proportionate to size, and 2 facilities were selected from 

the next 5 largest jurisdictions with probability proportion 

to size. Facilities in the second stratum were first sorted by 

region, state, and public or private operation. Facilities were 

sampled to ensure that at least one jail facility in every state 

was selected. The remaining jail facilities were selected from 

each region with probabilities proportionate to size. 

Of the 320 selected jails in NIS-2, 10 facilities refused to 

participate:

 Baldwin Co. Corrections Center (AL)

 Marengo Co. Detention Center (AL)

 Merced Co. Jail (CA) 

 Columbia Co. Detention Center (FL)

 Pike Co. Law Enforcement Center (IN)

 Flathead Co. Detention Center (MT)

 Rutherford Co. Jail (NC)

 Monmouth Co. Correctional Institution (NJ)

 Hildalgo Co. Detention Center (TX)

 Kenosha Co. Jail (WI).

Nine facilities were unable to participate due to lack of 

space, staffing shortages, or construction, but expect to be 

included in NIS-3 (to be conducted in 2011). Fifteen facilities were determined to be ineligible: 7 had closed, 4 were 

community-based facilities, 2 had fewer than 5 inmates, 

and 2 were prisons. All other selected jail facilities participated fully in the survey.

Selection of inmates within jails

The number of inmates sampled in each facility varied 

based on 6 criteria:

 an expected prevalence rate of sexual victimization of 

3%.

 a desired level of precision based on a standard error 

of 1.4%.

 a projected 65% response rate among selected inmates.
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09 29

 a 5% chance among participating inmates of not 

receiving the sexual victimization questionnaire.

 an adjustment factor of 1.75 to account for the 

complex survey design. 

 a pre-arraignment adjustment factor equal to 1 in 

facilities where the status was known for all inmates 

and less than 1 in facilities where only the overall 

proportion of inmates who were pre-arraigned was 

known.

A roster of inmates was obtained just prior to the start 

of interviewing at each facility. Inmates under age 18 and 

inmates who had not been arraigned were removed from 

the roster. Each eligible inmate was assigned a random 

number and sorted in ascending order. Inmates were 

selected from the list up to the expected number of inmates 

determined by the sampling criteria. Due to the dynamic 

nature of jail populations, a second roster of inmates was 

obtained on the first day of data collection. Eligible inmates 

who appeared on the second roster but who had not appeared on the initial roster were identified. These inmates 

had been arraigned since the initial roster was created 

or were newly admitted to the facility and arraigned. A 

random sample of these new inmates was chosen using the 

same probability of selection used to sample from the first 

roster.

A total of 81,306 jail inmates was selected. After 

selection, an additional 9,490 ineligible inmates were 

excluded—7,844 (9.7%) were released or transferred to 

another facility before interviewing began, 455 (0.6%) were 

mentally or physically unable to be interviewed, 144 (0.2%) 

were under age 18 or their age could not be obtained during the interview process, 308 (0.4%) were selected in error 

(i.e., an inmate was incorrectly listed on the facility roster), 

and 739 (0.9%) were on unsupervised work release or only 

served time on weekends.

Of all selected inmates, 17% refused to participate in 

the survey, 4% were not available to be interviewed (e.g., in 

court, in medical segregation, determined by the facility to 

be too violent to be interviewed, or restricted from participation by another legal jurisdiction), and 8% were not 

interviewed due to survey logistics (e.g., language barriers, 

releases, and transfers to another facility after interviewing 

began).

Overall, 48,066 jail inmates participated in the survey, 

yielding a response rate of 68%. Approximately 95% of the 

participating inmates (45,126) received the sexual assault 

survey. (See appendix table 5 for the number of participating inmates in each jail facility.)

Selection of special confinement facilities

A sample of 11 special facilities was drawn to represent 

the inmate populations in military, Indian country, and ICE 

facilities. Three military, 3 Indian country, and 5 ICE facilities were included. The selected military facilities were the 

largest Army, Navy, and Marine facilities, including the U.S. 

Disciplinary Barracks (Leavenworth, KS), the Naval Consolidated Brig. (Miramar, CA), and the Marine Corps Base Brig. 

(Camp Pendleton, CA). 

The selected Indian country facilities were the three 

largest facilities identified in the 2007 Survey of Jails in 

Indian Country. One facility, Tohono O’odham Detention 

Center (AZ) was undergoing major renovations to accommodate increased capacity and could not participate in the 

survey during the data collection period. This facility will 

be included in the NIS-3 data collection. The Navajo Department of Corrections Window Rock (AZ), participated 

in the survey but held fewer inmates in 2009 (14) than 

reported in the 2007 survey (99).

The 5 ICE facilities were sequentially sampled from the 

22 facilities run by ICE with probabilities of selection proportionate to size (as measured by the number of persons 

held at yearend 2008). Facilities were sorted by region and 

state. 

Selection of inmates in special confinement facilities

For purposes of inmate selection, military facilities were 

treated as prisons, and Indian country and ICE facilities 

were treated like jails. The assumptions used to determine 

the sample size within a prison or jail and the corresponding selection procedures were used. However, in ICE facilities, a second sample of newly admitted inmates was not 

drawn due to an inability to identify new inmates on the 

ICE rosters. In addition, inmates in ICE facilities who did 

not speak English or Spanish were defined as ineligible for 

the study.

Overall, 2,494 inmates were selected, including 546 in 

military facilities, 161 in Indian country facilities, and 1,787 

in ICE facilities. After selection, 409 ineligible inmates were 

excluded—225 (9%) were released or transferred to another 

facility before interviewing began, 10 (0.4%) were mentally 

or physically unable to be interviewed, 4 (0.2%) were on 

unsupervised work release, and 170 (7%) in ICE facilities 

did not speak English or Spanish. A total of 16 inmates 

were excluded in military facilities, 15 in Indian country 

facilities, and 378 in ICE facilities.

Of all selected inmates in special facilities, 16% refused 

to participate in the survey, 0.2% were not available to be 

interviewed (e.g., in court, in medical segregation, determined by the facility to be too violent to be interviewed, or 

restricted from participation by another legal jurisdiction), 

and 7% were not interviewed due to survey logistics (e.g., 

language barriers, releases, and transfers to another facility 

after interviewing began).

Overall, 1,471 inmates participated in the survey (399 
30 August 2010

in military, 115 in Indian country, and 957 in ICE facilities), 

yielding a response rate of 71% (75% in military, 79% in 

Indian country, and 68% in ICE facilities). Approximately 

95% of the participating inmates (1,379) received the sexual 

assault survey (379 in military, 107 in Indian country, and 

893 in ICE facilities). (See appendix table 9 for the number of 

participating inmates in each special confinement facility.)

Weighting and non-response adjustments

Responses from interviewed inmates were weighted 

to provide national-level and facility-level estimates. Each 

interviewed inmate was assigned an initial weight corresponding to the inverse of the probability of selection 

within each sampled facility. A series of adjustment factors 

was applied to the initial weight to minimize potential bias 

due to non-response and to provide national estimates.

Bias occurs when the estimated prevalence is different 

from the actual prevalence for a given facility. In each facility, bias could result if the random sample of inmates did 

not accurately represent the facility population. Bias could 

also result if the non-respondents were different from the 

respondents. Post-stratification and non-response adjustments were made to the data to compensate for these two 

possibilities. These adjustments included—

1. calibration of the weights of the responding inmates 

within each facility so that the estimates accurately reflected the facility’s entire population in terms of known 

demographic characteristics. These characteristics included distributions by inmate age, sex, race, time since 

admission, and sentence length. This adjustment ensures 

that the estimates better reflect the entire population of 

the facility and not just the inmates who were randomly 

sampled.

2. calibration of the weights so that the weight from 

a non-responding inmate is assigned to a responding inmate with similar demographic characteristics. 

This adjustment ensures that the estimates accurately 

reflect the full sample, rather than only the inmates who 

responded.

For each inmate, these adjustments were based on a generalized exponential model, developed by Folsom and Singh, 

and applied to the sexual assault survey respondents.3

A final ratio adjustment to each inmate weight was 

made to provide national-level estimates for the total number of inmates ages 18 or older who were held at midyear 

2008. These ratios represented the estimated number of 

inmates by sex (from BJS’s 2008 Annual Survey of Jails and 

2008 National Prisoner Statistics, Midyear) divided by the 

number of inmates by sex in the NIS-2 after calibration for 

sampling and non-response. The national estimates for state 

prisons were 1,178,916 males and 88,518 females; for federal prisons, 178,153 males and 12,120 females; and for jails 

(with an average daily population of 6 or more inmates), 

678,136 males and 99,096 females. 

Final ratio adjustments were not applied to inmate 

weights in military, Indian country, and ICE facilities. Estimates for special confinement facilities were made at the 

facility level only.

Standard errors and tests of significance

The NIS-2 is statistically unable to provide an exact 

ranking for all facilities as required under PREA. As with 

any survey, the NIS estimates are subject to error arising 

from the fact that they are based on a sample rather than a 

complete enumeration. Within each facility, the estimated 

sampling error varies by the size of the estimate, the number of completed interviews, and the size of the facility.

A common way to express this sampling variability is 

to construct a 95%-confidence interval around each survey 

estimate. Typically, multiplying the standard error by 1.96 

and then adding or subtracting the result from the estimate 

produces the confidence interval. This interval expresses the 

range of values that could result among 95% of the different 

samples that could be drawn.

For small samples and estimates close to 0%, as is the 

case with sexual victimization in most prisons and jails, the 

use of the standard error to construct the 95%-confidence 

interval may not be reliable. An alternative developed by 

Wilson has been shown to perform better than the traditional method when constructing a confidence interval. 

(See note 1 on page 7.) This method produces an asymmetrical confidence interval around the facility estimates in 

which the lower bound is constrained to be greater than or 

equal to 0%. It also provides confidence intervals for facilities in which the survey estimates are zero (but other similarly conducted surveys could yield non-zero estimates). 

(See tables 2, 4, and 5 and appendix tables 5, 6, 8, and 9.)

When applied to large samples, the traditional and the 

Wilson confidence intervals are nearly identical. As a result, 

the tables that show national estimates display traditional 

standard errors. (See table 1.) The traditional standard errors have also been used to compare estimates of sexual victimization among selected groups of inmates that have been 

defined by type of incident, demographic subgroup, sexual 

history, and criminal justice status. (See tables 6 through 12 

and tables 15 through 19.) To facilitate the analysis, rather 

than provide the detailed estimates for every standard error, differences in the estimates of sexual victimization for 

subgroups in these tables have been tested and notated for 

significance at the 95%-level confidence.

3

Folsom, Jr., R.E., and A.C. Singh, (2002). “The Generalized Exponential 

Model for Sampling Weight Calibration for Extreme Values, Nonresponse, 

and Poststratification,” Proceedings of the American Statistical 

Association, Section on Survey Research Methods, pp. 598-603.
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09 31

For example, the difference in the rate of inmate-oninmate sexual victimization among female prisoners (4.7%), 

compared to male prisoners (1.9%), is statistically significant at the 95% level of confidence (table 6). In all tables 

providing detailed comparisons, statistically significant differences at the 95% level of confidence or greater have been 

designated with two asterisks (**).

Exposure period

To calculate comparative rates of sexual victimization, 

respondents were asked to provide the most recent date of 

admission to the current facility. If the date of admission 

was at least 12 months prior to the date of the interview, 

inmates were asked questions related to their experiences 

during the past 12 months. If the admission date was less 

than 12 months prior to the interview, inmates were asked 

about their experiences since they had arrived at the facility. 

The average exposure period of inmates participating in 

the sexual victimization survey was—

 9.0 months for federal prisoners

 7.9 months for state prisoners

 3.4 months for jail inmates

 8.4 months for inmates in military facilities

 3.0 months for inmates in ICE facilities

 4.4 months for inmates in Indian country facilities.

Measurement of sexual victimization

The survey of sexual victimization relied on inmates reporting their direct experience, rather than inmates reporting on the experience of other inmates. Questions related 

to inmate-on-inmate sexual activity were asked separately 

from questions related to staff sexual misconduct. (For 

specific survey questions see appendices 1 and 2.) 

The ACASI survey began with a series of questions 

that screened for specific sexual activities without restriction, including both wanted and unwanted sex and sexual 

contacts with other inmates. To fully measure all sexual 

activities, questions related to the touching of body parts in 

a sexual way were followed by questions related to manual 

stimulation and questions related to acts involving oral, 

anal, and vaginal sex. The nature of coercion (including use 

of physical force, pressure, and other forms of coercion) was 

measured for each type of reported sexual activity. 

ACASI survey items related to staff sexual misconduct 

were asked in a different order. Inmates were first asked 

about being pressured or being made to feel they had to 

have sex or sexual contact with the staff and then asked 

about being physically forced. In addition, inmates were 

asked if any facility staff had offered favors or special privileges in exchange for sex. Finally, inmates were asked if they 

willingly had sex or sexual contact with staff. All reports of 

sex or sexual contact between an inmate and facility staff, 

regardless of the level of coercion, were classified as staff 

sexual misconduct. 

The ACASI survey included additional questions related 

to both inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization and staff 

sexual misconduct. These questions, known as latent class 

measures, were included to assess the reliability of the survey 

questionnaire. After being asked detailed questions, all 

inmates were asked a series of general questions to determine 

if they had experienced any type of unwanted sex or sexual 

contact with another inmate or had any sex or sexual contact 

with staff. (See appendix 3.)

The entire ACASI questionnaire (listed as the National Inmate Survey-2) and the shorter paper and pencil survey form 

(PAPI) are available on the BJS web site at <http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.

gov/index.cfm?ty=dcdetail&iid=278>.

Interviews checked for inconsistent response patterns

Once data collection was completed, individual response 

patterns were assessed to identify interviewer error, interviews that had been completed in too short of time, and 

incomplete interviews. In 133 interviews, the interviewers 

administered sex-specific survey items inconsistent with the 

sex of the inmate. In 208 interviews, the inmate either failed 

to complete enough questions to be considered a completed 

interview or completed the survey in too short of time. 

These interviews were excluded from the calculations of 

sexual victimization.

Interviews were also examined for inconsistent response 

patterns. A list of 18 indicators were developed based on inmate characteristics (e.g., education, age, marital status, and 

time since admission) and items related to victimization 

(e.g., number of times, injuries, willing contact with staff, 

sex of staff perpetrator, and reporting of victimization). 

Indicators compared responses to initial questions with 

responses to detailed follow up questions. The results were 

combined into a count of the total number of inconsistent 

responses for each inmate. 

Overall, the results revealed very high levels of consistency in survey responses. Of 45,126 completed interviews 

of jail inmates, 94.4% had no inconsistent responses, 5.2% 

had 1, and 0.4% had 2 or more. Of 29,954 completed 

interviews of prison inmates, 93.6% had no inconsistent 

responses, 5.9% had one, and 0.5% had two or more.

Definition of terms 

Sexual victimization—all types of sexual activity, e.g., oral, 

anal, or vaginal penetration; hand jobs; touching of the inmate’s buttocks, thighs, penis, breasts, or vagina in a sexual 

way; abusive sexual contacts; and both willing and unwilling sexual activity with staff.
32 August 2010

Nonconsensual sexual acts—unwanted contacts with 

another inmate or any contacts with staff that involved oral, 

anal, vaginal penetration, hand jobs, and other sexual acts.

Abusive sexual contacts only—unwanted contacts with 

another inmate or any contacts with staff that involved 

touching of the inmate’s buttocks, thigh, penis, breasts, or 

vagina in a sexual way.

Unwilling activity—incidents of unwanted sexual contacts 

with another inmate or staff.

Willing activity—incidents of willing sexual contacts with 

staff. These contacts are characterized by the reporting 

inmates as willing; however, all sexual contacts between 

inmates and staff are legally nonconsensual.

Staff sexual misconduct—includes all incidents of willing and unwilling sexual contact with facility staff and all 

incidents of sexual activity that involved oral, anal, vaginal 

penetration, hand jobs, blow jobs, and other sexual acts 

with facility staff.

Logistic regression models

Multivariate logistic regression estimation is a modeling 

technique used to determine what characteristics are statistically significant for predicting a dichotomous outcome (e.g., 

victimized or not victimized) while controlling for all the 

other characteristics in the model. NIS-2 used this technique 

to determine what inmate-level characteristics were significant 

predictors of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization and staff 

sexual misconduct. For each outcome, inmate-level characteristics were divided into 3 categories: demographic characteristics, sexual orientation and history, and criminal justice status 

and history. For each category a logistic model was iteratively run under a backwards selection technique until only 

predictors that were significant at the 95% level of confidence 

remained (tables 7, 9, 11). 

Each reduced model was then combined to provide 4 

models (for each type of sexual victimization and facility 

type). Backwards selection was conducted on each of the 

combined models until only predictors significant at the 95% 

level of confidence remained. Results for each model are 

displayed in terms of their conditional predicted probability (table 12). 

In each of the logistic regression models, the conditional predicted probability represents the probability that 

an inmate with a particular characteristic has experienced 

sexual victimization (by type) conditional on the inmate 

having the mean value for all other predictors in the model. 

For example, based on demographic characteristics only, a 

female prison inmate has a 3.8% chance of being victimized 

by another inmate given that she was at the mean of the joint 

distribution of race or Hispanic origin, education level, and 

marital status. (See table 7 and note 2 on page 13.)

Predicting facility-level rates of sexual victimization

Estimates of the expected rate of inmate-on-inmate and 

staff sexual misconduct in each high rate prison and jail 

were calculated based on the characteristics of the inmates 

housed in the facility and the estimated rates of victimization associated with each characteristic. For each level of 

a characteristic, the logistic models provide an estimate 

of the odds that an inmate was sexually victimized given 

that the inmate had that characteristic. (For presentation 

purposes, these odds have been converted into conditional 

probabilities.) Overall, the predicted odds that a particular 

inmate has been victimized is the sum of the odds that correspond to that inmate’s set of characteristics. 

For example, the inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization model for prison inmates consists of 7 inmate characteristics: sex, race or Hispanic origin, marital status, 

sexual orientation, prior sexual assault status, most serious 

offense, and sentence length. The model provides estimates 

of the odds for each level of each of these characteristics. 

The odds of victimization for an inmate who is male, white, 

never married, heterosexual, with no prior sexual assault, 

held for a property offense, and sentenced to 1 to 5 years in 

prison is the sum of the individual odds for each of those 

characteristics. 

Once the overall odds for an inmate has been calculated, 

it can be converted to a probability. A predicted facility-level 

victimization rate is the weighted average of probabilities for 

all inmates in the facility. This weighted average in each high 

rate facility was calculated by summing across all inmates 

the product of the inmate’s probability of victimization and 

the adjusted inmate sampling weights and dividing it by the 

eligible inmate population in the survey.

Five BJS reports on sexual victimization in prisons 

and jails:

Sexual Violence Reported by Correctional Authorities, 

2004 (NCJ 210333)

Sexual Violence Reported by Correctional Authorities, 

2005 (NCJ 214646)

Sexual Violence Reported by Correctional Authorities, 

2006 (NCJ 218914)

Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons 

Reported by Inmates, 2007 (NCJ 219414)

Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 

2007 (NCJ 221946)

An overview of all of the BJS prison rape 

collections:

PREA Data Collection Activities, 2010 (NCJ 230448)

These reports are available online at 

<http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/>. BJS
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09 33

Appendix Table 1

Characteristics of state and federal prisons and prevalence of sexual victimization, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09

Inmates reporting sexual 

victimizationa

95%-confidence rateb

Facility name

Number of inmates 

 in custodyc

Respondents to sexual 

victimization surveyd Response ratee Percentf

Lower 

bound

Upper 

bound

Total 275,442 29,954 71% 4.4% 3.9% 0.1%

Alabama

Bibb Corr. Fac. 1,922 261 95% 4.4% 2.7% 7.2%

William Donaldson Corr. Fac. 1,631 206 77 8.8 5.7 13.2

Alaska

Fairbanks Corr. Ctr.g 276 104 72% 2.1% 0.8% 5.7%

Arizona

Arizona State Prison Complex - Lewis 5,237 201 69% 1.9% 0.7% 4.8%

Arizona State Prison Complex - Tucsonh 3,728 233 82 3.5 1.8 6.6

Arkansas

Diagnostic Unitg 454 118 82% 4.8% 2.4% 9.5%

McPherson Uniti 745 224 93 10.3 7.2 14.5

California

California Corr. Ctr. 3,686 190 67% 1.4% 0.5% 4.0%

California Inst. for Womeni 1,924 186 73 6.1 3.4 10.5

California Med. Fac. 3,067 258 60 9.0 6.2 12.7

Centinela State Prison 5,064 143 52 0.0 0.0 2.6

Central California Women’s Fac.i 4,121 184 63 5.2 2.8 9.6

Chuckawalla Valley State Prison 3,195 193 70 3.6 1.8 7.2

Deuel Vocational Inst. 3,821 197 55 2.6 1.2 5.6

Folsom State Prison 4,005 161 56 1.5 0.5 4.4

High Desert State Prison 3,895 153 55 3.5 1.7 7.4

Los Angeles County State Prison 4,835 218 74 3.9 2.1 7.3

North Kern State Prison 5,459 210 67 2.5 1.1 5.7

Pleasant Valley State Prison 5,097 181 62 6.0 3.3 10.5

Salinas Valley State Prison 4,014 162 57 4.8 2.1 10.4

Valley State Prison for Womeni 4,086 216 72 8.2 5.1 13.0

Wasco State Prison-Reception Ctr. 5,855 221 72 1.9 0.7 4.7

Colorado

Sterling Corr. Fac. 2,481 204 71% 7.5% 4.5% 12.1%

Connecticut

Corrigan-Radgowski Corr. Ctr. 1,604 172 65% 3.0% 1.3% 6.9%

Osborn Corr. Inst. 1,937 190 67 4.0 2.1 7.3

York Corr. Fac.i 1,281 192 74 7.4 4.6 11.9

Delaware

Sussex Corr. Inst. 1,166 207 85% 2.5% 1.3% 4.9%

Florida

Century Corr. Inst. & Work Camp 1,775 208 78% 1.9% 0.8% 4.6%

Gadsden Corr. Fac.i,j 1,516 208 81 2.4 1.0 5.3

Hernando Corr. Inst.i 423 183 90 6.5 4.2 9.9

Indian River Corr. Inst. 469 163 95 2.0 1.0 3.9
34 August 2010

Appendix Table 1 (continued)

Characteristics of state and federal prisons and prevalence of sexual victimization, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09

Inmates reporting sexual 

victimizationa

95%-confidence rateb

Facility name

Number of inmates 

 in custodyc

Respondents to sexual 

victimization surveyd Response ratee Percentf

Lower 

bound

Upper 

bound

Florida (continued)

Lancaster Corr. Inst. & Work Camp 865 186 78% 6.7% 4.1% 10.5%

Liberty Corr. Inst. & Work Camp 1,554 229 90 2.0 0.9 4.4

Lowell Corr. Inst., Annex, & Work Campi 2,464 240 85 4.5 2.7 7.5

Moore Haven Corr. Fac.j 980 225 90 1.6 0.6 4.2

Okeechobee Corr. Inst. 1,655 241 88 6.1 3.9 9.5

Reception and Med. Ctr. & Reception and Med. Ctr.-West Unith 2,618 259 72 1.7 0.7 4.2

South Florida Reception Ctr. & South Unit 1,477 237 81 1.8 0.8 4.0

Georgia

Dodge State Prison 1,228 220 86% 2.5% 1.2% 5.4%

Dooly State Prison 1,686 215 79 2.7 1.3 5.6

Pulaski State Prisoni 1,185 239 91 6.1 3.9 9.5

Washington State Prison 1,500 227 86 2.8 1.3 5.6

Wheeler Corr. Fac.j 1,747 232 86 3.1 1.7 5.7

Hawaii

Oahu Community Corr. Ctr.g 1,138 146 58% 4.8% 2.1% 10.9%

Women’s Community Corr. Ctr.i 278 100 61 5.0 2.5 9.8

Idaho

Idaho Corr. Fac.j 1,484 212 76% 2.3% 1.1% 5.1%

Idaho State Corr. Inst. 1,208 213 69 6.0 3.5 10.2%

Illinois

East Moline Corr. Ctr. 1,126 208 81% 1.4% 0.5% 3.7%

Illinois River Corr. Ctr. 1,973 194 73 1.3 0.5 3.7

Lincoln Corr. Ctr.i 986 190 77 1.4 0.5 3.9

Pontiac Corr. Ctr. 1,074 96 32 12.1 6.3 21.8

Indiana

Plainfield Corr. Fac. 1,473 181 69% 7.5% 4.3% 12.7%

Putnamville Corr. Fac. 2,431 189 69 8.1 4.9 12.9

Westville Corr. Fac. 3,315 168 58 5.7 3.1 10.2

Iowa

Iowa Corr. Inst. - Womeni 601 191 85% 7.7% 5.0% 11.7%

Newton Corr. Fac. 1,188 170 72 5.7 3.1 10.1

Kansas

Larned Corr. Mental Health Fac. 297 97 57% 9.0% 5.1% 15.4%

Kentucky

Kentucky Corr. Inst. for Womeni 648 173 80% 9.6% 6.1% 14.8%

Luther Luckett Corr. Complex 1,076 158 63 6.1 3.4 10.5
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09 35

Appendix Table 1 (continued)

Characteristics of state and federal prisons and prevalence of sexual victimization, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09

Inmates reporting sexual 

victimizationa

95%-confidence rateb

Facility name

Number of inmates 

 in custodyc

Respondents to sexual 

victimization surveyd Response ratee Percentf

Lower 

bound

Upper 

bound

Louisiana

Avoyelles Corr. Ctr. 1,558 226 84% 5.3% 3.2% 8.7%

C. Paul Phelps Corr. Ctr. 915 237 93 4.1 2.4 7.0

Louisiana Corr. Inst. for Womeni 1,027 229 90 7.5 5.0 11.0

Maine

Maine State Prison - Warren 867 143 59% 9.9% 6.0% 15.8%

Maryland

Jessup Pre-Release Unit 593 169 80% 5.0% 2.8% 8.8%

Maryland Corr. Inst. - Jessup 1,086 152 63 3.8 1.8 7.8

Massachusetts

Massachusetts Corr. Inst. - Plymouth 208 85 53% 3.8% 1.6% 8.7%

Michigan

Earnest C. Brooks Corr. Fac. 1,211 176 69% 6.3% 3.7% 10.5%

Mid-Michigan Corr. Fac. 590 143 63 4.2 2.1 8.2

Muskegon Corr. Fac. 1,300 176 66 11.4 6.2 20.0

Richard A. Handlon Corr. Fac. 1,241 209 79 7.3 4.5 11.6

Minnesota

Minnesota Corr. Fac. - Rush City 987 165 65% 7.3% 4.4% 11.9%

Minnesota Corr. Fac. - Shakopeei 515 146 69 8.3 4.9 13.9

Mississippi

Mississippi State Penitentiary 3,817 266 93% 7.5% 4.9% 11.3%

South Mississippi Corr. Inst. 3,028 252 87 5.7 3.5 9.0

Missouri

Crossroads Corr. Fac. 1,416 207 77% 9.4% 6.2% 13.9%

Fulton Reception & Diagnostic Ctr. 1,481 217 81 1.7 0.7 4.0

Women’s Eastern Reception, Diagnostic, & Corr. Ctr.i 1,959 218 82 8.7 5.7 13.2

Montana

Montana State Prison 1,389 201 78% 10.6% 7.2% 15.5%

Nebraska

Diagnostic & Evaluation Ctr. 313 103 67% 2.9% 1.3% 6.6%

Nevada

Northern Nevada Corr. Ctr.g 1,327 206 82% 0.8% 0.2% 2.9%

New Hampshire

Lakes Region Fac. 347 104 54% 5.1% 2.5% 10.1%

New Jersey

Bayside State Prison - Ancora Unit 344 133 74% 1.7% 0.6% 4.6%

Edna Mahan Corr. Fac. for Womeni 912 177 76 4.5 2.5 8.0
36 August 2010

Appendix Table 1 (continued)

Characteristics of state and federal prisons and prevalence of sexual victimization, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09

Inmates reporting sexual 

victimizationa

95%-confidence rateb

Facility name

Number of inmates 

 in custodyc

Respondents to sexual 

victimization surveyd Response ratee Percentf

Lower 

bound

Upper 

bound

New Mexico

Southern New Mexico Corr. Fac. 682 166 78% 3.1% 1.4% 6.7%

New York

Attica Corr. Fac. 2,170 170 61% 8.0% 4.8% 13.2%

Bare Hill Corr. Fac. 1,675 209 81 7.8 4.9 12.2

Bayview Corr. Fac.i 137 96 73 14.6 11.1 19.1

Cape Vincent Corr. Fac. 850 178 73 1.0 0.3 3.3

Clinton Corr. Fac. 2,854 200 70 4.7 2.6 8.6

Coxsackie Corr. Fac. 1,035 204 80 5.7 3.5 9.2

Elmira Corr. Fac. 1,763 167 63 9.8 6.2 15.2

Walkill Corr. Fac. 591 163 72 3.2 1.5 6.8

North Carolina

Brown Creek Corr. Inst. 908 170 70% 1.8% 0.7% 4.6%

Guilford Corr. Ctr. 165 47 55 0.0 0.0 7.6

Pender Corr. Inst. 753 156 67 1.8 0.7 4.7

Swannanoa Corr. Ctr. for Womeni 93 56 81 1.3 0.5 3.4

Warren Corr. Ctr. 828 134 57 6.9 3.9 11.9

North Dakota

Dakota Women’s Corr. & Rehab. Ctr.i 110 77 78% 3.0% 1.6% 5.5%

James River Corr. Ctr. 411 160 82 2.9 1.3 6.3

Ohio

Corr. Reception Ctr. 1,648 242 84% 1.1% 0.4% 3.1%

Lebanon Corr. Inst. 2,653 231 81 5.6 3.4 9.3

Mansfield Corr. Inst. 2,443 186 68 4.4 2.3 8.3

Ohio Reformatory for Womeni 2,514 233 82 7.7 5.0 11.7

Southeastern Corr. Inst. 1,672 144 52 5.3 2.7 9.9

Oklahoma

Davis Corr. Fac.j 1,133 189 71% 9.2% 5.9% 13.9%

Mack H. Alford Corr. Ctr. 803 104 42 7.9 4.3 14.1

Oregon

Coffee Creek Corr. Fac.i 1,071 208 83% 7.1% 4.4% 11.3%

Pennsylvania

Camp Hill State Corr. Inst. 3,387 233 85% 1.2% 0.3% 4.4%

Coal Township State Corr. Inst. 1,903 221 80 3.9 2.1 7.1

Cresson State Corr. Inst. 1,576 238 89 5.6 3.5 9.0

Rhode Island

Maximum Security Fac. 433 115 55% 0.6% 0.1% 2.7%
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09 37

Appendix Table 1 (continued)

Characteristics of state and federal prisons and prevalence of sexual victimization, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09

Inmates reporting sexual 

victimizationa

95%-confidence rateb

Facility name

Number of inmates 

 in custodyc

Respondents to sexual 

victimization surveyd Response ratee Percentf

Lower 

bound

Upper 

bound

South Carolina

Goodman Corr. Inst.i 189 92 64% 3.1% 1.4% 6.7%

Ridgeland Corr. Inst. 1,265 221 84 6.2 3.9 9.8

Trenton Corr. Inst. 661 177 76 1.4 0.6 3.6

South Dakota

Mike Durfee State Prison & Trusty Unit 1,465 169 65% 6.1% 3.2% 11.2%

Tennessee

West Tennessee State Penitentiary 2,444 222 79% 5.6% 3.4% 9.3%

Texas

Allred Unit 3,637 161 55% 10.9% 7.0% 16.7%

Beto Unit 3,322 216 76 7.3 4.6 11.4

Bridgeport Pre-Parole Fac.i,j 200 128 88 0.0 0.0 2.9

C. Moore Transfer Fac. 1,195 184 72 0.4 0.1 1.9

Coffield Unit 4,121 226 76 4.8 2.6 8.5

Cole State Jail 844 161 70 3.1 1.4 6.5

Crain Uniti 1,679 175 67 4.5 2.4 8.2

Ferguson Unit 2,370 236 83 8.5 5.4 13.2

Halbert Substance Abuse Felony Punishment Fac.i 598 229 97 0.9 0.3 2.5

Hobby Uniti 1,372 240 93 5.5 3.5 8.6

Hughes Unit 2,866 159 57 10.2 6.5 15.8

Jester Unit III 1,079 187 73 2.2 0.9 5.3

Lindsey State Jailj 1,022 199 82 1.8 0.8 4.4

Michael Unit 3,154 158 60 9.1 5.6 14.7

Mountain View Uniti 620 128 58 10.5 6.5 16.4

Neal Unit 1,681 179 68 4.3 2.2 8.1

Plane State Jaili 2,022 229 86 2.8 1.2 6.1

Smith Unit 2,067 160 59 5.5 2.9 10.0

Telford Unit 2,767 189 65 7.7 4.7 12.4

Utah

Central Utah Corr. Fac. 1,329 201 75% 2.3% 1.1% 4.8%

Vermont

Northwest State Corr. Fac. 145 96 80% 6.2% 4.0% 9.3

Virginia

Fluvanna Corr. Ctr.i 1,223 199 79% 14.3% 10.2% 19.6%

Haynesville Corr. Ctr. 1,118 165 68 2.5 1.1 5.4

Lawrenceville Corr. Ctr.j 1,547 196 72 3.8 1.9 7.6
38 August 2010

Appendix Table 1 (continued)

Characteristics of state and federal prisons and prevalence of sexual victimization, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09

Inmates reporting sexual 

victimizationa

95%-confidence rateb

Facility name

Number of inmates 

 in custodyc

Respondents to sexual 

victimization surveyd Response ratee Percentf

Lower 

bound

Upper 

bound

Washington

Airway Heights Corr. Ctr. 2,122 180 70% 3.4% 1.7% 6.8%

Washington Corr. Ctr. for Womeni 836 193 85 6.0 3.6 9.9

West Virginia

Mount Olive Corr. Complex 991 121 52% 6.8% 3.6% 12.4%

Wisconsin

Dodge Corr. Inst.h 1,552 200 63% 1.0% 0.3% 3.3%

New Lisbon Corr. Inst. 983 108 43 2.5 0.9 6.9

Taycheedah Corr. Inst.i 679 171 75 12.9 9.1 18.0

Waupun Corr. Inst. 1,239 113 44 5.1 2.3 10.9

Wyoming

Wyoming Honor Farm 210 117 78% 2.8% 1.5% 5.3%

Federal Facilities (Bureau of Prisons)

Big Sandy - Camp 89 55 69% 0.0% 0.0% 6.5%

Brooklyn Metropolitan Det. Ctr.g 2,564 230 78 0.7 0.1 3.4

Bryan Fed. Prison Campi 931 183 72 2.3 1.0 5.2

Carswell Fed. Med. Ctr.i 1,547 154 59 4.8 2.5 9.2

Coleman I U.S. Penitentiary 1,678 147 54 5.0 2.3 10.3

Coleman Medium Fed. Corr. Inst.h 1,600 179 66 0.7 0.1 3.6

Danbury Fed. Corr. Inst.i 1,210 192 76 1.4 0.4 4.6

Elkton Fed. Corr. Inst. 2,076 176 64 0.0 0.0 2.1

Englewood Fed. Corr. Inst. 915 206 61 1.9 0.8 4.5

Fairton Fed. Corr. Inst. 1,354 171 67 1.6 0.5 5.5

Florence Fed. Corr. Inst. 1,190 76 30 1.4 0.3 7.3

Forrest City Low Fed. Corr. Inst. 1,923 204 75 1.6 0.6 4.3

Jesup-Fed. Satellite Low 624 156 71 0.9 0.2 4.2

Morgantown Fed. Corr. Inst. 1,034 159 65 0.0 0.0 2.4

Oakdale Fed. Corr. Inst. 1,188 197 75 1.0 0.2 4.8

Petersburg Medium Fed. Corr. Inst. 1,903 143 55 3.8 1.7 8.5
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09 39

Appendix Table 1 (continued)

Characteristics of state and federal prisons and prevalence of sexual victimization, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09

Inmates reporting sexual 

victimizationa

95%-confidence rateb

Facility name

Number of inmates 

 in custodyc

Respondents to sexual 

victimization surveyd Response ratee Percentf

Lower 

bound

Upper 

bound

Federal Facilities (Bureau of Prisons) (continued)

Schuylkill Fed. Corr. Inst. 1,312 160 64% 2.2% 0.8% 5.5%

Texarkana Fed. Corr. Inst. 1,333 131 53 1.2 0.2 6.0

Victorville U.S. Penitentiary 1,641 130 50 2.4 0.8 6.5

aIncludes all types of sexual victimization, including oral, anal, or vaginal penetration, hand jobs, touching of the inmate’s butt, thighs, penis, breasts, or vagina in a sexual 

way, and other sexual acts occurring in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if shorter. 

bIndicates that different samples in the same facility would yield prevalence rates falling between the lower and upper bound estimates 95 out of 100 times.

cNumber of inmates in custody on day when the facility provided the sample roster.

dNumber of respondents completing the sexual victimization survey. (See Methodology.) 

eResponse rate is equal to the number of respondents divided by the number of eligible sampled inmates times 100 percent.

f

Weights were applied so that inmates who responded accurately reflected the entire population of each facility on select characteristics, including age, sex, race, time 

served, and sentence length. (See Methodology.) 

gFacility houses both males and females; both were sampled at this facility.

hFacility houses both males and females; only males were sampled at this facility. 

i

Female facility.

j

Privately operated facility.
40 August 2010

Appendix Table 2

Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimization, by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09

Inmate-on-inmatea Staff sexual misconducta

95%-confidence intervalb 95%-confidence intervalb

Facility name

Percent 

victimizedc Lower bound Upper bound

Percent 

victimizedc Lower bound Upper bound

Total 2.1% 1.7% 2.5% 2.8% 2.5% 3.2%

Alabama

Bibb Corr. Fac. 3.3% 1.9% 5.7% 1.8% 0.8% 3.9%

William Donaldson Corr. Fac. 4.8 2.7 8.4 4.9 2.7 8.5

Alaska

Fairbanks Corr. Ctr.d 1.1% 0.3% 4.1% 1.1% 0.3% 4.1%

Arizona

Arizona State Prison Complex - Lewis 0.7% 0.1% 3.8% 1.9% 0.7% 4.8%

Arizona State Prison Complex - Tucsone 0.8 0.2 3.1 2.6 1.2 5.5

Arkansas

Diagnostic Unitd 1.9% 0.7% 5.5% 2.9% 1.2% 7.1%

McPherson Unitf 7.7 5.0 11.6 4.4 2.5 7.4

California

California Corr. Ctr. 0.0% 0.0% 2.0% 1.4% 0.5% 4.0%

California Inst. for Womenf 4.3 2.2 8.3 2.2 0.9 5.3

California Med. Fac. 5.8 3.7 9.1 3.6 2.0 6.2

Centinela State Prison 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.0 2.6

Central California Women’s Fac.f 3.3 1.5 7.1 3.2 1.4 7.2

Chuckawalla Valley State Prison 2.8 1.2 6.4 1.9 0.8 4.9

Deuel Vocational Inst. 1.8 0.7 4.5 1.3 0.4 3.6

Folsom State Prison 0.7 0.1 3.8 1.5 0.5 4.4

High Desert State Prison 3.0 1.3 6.8 0.9 0.3 3.3

Los Angeles County State Prison 2.0 0.8 5.0 2.5 1.1 5.3

North Kern State Prison 0.0 0.0 1.8 2.5 1.1 5.7

Pleasant Valley State Prison 5.5 3.0 9.9 1.9 0.7 5.5

Salinas Valley State Prison 2.4 0.9 6.2 2.4 0.7 8.1

Valley State Prison for Womenf 6.8 4.0 11.1 4.7 2.4 9.0

Wasco State Prison-Reception Ctr. 0.5 0.1 2.7 1.9 0.7 4.7

Colorado

Sterling Corr. Fac. 3.5% 1.7% 7.0% 6.2% 3.5% 10.7%

Connecticut

Corrigan-Radgowski Corr. Ctr. 0.8% 0.2% 2.7% 2.2% 0.8% 6.1%

Osborn Corr. Inst. 2.7 1.3 5.6 1.3 0.5 3.6

York Corr. Fac.f 6.4 3.8 10.6 2.2 0.9 5.3

Delaware

Sussex Corr. Inst. 1.7% 0.8% 3.8% 0.8% 0.2% 2.7%

Florida

Century Corr. Inst. & Work Camp 0.5% 0.1% 2.5% 1.9% 0.8% 4.6%

Gadsden Corr. Fac.f,g 2.0 0.8 4.8 0.4 0.1 2.0

Hernando Corr. Inst.f 5.5 3.4 8.8 1.5 0.7 3.5

Indian River Corr. Inst. 0.0 0.0 2.3 2.0 1.0 3.9

Lancaster Corr. Inst. & Work Camp 2.7 1.4 5.4 3.9 2.1 7.4

Liberty Corr. Inst. & Work Camp 0.7 0.2 2.2 1.3 0.5 3.7

Lowell Corr. Inst., Annex, & Work Campf 3.5 1.9 6.3 2.0 0.9 4.3

Moore Haven Corr. Fac.g 1.1 0.3 3.3 1.1 0.4 3.5
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09 41

Appendix Table 2 (continued)

Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimization, by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09

Inmate-on-inmatea Staff sexual misconducta

95%-confidence intervalb 95%-confidence intervalb

Facility name

Percent 

victimizedc Lower bound Upper bound

Percent 

victimizedc Lower bound Upper bound

Florida (continued)

Okeechobee Corr. Inst. 1.6% 0.7% 3.8% 4.9% 3.0% 8.1%

Reception and Med. Ctr. & Reception and Med. Ctr.-West Unite 0.5 0.1 2.4 1.7 0.7 4.3

South Florida Reception Ctr. & South Unit 1.3 0.5 3.5 0.5 0.1 1.5

Georgia

Dodge State Prison 0.0% 0.0% 1.7% 2.5% 1.2% 5.4%

Dooly State Prison 0.8 0.2 2.7 2.7 1.3 5.6

Pulaski State Prisonf 6.1 3.9 9.5 0.3 0.1 1.5

Washington State Prison 0.5 0.1 2.4 2.3 1.0 5.0

Wheeler Corr. Fac.g 0.7 0.2 2.5 2.4 1.2 4.7

Hawaii

Oahu Community Corr. Ctr.d 4.6% 1.9% 10.7% 0.5% 0.1% 1.6%

Women’s Community Corr. Ctr.f 3.8 1.7 8.0 2.9 1.2 6.9

Idaho

Idaho Corr. Fac.g 0.5% 0.1% 2.4% 2.3% 1.1% 5.1%

Idaho State Corr. Inst. 2.5 1.1 5.5 4.0 2.0 7.7

Illinois

East Moline Corr. Ctr. 0.4% 0.1% 1.8% 1.0% 0.3% 3.2%

Illinois River Corr. Ctr. 0.8 0.2 2.8 0.5 0.1 2.5

Lincoln Corr. Ctr.f 0.7 0.2 2.1 0.7 0.1 3.4

Pontiac Corr. Ctr. 6.9 3.0 15.0 5.7 2.1 14.2

Indiana

Plainfield Corr. Fac. 6.1% 3.3% 11.0% 2.2% 0.8% 6.0%

Putnamville Corr. Fac. 3.3 1.5 6.8 6.5 3.7 11.2

Westville Corr. Fac. 3.0 1.3 6.8 4.5 2.3 8.7

Iowa

Iowa Corr. Inst. - Womenf 7.3% 4.7% 11.3% 1.5% 0.5% 4.7%

Newton Corr. Fac. 3.7 1.8 7.2 2.0 0.7 5.8

Kansas

Larned Corr. Mental Health Fac. 3.7% 1.5% 9.0% 6.3% 3.3% 11.6%

Kentucky

Kentucky Corr. Inst. for Womenf 7.3% 4.4% 11.9% 2.3% 0.8% 6.1%

Luther Luckett Corr. Complex 1.2 0.3 4.1 5.7 3.1 10.1

Louisiana

Avoyelles Corr. Ctr. 1.7% 0.7% 4.0% 4.0% 2.2% 7.2%

C. Paul Phelps Corr. Ctr. 0.7 0.2 2.2 3.4 1.9 6.2

Louisiana Corr. Inst. for Womenf 5.7 3.6 8.9 1.8 0.8 4.0
42 August 2010

Appendix Table 2 (continued)

Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimization, by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09

Inmate-on-inmatea Staff sexual misconducta

95%-confidence intervalb 95%-confidence intervalb

Facility name

Percent 

victimizedc Lower bound Upper bound

Percent 

victimizedc Lower bound Upper bound

Maine

Maine State Prison - Warren 5.9% 3.1% 11.0% 4.9% 2.4% 9.7%

Maryland

Jessup Pre-Release Unit 0.0% 0.0% 2.2% 5.0% 2.8% 8.8%

Maryland Corr. Inst. - Jessup 1.0 0.2 4.8 2.8 1.3 6.1

Massachusetts

Massachusetts Corr. Inst - Plymouth 0.8% 0.2% 3.3% 3.0% 1.1% 8.0%

Michigan

Earnest C. Brooks Corr. Fac. 2.2% 0.8% 5.8% 4.9% 2.7% 8.7%

Mid-Michigan Corr. Fac. 2.9 1.3 6.6 1.3 0.4 4.1

Muskegon Corr. Fac. 4.8 2.6 8.6 6.7 2.5 16.3

Richard A. Handlon Corr. Fac. 4.7 2.5 8.7 4.4 2.3 8.1

Minnesota

Minnesota Corr. Fac. - Rush City 2.9% 1.3% 6.3% 5.2% 2.8% 9.5%

Minnesota Corr. Fac. - Shakopeef 8.3 4.9 13.9 0.4 0.1 2.0

Mississippi

Mississippi State Penitentiary 1.9% 0.9% 4.1% 5.9% 3.6% 9.5%

South Mississippi Corr. Inst. 0.6 0.2 2.2 5.0 3.0 8.3

Missouri

Crossroads Corr. Fac. 2.3% 1.0% 5.1% 8.2% 5.3% 12.6%

Fulton Reception & Diagnostic Ctr. 0.3 0.1 1.6 1.7 0.7 4.0

Women’s Eastern Reception, Diagnostic, & Corr. Ctr.f 7.7 4.9 11.9 1.5 0.5 4.0

Montana

Montana State Prison 3.8% 2.0% 7.2% 7.2% 4.4% 11.5%

Nebraska

Diagnostic & Evaluation Ctr. 1.9% 0.7% 5.3% 1.9% 0.7% 5.3%

Nevada

Northern Nevada Corr. Ctr.d 0.8% 0.2% 2.9% 0.0% 0.0% 1.8%

New Hampshire

Lakes Region Fac. 1.1% 0.3% 4.9% 4.0% 1.8% 8.6%

New Jersey

Bayside State Prison - Ancora Unit 0.0% 0.0% 2.8% 1.7% 0.6% 4.6%

Edna Mahan Corr. Fac. for Womenf 3.6 1.8 6.9 1.9 0.8 4.6

New Mexico

Southern New Mexico Corr. Fac. 2.2% 0.8% 5.7% 1.9% 0.7% 5.0%

New York

Attica Corr. Fac. 0.6% 0.1% 2.9% 8.1% 4.8% 13.3%

Bare Hill Corr. Fac. 1.2 0.4 3.2 6.6 4.0 10.9
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09 43

Appendix Table 2 (continued)

Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimization, by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09

Inmate-on-inmatea Staff sexual misconducta

95%-confidence intervalb 95%-confidence intervalb

Facility name

Percent 

victimizedc Lower bound Upper bound

Percent 

victimizedc Lower bound Upper bound

New York (continued)

Bayview Corr. Fac.f 4.6% 2.9% 7.3% 11.5% 8.3% 15.6%

Cape Vincent Corr. Fac. 1.0 0.3 3.3 0.0 0.0 2.1

Clinton Corr. Fac. 0.3 0.1 1.8 4.4 2.3 8.2

Coxsackie Corr. Fac. 1.4 0.6 3.4 4.6 2.6 7.8

Elmira Corr. Fac. 3.0 1.3 6.7 7.7 4.5 12.7

Walkill Corr. Fac. 0.0 0.0 2.3 3.2 1.5 6.8

North Carolina

Brown Creek Corr. Inst. 0.5% 0.1% 2.6% 1.2% 0.4% 3.9%

Guilford Corr. Ctr. 0.0 0.0 7.6 0.0 0.0 7.6

Pender Corr. Inst. 0.5 0.1 2.6 1.3 0.4 4.0

Swannanoa Corr. Ctr. for Womenf 1.3 0.5 3.4 0.0 0.0 6.4

Warren Corr. Ctr. 2.2 0.8 6.1 5.9 3.2 10.5

North Dakota

Dakota Women’s Corr. & Rehab. Ctr.f 2.2% 1.1% 4.6% 0.8% 0.3% 2.1%

James River Corr. Ctr. 1.6 0.7 3.7 1.3 0.3 5.0

Ohio

Corr. Reception Ctr. 0.4% 0.1% 2.2% 0.7% 0.2% 2.3%

Lebanon Corr. Inst. 3.7 1.9 7.1 2.9 1.4 5.7

Mansfield Corr. Inst. 1.5 0.5 4.3 2.9 1.3 6.4

Ohio Reformatory for Womenf 5.2 3.0 8.8 3.1 1.5 6.2

Southeastern Corr. Inst. 1.7 0.6 4.6 4.2 2.0 8.6

Oklahoma

Davis Corr. Fac.g 3.9% 1.9% 8.0% 6.1% 3.6% 10.1%

Mack H. Alford Corr. Ctr. 5.2 2.5 10.4 4.8 2.2 10.2

Oregon

Coffee Creek Corr. Fac.f 5.5% 3.3% 9.3% 1.6% 0.5% 4.4%

Pennsylvania

Camp Hill State Corr. Inst. 0.3% 0.1% 1.8% 1.2% 0.3% 4.4%

Coal Township State Corr. Inst. 2.6 1.3 5.5 1.7 0.7 4.1

Cresson State Corr. Inst. 2.5 1.2 5.1 3.9 2.2 6.8

Rhode Island

Maximum Security Fac. 0.6% 0.1% 2.7% 0.0% 0.0% 3.3%

South Carolina

Goodman Corr. Inst.f 3.1% 1.4% 6.7% 0.0% 0.0% 4.0%

Ridgeland Corr. Inst. 2.2 1.0 4.8 4.8 2.8 8.1

Trenton Corr. Inst. 0.0 0.0 2.1 1.4 0.6 3.6

South Dakota

Mike Durfee State Prison & Trusty Unit 3.7% 1.6% 8.0% 2.4% 0.9% 6.5%

Tennessee

West Tennessee State Penitentiary 1.8% 0.7% 4.5% 5.2% 3.0% 8.7%

Texas

Allred Unit 7.6% 4.4% 12.9% 5.6% 2.9% 10.4%

Beto Unit 3.1 1.5 6.2 6.0 3.6 9.9

Bridgeport Pre-Parole Fac.f,g 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.0 0.0 2.9
44 August 2010

Appendix Table 2 (continued)

Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimization, by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09

Inmate-on-inmatea Staff sexual misconducta

95%-confidence intervalb 95%-confidence intervalb

Facility name

Percent 

victimizedc Lower bound Upper bound

Percent 

victimizedc Lower bound Upper bound

Texas (continued)

C. Moore Transfer Fac. 0.0% 0.0% 2.0% 0.4% 0.1% 1.9%

Coffield Unit 1.7 0.6 4.8 3.2 1.6 6.3

Cole State Jail 1.4 0.4 4.3 1.7 0.6 4.5

Crain Unitf 3.1 1.4 6.4 2.7 1.2 6.0

Ferguson Unit 1.2 0.3 4.7 7.6 4.7 11.9

Halbert Substance Abuse Felony Punishment Fac.f 0.9 0.3 2.5 0.0 0.0 1.6

Hobby Unitf 4.3 2.6 7.2 2.0 0.9 4.3

Hughes Unit 8.6 5.2 14.0 3.1 1.3 7.1

Jester Unit III 2.2 0.9 5.3 0.0 0.0 2.0

Lindsey State Jailg 0.0 0.0 1.9 1.9 0.8 4.5

Michael Unit 6.1 3.3 11.0 4.8 2.5 9.2

Mountain View Unitf 9.2 5.6 14.7 4.3 2.0 9.1

Neal Unit 1.8 0.7 4.3 2.9 1.3 6.5

Plane State Jailf 2.8 1.2 6.1 0.1 0.0 0.6

Smith Unit 1.2 0.3 4.0 4.3 2.1 8.6

Telford Unit 4.6 2.4 8.4 5.5 3.1 9.8

Utah

Central Utah Corr. Fac. 1.6% 0.7% 3.9% 0.7% 0.2% 2.3%

Vermont

Northwest State Corr. Fac. 2.3% 1.1% 4.7% 3.9% 2.3% 6.4%

Virginia

Fluvanna Corr. Ctr.f 11.4% 7.7% 16.5% 6.0% 3.7% 9.5%

Haynesville Corr. Ctr. 1.0 0.3 3.4 1.5 0.5 4.0

Lawrenceville Corr. Ctr.g 0.8 0.2 4.0 3.0 1.4 6.3

Washington

Airway Heights Corr. Ctr. 1.8% 0.7% 4.4% 2.2% 0.9% 5.3%

Washington Corr. Ctr. for Womenf 5.5 3.2 9.3 1.3 0.4 4.0

West Virginia

Mount Olive Corr. Complex 3.1% 1.2% 7.5% 5.5% 2.7% 11.0%

Wisconsin

Dodge Corr. Inst.e 0.0% 0.0% 1.9% 1.0% 0.3% 3.3%

New Lisbon Corr. Inst. 0.7 0.1 3.8 2.5 0.9 6.9

Taycheedah Corr. Inst.f 11.9 8.2 16.9 1.5 0.6 3.9

Waupun Corr. Inst. 3.1 1.2 8.0 2.5 0.8 7.1

Wyoming

Wyoming Honor Farm 1.5% 0.6% 3.5% 1.4% 0.6% 3.4%
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09 45

Appendix Table 2 (continued)

Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimization, by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09

Inmate-on-inmatea Staff sexual misconducta

95%-confidence intervalb 95%-confidence intervalb

Facility name

Percent 

victimizedc Lower bound Upper bound

Percent 

victimizedc Lower bound Upper bound

Federal Facilities (Bureau of Prisons) 

Big Sandy - Camp 0.0% 0.0% 6.5% 0.0% 0.0% 6.5%

Brooklyn Metropolitan Det. Ctr.d 0.7 0.1 3.4 0.0 0.0 1.6

Bryan Fed. Prison Campf 1.7 0.6 4.4 0.6 0.1 2.7

Carswell Fed. Med. Ctr.f 3.6 1.7 7.6 1.9 0.6 5.5

Coleman I U.S. Penitentiary 1.7 0.5 5.7 3.3 1.3 8.1

Coleman Medium Fed. Corr. Inst.e 0.7 0.1 3.6 0.0 0.0 2.1

Danbury Fed. Corr. Inst.f 1.4 0.4 4.6 0.0 0.0 2.0

Elkton Fed. Corr. Inst. 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.0 2.1

Englewood Fed. Corr. Inst. 1.6 0.6 4.2 0.3 0.1 1.4

Fairton Fed. Corr. Inst. 0.6 0.1 3.0 1.0 0.2 5.0

Florence Fed. Corr. Inst. 0.0 0.0 4.8 1.4 0.3 7.3

Forrest City Low Fed. Corr. Inst. 0.0 0.0 1.8 1.6 0.6 4.3

Jesup-Fed. Satellite Low 0.9 0.2 4.2 0.0 0.0 2.4

Morgantown Fed. Corr. Inst. 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.0 2.4

Oakdale Fed. Corr. Inst. 0.0 0.0 1.9 1.0 0.2 4.8

Petersburg Medium Fed. Corr. Inst. 3.1 1.3 7.6 3.0 1.2 7.7

Schuylkill Fed. Corr. Inst. 0.8 0.2 2.6 1.4 0.4 4.9

Texarkana Fed. Corr. Inst. 0.0 0.0 2.8 1.2 0.2 6.0

Victorville U.S. Penitentiary 0.7 0.1 3.5 1.7 0.5 5.7

Note: Detail may sum to more than total victimization rate because victims may have reported both inmate-on-inmate and staff-on-inmate sexual victimization.

aIncludes all types of sexual victimization, including oral, anal, or vaginal penetration, hand jobs, touching of the inmate’s butt, thighs, penis, breasts, or vagina in a 

sexual way, and other sexual acts occurring in the past 12 months, or since admission to the facility, if shorter. 

bIndicates that different samples in the same facility would yield prevalence rates falling between the lower and upper bound estimates 95 out of 100 times.

cWeights were applied so that inmates who responded accurately reflected the entire population of each facility on select characteristics, including age, sex, race, time 

served, and sentence length. (See Methodology.) 

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

dFacility houses both males and females; both were sampled at this facility.

eFacility houses both males and females; only males were sampled at this facility. 

f

Female facility.

gPrivately operated facility.
46 August 2010

Appendix Table 3

Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimization by level of coercion, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09

Inmate-on-inmatea Staff sexual misconducta

Facility name Physically forcedb Pressuredc Physically forcedb Pressuredc Without force or pressured

Total 1.3% 1.6% 1.0% 1.6% 1.8%

Alabama

Bibb Corr. Fac. 1.9% 2.7% 0.3% 1.3% 1.1%

William Donaldson Corr. Fac. 2.9 3.9 1.4 1.5 4.5

Alaska

Fairbanks Corr. Ctr.e 1.1% 0.0% 1.1% 1.1% 0.0%

Arizona

Arizona State Prison Complex - Lewis 0.0% 0.7% 1.4% 1.9% 0.4%

Arizona State Prison Complex - Tucsonf 0.3 0.5 0.4 1.7 2.3

Arkansas

Diagnostic Unite 1.9% 1.9% 0.7% 0.0% 2.2%

McPherson Unitg 4.7 7.2 2.3 3.6 2.4

California

California Corr. Ctr. 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 0.5% 0.9%

California Inst. for Womeng 2.8 3.6 1.6 1.1 1.3

California Med. Fac. 3.9 4.1 1.7 2.5 1.1

Centinela State Prison 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Central California Women’s Fac.g 1.9 2.9 1.1 3.2 0.2

Chuckawalla Valley State Prison 0.6 2.8 1.2 1.6 1.0

Deuel Vocational Inst. 1.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.9

Folsom State Prison 0.7 0.7 1.1 1.1 0.8

High Desert State Prison 2.6 1.7 0.4 0.4 0.5

Los Angeles County State Prison 1.1 2.0 1.6 1.8 1.0

North Kern State Prison 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.9 2.5

Pleasant Valley State Prison 1.9 5.5 0.6 0.6 1.3

Salinas Valley State Prison 1.6 1.9 0.5 0.8 1.6

Valley State Prison for Womeng 5.0 6.5 1.3 3.6 2.0

Wasco State Prison-Reception Ctr. 0.5 0.5 1.3 1.0 1.0

Colorado

Sterling Corr. Fac. 2.6% 2.7% 3.1% 5.0% 3.7%

Connecticut

Corrigan-Radgowski Corr. Ctr. 0.0% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 2.3%

Osborn Corr. Inst. 0.7 2.4 0.4 0.8 1.3

York Corr. Fac.g 4.0 4.1 1.1 2.2 0.4

Delaware

Sussex Corr. Inst. 0.6% 1.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8%

Florida

Century Corr. Inst. & Work Camp 0.5% 0.5% 0.0% 1.5% 1.4%

Gadsden Corr. Fac.g,h 1.4 0.6 0.0 0.4 0.0

Hernando Corr. Inst.g 3.6 4.5 0.4 1.0 1.2

Indian River Corr. Inst. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 1.3

Lancaster Corr. Inst. & Work Camp 1.9 1.7 1.1 2.0 2.4

Liberty Corr. Inst. & Work Camp 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8

Lowell Corr. Inst., Annex, & Work Campg 2.4 3.1 1.3 1.3 1.2

Moore Haven Corr. Fac.h 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.1 1.1

Okeechobee Corr. Inst. 1.6 0.8 2.3 2.4 3.4
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09 47

Appendix Table 3 (continued)

Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimization by level of coercion, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09

Inmate-on-inmatea Staff sexual misconducta

Facility name Physically forcedb Pressuredc Physically forcedb Pressuredc Without force or pressured

Florida (continued)

Reception and Med. Ctr. & Reception and Med. Ctr.-

West Unitf 0.0% 0.5% 0.3% 0.7% 1.0%

South Florida Reception Ctr. & South Unit 1.0 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.3

Georgia

Dodge State Prison 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 1.0% 2.5%

Dooly State Prison 0.8 0.5 0.0 0.5 2.2

Pulaski State Prisong 4.1 4.4 0.0 0.3 0.0

Washington State Prison 0.5 0.0 0.4 0.4 1.9

Wheeler Corr. Fac.h 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.3 2.4

Hawaii

Oahu Community Corr. Ctr.e 3.3% 3.3% 0.2% 0.3% 0.0%

Women’s Community Corr. Ctr.g 1.7 2.7 0.0 2.9 1.0

Idaho

Idaho Corr. Fac.h 0.5% 0.5% 0.9% 1.0% 1.9%

Idaho State Corr. Inst. 1.7 2.5 1.3 1.3 1.9

Illinois

East Moline Corr. Ctr. 0.4% 0.4% 0.5% 1.0% 0.0%

Illinois River Corr. Ctr. 0.4 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.5

Lincoln Corr. Ctr.g 0.7 0.3 0.0 0.7 0.0

Pontiac Corr. Ctr. 5.0 4.4 0.8 3.4 2.5

Indiana

Plainfield Corr. Fac. 5.0% 4.3% 1.2% 2.2% 0.0%

Putnamville Corr. Fac. 1.6 2.7 1.4 1.8 4.7

Westville Corr. Fac. 1.4 2.3 0.7 1.8 4.5

Iowa

Iowa Corr. Inst. - Womeng 3.4% 5.4% 0.4% 1.5% 1.5%

Newton Corr. Fac. 2.3 2.0 0.7 0.3 1.0

Kansas

Larned Corr. Mental Health Fac. 0.0% 3.7% 2.5% 3.4% 2.9%

Kentucky

Kentucky Corr. Inst. for Womeng 5.1% 6.0% 0.7% 2.3% 0.7%

Luther Luckett Corr. Complex 1.2 1.2 2.1 4.2 3.9

Louisiana

Avoyelles Corr. Ctr. 1.7% 1.3% 2.2% 3.1% 1.8%

C. Paul Phelps Corr. Ctr. 0.4 0.7 0.3 1.3 2.1

Louisiana Corr. Inst. for Womeng 2.4 4.9 1.3 1.8 0.0

Maine

Maine State Prison - Warren 2.7% 5.3% 1.6% 1.7% 2.9%

Maryland

Jessup Pre-Release Unit 0.0% 0.0% 2.4% 3.1% 3.8%

Maryland Corr. Inst. - Jessup 1.0 1.0 0.6 0.6 2.8

Massachusetts

Massachusetts Corr. Inst - Plymouth 0.0% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 3.0%

Michigan

Earnest C. Brooks Corr. Fac. 1.4% 2.2% 1.9% 2.4% 2.8%

Mid-Michigan Corr. Fac. 1.4 2.9 0.8 0.8 0.5

Muskegon Corr. Fac. 0.7 4.8 1.1 1.1 5.6
48 August 2010

Appendix Table 3 (continued)

Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimization by level of coercion, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09

Inmate-on-inmatea Staff sexual misconducta

Facility name Physically forcedb Pressuredc Physically forcedb Pressuredc Without force or pressured

Michigan (continued)

Richard A. Handlon Corr. Fac. 2.9% 2.7% 1.6% 3.6% 1.6%

Minnesota

Minnesota Corr. Fac. - Rush City 1.9% 1.8% 2.8% 3.5% 3.9%

Minnesota Corr. Fac. - Shakopeeg 5.5 6.8 0.4 0.4 0.0

Mississippi

Mississippi State Penitentiary 1.2% 1.5% 1.9% 1.9% 5.9%

South Mississippi Corr. Inst. 0.4 0.3 1.0 3.1 2.8

Missouri

Crossroads Corr. Fac. 1.7% 1.7% 3.8% 5.2% 4.1%

Fulton Reception & Diagnostic Ctr. 0.3 0.0 0.8 1.0 1.7

Women’s Eastern Reception, Diagnostic, & Corr. Ctr.g 4.9 6.6 0.5 1.0 0.5

Montana

Montana State Prison 3.6% 1.4% 1.7% 4.7% 5.9%

Nebraska

Diagnostic & Evaluation Ctr. 1.0% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.0%

Nevada

Northern Nevada Corr. Ctr.e 0.3% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

New Hampshire

Lakes Region Fac. 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.0%

New Jersey

Bayside State Prison - Ancora Unit 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 0.7%

Edna Mahan Corr. Fac. for Womeng 1.8 3.6 1.1 1.9 0.6

New Mexico

Southern New Mexico Corr. Fac. 2.2% 0.9% 1.5% 0.9% 1.3%

New York

Attica Corr. Fac. 0.6% 0.6% 6.4% 6.0% 2.8%

Bare Hill Corr. Fac. 0.4 1.2 1.7 2.8 4.8

Bayview Corr. Fac.g 3.0 4.6 6.5 10.8 0.6

Cape Vincent Corr. Fac. 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Clinton Corr. Fac. 0.0 0.3 0.7 1.6 3.1

Coxsackie Corr. Fac. 1.4 1.4 2.9 4.1 1.1

Elmira Corr. Fac. 1.5 3.0 2.5 7.1 1.3

Walkill Corr. Fac. 0.0 0.0 2.3 2.3 0.9

North Carolina

Brown Creek Corr. Inst. 0.0% 0.5% 0.6% 0.0% 0.6%

Guilford Corr. Ctr. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Pender Corr. Inst. 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.6 0.7

Swannanoa Corr. Ctr. for Womeng 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Warren Corr. Ctr. 1.2 1.8 2.0 2.8 5.1

North Dakota

Dakota Women’s Corr. & Rehab. Ctr.g 2.2% 2.2% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0%

James River Corr. Ctr. 1.6 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.3
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09 49

Appendix Table 3 (continued)

Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimization by level of coercion, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09

Inmate-on-inmatea Staff sexual misconducta

Facility name Physically forcedb Pressuredc Physically forcedb Pressuredc Without force or pressured

Ohio

Corr. Reception Ctr. 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0.3% 0.4%

Lebanon Corr. Inst. 2.3 3.2 1.0 1.0 2.3

Mansfield Corr. Inst. 1.5 1.5 0.6 0.7 2.2

Ohio Reformatory for Womeng 2.3 4.7 0.5 3.1 0.3

Southeastern Corr. Inst. 1.1 1.7 0.7 3.0 3.6

Oklahoma

Davis Corr. Fac.h 3.1% 3.3% 2.3% 3.5% 4.0%

Mack H. Alford Corr. Ctr. 4.7 3.3 1.7 2.6 4.8

Oregon

Coffee Creek Corr. Fac.g 2.6% 3.5% 0.3% 1.6% 0.5%

Pennsylvania

Camp Hill State Corr. Inst. 0.3% 0.3% 0.0% 0.3% 0.8%

Coal Township State Corr. Inst. 1.1 1.9 1.7 1.4 0.3

Cresson State Corr. Inst. 1.1 2.2 1.8 3.3 0.8

Rhode Island

Maximum Security Fac. 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

South Carolina

Goodman Corr. Inst.g 0.0% 3.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Ridgeland Corr. Inst. 0.7 2.2 1.1 1.4 4.4

Trenton Corr. Inst. 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.9 0.5

South Dakota

Mike Durfee State Prison & Trusty Unit 2.7% 3.7% 0.7% 0.8% 0.9%

Tennessee

West Tennessee State Penitentiary 1.2% 1.8% 1.2% 1.2% 4.7%

Texas

Allred Unit 6.8% 3.9% 3.2% 3.7% 3.2%

Beto Unit 1.8 3.1 1.0 1.9 5.6

Bridgeport Pre-Parole Fac.g,h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

C. Moore Transfer Fac. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4

Coffield Unit 1.7 0.4 0.9 1.4 2.3

Cole State Jail 1.4 0.7 1.2 0.5 0.5

Crain Unitg 1.9 2.2 0.5 1.1 1.6

Ferguson Unit 0.0 1.2 1.1 3.1 5.8

Halbert Substance Abuse Felony Punishment Fac.g 0.5 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0

Hobby Unitg 3.2 1.9 1.1 0.8 0.4

Hughes Unit 5.9 6.5 1.1 2.6 1.7

Jester Unit III 1.3 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0

Lindsey State Jailh 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.9 1.5

Michael Unit 3.1 6.1 1.7 3.2 2.8

Mountain View Unitg 5.0 7.1 2.1 3.7 0.7

Neal Unit 1.4 1.4 0.5 1.7 1.7

Plane State Jailg 1.7 2.4 0.0 0.1 0.0

Smith Unit 0.6 1.2 2.6 2.6 1.7

Telford Unit 3.1 3.9 2.2 1.3 4.2
50 August 2010

Appendix Table 3 (continued)

Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimization by level of coercion, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09

Inmate-on-inmatea Staff sexual misconducta

Facility name Physically forcedb Pressuredc Physically forcedb Pressuredc Without force or pressured

Utah

Central Utah Corr. Fac. 1.6% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7%

Vermont

Northwest State Corr. Fac. 0.0% 2.3% 0.8% 1.9% 2.0%

Virginia

Fluvanna Corr. Ctr.g 5.9% 9.5% 1.5% 4.3% 2.4%

Haynesville Corr. Ctr. 0.5 0.5 0.0 1.5 0.9

Lawrenceville Corr. Ctr.h 0.8 0.8 0.6 1.1 1.7

Washington

Airway Heights Corr. Ctr. 1.4% 1.8% 1.6% 2.2% 1.1%

Washington Corr. Ctr. for Womeng 3.2 4.9 0.8 0.8 1.3

West Virginia

Mount Olive Corr. Complex 1.9% 1.2% 2.7% 2.4% 3.5%

Wisconsin

Dodge Corr. Inst.f 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 1.0%

New Lisbon Corr. Inst. 0.7 0.7 0.0 1.9 1.3

Taycheedah Corr. Inst.g 3.9 10.8 1.0 0.5 0.6

Waupun Corr. Inst. 1.3 3.1 0.5 0.5 2.5

Wyoming

Wyoming Honor Farm 0.7% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 1.4%

Federal Facilities (Bureau of Prisons)

Big Sandy - Camp 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Brooklyn Metropolitan Det. Ctr.e 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0

Bryan Fed. Prison Campg 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0

Carswell Fed. Med. Ctr.g 1.9 2.4 1.2 1.0 0.0

Coleman I U.S. Penitentiary 1.7 1.7 1.4 1.6 1.2

Coleman Medium Fed. Corr. Inst.f 0.7 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0

Danbury Fed. Corr. Inst.g 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Elkton Fed. Corr. Inst. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Englewood Fed. Corr. Inst. 1.1 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.3

Fairton Fed. Corr. Inst. 0.6 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Florence Fed. Corr. Inst. 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 1.4

Forrest City Low Fed. Corr. Inst. 0.0 0.0 1.1 1.1 1.0

Jesup-Fed. Satellite Low 0.9 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0

Morgantown Fed. Corr. Inst. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Oakdale Fed. Corr. Inst. 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0

Petersburg Medium Fed. Corr. Inst. 1.6 3.1 0.4 2.3 1.1
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09 51

Appendix Table 3 (continued)

Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimization by level of coercion, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09

Inmate-on-inmatea Staff sexual misconducta

Facility name Physically forcedb Pressuredc Physically forcedb Pressuredc Without force or pressured

Federal Facilities (Bureau of Prisons) (continued)

Schuylkill Fed. Corr. Inst. 0.0% 0.8% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4%

Texarkana Fed. Corr. Inst. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2

Victorville U.S. Penitentiary 0.0 0.7 1.0 1.7 0.7

Note: Detail may sum to more than total victimization rate because victims may report on more than one incident involving different levels of coercion.

aIncludes all types of sexual victimization, including oral, anal, or vaginal penetration, hand jobs, touching of the inmate’s butt, thighs, penis, breasts, or vagina in a sexual way, and other 

sexual acts occurring in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if shorter. 

bPhysical force or threat of physical force reported. 

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

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

contact with staff. 

eFacility houses both males and females; both were sampled at this facility.

f

Facility houses both males and females; only males were sampled in this facility. 

gFemale facility.

hPrivately operated facility.
52 August 2010

Appendix Table 4

Percent of prison inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual contacts, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 

2008-09

Nonconsensual sexual actsa Abusive sexual contacts onlyb

95%-confidence intervalc 95%-confidence intervalc

Facility name

Percent 

victimizedd Lower bound Upper bound

Percent 

victimizedd Lower bound Upper bound

Total 3.1% 2.7% 3.5% 1.3% 1.1% 1.6%

Alabama

Bibb Corr. Fac. 2.4% 1.2% 4.6% 2.0% 1.0% 4.2%

William Donaldson Corr. Fac. 4.9 2.8 8.5 3.9 2.0 7.3

Alaska

Fairbanks Corr. Ctr.e 2.1% 0.8% 5.7% 0.0% 0.0% 3.6%

Arizona

Arizona State Prison Complex - Lewis 1.9% 0.7% 4.8% 0.0% 0.0% 1.9%

Arizona State Prison Complex - Tucsonf 2.6 1.2 5.5 0.8 0.2 3.1

Arkansas

Diagnostic Unite 4.8% 2.4% 9.5% 0.0% 0.0% 3.2%

McPherson Unitg 4.5 2.6 7.7 5.7 3.5 9.2

California

California Corr. Ctr. 0.9% 0.2% 3.1% 0.5% 0.1% 2.9%

California Inst. for Womeng 2.7 1.2 6.0 3.4 1.6 7.2

California Med. Fac. 3.9 2.3 6.6 5.1 3.1 8.2

Centinela State Prison 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.0 2.6

Central California Women’s Fac.g 3.3 1.4 7.3 1.9 0.8 4.9

Chuckawalla Valley State Prison 2.7 1.2 6.1 0.9 0.3 3.3

Deuel Vocational Inst. 1.7 0.7 4.2 0.9 0.3 3.4

Folsom State Prison 0.4 0.1 2.1 1.1 0.3 4.0

High Desert State Prison 2.6 1.1 6.2 0.9 0.2 3.5

Los Angeles County State Prison 3.4 1.7 6.6 0.5 0.1 2.7

North Kern State Prison 2.5 1.1 5.7 0.0 0.0 1.8

Pleasant Valley State Prison 4.6 2.4 8.5 1.4 0.4 5.0

Salinas Valley State Prison 3.5 1.2 9.4 1.3 0.4 3.8

Valley State Prison for Womeng 5.3 2.8 9.7 2.9 1.4 6.0

Wasco State Prison-Reception Ctr. 1.9 0.7 4.7 0.0 0.0 1.7

Colorado

Sterling Corr. Fac. 6.2% 3.5% 10.7% 1.3% 0.4% 3.6%

Connecticut

Corrigan-Radgowski Corr. Ctr. 1.8% 0.6% 5.1% 1.2% 0.3% 4.4%

Osborn Corr. Inst. 2.6 1.2 5.4 1.4 0.5 3.9

York Corr. Fac.g 2.6 1.2 5.6 4.9 2.6 8.8

Delaware

Sussex Corr. Inst. 2.5% 1.3% 4.9% 0.0% 0.0% 1.8%

Florida

Century Corr. Inst. & Work Camp 1.9% 0.8% 4.6% 0.0% 0.0% 1.8%

Gadsden Corr. Fac.g,h 0.4 0.1 2.0 2.0 0.8 4.8

Hernando Corr. Inst.g 3.2 1.7 6.0 3.3 1.8 5.9

Indian River Corr. Inst. 1.2 0.5 2.9 0.7 0.2 2.3

Lancaster Corr. Inst. & Work Camp 4.3 2.4 7.8 2.3 1.1 4.9

Liberty Corr. Inst. & Work Camp 1.5 0.6 3.7 0.5 0.1 2.5

Lowell Corr. Inst., Annex, & Work Campg 3.2 1.7 5.9 1.3 0.5 3.2

Moore Haven Corr. Fac.h 1.6 0.6 4.2 0.0 0.0 1.7
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09 53

Appendix Table 4 (continued)

Percent of prison inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual contacts, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 

2008-09

Nonconsensual sexual actsa Abusive sexual contacts onlyb

95%-confidence intervalc 95%-confidence intervalc

Facility name

Percent 

victimizedd Lower bound Upper bound

Percent 

victimizedd Lower bound Upper bound

Florida (continued)

Okeechobee Corr. Inst. 4.4% 2.6% 7.3% 1.8% 0.7% 4.2%

Reception and Med. Ctr. & Reception and Med. Ctr.-West Unitf 1.4 0.5 4.0 0.3 0.1 1.4

South Florida Reception Ctr. & South Unit 0.9 0.3 2.5 0.8 0.2 3.0

Georgia

Dodge State Prison 2.0% 0.8% 4.7% 0.5% 0.1% 2.5%

Dooly State Prison 2.4 1.1 5.3 0.3 0.1 1.5

Pulaski State Prisong 2.7 1.4 5.1 3.5 1.8 6.4

Washington State Prison 2.3 1.0 5.0 0.5 0.1 2.4

Wheeler Corr. Fac.h 2.5 1.3 4.9 0.6 0.2 2.1

Hawaii

Oahu Community Corr. Ctr.e 3.5% 1.3% 9.0% 1.3% 0.2% 6.3%

Women’s Community Corr. Ctr.g 4.0 1.8 8.4 1.1 0.3 4.3

Idaho

Idaho Corr. Fac.h 2.3% 1.1% 5.1% 0.0% 0.0% 1.8%

Idaho State Corr. Inst. 6.0 3.5 10.2 0.0 0.0 1.8

Illinois

East Moline Corr. Ctr. 1.4% 0.5% 3.7% 0.0% 0.0% 1.8%

Illinois River Corr. Ctr. 1.3 0.5 3.7 0.0 0.0 1.9

Lincoln Corr. Ctr.g 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.4 0.5 3.9

Pontiac Corr. Ctr. 7.4 3.4 15.6 4.6 1.5 13.4

Indiana

Plainfield Corr. Fac. 3.3% 1.4% 7.2% 4.3% 2.0% 8.8%

Putnamville Corr. Fac. 5.7 3.2 10.1 2.4 0.9 5.7

Westville Corr. Fac. 4.8 2.5 9.2 0.9 0.3 3.3

Iowa

Iowa Corr. Inst. - Womeng 4.3% 2.4% 7.5% 3.4% 1.7% 6.6%

Newton Corr. Fac. 3.4 1.5 7.5 2.3 1.0 5.2

Kansas

Larned Corr. Mental Health Fac. 5.3% 2.6% 10.5% 3.7% 1.5% 9.0%

Kentucky

Kentucky Corr. Inst. for Womeng 2.8% 1.2% 6.4% 6.8% 3.9% 11.4%

Luther Luckett Corr. Complex 5.1 2.7 9.4 1.0 0.3 3.4

Louisiana

Avoyelles Corr. Ctr. 4.0% 2.2% 7.1% 1.3% 0.5% 3.6%

C. Paul Phelps Corr. Ctr. 2.9 1.5 5.4 1.3 0.5 3.2

Louisiana Corr. Inst. for Womeng 2.5 1.3 5.0 4.9 3.0 8.0

Maine

Maine State Prison - Warren 9.3% 5.5% 15.1% 0.6% 0.1% 3.0%

Maryland

Jessup Pre-Release Unit 4.3% 2.3% 7.9% 0.7% 0.2% 3.0%

Maryland Corr. Inst. - Jessup 3.8 1.8 7.8 0.0 0.0 2.5

Massachusetts

Massachusetts Corr. Inst - Plymouth 3.0% 1.1% 8.0% 0.8% 0.2% 3.3%
54 August 2010

Appendix Table 4 (continued)

Percent of prison inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual contacts, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 

2008-09

Nonconsensual sexual actsa Abusive sexual contacts onlyb

95%-confidence intervalc 95%-confidence intervalc

Facility name

Percent 

victimizedd Lower bound Upper bound

Percent 

victimizedd Lower bound Upper bound

Michigan

Earnest C. Brooks Corr. Fac. 5.0% 2.7% 9.0% 1.3% 0.4% 3.5%

Mid-Michigan Corr. Fac. 3.4 1.6 7.1 0.8 0.2 3.6

Muskegon Corr. Fac. 7.0 4.1 11.8 4.4 1.1 15.3

Richard A. Handlon Corr. Fac. 5.0 2.8 8.7 2.3 0.9 5.6

Minnesota

Minnesota Corr. Fac. - Rush City 3.1% 1.4% 6.8% 4.2% 2.1% 8.0%

Minnesota Corr. Fac. - Shakopeeg 4.6 2.0 10.1 3.7 2.0 6.9

Mississippi

Mississippi State Penitentiary 7.0% 4.5% 10.8% 0.5% 0.1% 1.8%

South Mississippi Corr. Inst. 4.5 2.7 7.7 1.1 0.4 3.2

Missouri

Crossroads Corr. Fac. 7.1% 4.4% 11.3% 2.2% 1.0% 5.0%

Fulton Reception & Diagnostic Ctr. 1.7 0.7 4.0 0.0 0.0 1.7

Women’s Eastern Reception, Diagnostic, & Corr. Ctr.g 2.0 0.8 4.8 6.8 4.2 10.8

Montana

Montana State Prison 7.8% 4.9% 12.2% 2.9% 1.4% 6.0%

Nebraska

Diagnostic & Evaluation Ctr. 1.9% 0.7% 5.3% 1.0% 0.2% 3.8%

Nevada

Northern Nevada Corr. Ctr.e 0.8% 0.2% 2.9% 0.0% 0.0% 1.8%

New Hampshire

Lakes Region Fac. 4.0% 1.8% 8.6% 1.1% 0.3% 4.9%

New Jersey

Bayside State Prison - Ancora Unit 1.7% 0.6% 4.6% 0.0% 0.0% 2.8%

Edna Mahan Corr. Fac. for Womeng 0.9 0.3 3.0 3.6 1.8 6.9

New Mexico

Southern New Mexico Corr. Fac. 1.7% 0.6% 4.6% 1.5% 0.5% 4.5%

New York

Attica Corr. Fac. 2.7% 1.1% 6.8% 5.3% 2.8% 9.6%

Bare Hill Corr. Fac. 6.0 3.5 10.2 1.8 0.7 4.3

Bayview Corr. Fac.g 10.2 7.3 14.2 4.4 2.6 7.3

Cape Vincent Corr. Fac. 0.4 0.1 2.1 0.6 0.1 2.8

Clinton Corr. Fac. 3.1 1.4 6.6 1.6 0.6 4.1

Coxsackie Corr. Fac. 3.3 1.9 5.9 2.4 1.1 5.3

Elmira Corr. Fac. 8.0 4.8 13.0 1.8 0.6 5.0

Walkill Corr. Fac. 0.9 0.3 2.9 2.3 0.9 5.9

North Carolina

Brown Creek Corr. Inst. 1.2% 0.4% 3.9% 0.5% 0.1% 2.6%

Guilford Corr. Ctr. 0.0 0.0 7.6 0.0 0.0 7.6

Pender Corr. Inst. 1.1 0.4 3.6 0.7 0.1 3.2

Swannanoa Corr. Ctr. for Womeng 0.0 0.0 6.4 1.3 0.5 3.4

Warren Corr. Ctr. 3.5 1.8 7.0 3.4 1.4 8.1
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09 55

Appendix Table 4 (continued)

Percent of prison inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual contacts, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 

2008-09

Nonconsensual sexual actsa Abusive sexual contacts onlyb

95%-confidence intervalc 95%-confidence intervalc

Facility name

Percent 

victimizedd Lower bound Upper bound

Percent 

victimizedd Lower bound Upper bound

North Dakota

Dakota Women’s Corr. & Rehab. Ctr.g 2.1% 1.0% 4.3% 0.9% 0.3% 2.5%

James River Corr. Ctr. 0.4 0.1 1.6 2.5 1.0 5.9

Ohio

Corr. Reception Ctr. 0.7% 0.2% 2.3% 0.4% 0.1% 2.2%

Lebanon Corr. Inst. 3.6 2.0 6.6 2.0 0.8 5.0

Mansfield Corr. Inst. 1.9 0.7 5.3 2.5 1.1 5.6

Ohio Reformatory for Womeng 3.2 1.6 6.1 4.5 2.5 7.9

Southeastern Corr. Inst. 5.3 2.7 9.9 0.0 0.0 2.6

Oklahoma

Davis Corr. Fac.h 6.9% 4.1% 11.4% 2.3% 1.0% 5.0%

Mack H. Alford Corr. Ctr. 5.1 2.4 10.4 2.8 1.0 7.8

Oregon

Coffee Creek Corr. Fac.g 2.3% 1.0% 5.4% 4.8% 2.7% 8.4%

Pennsylvania

Camp Hill State Corr. Inst. 1.2% 0.3% 4.4% 0.0% 0.0% 1.6%

Coal Township State Corr. Inst. 2.3 1.0 5.0 1.6 0.7 4.0

Cresson State Corr. Inst. 3.6 2.0 6.5 2.0 0.9 4.4

Rhode Island

Maximum Security Fac. 0.6% 0.1% 2.7% 0.0% 0.0% 3.2%

South Carolina

Goodman Corr. Inst.g 1.1% 0.3% 3.8% 2.0% 0.8% 5.2%

Ridgeland Corr. Inst. 5.3 3.1 8.7 0.9 0.3 3.1

Trenton Corr. Inst. 0.9 0.3 2.7 0.5 0.1 2.4

South Dakota

Mike Durfee State Prison & Trusty Unit 4.5% 2.1% 9.5% 1.6% 0.6% 4.4%

Tennessee

West Tennessee State Penitentiary 5.6% 3.4% 9.3% 0.0% 0.0% 1.7%

Texas

Allred Unit 6.5% 3.7% 11.2% 4.4% 2.0% 9.2%

Beto Unit 6.0 3.6 9.8 1.3 0.5 3.7

Bridgeport Pre-Parole Fac.g,h 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.0 0.0 2.9

C. Moore Transfer Fac. 0.4 0.1 1.9 0.0 0.0 2.0

Coffield Unit 3.6 1.8 6.8 1.2 0.3 4.4

Cole State Jail 0.5 0.1 2.4 2.6 1.1 5.9

Crain Unitg 2.6 1.1 5.8 1.9 0.8 4.6

Ferguson Unit 7.3 4.4 11.9 1.2 0.5 3.2

Halbert Substance Abuse Felony Punishment Fac.g 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.9 0.3 2.5

Hobby Unitg 2.3 1.1 4.6 3.2 1.7 5.8

Hughes Unit 3.9 1.9 7.7 6.4 3.5 11.3

Jester Unit III 1.2 0.4 3.8 1.0 0.3 3.7

Lindsey State Jailh 1.5 0.6 4.1 0.3 0.1 1.6

Michael Unit 7.6 4.4 12.8 1.5 0.4 5.2

Mountain View Unitg 4.8 2.4 9.4 5.6 2.9 10.6

Neal Unit 2.9 1.3 6.5 1.4 0.5 3.7
56 August 2010

Appendix Table 4 (continued)

Percent of prison inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual contacts, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 

2008-09

Nonconsensual sexual actsa Abusive sexual contacts onlyb

95%-confidence intervalc 95%-confidence intervalc

Facility name

Percent 

victimizedd Lower bound Upper bound

Percent 

victimizedd Lower bound Upper bound

Texas (continued)

Plane State Jailg 0.0% 0.0% 1.6% 2.8% 1.2% 6.1%

Smith Unit 2.3 0.9 5.6 3.2 1.4 7.3

Telford Unit 7.3 4.3 11.9 0.4 0.1 2.4

Utah

Central Utah Corr. Fac. 1.1% 0.4% 2.9% 1.2% 0.5% 3.4%

Vermont

Northwest State Corr. Fac. 6.2% 4.0% 9.3% 0.0% 0.0% 3.9%

Virginia

Fluvanna Corr. Ctr.g 10.5% 7.0% 15.4% 3.8% 2.0% 7.2%

Haynesville Corr. Ctr. 1.5 0.6 4.1 1.0 0.3 3.2

Lawrenceville Corr. Ctr.h 2.6 1.1 5.9 1.2 0.3 4.1

Washington

Airway Heights Corr. Ctr. 2.0% 0.8% 4.8% 1.5% 0.5% 4.1%

Washington Corr. Ctr. for Womeng 4.2 2.2 7.8 1.8 0.8 4.3

West Virginia

Mount Olive Corr. Complex 6.0% 3.0% 11.5% 0.8% 0.1% 3.9%

Wisconsin

Dodge Corr. Inst.f 1.0% 0.3% 3.3% 0.0% 0.0% 1.9%

New Lisbon Corr. Inst. 2.5 0.9 6.9 0.0 0.0 3.4

Taycheedah Corr. Inst.g 6.5 4.0 10.3 6.4 3.7 10.8

Waupun Corr. Inst. 5.1 2.3 10.9 0.0 0.0 3.3

Wyoming

Wyoming Honor Farm 2.8% 1.5% 5.3% 0.0% 0.0% 3.2%

Federal Facilities (Bureau of Prisons)

Big Sandy - Camp 0.0% 0.0% 6.5% 0.0% 0.0% 6.5%

Brooklyn Metropolitan Det. Ctr.e 0.7 0.1 3.4 0.0 0.0 1.6

Bryan Fed. Prison Campg 0.6 0.1 2.7 1.7 0.6 4.4

Carswell Fed. Med. Ctr.g 2.0 0.7 5.5 2.9 1.2 6.6

Coleman I U.S. Penitentiary 5.0 2.3 10.3 0.0 0.0 2.5

Coleman Medium Fed. Corr. Inst.f 0.7 0.1 3.6 0.0 0.0 2.1

Danbury Fed. Corr. Inst.g 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.4 0.4 4.6

Elkton Fed. Corr. Inst. 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.0 2.1

Englewood Fed. Corr. Inst. 0.5 0.1 2.3 1.4 0.5 3.8

Fairton Fed. Corr. Inst. 1.0 0.2 5.0 0.6 0.1 3.0

Florence Fed. Corr. Inst. 1.4 0.3 7.3 0.0 0.0 4.8

Forrest City Low Fed. Corr. Inst. 1.6 0.6 4.3 0.0 0.0 1.8

Jesup-Fed. Satellite Low 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.9 0.2 4.2

Morgantown Fed. Corr. Inst. 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.0 2.4

Oakdale Fed. Corr. Inst. 1.0 0.2 4.8 0.0 0.0 1.9

Petersburg Medium Fed. Corr. Inst. 3.4 1.4 8.1 0.4 0.1 2.4
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09 57

Appendix Table 4 (continued)

Percent of prison inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual contacts, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 

2008-09

Nonconsensual sexual actsa Abusive sexual contacts onlyb

95%-confidence intervalc 95%-confidence intervalc

Facility name

Percent 

victimizedd Lower bound Upper bound

Percent 

victimizedd Lower bound Upper bound

Federal Facilities (Bureau of Prisons)

Schuylkill Fed. Corr. Inst. 2.2 0.8 5.5 0.0 0.0 2.3

Texarkana Fed. Corr. Inst. 1.2% 0.2% 6.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.8%

Victorville U.S. Penitentiary 2.4 0.8 6.5 0.0 0.0 2.9

Note: Detail may not sum to total percent victimized within facility due to rounding. 

aIncludes all inmates who reported unwanted contacts with another inmate or unwilling contacts with staff that involved oral sex, anal sex, vaginal sex, handjobs, and other sexual acts 

occurring in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if shorter. 

bIncludes all inmates who reported unwanted contacts with another inmate or unwilling contacts with staff that involved touching of the inmate’s butt, thighs, penis, breasts, or vagina in 

a sexual way occurring in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if shorter. 

cIndicates that different samples in the same facility would yield prevalence rates falling between the lower and upper bound estimates 95 out of 100 times.

dWeights were applied so that inmates who responded accurately reflected the entire population of each facility on select characteristics, including age, sex, race, time served, and 

sentence length. (See Methodology.) 

eFacility houses both males and females; both were sampled at this facility.

f

Facility houses both males and females; only males were sampled at this facility. 

gFemale facility.

hPrivately operated facility.
58 August 2010

Appendix Table 5 

Characteristics of jails and prevalence of sexual victimization, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09

Inmates reporting sexual victimizationa

95%-confidence intervalb

Facility name

Number of inmates 

in custodyc

Respondents to sexual 

victimization surveyd Response ratee Percentf Lower bound Upper bound

Total 224,484 45,126 68% 3.1% 2.9% 3.3%

Alabama

Chilton Co. Jail 152 98 86% 3.5% 2.2% 5.6%

Houston Co. Jail 528 216 89 7.4 5.0 10.7

Madison Co. Det. Fac. 890 293 71 7.2 5.1 9.9

Montgomery Co. Det. Fac. 567 243 90 3.1 1.9 5.1

Russell Co. Jail 323 174 86 3.2 1.9 5.3

Arizona

Maricopa Co. - Durango Jail 2,178 281 83% 3.0% 1.7% 5.4%

Maricopa Co. - Tent City Jail 970 254 84 1.9 0.9 4.0

Maricopa Co. - Towers Jail 992 237 77 6.2 3.9 9.9

Mohave Co. Jail 515 190 77 4.8 3.0 7.5

Pima Co. Adult Det. Ctr. 1,890 260 77 1.0 0.4 2.7

Arkansas

Drew Co. Det. Fac. 35 25 93% 0.0% 0.0% 13.3%

Faulkner Co. Det. Ctr. 191 129 84 3.5 2.3 5.2

Garland Co. Adult Det. Ctr. 261 130 74 5.8 3.7 9.1

Sharp Co. Det. Ctr. 43 34 92 0.0 0.0 10.2

California

Butte Co. Jail 523 186 76% 2.7% 1.4% 5.3%

Fresno Co. - Main Jail, North Annex, & South Annex 3,268 231 55 4.9 2.8 8.5

Kern Co. - Lerdo Min. Security Fac. 615 230 85 2.4 1.3 4.6

Lake Co. - Hill Road Corr. Fac. 233 111 57 0.5 0.2 1.9

Los Angeles Co. - Pitchess Det. Ctr. - East Fac. 2,033 251 75 3.8 2.0 7.1

Los Angeles Co. - Pitchess Det. Ctr. - North Fac. 1,240 212 66 1.0 0.3 3.7

Los Angeles Co. - Men’s Central Jail 5,512 234 53 5.0 2.4 10.0

Madera Co. Jail 430 164 64 4.9 3.0 8.1

Mendocino Co. Jail 336 160 69 2.8 1.3 5.9

Monterey Co. Jail 1,082 198 65 3.7 1.9 7.3

Orange Co. - Central Jail Complex 2,675 236 72 3.0 1.6 5.8

Orange Co. - J.A. Musick Fac. 732 224 76 2.2 1.1 4.4

Riverside Co. - Robert Presley Det. Ctr. 1,250 162 51 4.7 2.4 9.0

Riverside Co. - Southwest Det. Ctr. 1,164 191 58 3.1 1.4 6.6

Sacramento Co. - Main Jail 2,688 258 68 5.4 3.3 8.9

San Bernardino Co. - Central Det. Ctr 1,059 211 70 0.7 0.2 2.2

San Bernardino Co. - West Valley Det. Ctr. 3,180 320 44 5.1 3.3 7.7

San Diego Co. - Central Det. Fac. 1,077 174 56 6.7 4.0 11.1

San Diego Co. - Descanso Det. Fac. 340 141 73 1.8 0.9 3.7

San Francisco Co. - County Jail #8 413 123 73 6.0 3.8 9.3

San Joaquin Co. Jail 1,699 215 66 2.8 1.2 6.3

San Mateo Co. - Maguire Corr. Fac. 1,033 177 64 1.6 0.6 4.1

Santa Cruz Co. - Blaine Street Fac.g 17 13 82 7.7 3.1 17.8

Solano Co. - Sentenced Det. Fac. 360 118 67 0.7 0.2 2.7

Sonoma Co. - North Det. Fac. 323 166 81 1.6 0.8 3.2
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09 59

Appendix Table 5 (continued) 

Characteristics of jails and prevalence of sexual victimization, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09

Inmates reporting sexual victimizationa

95%-confidence intervalb

Facility name

Number of inmates 

in custodyc

Respondents to sexual 

victimization surveyd Response ratee Percentf Lower bound Upper bound

Colorado

Adams Co. Det. Fac. 1,548 214 65% 1.1% 0.5% 2.6%

Arapahoe Co. Jail 1,293 227 67 2.8 1.3 5.7

El Paso Co. - Criminal Justice Ctr. 1,603 251 63 1.7 0.7 4.1

Jefferson Co. Jail 1,179 239 69 1.4 0.6 3.3

Logan Co. Jail 94 66 73 3.3 1.6 6.8

District of Columbia

D.C. Dept of Corr. - Central Det. Fac. & Corr. Treatment Fac. 3,136 167 46% 6.0% 3.1% 11.0%

Florida

Bay Co. Jail 801 226 79% 2.3% 1.1% 4.7%

Broward Co. - Joseph V. Conte Fac. 1,362 234 75 3.5 1.8 6.4

Broward Co. - Main Jail 1,602 181 57 4.6 2.5 8.2

Broward Co. - North Broward Bureau 767 209 74 4.5 2.7 7.5

Broward Co. - Paul Rein Det. Fac. 1,071 237 77 3.2 1.7 5.7

Charlotte Co. Jail 534 140 59 3.2 1.5 6.8

Hardee Co. Jail 91 60 73 2.2 0.8 5.9

Highlands Co. Jail 454 167 66 1.7 0.7 3.9

Hillsborough Co. - Falkenburg Road Jail 2,697 250 68 2.1 0.9 4.5

Jacksonville - James I. Montgomery Corr. Ctr. 600 250 93 2.1 1.1 3.9

Marion Co. Jail 1,516 270 80 1.8 0.8 3.9

Miami-Dade Co. - Metro West Det. Ctr. 2,389 233 66 1.7 0.7 4.2

Miami-Dade Co. - Pre-trial Det. Ctr. 1,780 158 50 7.8 4.9 12.2

Monroe Co. Det. Ctr. 611 192 81 2.9 1.5 5.5

Nassau Co. Det. Fac. 271 168 87 0.7 0.2 1.9

Okaloosa Co. Jail 525 224 83 2.6 1.4 4.5

Osceola Co. Jail 1,257 207 69 1.0 0.3 3.4

Palm Beach Co. - Main Det. Ctr. 2,103 218 63 2.4 1.1 4.9

Pinellas Co. Med. Security Fac. 804 239 85 3.4 2.0 5.7

Polk Co. - Central County Jail 1,033 226 63 1.6 0.7 4.0

St. Lucie Co. Main Jail 1,458 268 79 2.5 1.2 5.1

Volusia Co. Branch Jail 1,030 248 80 2.2 1.1 4.7

Walton Co. Jail 218 148 85 3.3 2.1 5.0

Georgia

Atlanta City Jail 1,071 188 71% 4.5% 2.4% 8.2%

Bulloch Co. Jail 416 210 93 5.0 3.4 7.3

Chatham Co. Det. Ctr. 1,960 255 64 1.4 0.6 3.3

Clarke Co. Jail 438 182 83 1.5 0.7 3.2

Clayton Co. Jail 1,828 248 78 1.6 0.8 3.5

Cobb Co. - Jail & Prison Unit 2,630 276 84 2.1 0.9 4.6

Coweta Co. Prison 211 184 91 0.0 0.0 2.0

Dekalb Co. Jail 3,713 263 76 4.3 2.5 7.4

Fulton Co. - Alpharetta Annex 50 33 81 0.0 0.0 10.4

Gilmer Co. Jail 125 54 54 0.0 0.0 6.6

Houston Co. Jail 579 186 75 1.9 0.9 4.1
60 August 2010

Appendix Table 5 (continued) 

Characteristics of jails and prevalence of sexual victimization, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 200-09

Inmates reporting sexual victimizationa

95%-confidence intervalb

Facility name

Number of inmates 

in custodyc

Respondents to sexual 

victimization surveyd Response ratee Percentf Lower bound Upper bound

Georgia (continued)

Jackson Co. Jail 163 84 63% 0.0% 0.0% 4.4%

Jasper Co. Jail 30 19 79 0.0 0.0 16.8

Lowndes Co. Jail 805 243 81 2.3 1.2 4.4

Muscogee Co. Prison 592 232 86 2.2 1.1 4.2

Richmond Co. - Charles B. Webster Det. Ctr. 696 219 80 3.2 1.7 5.7

Roswell City Jail 40 9 53 0.0 0.0 29.9

Turner Co. Jail 48 21 65 0.0 0.0 15.5

Ware Co. Jail 387 212 93 4.1 2.7 6.1

Idaho

Canyon Co. Jail 475 194 76% 3.5% 2.0% 6.0%

Madison Co. Jail 78 40 56 1.1 0.3 3.9

Illinois

Cook Co. Jail - Division 1 1,175 265 81% 5.2% 3.3% 8.0%

Cook Co. Jail - Division 6 1,026 268 86 6.4 4.4 9.3

Cook Co. Jail - Division 9 864 195 65 5.0 2.9 8.5

DuPage Co. Jail 855 215 71 3.6 2.0 6.3

LaSalle Co. Jail 210 118 77 3.9 2.3 6.5

Vermilion Co. Jail 225 143 86 3.1 1.9 5.0

Winnebago Co. Jail 842 204 69 4.3 2.5 7.5

Indiana

Boone Co. Jail 102 72 85% 1.3% 0.6% 3.0%

Brown Co. Jail 40 22 77 0.0 0.0 14.9

Madison Co. Det. Ctr. 312 158 78 5.5 3.8 8.0

Marion Co. Jail IIh 1,378 218 67 3.4 1.7 7.0

Pulaski Co. Jail 107 88 95 1.9 1.2 2.8

Vigo Co. Jail 318 148 80 6.5 4.3 9.6

Iowa

Black Hawk Co. Jail 224 140 78% 2.7% 1.6% 4.4%

Linn Co. Corr. Ctr. 305 126 58 4.1 2.0 8.0

Kansas

Butler Co. Jail 216 121 71% 3.9% 2.4% 6.4%

Johnson Co. - New Century Adult Det. Ctr. 313 112 64 2.4 1.0 5.5

Rice Co. Jail 45 13 38 0.0 0.0 22.8

Sedgwick Co. Jail 1,405 187 69 2.1 1.0 4.6

Kentucky

Campbell Co. Det. Ctr. 379 184 77% 2.7% 1.5% 4.8%

Floyd Co. Det. Ctr. 170 87 64 3.2 1.4 7.0

Franklin Co. Regional Jail 306 110 71 0.0 0.0 3.4

Henderson Co. Det. Ctr. 554 177 69 1.5 0.6 3.7

Jessamine Co. Det. Ctr. 137 46 44 0.0 0.0 7.7

Louisville Metro Dept. of Corr. - Community Corr. Ctr. 204 88 56 2.8 1.3 5.9

Louisville Metro Dept. of Corr. - Metro Corr. Fac. 1,782 225 68 2.0 0.9 4.3

Warren Co. Regional Jail 535 192 71 3.3 1.7 6.1
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09 61

Appendix Table 5 (continued) 

Characteristics of jails and prevalence of sexual victimization, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09

Inmates reporting sexual victimizationa

95%-confidence intervalb

Facility name

Number of inmates 

in custodyc

Respondents to sexual 

victimization surveyd Response ratee Percentf Lower bound Upper bound

Louisiana

Calcasieu Parish Corr. Ctr. 1,244 253 77% 2.6% 1.3% 5.4%

Morehouse Parish Det. Ctr. 231 176 93 1.1 0.6 2.2

Natchitoches Det. Ctr. 438 201 88 1.3 0.6 2.5

Orleans Parish - Conchetta Jail 442 141 62 3.2 1.5 6.8

Orleans Parish - Old Parish Prison 997 263 72 3.1 1.7 5.6

Orleans Parish - South White Street Jailg 209 138 83 8.9 6.7 11.7

Orleans Parish - Templeman Phase III 914 201 57 5.1 3.0 8.5

Orleans Parish - Templeman Phase V 286 116 54 3.5 2.0 6.2

Ouachita Parish Corr. Fac. 944 256 92 5.2 3.3 8.1

Richland Parish Det. Ctr. 673 270 96 2.8 1.7 4.7

Webster Parish - Bayou Dorcheat Corr. Ctr. 411 203 94 1.7 0.8 3.5

Maine

Kennecec Co. Jail 161 93 66% 4.8% 2.5% 9.0%

Maryland

Allegany Co. Det. Ctr. 146 56 47% 0.0% 0.0% 6.4%

Baltimore Co. Det. Ctr. 1,424 159 52 4.0 1.9 8.1

Caroline Co. Jail 86 32 46 10.0 3.2 27.4

Cecil Co. Det. Ctr. 257 117 54 2.7 1.4 5.3

Prince George’s Co. Corr. Ctr. 1,264 228 70 3.5 1.9 6.4

Massachusetts

Bristol Co. - Dartmouth Fac. 1,212 229 51% 3.0% 1.6% 5.5%

Bristol Co. - New Bedford Fac. 199 124 75 0.7 0.2 1.9

Hampshire Co. - Jail & House of Corr. 299 158 82 1.0 0.4 2.4

Suffolk Co. House of Corr. 1,799 216 65 4.2 2.0 8.4

Worcester Co. Jail & House of Corr. 1,166 204 67 1.5 0.6 4.0

Michigan

Barry Co. Jail 54 36 76% 0.0% 0.0% 9.6%

Jackson Co. - Chanter Road Corr. Fac. 208 119 69 3.6 2.0 6.4

Kent Co. Corr. Fac. 1,185 215 71 3.8 2.1 6.9

Lenawee Co. Jail 267 141 76 0.9 0.4 2.0

Muskegon Co. Jail 395 195 88 2.9 1.6 5.1

Saginaw Co. Jail 501 158 63 3.0 1.5 5.8

Wayne Co. - Andrew C. Baird Det. Fac. 1,606 254 74 2.3 1.1 4.7

Minnesota

Beltrami Co. Jail 125 37 48% 2.9% 0.7% 10.7%

Morrison Co. Jail 79 39 67 4.2 1.8 9.5

Sherburne Co. Jail 501 128 49 2.3 0.9 5.6

Mississippi

Bolivar Co. Jail 423 213 92% 2.0% 1.1% 3.6%

Copiah Co. Det. Ctr. 60 46 86 2.1 1.0 4.7

Hinds Co. Penal Farm 271 164 80 0.5 0.2 1.6

Issaquena Co. Corr. Fac. 66 39 73 3.5 1.2 9.3

Jackson Co. Jail 425 211 87 4.7 3.0 7.2
62 August 2010

Appendix Table 5 (continued) 

Characteristics of jails and prevalence of sexual victimization, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09

Inmates reporting sexual victimizationa

95%-confidence intervalb

Facility name

Number of inmates 

in custodyc

Respondents to sexual 

victimization surveyd Response ratee Percentf Lower bound Upper bound

Mississippi (continued)

Lee. Co. Work Ctr. 16 12 93% 0.0% 0.0% 24.3%

Rankin Co. Jail 409 182 72 6.0 3.6 9.7

Winston-Choctaw Co. Regional Corr. Fac. 327 188 87 3.4 2.1 5.6

Missouri

Jackson Co. Det. Ctr. 1,065 231 70% 5.4% 3.4% 8.5%

Jefferson Co. Jail 218 127 81 5.5 3.7 7.9

Joplin City Jail 73 29 82 2.5 1.0 6.3

Lincoln Co. Jail 188 94 66 3.3 1.7 6.4

St. Louis - Med. Security Inst. & City Justice Ctr. 789 150 57 5.8 3.4 9.6

Nebraska

Buffalo Co. Jail 76 40 75% 0.0% 0.0% 8.8%

Dodge Co. Jail 39 18 49 0.0 0.0 17.6

Douglas Co. Corr. Ctr. 1,321 196 58 4.0 1.9 8.0

Nevada

Carson City Jail 228 136 77% 0.8% 0.3% 2.0%

North Las Vegas Det. Ctr. 1,031 213 66 1.1 0.3 3.4

New Hampshire

Rockingham Co. Jail & House of Corr. 337 151 72% 2.8% 1.3% 6.3%

New Jersey

Atlantic Co. - Gerard L. Gormley Justice Fac. 1,088 139 46 2.5 0.7 8.8

Camden Co. Jail 1,771 184 55% 2.8% 1.2% 6.2%

Essex Co. Corr. Fac. 3,470 254 55 3.5 1.8 6.5

Passaic Co. Jail 1,357 262 82 0.4 0.1 2.1

Sussex Co. - Walter Keogh Dwyer Corr. Fac. 217 76 43 1.0 0.2 3.8

New Mexico

Chaves Co. Det. Ctr. 255 152 79% 3.3% 2.0% 5.6%

Lea Co. Det. Fac. 281 36 15 0.0 0.0 9.6

Roosevelt Co. Det. Ctr. 85 60 78 1.7 0.7 4.3

New York

Columbia Co. Jail 105 62 73% 2.6% 1.2% 5.6%

Livingston Co. Jail 93 53 72 2.6 1.1 5.8

Monroe Co. Jail 1,478 200 61 2.7 0.9 8.1

Nassau Co. Corr. Ctr. 538 154 54 4.1 2.2 7.5

New York City - Eric M. Taylor Ctr. 1,503 198 63 2.6 1.1 5.7

New York City - Manhattan Det. Ctr. 985 126 33 4.8 2.3 9.6

New York City - Vernon C. Bain Ctr. 1,019 171 43 4.4 2.4 7.9

Onondaga Co. Penitentiary 442 149 65 1.7 0.7 4.1

Orleans Co. Jail 75 55 82 5.6 3.5 8.9

Wayne Co. Jail 137 92 78 4.2 2.6 6.7
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09 63

Appendix Table 5 (continued) 

Characteristics of jails and prevalence of sexual victimization, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09

Inmates reporting sexual victimizationa

95%-confidence intervalb

Facility name

Number of inmates 

in custodyc

Respondents to sexual 

victimization surveyd Response ratee Percentf Lower bound Upper bound

North Carolina

Alamance Co. Jail 533 206 59% 4.0% 2.4% 6.5%

Davidson Co. Jail 234 147 80 1.8 1.0 3.1

Durham Co. Jail 654 220 78 5.2 3.3 8.2

Johnston Co. Jail 236 123 69 0.0 0.0 3.0

McDowell Co. Jail 83 58 82 2.8 1.2 6.4

Orange Co. Jail 182 83 65 0.0 0.0 4.4

Rowan Co. Jail 274 128 63 5.2 2.9 9.0

Wilson Co. Jail 204 68 41 4.5 1.9 9.8

Ohio

Ashtabula Co. Jail 105 51 57% 0.0% 0.0% 7.0%

Clermont Co. Jail 342 170 82 1.8 0.9 3.6

Hamilton Co. - Talbert House - Turning Point Treatment Ctr. 73 44 87 0.0 0.0 8.0

Lake Co. - Adult Max. Security Det. Ctr. 285 120 70 0.5 0.1 1.6

Montgomery Co. Jail 1,052 189 61 1.4 0.5 3.8

Pickaway Co. Jail 149 104 78 1.6 0.8 3.2

Wood Co. Justice Ctr. 167 81 63 3.6 1.4 9.3

Oklahoma

Muskogee Co. Jail 336 141 69% 1.9% 0.8% 4.2%

Oklahoma Co. Jail 2,618 281 66 4.5 2.6 7.7

Pawnee Co. Jail 27 14 60 0.0 0.0 21.5

Texas Co. Jail 72 44 86 0.0 0.0 8.0

Tulsa Co. - David L. Moss Criminal Justice Ctr. 1,552 216 59 0.4 0.1 1.8

Oregon

Deschutes Co. Jail 263 139 76% 3.2% 1.9% 5.5%

Polk Co. Jail 148 76 78 8.0 5.3 12.0

Pennsylvania

Allegheny Co. Jail 3,044 216 60% 2.7% 1.2% 5.9%

Centre Co. Corr. Fac. 232 116 68 4.1 2.4 6.9

Chester Co. Prison 965 241 73 1.1 0.5 2.6

Dauphin Co. Prison 913 239 72 3.7 2.1 6.3

Lackawanna Co. Prison 860 231 73 3.5 1.8 6.6

Lawrence Co. Corr. Fac. 232 103 61 3.9 2.0 7.5

Lehigh Co. Prison 1,207 247 75 2.7 1.4 5.1

Lycoming Co. Prison 231 56 26 4.4 1.9 10.2

Monroe Co. Corr. Fac. 376 157 71 0.8 0.3 2.4

Philadelphia City - Det. Ctr. & Prison Health Services Unit 2,818 165 49 4.0 2.0 7.7

Philadelphia City - House of Corr. 1,765 207 60 2.5 1.1 5.5

Philadelphia City - Industrial Corr. Ctr. 1,170 212 69 6.5 4.2 10.1

Tioga Co. Jail 69 42 72 3.0 1.0 8.7

Westmoreland Co. Prison 521 132 52 2.0 0.8 5.2
64 August 2010

Appendix Table 5 (continued) 

Characteristics of jails and prevalence of sexual victimization, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09

Inmates reporting sexual victimizationa

95%-confidence intervalb

Facility name

Number of inmates 

in custodyc

Respondents to sexual 

victimization surveyd Response ratee Percentf Lower bound Upper bound

South Carolina

Georgetown Co. Det. Ctr. 229 81 48% 3.9% 1.4% 10.5%

Greenville Co. Det. Fac. 1,094 245 68 1.4 0.4 4.5

Horry Co. - J. Reuben Long Det. Ctr. 695 226 76 4.6 2.6 8.0

Lancaster Co. Det. Ctr. 181 85 57 2.6 1.0 6.3

Richland Co. Det. Ctr. 1,048 219 71 3.4 1.8 6.3

York Co. Moss Justice Ctr. 382 108 49 2.3 0.8 6.6

South Dakota

Faulk Co. Jaili 1 0 100% : : :

Tennessee

Bedford Co. Jail 168 105 84% 1.2% 0.5% 2.8%

Crockett Co. Jail 40 30 84 4.4 1.8 10.0

Davidson Co. - Criminal Justice Ctr. 618 138 60 2.8 1.2 6.1

Davidson Co. - Metro Det. Fac.h 1,066 259 80 4.3 2.6 6.9

Hamilton Co. Jail 582 211 75 1.2 0.5 2.9

Putnam Co. Jail 246 127 70 0.7 0.2 2.3

Silverdale Penal Farmh 946 233 76 4.0 2.3 7.0

White Co. Jail 142 96 82 3.3 2.1 5.3

Texas

Collin Co. Min. Security Fac. 112 71 79% 4.4% 2.5% 7.6%

Dallas Co. - North Tower 3,118 241 65 1.9 0.8 4.9

Dallas Co. - West Tower 1,529 176 51 4.2 2.2 7.8

Ector Co. Jail 554 112 42 1.9 0.7 5.1

Ellis Co. Jail 367 157 72 2.4 1.2 4.8

Fort Bend Co. Jail 796 190 62 1.6 0.7 3.7

Harris Co. Jail 5,122 260 67 2.4 1.1 5.1

Harris Co. Jail - Baker Street 4,929 279 70 4.6 2.8 7.6

Henderson Co. Jail 288 106 54 2.5 0.9 6.9

Hood Co. Jail 179 129 87 4.5 3.2 6.2

Hunt Co. Criminal Justice Ctr. 385 144 74 1.4 0.6 3.7

Lubbock Co. Jail 814 134 49 1.4 0.4 4.4

Newton Co. Corr. Ctr.h 866 247 81 0.7 0.2 2.3

Nueces Co. Jail 1,021 245 81 2.1 1.0 4.4

Smith Co. Jail - Min. & Med. Security Fac. 496 157 65 3.4 1.7 6.6

Tarrant Co. Corr. Ctr. 2,005 179 54 5.2 2.9 9.2

Tarrant Co. - Green Bay Fac. 1,035 164 51 3.7 1.6 8.1

Terry Co. Jail 147 91 75 1.2 0.4 3.5

Van Zandt Co. Jail 168 106 82 0.0 0.0 3.5

Walker Co. Jail 154 74 57 5.4 2.8 10.1

Webb Co. Jail 604 152 57 2.0 0.8 5.0

Wichita Co. Jail 217 112 66 3.4 1.6 7.0

Utah

Salt Lake Co. Jail 2,168 294 81% 3.9% 2.2% 6.6%

Uintah Co. Jail 114 41 55 0.0 0.0 8.6

Utah Co. Jail 798 239 86 1.7 0.8 3.5
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09 65

Appendix Table 5 (continued) 

Characteristics of jails and prevalence of sexual victimization, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09

Inmates reporting sexual victimizationa

95%-confidence intervalb

Facility name

Number of inmates 

in custodyc

Respondents to sexual 

victimization surveyd Response ratee Percentf Lower bound Upper bound

Virginia

Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail 572 171 66% 4.8% 2.7% 8.4%

Alexandria City Det. Ctr. 485 98 42 1.7 0.5 5.2

Chesapeake Corr. Ctr. 1,068 117 36 2.6 0.9 6.7

Eastern Shore Regional Jail 68 27 49 9.9 4.3 21.5

Fairfax Co. - Adult Det. Ctr. 1,168 197 61 2.3 1.1 4.9

Hampton Roads Regional Jail 1,303 214 66 5.3 3.1 8.8

Loudoun Co. - Adult Det. Ctr. 251 81 50 3.3 1.5 7.1

Middle Peninsula Regional Security Ctr. 124 74 73 6.5 3.9 10.5

Norfolk City Jail 1,547 178 52 1.4 0.5 3.9

Northwestern Regional Adult Det. Ctr. 509 168 70 1.1 0.4 3.3

Page Co. Jail 49 23 67 0.0 0.0 14.3

Roanoke City Jail 851 188 69 5.2 3.0 8.8

Southside Regional Jail 217 89 55 2.6 0.9 6.9

Washington

Clallam Co. Corr. Fac. 132 75 71% 8.4% 5.2% 13.1%

King Co. Corr. Fac. 1,639 229 64 5.5 3.2 9.2

Pierce Co. Det. and Corr. Ctr. - New Jail & Main Jail 1,592 207 60 2.0 0.8 4.8

Spokane Co. - Geiger Corr. Ctr. 444 172 68 3.5 2.0 6.1

Spokane Co. Jail 703 179 65 2.8 1.5 5.4

West Virginia

Southwestern Regional Jail 431 147 63% 6.4% 4.1% 9.9%

Wisconsin

Chippewa Co. Jail 130 56 56% 2.9% 1.1% 7.3%

Dane Co. Jail 1,039 100 51 4.2 1.9 9.1

LaCrosse Co. Jail 236 91 48 5.2 2.5 10.5

Ozaukee Co. Jail 176 104 70 1.9 0.9 4.1

Racine Co. Jail 1,019 184 67 3.3 1.6 6.9

Wyoming

Natrona Co. Det. Ctr. 323 147 69% 4.8% 3.0% 7.7%

:Not available. 

aIncludes all types of sexual victimization, including oral, anal, or vaginal penetration, hand jobs, touching of the inmate’s butt, thighs, penis, breasts, or vagina in a sexual way, and other 

sexual acts occurring in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if shorter. 

bIndicates that different samples in the same facility would yield prevalence rates falling between the lower and upper bound estimates 95 out of 100 times. 

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

dNumber of respondents consenting to the sexual victimization survey on NIS. (See Methodology.) 

eResponse rate is equal to the number of respondents divided by the number of eligible inmates sampled times 100 percent.

f

Weights were applied so that inmates who responded accurately reflected the entire population of each facility on select characteristics, including age, sex, race, time served, and 

sentence length. (See Methodology.) 

gFemale facility.

hPrivately operated facility.

i

Sole inmate at time of visit received the alternative questionnaire—no sexual victimization data available for this facility. 
66 August 2010

Appendix Table 6

Percent of jail inmates reporting victimization, by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09

Inmate-on-inmatea Staff sexual misconducta

95%-confidence intervalb 95%-confidence intervalb

Facility name Percent victimizedc Lower bound Upper bound Percent victimizedc Lower bound Upper bound

Total 1.5% 1.4% 1.7% 2.0% 1.9% 2.2%

Alabama

Chilton Co. Jail 1.0% 0.4% 2.2% 3.5% 2.2% 5.6%

Houston Co. Jail 4.0 2.3 6.7 4.4 2.7 7.0

Madison Co. Det. Fac. 5.5 3.7 7.9 1.7 0.9 3.3

Montgomery Co. Det. Fac. 2.7 1.6 4.6 1.7 0.8 3.3

Russell Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 2.2 3.2 1.9 5.3

Arizona

Maricopa Co. - Durango Jail 1.5% 0.7% 3.3% 1.5% 0.6% 3.5%

Maricopa Co. - Tent City Jail 1.4 0.6 3.2 0.5 0.1 2.2

Maricopa Co. - Towers Jail 1.9 0.8 4.5 5.1 3.0 8.7

Mohave Co. Jail 2.6 1.3 5.0 2.6 1.4 4.6

Pima Co. Adult Det. Ctr. 0.6 0.2 2.1 0.4 0.1 1.9

Arkansas

Drew Co. Det. Fac. 0.0% 0.0% 13.3% 0.0% 0.0% 13.3%

Faulkner Co. Det. Ctr. 2.8 1.7 4.4 1.5 0.8 2.9

Garland Co. Adult Det. Ctr. 3.3 1.8 6.0 4.3 2.5 7.2

Sharp Co. Det. Ctr. 0.0 0.0 10.2 0.0 0.0 10.2

California

Butte Co. Jail 0.7% 0.2% 2.7% 2.7% 1.4% 5.3%

Fresno Co. - Main Jail, North Annex, & South Annex 2.5 1.1 5.3 2.8 1.4 5.7

Kern Co. - Lerdo Min. Security Fac. 1.9 0.9 3.8 2.0 1.0 4.0

Lake Co. - Hill Road Corr. Fac. 0.5 0.2 1.9 0.5 0.2 1.9

Los Angeles Co. - Pitchess Det. Ctr. - East Fac. 1.3 0.4 4.2 3.3 1.6 6.5

Los Angeles Co. - Pitchess Det. Ctr. - North Fac. 0.8 0.2 3.6 0.3 0.1 1.4

Los Angeles Co. - Men’s Central Jail 3.0 1.1 7.5 2.4 0.9 6.2

Madera Co. Jail 2.9 1.5 5.6 2.8 1.4 5.5

Mendocino Co. Jail 1.7 0.7 4.3 1.8 0.7 4.6

Monterey Co. Jail 2.6 1.2 5.7 2.5 1.0 5.9

Orange Co. - Central Jail Complex 2.4 1.1 5.0 1.6 0.6 3.9

Orange Co. - J.A. Musick Fac. 0.9 0.3 2.6 1.9 0.9 4.0

Riverside Co. - Robert Presley Det. Ctr. 2.0 0.8 4.8 4.1 2.0 8.2

Riverside Co. - Southwest Det. Ctr. 2.8 1.2 6.3 1.3 0.3 4.8

Sacramento Co. - Main Jail 2.4 1.2 5.0 3.5 1.8 6.5

San Bernardino Co. - Central Det. Ctr 0.4 0.1 1.7 0.4 0.1 1.7

San Bernardino Co. - West Valley Det. Ctr. 2.4 1.3 4.5 3.2 1.9 5.4

San Diego Co. - Central Det. Fac. 3.4 1.6 7.1 3.4 1.7 6.7

San Diego Co. - Descanso Det. Fac. 0.5 0.1 1.6 1.3 0.5 3.1

San Francisco Co. - County Jail #8 2.8 1.4 5.4 3.2 1.7 5.9

San Joaquin Co. Jail 1.1 0.3 4.2 1.7 0.6 4.5

San Mateo Co. - Maguire Corr. Fac. 0.5 0.1 2.5 1.1 0.3 3.3

Santa Cruz Co. - Blaine Street Fac.d 0.0 0.0 22.8 7.7 3.1 17.8

Solano Co. - Sentenced Det. Fac. 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.7 0.2 2.8

Sonoma Co. - North Det. Fac. 1.0 0.4 2.3 0.6 0.2 2.0
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09 67

Appendix Table 6 (continued)

Percent of jail inmates reporting victimization, by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09

Inmate-on-inmatea Staff sexual misconducta

95%-confidence intervalb 95%-confidence intervalb

Facility name Percent victimizedc Lower bound Upper bound Percent victimizedc Lower bound Upper bound

Colorado

Adams Co. Det. Fac. 0.8% 0.3% 2.1% 0.6% 0.2% 2.0%

Arapahoe Co. Jail 1.1 0.4 3.0 1.7 0.6 4.5

El Paso Co. - Criminal Justice Ctr. 1.0 0.3 3.2 0.7 0.2 2.4

Jefferson Co. Jail 1.0 0.4 2.7 0.7 0.2 2.3

Logan Co. Jail 3.3 1.6 6.8 2.0 0.7 5.5

District of Columbia

D.C. Dept of Corr. - Central Det. Fac. & Corr. Treatment Fac. 3.1% 1.3% 7.0% 5.5% 2.8% 10.5%

Florida

Bay Co. Jail 0.4% 0.1% 1.7% 2.3% 1.1% 4.7%

Broward Co. - Joseph V. Conte Fac. 0.9 0.3 3.1 2.6 1.2 5.2

Broward Co. - Main Jail 1.8 0.7 4.5 3.2 1.6 6.5

Broward Co. - North Broward Bureau 2.5 1.2 5.1 2.5 1.3 4.9

Broward Co. - Paul Rein Det. Fac. 0.7 0.2 2.2 2.8 1.5 5.2

Charlotte Co. Jail 0.9 0.2 4.0 2.3 0.9 5.3

Hardee Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 6.0 2.2 0.8 5.9

Highlands Co. Jail 1.2 0.4 3.5 1.7 0.7 3.9

Hillsborough Co. - Falkenburg Road Jail 1.3 0.4 3.7 1.3 0.5 3.4

Jacksonville - James I. Montgomery Corr. Ctr. 1.3 0.5 2.9 1.2 0.5 2.7

Marion Co. Jail 1.4 0.6 3.4 0.7 0.2 2.4

Miami-Dade Co. - Metro West Det. Ctr. 0.7 0.2 2.3 1.4 0.5 3.8

Miami-Dade Co. - Pre-trial Det. Ctr. 5.1 2.9 9.1 3.5 1.8 6.7

Monroe Co. Det. Ctr. 1.5 0.6 3.5 1.5 0.6 3.5

Nassau Co. Det. Fac. 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.7 0.2 1.9

Okaloosa Co. Jail 0.4 0.1 1.6 2.6 1.4 4.5

Osceola Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 1.8 1.0 0.3 3.4

Palm Beach Co. - Main Det. Ctr. 1.6 0.6 3.9 1.2 0.4 3.2

Pinellas Co. Med. Security Fac. 2.3 1.2 4.3 1.5 0.7 3.3

Polk Co. - Central County Jail 1.6 0.7 4.0 0.0 0.0 1.7

St. Lucie Co. Main Jail 1.8 0.8 4.3 0.7 0.2 2.2

Volusia Co. Branch Jail 1.4 0.6 3.7 1.2 0.5 3.0

Walton Co. Jail 0.6 0.2 1.7 3.3 2.1 5.0

Georgia

Atlanta City Jail 3.2% 1.6% 6.3% 1.7% 0.6% 4.7%

Bulloch Co. Jail 2.4 1.4 4.2 4.6 3.0 6.8

Chatham Co. Det. Ctr. 0.3 0.1 1.4 1.1 0.4 3.0

Clarke Co. Jail 0.5 0.1 1.9 0.9 0.4 2.4

Clayton Co. Jail 0.7 0.2 2.4 0.9 0.3 2.3

Cobb Co. - Jail & Prison Unit 1.2 0.4 3.3 1.2 0.4 3.3

Coweta Co. Prison 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0

Dekalb Co. Jail 3.5 1.9 6.4 1.5 0.6 3.7

Fulton Co. - Alpharetta Annex 0.0 0.0 10.4 0.0 0.0 10.4

Gilmer Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 6.6 0.0 0.0 6.6

Houston Co. Jail 0.5 0.1 2.2 1.4 0.6 3.2
68 August 2010

Appendix Table 6 (continued)

Percent of jail inmates reporting victimization, by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09

Inmate-on-inmatea Staff sexual misconducta

95%-confidence intervalb 95%-confidence intervalb

Facility name Percent victimizedc Lower bound Upper bound Percent victimizedc Lower bound Upper bound

Georgia (continued)

Jackson Co. Jail 0.0% 0.0% 4.4% 0.0% 0.0% 4.4%

Jasper Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 16.8 0.0 0.0 16.8

Lowndes Co. Jail 0.7 0.2 2.2 1.8 0.9 3.6

Muscogee Co. Prison 0.0 0.0 1.6 2.2 1.1 4.2

Richmond Co. - Charles B. Webster Det. Ctr. 2.3 1.1 4.5 1.5 0.6 3.5

Roswell City Jail 0.0 0.0 29.9 0.0 0.0 29.9

Turner Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 15.5 0.0 0.0 15.5

Ware Co. Jail 3.2 2.0 5.0 0.9 0.4 2.1

Idaho

Canyon Co. Jail 0.8% 0.3% 2.3% 3.0% 1.6% 5.4%

Madison Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 8.8 1.1 0.3 3.9

Illinois

Cook Co. Jail - Division 1 1.8% 0.9% 3.5% 4.3% 2.6% 7.1%

Cook Co. Jail - Division 6 2.2 1.1 4.3 5.5 3.6 8.3

Cook Co. Jail - Division 9 2.0 0.8 4.9 3.0 1.5 5.9

DuPage Co. Jail 2.0 0.9 4.4 2.0 0.9 4.1

LaSalle Co. Jail 2.3 1.1 4.8 3.9 2.3 6.5

Vermilion Co. Jail 3.1 1.9 5.0 0.6 0.2 1.5

Winnebago Co. Jail 2.1 0.9 4.6 3.2 1.7 5.9

Indiana

Boone Co. Jail 1.3% 0.6% 3.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.1%

Brown Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 14.9 0.0 0.0 14.9

Madison Co. Det. Ctr. 3.9 2.5 6.1 2.7 1.6 4.5

Marion Co. Jail IIe 0.5 0.1 2.4 3.4 1.7 7.0

Pulaski Co. Jail 1.0 0.6 1.8 0.9 0.5 1.5

Vigo Co. Jail 3.8 2.2 6.4 4.8 2.9 7.7

Iowa

Black Hawk Co. Jail 1.4% 0.7% 2.8% 1.9% 1.1% 3.4%

Linn Co. Corr. Ctr. 3.4 1.5 7.3 0.7 0.2 2.5

Kansas

Butler Co. Jail 1.6% 0.8% 3.5% 3.1% 1.8% 5.3%

Johnson Co. - New Century Adult Det. Ctr. 2.0 0.8 5.2 0.4 0.1 1.4

Rice Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 22.8 0.0 0.0 22.8

Sedgwick Co. Jail 1.1 0.4 3.1 1.3 0.5 3.6

Kentucky

Campbell Co. Det. Ctr. 1.1% 0.4% 2.8% 2.7% 1.5% 4.8%

Floyd Co. Det. Ctr. 1.9 0.6 6.1 1.3 0.5 3.1

Franklin Co. Regional Jail 0.0 0.0 3.4 0.0 0.0 3.4

Henderson Co. Det. Ctr. 0.0 0.0 2.1 1.5 0.6 3.7

Jessamine Co. Det. Ctr. 0.0 0.0 7.7 0.0 0.0 7.7

Louisville Metro Dept. of Corr. - Community Corr. Ctr. 0.9 0.3 3.2 2.8 1.3 5.9

Louisville Metro Dept. of Corr. - Metro Corr. Fac. 0.6 0.2 2.1 1.6 0.7 3.9

Warren Co. Regional Jail 1.2 0.4 3.6 2.0 1.0 4.3
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09 69

Appendix Table 6 (continued)

Percent of jail inmates reporting victimization, by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09

Inmate-on-inmatea Staff sexual misconducta

95%-confidence intervalb 95%-confidence intervalb

Facility name Percent victimizedc Lower bound Upper bound Percent victimizedc Lower bound Upper bound

Louisiana

Calcasieu Parish Corr. Ctr. 1.6% 0.7% 3.6% 1.5% 0.5% 4.0%

Morehouse Parish Det. Ctr. 0.6 0.2 1.4 1.1 0.6 2.2

Natchitoches Det. Ctr. 1.0 0.4 2.2 0.6 0.2 1.6

Orleans Parish - Conchetta Jail 2.1 0.9 4.9 1.8 0.6 5.2

Orleans Parish - Old Parish Prison 1.1 0.4 2.7 2.1 1.0 4.4

Orleans Parish - South White Street Jaild 7.5 5.5 10.2 2.4 1.3 4.2

Orleans Parish - Templeman Phase III 3.4 1.8 6.2 3.5 1.8 6.6

Orleans Parish - Templeman Phase V 0.6 0.2 2.2 3.5 2.0 6.2

Ouachita Parish Corr. Fac. 2.9 1.6 5.4 2.2 1.1 4.3

Richland Parish Det. Ctr. 2.8 1.7 4.7 0.4 0.1 1.4

Webster Parish - Bayou Dorcheat Corr. Ctr. 1.7 0.8 3.5 0.6 0.2 2.0

Maine

Kennecec Co. Jail 3.8% 1.7% 7.9% 4.1% 1.9% 8.3%

Maryland

Allegany Co. Det. Ctr. 0.0% 0.0% 6.4% 0.0% 0.0% 6.4%

Baltimore Co. Det. Ctr. 0.5 0.1 2.7 3.5 1.6 7.5

Caroline Co. Jail 7.9 2.0 26.6 10.0 3.2 27.4

Cecil Co. Det. Ctr. 2.0 0.9 4.4 2.2 1.0 4.8

Prince George’s Co. Corr. Ctr. 1.2 0.4 3.5 2.9 1.5 5.7

Massachusetts

Bristol Co. - Dartmouth Fac. 1.6% 0.7% 3.4% 1.4% 0.5% 3.6%

Bristol Co. - New Bedford Fac. 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.7 0.2 1.9

Hampshire Co. - Jail & House of Corr. 0.5 0.1 1.5 0.6 0.2 1.8

Suffolk Co. House of Corr. 1.8 0.7 4.4 3.7 1.7 7.8

Worcester Co. Jail & House of Corr. 1.5 0.6 4.0 0.0 0.0 1.8

Michigan

Barry Co. Jail 0.0% 0.0% 9.6% 0.0% 0.0% 9.6%

Jackson Co. - Chanter Road Corr. Fac. 1.2 0.4 3.5 2.4 1.2 4.7

Kent Co. Corr. Fac. 3.0 1.5 5.9 2.0 0.8 4.5

Lenawee Co. Jail 0.4 0.1 1.3 0.9 0.4 2.0

Muskegon Co. Jail 1.3 0.5 3.1 1.6 0.8 3.4

Saginaw Co. Jail 1.7 0.7 4.0 1.8 0.8 4.3

Wayne Co. - Andrew C. Baird Det. Fac. 0.4 0.1 2.0 2.3 1.1 4.7

Minnesota

Beltrami Co. Jail 0.0% 0.0% 9.4% 2.9% 0.7% 10.7%

Morrison Co. Jail 2.1 0.6 6.6 4.2 1.8 9.5

Sherburne Co. Jail 1.4 0.5 4.3 1.6 0.5 4.8

Mississippi

Bolivar Co. Jail 0.0% 0.0% 1.8% 2.0% 1.1% 3.6%

Copiah Co. Det. Ctr. 2.1 1.0 4.7 2.1 1.0 4.7

Hinds Co. Penal Farm 0.5 0.2 1.6 0.5 0.2 1.6

Issaquena Co. Corr. Fac. 3.5 1.2 9.3 0.0 0.0 9.0

Jackson Co. Jail 2.3 1.2 4.1 2.4 1.3 4.4
70 August 2010

Appendix Table 6 (continued)

Percent of jail inmates reporting victimization, by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09

Inmate-on-inmatea Staff sexual misconducta

95%-confidence intervalb 95%-confidence intervalb

Facility name Percent victimizedc Lower bound Upper bound Percent victimizedc Lower bound Upper bound

Mississippi (continued)

Lee. Co. Work Ctr. 0.0 0.0 24.3 0.0% 0.0% 24.3%

Rankin Co. Jail 1.5 0.7 3.4 4.9 2.8 8.5

Winston-Choctaw Co. Regional Corr. Fac. 0.6 0.2 1.9 3.4 2.1 5.6

Missouri

Jackson Co. Det. Ctr. 2.2% 1.1% 4.7% 3.2% 1.8% 5.7%

Jefferson Co. Jail 4.0 2.5 6.2 1.5 0.7 2.9

Joplin City Jail 0.0 0.0 11.7 2.5 1.0 6.3

Lincoln Co. Jail 2.0 0.9 4.5 2.6 1.2 5.7

St. Louis - Med. Security Inst. & City Justice Ctr. 0.5 0.1 2.1 5.3 3.1 9.1

Nebraska

Buffalo Co. Jail 0.0% 0.0% 8.8% 0.0% 0.0% 8.8%

Dodge Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 17.6 0.0 0.0 17.6

Douglas Co. Corr. Ctr. 1.0 0.3 3.8 3.7 1.7 7.8

Nevada

Carson City Jail 0.8% 0.3% 2.0% 0.8% 0.3% 2.0%

North Las Vegas Det. Ctr. 0.0 0.0 1.8 1.1 0.3 3.4

New Hampshire

Rockingham Co. Jail & House of Corr. 0.0% 0.0% 2.5% 2.8% 1.3% 6.3%

New Jersey

Atlantic Co. - Gerard L. Gormley Justice Fac. 1.8% 0.4% 8.7% 0.7% 0.1% 3.5%

Camden Co. Jail 0.6 0.1 3.2 2.2 0.9 5.3

Essex Co. Corr. Fac. 1.9 0.8 4.6 2.1 1.0 4.7

Passaic Co. Jail 0.4 0.1 2.1 0.0 0.0 1.4

Sussex Co. - Walter Keogh Dwyer Corr. Fac. 0.0 0.0 4.8 1.0 0.2 3.8

New Mexico

Chaves Co. Det. Ctr. 1.6% 0.7% 3.6% 1.7% 0.9% 3.2%

Lea Co. Det. Fac. 0.0 0.0 9.6 0.0 0.0 9.6

Roosevelt Co. Det. Ctr. 0.0 0.0 6.0 1.7 0.7 4.3

New York

Columbia Co. Jail 1.1% 0.4% 3.2% 1.5% 0.5% 4.3%

Livingston Co. Jail 1.3 0.4 4.0 2.6 1.1 5.8

Monroe Co. Jail 0.4 0.1 2.2 2.3 0.6 8.0

Nassau Co. Corr. Ctr. 2.2 1.0 4.8 2.5 1.1 5.4

New York City - Eric M. Taylor Ctr. 0.8 0.3 2.8 1.7 0.6 4.8

New York City - Manhattan Det. Ctr. 1.2 0.4 4.1 3.5 1.5 8.1

New York City - Vernon C. Bain Ctr. 1.4 0.5 3.7 4.1 2.2 7.5

Onondaga Co. Penitentiary 0.5 0.1 2.2 1.2 0.4 3.4

Orleans Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 6.5 5.6 3.5 8.9

Wayne Co. Jail 1.0 0.4 2.6 3.1 1.8 5.4
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09 71

Appendix Table 6 (continued)

Percent of jail inmates reporting victimization, by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09

Inmate-on-inmatea Staff sexual misconducta

95%-confidence intervalb 95%-confidence intervalb

Facility name Percent victimizedc Lower bound Upper bound Percent victimizedc Lower bound Upper bound

North Carolina

Alamance Co. Jail 1.8% 0.9% 3.4% 2.6% 1.4% 4.9%

Davidson Co. Jail 1.8 1.0 3.1 0.5 0.2 1.4

Durham Co. Jail 2.3 1.1 5.0 2.9 1.6 5.0

Johnston Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0

McDowell Co. Jail 2.8 1.2 6.4 0.0 0.0 6.2

Orange Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 4.4 0.0 0.0 4.4

Rowan Co. Jail 1.3 0.4 4.3 5.2 2.9 9.0

Wilson Co. Jail 1.6 0.4 6.3 4.5 1.9 9.8

Ohio

Ashtabula Co. Jail 0.0% 0.0% 7.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.0%

Clermont Co. Jail 1.2 0.5 2.7 1.2 0.5 2.9

Hamilton Co. - Talbert House - Turning Point Treatment Ctr. 0.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 8.0

Lake Co. - Adult Max. Security Det. Ctr. 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.5 0.1 1.6

Montgomery Co. Jail 1.4 0.5 3.8 0.0 0.0 2.0

Pickaway Co. Jail 0.8 0.3 2.1 0.8 0.3 2.0

Wood Co. Justice Ctr. 3.6 1.4 9.3 0.8 0.2 2.5

Oklahoma

Muskogee Co. Jail 1.9% 0.8% 4.2% 1.3% 0.5% 3.6%

Oklahoma Co. Jail 3.2 1.6 6.3 1.5 0.7 3.2

Pawnee Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 21.5 0.0 0.0 21.5

Texas Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 8.0

Tulsa Co. - David L. Moss Criminal Justice Ctr. 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.4 0.1 1.8

Oregon

Deschutes Co. Jail 2.0% 1.0% 3.9% 2.0% 1.0% 4.0%

Polk Co. Jail 3.0 1.5 6.1 5.1 3.0 8.5

Pennsylvania

Allegheny Co. Jail 2.1% 0.8% 5.3% 0.6% 0.2% 2.2%

Centre Co. Corr. Fac. 0.7 0.2 2.4 3.4 1.9 6.0

Chester Co. Prison 1.1 0.5 2.6 0.0 0.0 1.6

Dauphin Co. Prison 1.3 0.5 3.1 2.9 1.6 5.4

Lackawanna Co. Prison 2.7 1.3 5.7 0.8 0.3 2.3

Lawrence Co. Corr. Fac. 2.2 0.9 5.5 2.9 1.3 6.1

Lehigh Co. Prison 1.1 0.4 2.9 2.0 0.9 4.2

Lycoming Co. Prison 1.6 0.5 5.0 3.7 1.4 9.4

Monroe Co. Corr. Fac. 0.8 0.3 2.4 0.0 0.0 2.4

Philadelphia City - Det. Ctr. & Prison Health Services Unit 1.2 0.3 4.0 3.5 1.6 7.1

Philadelphia City - House of Corr. 1.2 0.4 4.0 1.3 0.5 3.5

Philadelphia City - Industrial Corr. Ctr. 2.5 1.2 5.0 4.0 2.3 7.1

Tioga Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 8.4 3.0 1.0 8.7

Westmoreland Co. Prison 1.6 0.5 4.8 1.3 0.4 4.1
72 August 2010

Appendix Table 6 (continued)

Percent of jail inmates reporting victimization, by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09

Inmate-on-inmatea Staff sexual misconducta

95%-confidence intervalb 95%-confidence intervalb

Facility name Percent victimizedc Lower bound Upper bound Percent victimizedc Lower bound Upper bound

South Carolina

Georgetown Co. Det. Ctr. 0.8% 0.2% 3.1% 3.2% 0.9% 10.1%

Greenville Co. Det. Fac. 1.0 0.2 4.3 0.4 0.1 1.7

Horry Co. - J. Reuben Long Det. Ctr. 2.0 1.0 4.1 3.1 1.4 6.5

Lancaster Co. Det. Ctr. 0.9 0.3 3.2 2.6 1.0 6.3

Richland Co. Det. Ctr. 1.0 0.3 3.0 3.4 1.8 6.3

York Co. Moss Justice Ctr. 1.0 0.2 4.2 1.3 0.3 5.5

South Dakota

Faulk Co. Jail : : : : : :

Tennessee 

Bedford Co. Jail 0.0% 0.0% 3.5% 1.2% 0.5% 2.8%

Crockett Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 11.4 4.4 1.8 10.0

Davidson Co. - Criminal Justice Ctr. 0.6 0.1 2.6 2.8 1.3 6.2

Davidson Co. - Metro Det. Fac.e 0.4 0.1 1.8 4.3 2.6 6.9

Hamilton Co. Jail 0.4 0.1 1.8 1.2 0.5 2.9

Putnam Co. Jail 0.7 0.2 2.3 0.0 0.0 3.0

Silverdale Penal Farme 1.7 0.8 4.0 2.7 1.4 5.5

White Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 3.8 3.4 2.1 5.4

Texas

Collin Co. Min. Security Fac. 1.7% 0.7% 4.3% 2.8% 1.4% 5.4%

Dallas Co. - North Tower 1.0 0.3 3.3 1.0 0.3 3.6

Dallas Co. - West Tower 1.0 0.3 3.4 3.2 1.5 6.7

Ector Co. Jail 1.3 0.4 4.4 1.4 0.4 4.6

Ellis Co. Jail 0.5 0.1 1.7 1.9 0.8 4.3

Fort Bend Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.6 0.7 3.7

Harris Co. Jail 2.4 1.1 5.1 0.9 0.3 2.7

Harris Co. Jail - Baker Street 3.9 2.2 6.7 1.0 0.4 2.9

Henderson Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 3.5 2.5 0.9 6.9

Hood Co. Jail 2.2 1.3 3.5 3.8 2.6 5.4

Hunt Co. Criminal Justice Ctr. 0.8 0.2 2.9 1.4 0.6 3.7

Lubbock Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 2.8 1.4 0.4 4.4

Newton Co. Corr. Ctr.e 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.7 0.2 2.3

Nueces Co. Jail 1.7 0.8 3.9 1.3 0.5 3.3

Smith Co. Jail - Min. & Med. Security Fac. 1.1 0.4 3.1 2.8 1.3 5.8

Tarrant Co. Corr. Ctr. 2.6 1.1 5.7 3.0 1.4 6.4

Tarrant Co. - Green Bay Fac. 1.9 0.6 6.4 2.9 1.2 7.2

Terry Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 4.1 1.2 0.4 3.5

Van Zandt Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 3.5 0.0 0.0 3.5

Walker Co. Jail 4.0 1.9 8.2 2.7 1.1 6.6

Webb Co. Jail 0.8 0.2 3.4 1.3 0.4 3.8

Wichita Co. Jail 3.4 1.6 7.0 0.0 0.0 3.3

Utah

Salt Lake Co. Jail 2.0% 1.0% 4.1% 2.2% 1.0% 4.5%

Uintah Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 8.6 0.0 0.0 8.6

Utah Co. Jail 1.2 0.5 2.9 0.4 0.1 1.8
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09 73

Appendix Table 6 (continued)

Percent of jail inmates reporting victimization, by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09

Inmate-on-inmatea Staff sexual misconducta

95%-confidence intervalb 95%-confidence intervalb

Facility name Percent victimizedc Lower bound Upper bound Percent victimizedc Lower bound Upper bound

Virginia

Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail 2.4% 1.1% 5.5% 2.8% 1.4% 5.6%

Alexandria City Det. Ctr. 1.7 0.5 5.2 0.9 0.2 4.0

Chesapeake Corr. Ctr. 0.3 0.1 1.6 2.6 0.9 6.7

Eastern Shore Regional Jail 0.0 0.0 12.5 9.9 4.3 21.5

Fairfax Co. - Adult Det. Ctr. 1.5 0.5 4.2 0.8 0.3 2.1

Hampton Roads Regional Jail 1.3 0.5 3.6 4.0 2.2 7.1

Loudoun Co. - Adult Det. Ctr. 1.0 0.3 3.5 3.3 1.5 7.1

Middle Peninsula Regional Security Ctr. 2.2 0.8 6.0 4.3 2.5 7.2

Norfolk City Jail 0.9 0.3 3.1 1.1 0.3 3.6

Northwestern Regional Adult Det. Ctr. 0.4 0.1 1.8 0.7 0.2 2.9

Page Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 14.3 0.0 0.0 14.3

Roanoke City Jail 3.7% 1.9% 7.0% 2.7% 1.3% 5.5%

Southside Regional Jail 0.0 0.0 4.1 2.6 0.9 6.9

Washington

Clallam Co. Corr. Fac. 4.4% 2.2% 8.3% 6.1% 3.4% 10.6%

King Co. Corr. Fac. 2.3 1.0 5.0 3.3 1.6 6.5

Pierce Co. Det. and Corr. Ctr. - New Jail & Main Jail 1.6 0.6 4.3 0.4 0.1 2.2

Spokane Co. - Geiger Corr. Ctr. 2.2 1.1 4.5 1.8 0.9 3.8

Spokane Co. Jail 1.4 0.6 3.5 1.8 0.8 4.1

West Virginia

Southwestern Regional Jail 3.6% 2.1% 6.4% 2.8% 1.4% 5.5%

Wisconsin

Chippewa Co. Jail 1.5% 0.4% 5.3% 1.4% 0.4% 5.0%

Dane Co. Jail 2.1 0.8 5.9 3.0 1.1 8.0

LaCrosse Co. Jail 3.3 1.5 7.3 4.1 1.7 9.1

Ozaukee Co. Jail 0.9 0.3 2.6 1.0 0.3 2.9

Racine Co. Jail 1.5 0.5 4.5 2.5 1.1 5.7

Wyoming

Natrona Co. Det. Ctr. 2.2% 1.1% 4.2% 3.0% 1.7% 5.5%

Note: Detail may sum to more than total victimization rate because victims may have reported both inmate-on-inmate and staff-on-inmate sexual victimization.

:Not available. 

aIncludes all types of sexual victimization, including oral, anal, or vaginal penetration, hand jobs, touching of the inmate’s butt, thighs, penis, breasts, or vagina in a sexual way, and other 

sexual acts occurring in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if shorter. 

bIndicates that different samples in the same facility would yield prevalence rates falling between the lower and upper bound estimates 95 out of 100 times. 

cWeights were applied so that inmates who responded accurately reflected the entire population of each facility on select characteristics, including age, sex, race, time served, and 

sentence length. (See Methodology.) 

dFemale facility.

ePrivately operated facility.
74 August 2010

Appendix Table 7 

Percent of jail inmates reporting sexual victimization, by level of coercion, and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09

Inmate-on-inmatea Staff sexual misconducta

Facility name Physically forcedb Pressuredc Physically forcedb Pressuredc Without force or pressured

Total 1.0% 1.1% 1.0% 1.3% 1.1%

Alabama

Chilton Co. Jail 1.0% 0.0% 3.5% 3.5% 1.0%

Houston Co. Jail 2.6 3.1 2.5 2.8 3.7

Madison Co. Det. Fac. 3.4 4.1 1.0 1.0 0.4

Montgomery Co. Det. Fac. 2.4 1.8 0.6 1.3 0.7

Russell Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 2.1 2.7 1.6

Arizona

Maricopa Co. - Durango Jail 1.2% 1.2% 0.7% 0.8% 1.1%

Maricopa Co. - Tent City Jail 1.1 0.9 0.5 0.5 0.0

Maricopa Co. - Towers Jail 0.0 1.9 3.1 4.3 1.9

Mohave Co. Jail 2.2 0.9 1.6 1.6 1.4

Pima Co. Adult Det. Ctr. 0.0 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.4

Arkansas

Drew Co. Det. Fac. 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Faulkner Co. Det. Ctr. 2.0 1.3 0.8 0.7 0.0

Garland Co. Adult Det. Ctr. 2.6 2.3 1.9 1.9 2.4

Sharp Co. Det. Ctr. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

California

Butte Co. Jail 0.7% 0.7% 0.6% 1.6% 2.4%

Fresno Co. - Main Jail, North Annex, & South Annex 1.4 1.1 1.1 2.8 0.8

Kern Co. - Lerdo Min. Security Fac. 1.4 0.9 2.0 1.6 0.0

Lake Co. - Hill Road Corr. Fac. 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Los Angeles Co. - Pitchess Det. Ctr. - East Fac. 1.3 1.3 1.9 2.9 0.8

Los Angeles Co. - Pitchess Det. Ctr. - North Fac. 0.0 0.8 0.3 0.3 0.3

Los Angeles Co. - Men’s Central Jail 1.9 3.0 1.6 2.4 0.0

Madera Co. Jail 0.7 2.7 1.3 1.1 2.8

Mendocino Co. Jail 0.8 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.8

Monterey Co. Jail 1.7 1.3 0.0 2.5 0.8

Orange Co. - Central Jail Complex 1.6 2.1 1.1 1.6 0.5

Orange Co. - J.A. Musick Fac. 0.5 0.9 1.4 0.9 1.0

Riverside Co. - Robert Presley Det. Ctr. 2.0 2.0 2.2 3.6 1.5

Riverside Co. - Southwest Det. Ctr. 2.2 2.8 0.0 1.0 0.3

Sacramento Co. - Main Jail 0.9 2.0 0.8 1.7 2.4

San Bernardino Co. - Central Det. Ctr. 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.4

San Bernardino Co. - West Valley Det. Ctr. 1.4 2.0 1.8 1.9 1.4

San Diego Co. - Central Det. Fac. 1.7 3.0 2.4 2.0 1.1

San Diego Co. - Descanso Det. Fac. 0.0 0.5 0.6 1.3 0.0

San Francisco Co. - County Jail #8 0.2 2.6 1.7 2.8 0.8

San Joaquin Co. Jail 0.0 1.1 1.1 0.6 0.6

San Mateo Co. - Maguire Corr. Fac. 0.5 0.0 1.1 1.1 0.0

Santa Cruz Co. - Blaine Street Fac.e 0.0 0.0 7.7 0.0 7.7

Solano Co. - Sentenced Det. Fac. 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.7 0.0

Sonoma Co. - North Det. Fac. 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.6 0.0
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09 75

Appendix Table 7 (continued) 

Percent of jail inmates reporting sexual victimization, by level of coercion, and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-0

Inmate-on-inmatea Staff sexual misconducta

Facility name Physically forcedb Pressuredc Physically forcedb Pressuredc Without force or pressured

Colorado

Adams Co. Det. Fac. 0.8% 0.2% 0.3% 0.6% 0.0%

Arapahoe Co. Jail 1.1 0.8 1.3 1.3 0.4

El Paso Co. - Criminal Justice Ctr. 1.0 1.0 0.4 0.0 0.4

Jefferson Co. Jail 1.0 0.0 0.7 0.7 0.0

Logan Co. Jail 2.0 3.3 2.0 2.0 2.0

District of Columbia

D.C. Dept of Corr. - Central Det. Fac. & Corr. Treatment Fac. 2.2% 1.4% 3.6% 4.4% 0.9%

Florida

Bay Co. Jail 0.0% 0.4% 1.0% 1.0% 2.3%

Broward Co. - Joseph V. Conte Fac. 0.3 0.9 1.4 1.1 1.1

Broward Co. - Main Jail 0.8 1.5 1.6 0.6 1.0

Broward Co. - North Broward Bureau 2.1 1.0 1.8 2.2 1.2

Broward Co. - Paul Rein Det. Fac. 0.3 0.7 1.8 2.3 1.2

Charlotte Co. Jail 0.0 0.9 1.0 0.7 1.2

Hardee Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.0

Highlands Co. Jail 1.2 1.2 1.7 1.7 1.2

Hillsborough Co. - Falkenburg Road Jail 0.8 1.3 0.6 0.6 1.3

Jacksonville - James I. Montgomery Corr. Ctr. 0.3 0.9 0.4 0.4 0.4

Marion Co. Jail 1.4 1.1 0.7 0.7 0.4

Miami-Dade Co. - Metro West Det. Ctr. 0.3 0.7 0.3 0.9 0.8

Miami-Dade Co. - Pre-trial Det. Ctr. 2.2 3.7 2.0 2.0 2.0

Monroe Co. Det. Ctr. 0.9 0.9 1.1 1.5 1.0

Nassau Co. Det. Fac. 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0

Okaloosa Co. Jail 0.4 0.0 1.3 0.9 1.7

Osceola Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.5

Palm Beach Co. - Main Det. Ctr. 1.6 1.2 0.0 0.0 1.2

Pinellas Co. Med. Security Fac. 1.0 2.0 0.7 0.8 0.4

Polk Co. - Central County Jail 1.4 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0

St. Lucie Co. Main Jail 0.7 1.4 0.3 0.3 0.3

Volusia Co. Branch Jail 0.4 1.4 0.8 0.4 0.8

Walton Co. Jail 0.6 0.6 1.4 1.4 2.5

Georgia

Atlanta City Jail 0.0% 3.2% 0.0% 0.9% 0.9%

Bulloch Co. Jail 1.5 2.4 1.0 2.2 2.9

Chatham Co. Det. Ctr. 0.3 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.8

Clarke Co. Jail 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.9 0.5

Clayton Co. Jail 0.7 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.3

Cobb Co. - Jail & Prison Unit 0.7 1.2 0.9 0.9 0.8

Coweta Co. Prison 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Dekalb Co. Jail 2.2 3.5 1.1 1.5 0.3

Fulton Co. - Alpharetta Annex 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Gilmer Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Houston Co. Jail 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.9 1.0
76 August 2010

Appendix Table 7 (continued)

Percent of jail inmates reporting sexual victimization, by level of coercion, and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-0

Inmate-on-inmatea Staff sexual misconducta

Facility name Physically forcedb Pressuredc Physically forcedb Pressuredc Without force or pressured

Georgia (continued)

Jackson Co. Jail 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Jasper Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Lowndes Co. Jail 0.7 0.1 0.6 1.0 0.8

Muscogee Co. Prison 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.3 0.9

Richmond Co. - Charles B. Webster Det. Ctr. 1.9 2.0 0.5 0.4 0.5

Roswell City Jail 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Turner Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Ware Co. Jail 1.8 1.4 0.4 0.4 0.5

Idaho

Canyon Co. Jail 0.8% 0.3% 1.5% 1.5% 2.1%

Madison Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0

Illinois

Cook Co. Jail - Division 1 1.8% 1.2% 0.6% 0.9% 3.7%

Cook Co. Jail - Division 6 1.6 1.5 2.0 1.7 3.8

Cook Co. Jail - Division 9 1.5 2.0 1.0 1.6 1.4

DuPage Co. Jail 1.5 1.5 1.7 1.1 0.6

LaSalle Co. Jail 2.3 1.2 2.7 3.9 0.8

Vermilion Co. Jail 3.1 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.0

Winnebago Co. Jail 1.5 1.5 1.6 2.6 0.9

Indiana

Boone Co. Jail 1.3% 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Brown Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Madison Co. Det. Ctr. 3.5 2.7 1.1 1.0 1.6

Marion Co. Jail IIf 0.5 0.5 2.0 2.8 3.4

Pulaski Co. Jail 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.0 0.0

Vigo Co. Jail 2.6 3.1 2.7 2.0 3.4

Iowa

Black Hawk Co. Jail 1.4% 1.4% 0.6% 1.9% 0.0%

Linn Co. Corr. Ctr. 1.3 3.4 0.0 0.7 0.0

Kansas

Butler Co. Jail 0.8% 1.6% 3.1% 2.4% 0.8%

Johnson Co. - New Century Adult Det. Ctr. 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.4 0.0

Rice Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Sedgwick Co. Jail 1.1 0.7 0.9 1.0 0.0

Kentucky

Campbell Co. Det. Ctr. 1.1% 1.1% 1.6% 2.7% 0.0%

Floyd Co. Det. Ctr. 1.9 0.0 0.6 0.7 0.6

Franklin Co. Regional Jail 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Henderson Co. Det. Ctr. 0.0 0.0 0.8 1.5 0.5

Jessamine Co. Det. Ctr. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Louisville Metro Dept. of Corr. - Community Corr. Ctr. 0.9 0.9 1.8 1.8 1.9

Louisville Metro Dept. of Corr. - Metro Corr. Fac. 0.3 0.3 0.3 1.6 0.5

Warren Co. Regional Jail 0.4 1.2 1.1 0.9 1.1
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09 77

Appendix Table 7 (continued) 

Percent of jail inmates reporting sexual victimization, by level of coercion, and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-0

Inmate-on-inmatea Staff sexual misconducta

Facility name Physically forcedb Pressuredc Physically forcedb Pressuredc Without force or pressured

Louisiana

Calcasieu Parish Corr. Ctr. 1.3% 1.2% 0.8% 1.5% 0.4%

Morehouse Parish Det. Ctr. 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 1.1

Natchitoches Det. Ctr. 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6

Orleans Parish - Conchetta Jail 2.1 2.1 1.8 1.1 0.0

Orleans Parish - Old Parish Prison 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.0 2.1

Orleans Parish - South White Street Jaile 5.4 4.5 0.7 1.7 0.7

Orleans Parish - Templeman Phase III 3.4 1.2 0.5 1.4 2.5

Orleans Parish - Templeman Phase V 0.6 0.6 1.2 2.9 1.8

Ouachita Parish Corr. Fac. 2.1 1.8 1.4 1.9 1.3

Richland Parish Det. Ctr. 2.4 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.4

Webster Parish - Bayou Dorcheat Corr. Ctr. 1.7 1.3 0.6 0.0 0.6

Maine

Kennecec Co. Jail 3.1% 1.4% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1%

Maryland

Allegany Co. Det. Ctr. 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Baltimore Co. Det. Ctr. 0.5 0.0 0.7 1.4 2.1

Caroline Co. Jail 7.9 7.9 10.0 7.9 7.9

Cecil Co. Det. Ctr. 1.5 1.3 0.9 1.5 2.2

Prince George’s Co. Corr. Ctr. 0.6 0.6 1.0 2.2 1.5

Massachusetts

Bristol Co. - Dartmouth Fac. 1.1% 1.1% 0.9% 0.9% 0.5%

Bristol Co. - New Bedford Fac. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7

Hampshire Co. - Jail & House of Corr. 0.0 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6

Suffolk Co. House of Corr. 1.8 0.7 2.6 3.2 2.3

Worcester Co. Jail & House of Corr. 0.5 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0

Michigan

Barry Co. Jail 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Jackson Co. - Chanter Road Corr. Fac. 1.2 0.0 1.6 2.4 0.8

Kent Co. Corr. Fac. 2.6 0.4 1.0 1.6 0.8

Lenawee Co. Jail 0.4 0.0 0.9 0.9 0.9

Muskegon Co. Jail 1.3 0.4 0.5 1.0 1.2

Saginaw Co. Jail 1.7 1.2 1.8 1.8 0.7

Wayne Co. - Andrew C. Baird Det. Fac. 0.4 0.0 1.5 1.5 2.3

Minnesota

Beltrami Co. Jail 0.0% 0.0% 2.9% 2.9% 0.0%

Morrison Co. Jail 2.1 2.1 4.2 4.2 4.2

Sherburne Co. Jail 1.4 0.8 0.0 1.6 0.0

Mississippi

Bolivar Co. Jail 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.5% 2.0%

Copiah Co. Det. Ctr. 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 0.0

Hinds Co. Penal Farm 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.0

Issaquena Co. Corr. Fac. 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Jackson Co. Jail 2.3 1.2 1.6 1.6 1.2
78 August 2010

Appendix Table 7 (continued)

Percent of jail inmates reporting sexual victimization, by level of coercion, and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-0

Inmate-on-inmatea Staff sexual misconducta

Facility name Physically forcedb Pressuredc Physically forcedb Pressuredc Without force or pressured

Mississippi (continued)

Lee. Co. Work Ctr. 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Rankin Co. Jail 1.5 1.0 2.4 3.0 1.5

Winston-Choctaw Co. Regional Corr. Fac. 0.0 0.6 2.3 2.2 2.2

Missouri

Jackson Co. Det. Ctr. 2.2% 1.1% 0.8% 1.5% 1.6%

Jefferson Co. Jail 3.3 1.5 0.7 0.7 0.7

Joplin City Jail 0.0 0.0 2.5 2.5 0.0

Lincoln Co. Jail 2.0 2.0 1.3 2.6 1.3

City of St. Louis - Med. Security Inst. & City Justice Ctr. 0.5 0.5 2.6 3.3 2.2

Nebraska

Buffalo Co. Jail 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Dodge Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Douglas Co. Corr. Ctr. 0.3 0.8 1.2 1.4 2.7

Nevada

Carson City Jail 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8%

City of North Las Vegas Det. Ctr. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.4

New Hampshire

Rockingham Co. Jail & House of Corr. 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 2.8% 0.0%

New Jersey

Camden Co. Jail 0.6% 0.6% 0.7% 1.0% 1.8%

Essex Co. Corr. Fac. 1.6 0.9 0.8 1.2 2.0

Atlantic Co. - Gerard L. Gormley Justice Fac. 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7

Passaic Co. Jail 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Sussex Co. - Walter Keogh Dwyer Corr. Fac. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0

New Mexico

Chaves Co. Det. Ctr. 1.0% 1.6% 0.6% 1.1% 1.7%

Lea Co. Det. Fac. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Roosevelt Co. Det. Ctr. 0.0 0.0 1.7 1.7 0.0

New York

Columbia Co. Jail 0.0% 1.1% 1.5% 1.5% 0.0%

Livingston Co. Jail 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3

Monroe Co. Jail 0.4 0.4 1.7 1.7 0.6

Nassau Co. Corr. Ctr. 0.6 1.7 1.6 1.9 0.0

New York City - Eric M. Taylor Ctr. 0.4 0.5 1.2 0.9 0.0

New York City - Manhattan Det. Ctr. 1.2 1.2 1.4 1.7 0.5

New York City - Vernon C. Bain Ctr. 0.8 1.1 2.1 4.1 1.3

Onondaga Co. Penitentiary 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.7

Orleans Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.6

Wayne Co. Jail 1.0 0.0 3.1 3.1 1.1
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09 79

Appendix Table 7 (continued) 

Percent of jail inmates reporting sexual victimization, by level of coercion, and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-0

Inmate-on-inmatea Staff sexual misconducta

Facility name Physically forcedb Pressuredc Physically forcedb Pressuredc Without force or pressured

North Carolina

Alamance Co. Jail 1.8% 0.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.6%

Davidson Co. Jail 1.8 1.8 0.5 0.5 0.0

Durham Co. Jail 1.8 0.6 0.5 0.5 2.3

Johnston Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

McDowell Co. Jail 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Orange Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Rowan Co. Jail 0.0 1.3 0.4 3.5 1.3

Wilson Co. Jail 1.6 1.6 3.3 4.5 3.3

Ohio

Ashtabula Co. Jail 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Clermont Co. Jail 1.2 0.6 1.2 0.6 0.0

Hamilton Co. - Talbert House - Turning Point Treatment Ctr. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Lake Co. - Adult Max. Security Det. Ctr. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5

Montgomery Co. Jail 1.1 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0

Pickaway Co. Jail 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8

Wood Co. Justice Ctr. 0.8 3.6 0.8 0.8 0.8

Oklahoma

Muskogee Co. Jail 1.1% 1.3% 0.0% 0.5% 1.3%

Oklahoma Co. Jail 2.7 1.6 1.2 0.8 0.2

Pawnee Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Texas Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Tulsa Co. - David L. Moss Criminal Justice Ctr. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4

Oregon

Deschutes Co. Jail 1.5% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 0.0%

Polk Co. Jail 3.0 3.0 3.2 2.4 3.0

Pennsylvania

Allegheny Co. Jail 1.2% 2.1% 0.6% 0.3% 0.3%

Centre Co. Corr. Fac. 0.7 0.0 1.5 2.2 1.2

Chester Co. Prison 0.5 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

Dauphin Co. Prison 0.8 1.3 1.0 1.6 2.6

Lackawanna Co. Prison 0.5 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.8

Lawrence Co. Corr. Fac. 1.0 2.2 1.9 2.9 0.8

Lehigh Co. Prison 0.7 0.8 0.8 1.2 1.2

Lycoming Co. Prison 1.6 0.8 2.2 2.3 1.4

Monroe Co. Corr. Fac. 0.6 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0

Philadelphia City - Det. Ctr. & Prison Health Services Unit 0.0 1.2 1.3 1.0 1.7

Philadelphia City - House of Corr. 0.5 0.7 0.4 0.8 0.9

Philadelphia City - Industrial Corr. Ctr. 2.1 1.6 2.3 2.1 3.3

Tioga Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0

Westmoreland Co. Prison 0.0 1.6 0.0 1.3 0.4
80 August 2010

Appendix Table 7 (continued) 

Percent of jail inmates reporting sexual victimization, by level of coercion, and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-0

Inmate-on-inmatea Staff sexual misconducta

Facility name Physically forcedb Pressuredc Physically forcedb Pressuredc Without force or pressured

South Carolina

Georgetown Co. Det. Ctr. 0.0% 0.8% 2.7% 2.7% 0.4%

Greenville Co. Det. Fac. 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.4 0.4

Horry Co. - J. Reuben Long Det. Ctr. 0.9 2.0 2.7 2.1 0.5

Lancaster Co. Det. Ctr. 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.6

Richland Co. Det. Ctr. 1.0 0.5 0.5 1.9 2.4

York Co. Moss Justice Ctr. 1.0 1.0 1.3 0.0 0.0

South Dakota

Faulk Co. Jail : : : : :

Tennessee

Bedford Co. Jail 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.2%

Crockett Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 4.4 4.4 4.4

Davidson Co. - Criminal Justice Ctr. 0.6 0.6 0.0 1.2 1.6

Davidson Co. - Metro Det. Fac.f 0.4 0.4 1.9 1.9 3.1

Hamilton Co. Jail 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.9 0.8

Putnam Co. Jail 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Silverdale Penal Farmf 0.7 1.7 2.1 1.9 1.6

White Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 0.7 1.6 2.5

Texas

Collin Co. Min. Security Fac. 1.7% 0.0% 1.3% 1.5% 0.0%

Dallas Co. - North Tower 1.0 0.0 0.3 0.7 0.0

Dallas Co. - West Tower 1.0 1.0 2.1 1.0 2.8

Ector Co. Jail 0.0 1.3 0.9 0.5 1.4

Ellis Co. Jail 0.0 0.5 1.4 1.4 0.5

Fort Bend Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.1

Harris Co. Jail 2.4 1.5 0.9 0.9 0.7

Harris Co. Jail - Baker Street 1.4 3.1 0.7 1.0 0.0

Henderson Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 1.3

Hood Co. Jail 2.2 2.2 2.3 3.1 2.2

Hunt Co. Criminal Justice Ctr. 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.6

Lubbock Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.6 0.8

Newton Co. Corr. Ctr.f 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7

Nueces Co. Jail 1.3 1.2 0.4 0.8 0.5

Smith Co. Jail - Min. & Med. Security Fac. 1.1 0.5 1.4 1.9 2.0

Tarrant Co. Corr. Ctr. 1.5 2.2 1.5 1.9 2.2

Tarrant Co. - Green Bay Fac. 1.2 1.9 2.3 1.9 0.5

Terry Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2

Van Zandt Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Walker Co. Jail 4.0 4.0 0.0 1.4 1.3

Webb Co. Jail 0.8 0.0 0.6 0.6 1.3

Wichita Co. Jail 0.6 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0

Utah

Salt Lake Co. Jail 1.3% 1.7% 0.4% 0.7% 1.8%

Uintah Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Utah Co. Jail 0.3 0.9 0.0 0.4 0.0
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09 81

Appendix Table 7 (continued)

Percent of jail inmates reporting sexual victimization, by level of coercion, and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2008-0

Inmate-on-inmatea Staff sexual misconducta

Facility name Physically forcedb Pressuredc Physically forcedb Pressuredc Without force or pressured

Virginia

Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail 0.4% 2.0% 1.3% 1.1% 1.7%

Alexandria City Det. Ctr. 1.7 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9

Chesapeake Corr. Ctr. 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 2.6

Eastern Shore Regional Jail 0.0 0.0 2.6 2.6 9.9

Fairfax Co. - Adult Det. Ctr. 1.5 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.3

Hampton Roads Regional Jail 0.5 0.8 1.0 2.0 3.1

Loudoun Co. - Adult Det. Ctr. 1.0 1.0 2.2 1.0 1.1

Middle Peninsula Regional Security Ctr. 2.2 0.0 2.1 2.1 3.4

Norfolk City Jail 0.9 0.9 1.1 1.1 1.1

Northwestern Regional Adult Det. Ctr. 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.7

Page Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Roanoke City Jail 3.3 1.9 1.2 2.2 2.2

Southside Regional Jail 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6

Washington

Clallam Co. Corr. Fac. 4.4% 2.0% 5.2% 5.0% 2.0%

King Co. Corr. Fac. 1.0 2.3 1.1 2.8 0.4

Pierce Co. Det. and Corr. Ctr. - New Jail & Main Jail 1.6 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.4

Spokane Co. - Geiger Corr. Ctr. 1.5 1.8 1.0 1.4 1.4

Spokane Co. Jail 1.4 0.9 0.9 1.3 0.5

West Virginia

Southwestern Regional Jail 2.6% 1.4% 2.2% 2.2% 1.7%

Wisconsin

Chippewa Co. Jail 1.5% 0.0% 1.4% 1.4% 0.0%

Dane Co. Jail 1.6 2.1 1.0 1.9 2.1

LaCrosse Co. Jail 3.3 3.3 4.1 4.1 2.1

Ozaukee Co. Jail 0.9 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0

Racine Co. Jail 1.5 1.5 1.3 1.9 0.7

Wyoming

Natrona Co. Det. Ctr. 1.0% 2.2% 2.1% 2.5% 1.0%

:Not available. 

aIncludes all types of sexual victimization, including oral, anal, or vaginal penetration, hand jobs, touching of the inmate’s butt, thighs, penis, breasts, or vagina in a sexual way, and other 

sexual acts occurring in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if shorter. 

bPhysical force or threat of physical force reported. 

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

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

contact with staff. 

eFemale facility.

f

Privately operated facility.
82 August 2010

Appendix Table 8

Percent of jail inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual contacts, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 

2008-09

Nonconsensual sexual actsa Abusive sexual contacts onlyb

95%-confidence intervalc 95%-confidence intervalc

Facility name Percent victimizedd Lower bound Upper bound Percent victimizedd Lower bound Upper bound

Total 2.0% 1.8% 2.2% 1.1% 1.0% 1.2%

Alabama

Chilton Co. Jail 1.9% 1.1% 3.4% 1.6% 0.7% 3.4%

Houston Co. Jail 4.5 2.7 7.2 2.9 1.5 5.4

Madison Co. Det. Fac. 2.7 1.6 4.7 4.4 2.9 6.7

Montgomery Co. Det. Fac. 2.0 1.1 3.7 1.1 0.5 2.4

Russell Co. Jail 1.1 0.6 2.3 2.1 1.0 4.1

Arizona

Maricopa Co. - Durango Jail 1.8% 0.8% 3.9% 1.2% 0.5% 2.9%

Maricopa Co. - Tent City Jail 0.4 0.1 1.7 1.5 0.7 3.5

Maricopa Co. - Towers Jail 4.3 2.3 7.7 2.0 0.9 4.1

Mohave Co. Jail 4.4 2.7 7.1 0.4 0.1 1.4

Pima Co. Adult Det. Ctr. 0.7 0.2 2.2 0.3 0.1 1.7

Arkansas

Drew Co. Det. Fac. 0.0% 0.0% 13.3% 0.0% 0.0% 13.3%

Faulkner Co. Det. Ctr. 1.1 0.6 2.2 2.3 1.4 3.9

Garland Co. Adult Det. Ctr. 4.2 2.4 7.1 1.7 0.7 3.8

Sharp Co. Det. Ctr. 0.0 0.0 10.2 0.0 0.0 10.2

California

Butte Co. Jail 2.7% 1.4% 5.3% 0.0% 0.0% 2.0%

Fresno Co. - Main Jail, North Annex, & South Annex 2.6 1.2 5.6 2.3 1.1 5.0

Kern Co. - Lerdo Min. Security Fac. 1.4 0.6 3.2 1.0 0.4 2.7

Lake Co. - Hill Road Corr. Fac. 0.5 0.2 1.9 0.0 0.0 3.3

Los Angeles Co. - Pitchess Det. Ctr. - East Fac. 1.9 0.8 4.8 1.9 0.8 4.4

Los Angeles Co. - Pitchess Det. Ctr. - North Fac. 1.0 0.3 3.7 0.0 0.0 1.8

Los Angeles Co. - Men’s Central Jail 1.9 0.5 6.8 3.1 1.4 6.8

Madera Co. Jail 4.2 2.4 7.2 0.7 0.2 2.4

Mendocino Co. Jail 0.8 0.2 2.7 2.0 0.8 5.0

Monterey Co. Jail 1.1 0.3 3.9 2.6 1.2 5.7

Orange Co. - Central Jail Complex 2.2 1.0 4.7 0.8 0.2 2.9

Orange Co. - J.A. Musick Fac. 1.9 0.9 4.0 0.4 0.1 1.5

Riverside Co. - Robert Presley Det. Ctr. 3.9 1.9 7.7 0.9 0.2 4.4

Riverside Co. - Southwest Det. Ctr. 1.8 0.6 5.2 1.3 0.5 3.6

Sacramento Co. - Main Jail 3.3 1.8 6.3 2.1 0.9 4.6

San Bernardino Co. - Central Det. Ctr. 0.4 0.1 1.7 0.4 0.1 1.7

San Bernardino Co. - West Valley Det. Ctr. 2.5 1.4 4.7 2.5 1.4 4.6

San Diego Co. - Central Det. Fac. 5.2 2.8 9.3 1.5 0.6 4.2

San Diego Co. - Descanso Det. Fac. 1.8 0.9 3.7 0.0 0.0 2.7

San Francisco Co. - County Jail #8 4.0 2.3 6.9 2.0 0.9 4.3

San Joaquin Co. Jail 1.7 0.6 4.5 1.1 0.3 4.2

San Mateo Co. - Maguire Corr. Fac. 1.1 0.3 3.3 0.5 0.1 2.5

Santa Cruz Co. - Blaine Street Fac.e 7.7 3.1 17.8 0.0 0.0 22.8

Solano Co. - Sentenced Det. Fac. 0.7 0.2 2.7 0.0 0.0 3.2

Sonoma Co. - North Det. Fac. 1.2 0.5 2.7 0.5 0.1 1.5
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09 83

Appendix Table 8 (continued)

Percent of jail inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual contacts, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 

2008-09

Nonconsensual sexual actsa Abusive sexual contacts onlyb

95%-confidence intervalc 95%-confidence intervalc

Facility name Percent victimizedd Lower bound Upper bound Percent victimizedd Lower bound Upper bound

Colorado

Adams Co. Det. Fac. 0.6% 0.2% 2.0% 0.5% 0.1% 1.6%

Arapahoe Co. Jail 1.7 0.7 4.1 1.0 0.3 3.6

El Paso Co. - Criminal Justice Ctr. 0.8 0.2 2.5 0.9 0.3 3.1

Jefferson Co. Jail 0.3 0.1 1.4 1.1 0.4 3.0

Logan Co. Jail 3.3 1.6 6.8 0.0 0.0 5.5

District of Columbia

D.C. Dept of Corr. - Central Det. Fac. & Corr. Treatment Fac. 4.4% 2.1% 8.8% 1.6% 0.4% 5.8%

Florida

Bay Co. Jail 1.4% 0.6% 3.4% 0.9% 0.3% 2.8%

Broward Co. - Joseph V. Conte Fac. 2.5 1.2 5.2 0.9 0.3 3.1

Broward Co. - Main Jail 1.5 0.5 4.0 3.1 1.5 6.4

Broward Co. - North Broward Bureau 3.9 2.3 6.6 0.6 0.1 2.8

Broward Co. - Paul Rein Det. Fac. 1.9 0.9 4.1 1.2 0.5 3.1

Charlotte Co. Jail 1.5 0.5 4.2 1.6 0.5 4.9

Hardee Co. Jail 2.2 0.8 5.9 0.0 0.0 6.0

Highlands Co. Jail 1.7 0.7 3.9 0.0 0.0 2.2

Hillsborough Co. - Falkenburg Road Jail 1.2 0.4 3.3 0.9 0.3 2.8

Jacksonville - James I. Montgomery Corr. Ctr. 1.7 0.8 3.5 0.3 0.1 1.3

Marion Co. Jail 1.1 0.4 2.9 0.7 0.2 2.2

Miami-Dade Co. - Metro West Det. Ctr. 1.2 0.4 3.2 0.5 0.1 2.8

Miami-Dade Co. - Pre-trial Det. Ctr. 6.8 4.1 11.1 1.0 0.3 3.2

Monroe Co. Det. Ctr. 0.3 0.1 1.4 2.6 1.3 5.1

Nassau Co. Det. Fac. 0.7 0.2 1.9 0.0 0.0 2.2

Okaloosa Co. Jail 2.1 1.1 4.0 0.4 0.1 1.7

Osceola Co. Jail 1.0 0.3 3.4 0.0 0.0 1.8

Palm Beach Co. - Main Det. Ctr. 1.4 0.5 3.7 1.0 0.4 2.8

Pinellas Co. Med. Security Fac. 1.1 0.4 2.6 2.3 1.2 4.4

Polk Co. - Central County Jail 0.6 0.1 2.5 1.1 0.4 3.1

St. Lucie Co. Main Jail 1.0 0.4 2.6 1.5 0.6 4.0

Volusia Co. Branch Jail 2.2 1.1 4.7 0.0 0.0 1.5

Walton Co. Jail 3.3 2.1 5.0 0.0 0.0 2.5

Georgia

Atlanta City Jail 1.3% 0.5% 3.4% 3.2% 1.5% 6.7%

Bulloch Co. Jail 3.9 2.5 6.0 1.2 0.5 2.5

Chatham Co. Det. Ctr. 1.1 0.4 3.0 0.3 0.1 1.4

Clarke Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 2.1 1.5 0.7 3.2

Clayton Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 1.5 1.6 0.8 3.5

Cobb Co. - Jail & Prison Unit 1.6 0.7 4.0 0.4 0.1 2.2

Coweta Co. Prison 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0

Dekalb Co. Jail 2.3 1.1 4.9 1.9 0.9 4.3

Fulton Co. - Alpharetta Annex 0.0 0.0 10.4 0.0 0.0 10.4

Gilmer Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 6.6 0.0 0.0 6.6

Houston Co. Jail 1.1 0.4 3.0 0.9 0.3 2.4
84 August 2010

Appendix Table 8 (continued)

Percent of jail inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual contacts, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 

2008-09

Nonconsensual sexual actsa Abusive sexual contacts onlyb

95%-confidence intervalc 95%-confidence intervalc

Facility name Percent victimizedd Lower bound Upper bound Percent victimizedd Lower bound Upper bound

Georgia (continued)

Jackson Co. Jail 0.0% 0.0% 4.4% 0.0% 0.0% 4.4%

Jasper Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 16.8 0.0 0.0 16.8

Lowndes Co. Jail 1.8 0.9 3.6 0.5 0.1 2.1

Muscogee Co. Prison 1.7 0.8 3.6 0.4 0.1 1.7

Richmond Co. - Charles B. Webster Det. Ctr. 2.0 0.9 4.3 1.2 0.5 2.9

Roswell City Jail 0.0 0.0 29.9 0.0 0.0 29.9

Turner Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 15.5 0.0 0.0 15.5

Ware Co. Jail 2.8 1.7 4.6 1.3 0.6 2.5

Idaho

Canyon Co. Jail 3.0% 1.6% 5.4% 0.5% 0.1% 1.9%

Madison Co. Jail 1.1 0.3 3.9 0.0 0.0 8.8

Illinois

Cook Co. Jail - Division 1 3.8% 2.2% 6.5% 1.4% 0.7% 2.9%

Cook Co. Jail - Division 6 4.3 2.7 6.9 2.1 1.1 4.0

Cook Co. Jail - Division 9 2.4 1.2 4.8 2.6 1.1 5.8

DuPage Co. Jail 1.6 0.7 3.7 1.9 0.8 4.3

LaSalle Co. Jail 3.9 2.3 6.5 0.0 0.0 3.2

Vermilion Co. Jail 2.1 1.2 3.7 1.0 0.4 2.5

Winnebago Co. Jail 3.8 2.1 6.7 0.6 0.1 2.5

Indiana

Boone Co. Jail 1.3% 0.6% 3.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.1%

Brown Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 14.9 0.0 0.0 14.9

Madison Co. Det. Ctr. 2.0 1.1 3.6 3.5 2.2 5.6

Marion Co. Jail IIf 3.1 1.4 6.6 0.4 0.1 1.9

Pulaski Co. Jail 1.9 1.2 2.8 0.0 0.0 4.2

Vigo Co. Jail 4.6 2.8 7.4 1.9 0.9 4.0

Iowa

Black Hawk Co. Jail 1.9% 1.1% 3.4% 0.8% 0.3% 2.0%

Linn Co. Corr. Ctr. 1.3 0.4 4.7 2.7 1.2 6.0

Kansas

Butler Co. Jail 3.1% 1.8% 5.3% 0.9% 0.3% 2.5%

Johnson Co. - New Century Adult Det. Ctr. 1.6 0.5 4.4 0.9 0.2 3.1

Rice Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 22.8 0.0 0.0 22.8

Sedgwick Co. Jail 1.3 0.5 3.6 0.8 0.2 2.7

Kentucky

Campbell Co. Det. Ctr. 1.6% 0.7% 3.3% 1.1% 0.4% 2.8%

Floyd Co. Det. Ctr. 1.3 0.5 3.1 1.9 0.6 6.1

Franklin Co. Regional Jail 0.0 0.0 3.4 0.0 0.0 3.4

Henderson Co. Det. Ctr. 1.5 0.6 3.7 0.0 0.0 2.1

Jessamine Co. Det. Ctr. 0.0 0.0 7.7 0.0 0.0 7.7

Louisville Metro Dept. of Corr. - Community Corr. Ctr. 1.8 0.7 4.5 1.0 0.3 3.3

Louisville Metro Dept. of Corr. - Metro Corr. Fac. 1.1 0.4 3.0 0.8 0.3 2.8

Warren Co. Regional Jail 2.3 1.1 5.0 0.9 0.3 2.6
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09 85

Appendix Table 8 (continued)

Percent of jail inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual contacts, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 

2008-09

Nonconsensual sexual actsa Abusive sexual contacts onlyb

95%-confidence intervalc 95%-confidence intervalc

Facility name Percent victimizedd Lower bound Upper bound Percent victimizedd Lower bound Upper bound

Louisiana

Calcasieu Parish Corr. Ctr. 2.2% 1.0% 4.9% 0.4% 0.1% 1.9%

Morehouse Parish Det. Ctr. 1.1 0.6 2.2 0.0 0.0 2.1

Natchitoches Det. Ctr. 0.6 0.2 1.6 0.6 0.2 1.7

Orleans Parish - Conchetta Jail 2.1 0.9 4.9 1.1 0.3 4.5

Orleans Parish - Old Parish Prison 1.8 0.8 4.1 1.3 0.6 2.9

Orleans Parish - South White Street Jaile 2.3 1.3 4.1 6.6 4.7 9.1

Orleans Parish - Templeman Phase III 3.3 1.8 5.9 1.8 0.7 4.8

Orleans Parish - Templeman Phase V 2.9 1.6 5.5 0.6 0.2 2.2

Ouachita Parish Corr. Fac. 3.0 1.7 5.4 2.1 1.0 4.3

Richland Parish Det. Ctr. 0.7 0.2 1.9 2.1 1.2 3.8

Webster Parish - Bayou Dorcheat Corr. Ctr. 1.7 0.8 3.5 0.0 0.0 1.9

Maine

Kennecec Co. Jail 3.8% 1.7% 7.9% 1.0% 0.3% 3.1%

Maryland

Allegany Co. Det. Ctr. 0.0% 0.0% 6.4% 0.0% 0.0% 6.4%

Baltimore Co. Det. Ctr. 2.2 0.8 6.0 1.8 0.6 4.8

Caroline Co. Jail 7.9 2.0 26.6 2.1 0.5 8.3

Cecil Co. Det. Ctr. 1.5 0.6 3.9 1.2 0.4 3.0

Prince George’s Co. Corr. Ctr. 2.5 1.2 5.2 1.0 0.4 2.6

Massachusetts

Bristol Co. - Dartmouth Fac. 0.9% 0.3% 3.3% 2.0% 1.0% 3.9%

Bristol Co. - New Bedford Fac. 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.7 0.2 1.9

Hampshire Co. - Jail & House of Corr. 0.6 0.2 1.8 0.5 0.1 1.5

Suffolk Co. House of Corr. 3.1 1.4 6.4 1.1 0.2 5.4

Worcester Co. Jail & House of Corr. 1.5 0.6 4.0 0.0 0.0 1.8

Michigan

Barry Co. Jail 0.0% 0.0% 9.6% 0.0% 0.0% 9.6%

Jackson Co. - Chanter Road Corr. Fac. 2.4 1.2 4.7 1.2 0.4 3.5

Kent Co. Corr. Fac. 2.0 0.8 4.5 1.8 0.8 4.2

Lenawee Co. Jail 0.9 0.4 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.7

Muskegon Co. Jail 2.1 1.1 3.9 0.8 0.2 2.7

Saginaw Co. Jail 2.5 1.1 5.2 0.5 0.1 2.1

Wayne Co. - Andrew C. Baird Det. Fac. 2.0 0.9 4.2 0.4 0.1 1.9

Minnesota

Beltrami Co. Jail 2.9% 0.7% 10.7% 0.0% 0.0% 9.4%

Morrison Co. Jail 4.2 1.8 9.5 0.0 0.0 9.0

Sherburne Co. Jail 1.6 0.5 4.8 0.7 0.1 2.9

Mississippi

Bolivar Co. Jail 1.5% 0.7% 2.9% 0.5% 0.2% 1.6%

Copiah Co. Det. Ctr. 2.1 1.0 4.7 0.0 0.0 7.7

Hinds Co. Penal Farm 0.5 0.2 1.6 0.0 0.0 2.3

Issaquena Co. Corr. Fac. 0.0 0.0 9.0 3.5 1.2 9.3

Jackson Co. Jail 2.1 1.1 4.1 2.6 1.5 4.5
86 August 2010

Appendix Table 8 (continued)

Percent of jail inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual contacts, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 

2008-09

Nonconsensual sexual actsa Abusive sexual contacts onlyb

95%-confidence intervalc 95%-confidence intervalc

Facility name Percent victimizedd Lower bound Upper bound Percent victimizedd Lower bound Upper bound

Mississippi (continued)

Lee. Co. Work Ctr. 0.0% 0.0% 24.3% 0.0% 0.0% 24.3%

Rankin Co. Jail 5.5 3.2 9.1 0.5 0.1 1.8

Winston-Choctaw Co. Regional Corr. Fac. 3.4 2.1 5.6 0.0 0.0 2.0

Missouri

Jackson Co. Det. Ctr. 3.3% 1.8% 5.9% 2.1% 1.0% 4.4%

Jefferson Co. Jail 1.5 0.7 2.9 4.0 2.5 6.2

Joplin City Jail 0.0 0.0 11.7 2.5 1.0 6.3

Lincoln Co. Jail 2.6 1.2 5.7 0.7 0.2 2.1

City of St. Louis - Med. Security Inst. & City Justice Ctr. 4.7 2.6 8.2 1.1 0.3 3.4

Nebraska

Buffalo Co. Jail 0.0% 0.0% 8.8% 0.0% 0.0% 8.8%

Dodge Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 17.6 0.0 0.0 17.6

Douglas Co. Corr. Ctr. 3.7 1.7 7.8 0.3 0.1 1.3

Nevada

Carson City Jail 0.8% 0.3% 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.8%

City of North Las Vegas Det. Ctr. 1.1 0.3 3.4 0.0 0.0 1.8

New Hampshire

Rockingham Co. Jail & House of Corr. 2.8% 1.3% 6.3% 0.0% 0.0% 2.5%

New Jersey

Camden Co. Jail 1.5% 0.5% 4.2% 1.3% 0.4% 4.3%

Essex Co. Corr. Fac. 2.2 1.0 4.8 1.2 0.4 3.7

Atlantic Co. - Gerard L. Gormley Justice Fac. 0.7 0.1 3.5 1.8 0.4 8.7

Passaic Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.4 0.1 2.1

Sussex Co. - Walter Keogh Dwyer Corr. Fac. 1.0 0.2 3.8 0.0 0.0 4.8

New Mexico

Chaves Co. Det. Ctr. 1.1% 0.5% 2.4% 2.2% 1.1% 4.3%

Lea Co. Det. Fac. 0.0 0.0 9.6 0.0 0.0 9.6

Roosevelt Co. Det. Ctr. 0.0 0.0 6.0 1.7 0.7 4.3

New York

Columbia Co. Jail 1.5% 0.5% 4.3% 1.1% 0.4% 3.2%

Livingston Co. Jail 2.6 1.1 5.8 0.0 0.0 6.8

Monroe Co. Jail 2.7 0.9 8.1 0.0 0.0 1.9

Nassau Co. Corr. Ctr. 1.5 0.5 4.4 2.6 1.3 5.2

New York City - Eric M. Taylor Ctr. 2.2 0.9 5.3 0.4 0.1 1.9

New York City - Manhattan Det. Ctr. 4.3 2.0 9.1 0.5 0.1 2.3

New York City - Vernon C. Bain Ctr. 4.0 2.1 7.3 0.5 0.1 2.2

Onondaga Co. Penitentiary 1.7 0.7 4.1 0.0 0.0 2.5

Orleans Co. Jail 3.8 2.1 6.8 1.8 0.8 4.0

Wayne Co. Jail 3.1 1.8 5.4 1.0 0.4 2.6
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09 87

Appendix Table 8 (continued)

Percent of jail inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual contacts, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 

2008-09

Nonconsensual sexual actsa Abusive sexual contacts onlyb

95%-confidence intervalc 95%-confidence intervalc

Facility name Percent victimizedd Lower bound Upper bound Percent victimizedd Lower bound Upper bound

North Carolina

Alamance Co. Jail 3.0% 1.7% 5.3% 1.0% 0.4% 2.5%

Davidson Co. Jail 1.1 0.5 2.2 0.7 0.3 1.7

Durham Co. Jail 1.9 0.9 3.6 3.4 1.8 6.2

Johnston Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0

McDowell Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 6.2 2.8 1.2 6.4

Orange Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 4.4 0.0 0.0 4.4

Rowan Co. Jail 3.6 1.8 7.2 1.5 0.6 4.0

Wilson Co. Jail 4.5 1.9 9.8 0.0 0.0 5.3

Ohio

Ashtabula Co. Jail 0.0% 0.0% 7.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.0%

Hamilton Co. - Talbert House - Turning Point Treatment Ctr. 0.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 8.0

Clermont Co. Jail 1.2 0.5 2.9 0.6 0.2 1.9

Lake Co. - Adult Max. Security Det. Ctr. 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.5 0.1 1.6

Montgomery Co. Jail 0.6 0.1 2.8 0.8 0.3 2.7

Pickaway Co. Jail 0.8 0.3 2.0 0.8 0.3 2.1

Wood Co. Justice Ctr. 0.8 0.2 2.5 2.9 0.9 8.9

Oklahoma

Muskogee Co. Jail 1.3% 0.5% 3.6% 0.5% 0.1% 2.0%

Oklahoma Co. Jail 2.4 1.2 5.0 2.1 0.9 4.7

Pawnee Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 21.5 0.0 0.0 21.5

Texas Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 8.0

Tulsa Co. - David L. Moss Criminal Justice Ctr. 0.4 0.1 1.8 0.0 0.0 1.7

Oregon

Deschutes Co. Jail 0.7% 0.2% 2.3% 2.5% 1.3% 4.5%

Polk Co. Jail 5.9 3.6 9.8 2.1 1.0 4.2

Pennsylvania

Allegheny Co. Jail 1.3% 0.5% 3.2% 1.4% 0.4% 4.8%

Centre Co. Corr. Fac. 0.5 0.2 1.8 3.6 2.0 6.2

Chester Co. Prison 0.8 0.3 2.1 0.3 0.1 1.4

Dauphin Co. Prison 2.9 1.6 5.4 0.8 0.3 2.3

Lackawanna Co. Prison 0.8 0.3 2.3 2.7 1.3 5.7

Lawrence Co. Corr. Fac. 2.9 1.3 6.3 1.0 0.3 3.4

Lehigh Co. Prison 2.0 0.9 4.2 0.7 0.2 2.2

Lycoming Co. Prison 2.2 0.7 7.0 2.2 0.7 7.1

Monroe Co. Corr. Fac. 0.6 0.2 2.2 0.2 0.1 0.8

Philadelphia City - Det. Ctr. & Prison Health Services Unit 1.8 0.6 4.9 2.2 0.9 5.3

Philadelphia City - House of Corr. 1.5 0.5 4.2 1.0 0.3 3.3

Philadelphia City - Industrial Corr. Ctr. 5.4 3.3 8.7 1.2 0.4 3.1

Tioga Co. Jail 3.0 1.0 8.7 0.0 0.0 8.4

Westmoreland Co. Prison 1.3 0.4 4.1 0.7 0.2 3.3
88 August 2010

Appendix Table 8 (continued)

Percent of jail inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual contacts, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 

2008-09

Nonconsensual sexual actsa Abusive sexual contacts onlyb

95%-confidence intervalc 95%-confidence intervalc

Facility name Percent victimizedd Lower bound Upper bound Percent victimizedd Lower bound Upper bound

South Carolina

Georgetown Co. Det. Ctr. 1.2% 0.4% 3.5% 2.7% 0.7% 10.1%

Greenville Co. Det. Fac. 0.4 0.1 1.7 1.0 0.2 4.3

Horry Co. - J. Reuben Long Det. Ctr. 3.9 2.0 7.3 0.7 0.2 2.1

Lancaster Co. Det. Ctr. 0.9 0.3 3.2 1.6 0.5 5.4

Richland Co. Det. Ctr. 1.8 0.8 4.0 1.6 0.6 4.1

York Co. Moss Justice Ctr. 2.3 0.8 6.6 0.0 0.0 3.4

South Dakota

Faulk Co. Jail : : : : : : 

Tennessee

Bedford Co. Jail 1.2% 0.5% 2.8% 0.0% 0.0% 3.5%

Crockett Co. Jail 4.4 1.8 10.0 0.0 0.0 11.4

Davidson Co. - Criminal Justice Ctr. 2.1 0.8 5.3 0.7 0.1 2.9

Davidson Co. - Metro Det. Fac.f 4.3 2.6 6.9 0.0 0.0 1.5

Hamilton Co. Jail 0.3 0.1 1.2 0.9 0.3 2.6

Putnam Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.7 0.2 2.3

Silverdale Penal Farmf 1.9 0.9 3.9 2.1 0.9 4.9

White Co. Jail 1.8 0.9 3.4 1.6 0.8 3.1

Texas

Collin Co. Min. Security Fac. 1.7% 0.7% 4.3% 2.7% 1.4% 5.3%

Dallas Co. - North Tower 1.7 0.6 4.7 0.3 0.1 1.5

Dallas Co. - West Tower 3.6 1.8 7.0 0.6 0.1 3.1

Ector Co. Jail 1.3 0.4 4.4 0.5 0.1 2.6

Ellis Co. Jail 0.5 0.1 1.7 1.9 0.8 4.3

Fort Bend Co. Jail 1.6 0.7 3.7 0.0 0.0 2.0

Harris Co. Jail 1.3 0.5 3.3 1.1 0.3 3.7

Harris Co. Jail - Baker Street 2.2 1.0 4.6 2.5 1.3 4.9

Henderson Co. Jail 1.3 0.3 5.3 1.2 0.3 4.7

Hood Co. Jail 2.9 1.9 4.3 1.6 0.9 2.8

Hunt Co. Criminal Justice Ctr. 1.4 0.6 3.7 0.0 0.0 2.6

Lubbock Co. Jail 1.4 0.4 4.4 0.0 0.0 2.8

Newton Co. Corr. Ctr.f 0.7 0.2 2.3 0.0 0.0 1.5

Nueces Co. Jail 1.7 0.8 3.9 0.4 0.1 1.7

Smith Co. Jail - Min. & Med. Security Fac. 3.4 1.7 6.6 0.0 0.0 2.4

Tarrant Co. Corr. Ctr. 2.7 1.2 6.0 2.6 1.1 5.7

Tarrant Co. - Green Bay Fac. 2.9 1.2 7.2 0.7 0.1 3.5

Terry Co. Jail 1.2 0.4 3.5 0.0 0.0 4.1

Van Zandt Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 3.5 0.0 0.0 3.5

Walker Co. Jail 1.3 0.4 4.4 4.1 2.0 8.4

Webb Co. Jail 2.0 0.8 5.0 0.0 0.0 2.5

Wichita Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 3.3 3.4 1.6 7.0

Utah

Salt Lake Co. Jail 2.4% 1.2% 4.8% 1.4% 0.6% 3.4%

Uintah Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 8.6 0.0 0.0 8.6

Utah Co. Jail 0.4 0.1 1.8 1.2 0.5 2.9
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09 89

Appendix Table 8 (continued)

Percent of jail inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual contacts, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 

2008-09

Nonconsensual sexual actsa Abusive sexual contacts onlyb

95%-confidence intervalc 95%-confidence intervalc

Facility name Percent victimizedd Lower bound Upper bound Percent victimizedd Lower bound Upper bound

Virginia

Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail 3.8% 1.9% 7.2% 1.0% 0.3% 3.1%

Alexandria City Det. Ctr. 0.9 0.2 4.0 0.8 0.2 3.9

Chesapeake Corr. Ctr. 2.6 0.9 6.7 0.0 0.0 3.2

Eastern Shore Regional Jail 9.9 4.3 21.5 0.0 0.0 12.5

Fairfax Co. - Adult Det. Ctr. 1.5 0.6 3.7 0.8 0.2 2.9

Hampton Roads Regional Jail 3.3 1.7 6.3 2.0 0.9 4.4

Loudoun Co. - Adult Det. Ctr. 2.0 0.8 5.2 1.2 0.3 4.4

Middle Peninsula Regional Security Ctr. 3.1 1.6 5.6 3.4 1.6 7.2

Norfolk City Jail 1.4 0.5 3.9 0.0 0.0 2.1

Northwestern Regional Adult Det. Ctr. 0.7 0.2 2.9 0.4 0.1 1.8

Page Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 14.3 0.0 0.0 14.3

Roanoke City Jail 4.1 2.1 7.5 1.1 0.4 2.9

Southside Regional Jail 2.6 0.9 6.9 0.0 0.0 4.1

Washington

Clallam Co. Corr. Fac. 5.4% 3.0% 9.5% 3.0% 1.3% 6.6%

King Co. Corr. Fac. 4.0 2.1 7.6 1.5 0.6 3.6

Pierce Co. Det. and Corr. Ctr. - New Jail & Main Jail 0.4 0.1 2.2 1.6 0.6 4.3

Spokane Co. - Geiger Corr. Ctr. 1.4 0.6 3.2 2.1 1.0 4.4

Spokane Co. Jail 1.4 0.5 3.4 1.5 0.6 3.6

West Virginia

Southwestern Regional Jail 2.1% 1.0% 4.5% 4.3% 2.5% 7.2%

Wisconsin

Chippewa Co. Jail 0.0% 0.0% 6.4% 2.9% 1.1% 7.3%

Dane Co. Jail 1.9 0.6 6.1 2.3 0.8 6.4

LaCrosse Co. Jail 5.2 2.5 10.5 0.0 0.0 4.1

Ozaukee Co. Jail 1.0 0.3 2.9 0.9 0.3 2.6

Racine Co. Jail 2.1 0.8 5.3 1.3 0.4 3.9

Wyoming

Natrona Co. Det. Ctr. 3.5% 2.0% 5.9% 1.4% 0.6% 3.3%

:Not available. 

aIncludes all inmates who reported unwanted contacts with another inmate or any contacts with staff that involved oral, anal, or vaginal penetration, hand jobs, and other sexual acts 

occurring in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if shorter. 

bIncludes all inmates who reported unwanted contacts with another inmate or any contacts with staff that involved touching of the inmate’s buttocks, thigh, penis, breasts or vagina in a 

sexual way occurring in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if shorter.

cIndicates that different samples in the same facility would yield prevalence rates falling between the lower and upper bound estimates 95 out of 100 times. 

dWeights were applied so that inmates who responded accurately reflected the entire population of each facility on select characteristics, including age, sex, race, time served, and 

sentence length. (See Methodology.) 

eFemale facility.

f

Privately operated facility.
90 August 2010

Appendix Table 9

Characteristics of special correctional facilities and prevalence of sexual victimization, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 

2008-09

Inmates reporting sexual victimizationa

95%-confidence intervalb

Special correctional facilities

Number of inmates 

 in custodyc

Respondents to sexual 

victimization surveyd Response ratee Percentf Lower bound Upper bound

Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities 

Eloy Det. Ctr. (AZ)g,h 1,464 241 63% 0.7% 0.2% 2.4%

Stewart Det. Ctr. (GA)h 1,506 138 66 0.9 0.2 4.5

Elizabeth Contract Det. Fac. (NJ)g,h 224 100 68 0.8 0.3 2.7

El Paso Processing Ctr. (TX)g 767 250 79 2.1 1.1 4.0

South Texas Det. Complex (TX)g 991 164 64 0.0 0.0 2.3

Military facilities 

Marine Corps Base Brig, Camp Pendleton (CA) 171 105 85% 0.5% 0.2% 1.6%

Naval Consolidated Brig, Miramar (CA)g 266 125 73 2.9 1.4 5.6

U.S. Disciplinary Barracks, Leavenworth (KS) 437 149 71 6.0 3.6 10.0

Tribal jails

Gila River DOC and Rehab. (AZ)g 149 97 77% 1.0% 0.4% 2.6%

Navajo Nation-Window Rock (AZ) 14 10 100 0.0 0.0 27.8

aIncludes all types of sexual victimization, including oral, anal, or vaginal penetration, hand jobs, touching of the inmate’s butt, thighs, penis, breasts, or vagina in a sexual way, and other 

sexual acts occurring in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if shorter. 

bIndicates that different samples in the same facility would yield prevalence rates falling between the lower and upper bound estimates 95 out of 100 times. 

cNumber of inmates in custody on day when the facility provided the sample roster.

dNumber of respondents consenting to the sexual victimization survey on NIS. (See Methodology.) 

eResponse rate is equal to the number of respondents divided by the number of eligible inmates sampled times 100 percent.

f

Weights were applied so that inmates who responded accurately reflected the entire population of each facility on select characteristics, including age, sex, race, time served, and 

sentence length. (See Methodology.) 

gFacility houses both males and females; both were sampled at this facility.

hPrivately operated facility.
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008–09 91

Appendix ta ble 10. 

Wald F statistics for inmate risk characteristics in the final multivariate logistic models of sexual victimization in prisons and 

jails, by type of incident, National Inmate Survey, 2008-09

Degrees of 

freedom

Wald F statistics for sexual 

victimization in prison

Wald F statistics for sexual 

victimization in jail

Inmate characteristic All models*

Inmate-oninmateStaff sexual 

misconduct

Inmate-oninmateStaff sexual 

misconduct

Demographic characteristics

Sex 1 4.20 38.48 4.06 35.87

Race/Hispanic origin 4 4.17 3.16 -- 7.27

Age 5 -- 8.92 6.90 23.15

Education 3 -- 3.89 8.55 17.52

Marital status 2 3.20 -- -- --

Weight 3 -- -- 5.19 --

Sexual orientation/history characteristics

Sexual orientation 1 104.60 14.32 61.21 --

Number of sexual partners 4 -- 2.65 -- 6.68

Prior sexual assault 1 319.00 135.70 345.60 247.20

Criminal justice status/history characteristics

Most serious offense 4 15.04 3.96 2.61 --

Sentence length 5 3.78 6.20 -- --

Time in a correctional facility prior to current facility 4 -- 4.23 -- 6.30

Number of times arrested 3 -- -- 2.98 5.06

Time since admission 4 -- -- 7.35 5.42

Note: Wald-F tests were conducted to test for the statistical significance of each inmate characteristic in the four final models presented in table 12. For each characteristic, the Wald-F 

tests the null hypothesis that all regression coefficients are equal to zero (i.e., the probability of experiencing a victimization is the same across all categories of the selected characteristic), 

conditional on all other inmate characteristics being included in the model. The Wald F statistic is calculated by comparing the maximum likelihood estimate for the characteristic to an 

estimate of its standard error. Though varying by the number of degrees of freedom, statistics greater than 2.0 (for 1 degree of freedom) are statistically significant at the 95%-confidence 

level.

--Characteristic deleted from model when Wald statistic was not significant at the 95%-confidence level. 

*For each inmate characteristic, the degrees of freedom represent the number of categories minus 1. 
Office of Justic Programs

Innovation • Partnerships • Safer Neighborhoods

http://www.ojp.usdog.gov